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

Posted - 2007.11.22 21:02:00 - [211]

Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Apertotes
what i was trying to say is:

scripts give bonuses to one atribute bonus. in fact, what it does is to double the bonus. so, if after the changes, one tracking computer gives a 30% bonus to tracking, with a tracking script the bonus would be double, it is, 60%.

but what happens to the other attribute? it gets nulified by a -100%. so when a tracking script is loaded, the tracking computer gives a 0% bonus to optimal range.

so, with one tracking comp + 1 tracking script we have a 60% bonus to tracking a 0% bonus to optimal range.

new, if we fit another tracking comp., but this time we load an optimal script, what happens is, first, the optimal bonus gets doubled. but since the optimal bonus is 0% (because of the tracking script), the double is still 0%. and what is worse, the tracking bonus we had achieved with the previus tracking comp + tracking script gets nullified by the -100% penalty of the optimal script.

i am sorry, but English is not my native language, so i cant explain it any other way. i hope you understand why i was trying to say.
Not quite.

The script only affects the module that it is load into.

So with 2 tracking computers, one with tracking script, one with optimal script you would get +60% to each attribute.

This still a nerf in that you need two modules to do what you used to do with just one, but you can still get the bonus you want to each attribute.

i hope you are right

Mashie Saldana
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.11.22 21:56:00 - [212]

Have you deployed the new way gang mods have their bonuses calculated on SiSi yet? I just wonder as I don't see any difference compared to TQ and would expect the numbers to be reduced (if I understood the change correct that is).

Also, thanks for cutting the capcitor need in half for the gang mods, only need 7.5cap/s to run three mods now instead of the previous 15cap/s.

Cosmic Cimmerians
Posted - 2007.11.22 21:58:00 - [213]

Edited by: Zorok on 22/11/2007 21:59:48
The ARM scripts in themselves are a good idea. HOWEVER and this is a big "however"- the way in which CCP is going about implementing this is totally wrong. The problem I see with this implementation with regards to EW modules is that it penalizes all the EW weapons EXCEPT ECM which will make ECM the PvP module of choice.

This is how I believe that the ARM scripts should be implemented. Keep all modules just the way they are, but should someone want a faster locking time at a penalty of their target distance, they can use these scripts to do just that.

These scripts should not be used as a way to nerf existing modules and basically give the player a choice- either use this script to boost one attribute of a module to the prenerf conditions at the complete expense of the other attribute.

In this case, it shouldn't be (pick one or the other or settle for crappy attributes on both modules). I think that the script should also allow for varying degrees of tweaking. Maybe you don't need a 4 sec faster lock time and you want to lock only maybe 2 seconds faster for example. Allow the scripts to tailor the modules in this fashion. Make them easily adjustable and then you can place the various setups you have for them in your cargo hold.

As it stands right now, I would say this idea is a no-go because with some ship setups you need both attributes to function. A sniper may need a somewhat fast lock time and distance boost. Making them settle for a nerfed mod or a mod that only does one thing but not the other is not going to allow the sniper to make that quick kill. Their prey will have escaped before they have time to even fire.

About this focused field script. It's not balanced for several reasons. If you created this module to trap jump drive ships and other ships from ever warping, in order to allow catching freighters, this argument is bullocks.

As far as I know freighters can't even carry any modules- let alone a warp core stabilizer- so why create a script that allows these ships to give infinite scrambling capability in low-sec space? This will basically make all gate camps that use the heavy interdictor a turkey shoot. If an industrial happens to pass through they are toast. It also makes WCS useless as well as pushes those who aren't pirates back to empire space. I'm a miner and that's where I plan to go if you give this kind of power to the pirates. Pirates can already overpower WCS by all loading up on scramblers. I've seen it done. How is an industrial player supposed to even have a fighting chance to get away from a camp of just a handful of ships now? One other thing is that ships that carry WCS suffer a penalty to their targeting distance and time which is fair I believe. For making such a tradeoff, a transport ship should get some kind of use from the modules and this Heavy Interdictor ARM script nullifies all of that.

Pirates may be lauding the use of such weapons but they will find even less industrials flying in low-sec space due to the ease in which they can trap their ships and hold them indefinitely. I for one will need to consider moving back to empire where you can still make a good living and no danger of losing your ship to cheap gate camps.

Venatoris Portucalis
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2007.11.22 22:16:00 - [214]

I just want to add to the general consensus that the infinite warp scam point is low sec, would basically mean that haulers will be banned from low-sec.

For what I have seen the idea of CCP was to get more people into low-sec, not the opposite. With no way to contra-act the infinite point, you basically allow a single-target warp bubble in low sec! :O Has a result you just make a new “you-win” button that will have to be nerfed in the future!

Also relating to drones bandwidth, you might want to consider lowering the bandwidth requirements on logistics drones and sentry drones. Amarr drone boat arbiter gets the worst hit, before he could deploy 3 sentry drones, now it is limited to 2 sentry drones, basically making it useless.

And by the way can I get the time I used to train heavy drones back? With this new system, I have no use for heavy drones anymore… :)


El Mauru
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2007.11.22 22:34:00 - [215]

I really like the changes.

I can see a couple of problems there with choke-points from lowsec to 0.0 especially.
Somebody suggested an activation delay, which sounds like a good possible fix, but I'll wait for it to go live until I fully judge this one.
Overall an excellent addition which makes traveling around in lowsec more interesting again.

Drone Bandwith:
Much needed IMHO. Now you can finally bring several waves of different drones (at least on most ships), and can switch damage types. Also, recalling drones for insta-repair was kinda stupid.

ARM scripts:
I really like the script changes since it might introduce new tactical opportunities. Also, it might break the reign of Sniper BSs in large fleet-combat which I like a lot.

The only problems are IMHO with the fact that nano-gangs are even more feasable now and that decreasing the power of mods like damps and disruptors EVEN with speciality scripts was kind of uncalled for (like somebody said: If you can't take 2 ships out of a fight with a specialized e-war ship you might just as well bring another damage dealer).

Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
Posted - 2007.11.23 00:38:00 - [216]

@Apertotes: It works as I explained it. The two different modules do not cancel each other out.

Roast and Toast Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.23 09:01:00 - [217]

Edited by: Rimhawk on 23/11/2007 09:32:35
I like the drone changes and don't even mind the nerfs (I adapt), but two things stand out bigtime:

- ARM scripts... Oh god not more stuff to click on and/or forget to do during lagfest battles. And please don't make it so you have to carry those in your hold as well...

- The Hactor scramblers: Can't you just make it so it only scrambles ships of certain size? Or come up with a counter for them that can't be used by cap ships? At least blockade runners should have some kind of defense against this...

[Edit: Typo]

Posted - 2007.11.23 09:42:00 - [218]

will there be T2 ARM scripts? that could be a nice way to un-nerf all affected modules

NQX Innovations
Posted - 2007.11.23 16:08:00 - [219]

Originally by: Apertotes
will there be T2 ARM scripts? that could be a nice way to un-nerf all affected modules

Are their going to be any t2 ARM nerf scripts?

Also - Celine Dion annoys me. Like alot.

Posted - 2007.11.23 16:14:00 - [220]

*snip - Please try and post more constructively Cortes*

Ab Tallen
The Alphabet Soup
Posted - 2007.11.23 18:47:00 - [221]

Edited by: Ab Tallen on 23/11/2007 18:47:35
So, how do stacking penalties work with ARM scripts?

If I have, say, two sensor boosters with targeting range and two with scan resolution scripts loaded, will the four sensor boosters be penalized, or will there be no stacking effect as different stats are affected?

Missiles 'R' Us
Posted - 2007.11.23 18:48:00 - [222]

OK it just occured to me, if u now have to script mods to either use 1 attribute or another to it's fullest, then what about drones? don't damp drones do the same thing as the damp mod? will those drones remain as they are or need to be scripted as well to use one of the attributes to it's fullest? Not sure if this has come up or not or if it matters a whole lot, just thought i'd bring it up.

Posted - 2007.11.23 22:05:00 - [223]

Originally by: Ab Tallen
Edited by: Ab Tallen on 23/11/2007 18:47:35
So, how do stacking penalties work with ARM scripts?

If I have, say, two sensor boosters with targeting range and two with scan resolution scripts loaded, will the four sensor boosters be penalized, or will there be no stacking effect as different stats are affected?
I expect that they would work the same way that they do now.

The effect from the strongest module is applied first, without a penalty. The second strongest is applied with a 0.8708860 multiplier, and so on.

As such only the effects that aren't doing anything would be nerf'ed hardest by the stacking penalty.

Does it really matter if you get a 0% bonus or a 0.5705831 x 0% bonus? Wink

Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.11.24 11:46:00 - [224]

Ok, I have not read this whole post... I actually like all the changes, except for the bandwidth. Now, I do agree with the basic idea. But, I would hope that the EOS being a cruiser class will have bonuses to its bandwidth. Having a huge drone bay of 250m3 and being able to throw out like 3 heavy dones is a bit bad. I am a Gallente Pilot and almost at the point of using the EOS as that is the drone boat I wanted and went after for the past 60 days. But, if these will be nerfed to a point of only being able to use medium drones, then I might as well just give up and go for the BS. Having that many medium drones would be fun to watch in the bay of the EOS, but a bit annoying as the ship is a designed drone boat.

I hope that there will be some specifics on bandwidth released so that I dont need to waste my time on training for something that I wont really be using.

Ummon Mu
Posted - 2007.11.24 16:09:00 - [225]

Edited by: Ummon Mu on 24/11/2007 16:13:24
I see where all this is leading to:

CCP giving us pre-fitted ships with no chance to customization (because at one point every module will have been nerfed to hell and back, all ships will have useless bonuses and the same amount of high mid and lowslots and all the same attributes). Then they will tell us how to fight, which tactics to use etc.
Shouldn't the players be the ones that decide how and in which situation they use this ship with this fitting, this modules and not some CCP-Dev that has no experience in fleet battles, low-sec pirating, roaming gangs and countless counters to each tactic?

Where is the sandbox princible they always talk so proudly of?! Each time someone finds a way to build a large sandcastle (i.e. finds a new fancy way to combine modules, skills, bonuses and stuff) some CCP guy comes along and levels it out to ZERO again!?! Where is the sense in it all?

Why are nerfs the only way CCP sees to balance the game out? I mean, people skill months for a certain module, weapon or ship because they KNOW "then, at this day, I can use this wtfspecialcombinationyeehaa". Every nerf done so far is against diversity in this game.

The sheer number and experience of players will always find the special combination that will be a bit more useful, will be better than every other combination. And then? CCP wil come and nerf it? Until when? Until everything is the same?

Please, CCP, think of all the different playstyles out there. Stop this madness for the sake of this game.

edit: some clarifications

Leigh Goslin
Posted - 2007.11.24 18:31:00 - [226]

im with this guy ^
why nto limit the game to one ship...with one slot...and only one module available in the game...with one type of ammo...and then let us loose?

Alteris Domond
Posted - 2007.11.24 19:24:00 - [227]

Edited by: Alteris Domond on 24/11/2007 19:24:03
Okay so people stop screaming and whining. Lets see how the changes hit. I noticed that there are about 200k accounts..... and about 10 people complaining here. Now granted prolly reflects 40-50 accounts at most. Seriously i don't see most of the eve universe complaining. And even with complaints, your going about it totally wrong. You whine and cry and moan and yell. This is wat happened to WoW 18 months ago. Blizz started nerfing and balancing and moving and shifting until it all worked. And yes when i played I was mad. But you know, I waited and worked and you know wat? It turned into 1 of the best balanced games. So I say quit crying and screaming, and yelling and hating. If your going to ASK CCP to make a change or not to change something...Well by God ASK THEM. They work hard to provide us a unique gameplay and graphical realm, and we walk all over them. Seriously, if your gonna critisize Devs, at least do it constructivly and not treat them liek 5 year olds who spilled milk.

Cosmic Cimmerians
Posted - 2007.11.24 23:08:00 - [228]

BTW I played on the test server. You'll have to buy the scripts on the market. All the modules mentioned lose about 50% effectiveness in Trinity. Take any modules counterpart from Rev 2.2 and divide it's effectiveness in half. This is what you get with Trinity.
All I can say is thank you CCP for discussing this with your player-base first before. A dev was on the test server and I mentioned what I didn't like about the changes. He pretended he didn't hear me so I repeated myself and he didn't even give me an acknowledgment even after I took the time to retype my issues with this ARM system. People don't take this turd disguised as candy- it's a serious nerf.
The people who will suffer the most are those who use tacking disruptors. They now must choose to disrupt either weapon effective range or tracking. You no longer can do both which sucks for you because your EW is only effective against turrets as it is.
Funny thing with my Lach, the biggest gripe people have with dampners won't be fixed. Who cares about target time when you can't target beyond 3 meters of your ship. I didn't think you guys did either. Funny- I'll just be loading the ARM scripts to focus the damps ability to reduce sensor range. CCP, your nerf is only going to hurt the ones who complained about the damps because now their sensor boosters are even more worthless *smiles*.

This sums up my opinion of this dumb nerf.
Quote from Trojanman190

This is just awful. The problem was with damps and how nothing could properly counter them, their solution to this is to make both damps and their weak counter, sensor boosters, even weaker? And why would a tracking computer have to choose between range or accuracy? Won't this add tons of lag that was removed int he need for speed initiative?

This has to get shot down on sisi... this totally changes the game in way more ways than we ever asked for. It isn't a new "this is fun feature" its a nerf that nobody asked for. Why are they doing that?

Lil Mule
Posted - 2007.11.25 07:04:00 - [229]

Edited by: Lil Mule on 25/11/2007 07:09:37

Now that I have that out of my system...

The scripts - Im not impressed. It doesnt really add a challenge to combat, its just another annoyance to be concerned about - which script you have loaded. And btw - thanks for nerfing my Sniping Rokh with this awesome addition to the game (I hope you can hear the sarcasm). With Scrips for Tracking computers, Sensor boosters etc - what the **** will be left of my sniping ship with its expensive guns, expensive tracking computers and sensor boosters? Not much thankyouverymuch. Its fragile enough as it is, but again, thanks for the nerf. Now I have to choose whether it actually can lock something within 20 seconds, or whether it can lock something at the range in which it was designed to. SUper.

As for the EWAR nerfs, clearly, as someone stated above, CCP only now endorses ECM warfare. I think the Curse is an excellent example of that. Not only did CCP nerf the NOS on it, which is its primary functionality, but also they are now nerfing the tracking disruptors, which were only effective against a very limited number of ships to begin with.

Oh and one more thing - it appears the only two ways of having combat post Trinity is to Nanno the **** out of your ship (what isnt super nanno'd already in 0.0? Im glad we're exacerbating that situation) or jam with ECM. I think Ill pass on both.

Seriously, Im starting to really dislike Trinity. Yes it has pretty new graphics, but thats about all it has, everything else is a Nerf. Apparently when CCP cant solve a problem, their first reaction is to grab the nerf bat.

Unhappy Camper.

Lil Mule
Posted - 2007.11.25 07:25:00 - [230]

Not to double post here but..

The reason why they are making these changes is so that large scale fleet combats at 200 + KM's can no longer happen (Look at the nerf to the Raven). The servers cannot support the 200+ man fleet battles at range. They have tried everything they can think of in order to squeeze more performance out of the hardware and the software they have. The problem is - they are running one environment with 30 000 + people, and the hardware and software cannot keep up with the demand placed on it by large scale fleet combats. So what do they decide to do? Nerf it. Thats great for all of us who have spent months and months training for.....Large scale PVP Fleet Combats with sniping ships..

They want smaller, tighter combat. The scripts will help them achieve this so its not possible to have huge ranged fleet battles any longer.

It seems to me however that CCP has a very very bad history of not accurately anticipating, or thinking through the repurcissions additions to the game will have. This is why at this point, they are forced to nerf so many things. Even though we as customers, and players of the game, have done nothing wrong, and operate within the mechanics of the game, and how the game was presented to us to be played, we are being penalized, and effectively, having our time wasted.

I am considering cancelling my accounts post Trinity. However, I doubt it will have any effect, as they will get a flood of new players due to the 'pretty graphics'. Maybe thats all the more reason to cancel

Posted - 2007.11.25 14:50:00 - [231]

I find it very disheartening that not a single post from any Dev since this thread was started +5days ago.

Do they not care about the player base at all, did Fendhal take a vacation?

I understand that some post are so venom filled as to not warrent a response, but there are still plenty of quality constructive post here in this thread.

Yet no response.

CCP is it your intention to actually alienate the player base thats is represented here in this thread?

Armadaus Baldwin
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.11.26 06:28:00 - [232]

The honest answer...

CCP is just trying to screw Gallente in every way possible.

Looks like I need to finish cross training for Caldari!

Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor
Posted - 2007.11.26 07:12:00 - [233]

Welcome to Nerf Online

Rens 911
Posted - 2007.11.26 09:24:00 - [234]

Edited by: Vitaki on 26/11/2007 09:28:33
I am about to be critical about these changes.

"close range ships will likely fit scripts reducing scan resolution and increasing lock time and tracking", have you ever even flown a ship in eve before? Who fits any kind of tracking mod on a close range ship? Answer: someone who doesn't know anything about ship fitting. (hint fit webs instead)

The only thing that was possibly imbalanced was damps but no one I know was shoehorning damps onto anything they could (hint: that means they were probably balanced). And this fix doesn't really balance them very well if that was the aim.

Nerfing tracking/range mods is terrible they don't deserve this treatment. If you don't see this as a flat out nerf and think you are just forcing additional choice, then you don't understand your own game.

The drone changes just seem like pure insanity. Boosting a bunch of ships and then at the same time nerfing a bunch of gallente ships? It's insanity and there is no method to the madness.

Solomunio Kzenig
Indicium Technologies
Hephaestus Forge Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.26 13:14:00 - [235]

Drone Bandwidth : Meh, i fly Gal ships and i'm not sure regarding this.

HIC's : Good idea but Infinite Warp scram strength?? welcome to empty low sec space. As has been mentioned multiple times before, CCP just killed both Low Sec and Transports.

ARM Scripts : More unnecessary complexity which in addition kills all the other EW modules except ECM, which is a shame as it was only damps that were in need of gentle nerf.

Grath Telkin
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.26 20:10:00 - [236]

So, when will you simply remove Amarr from the game? You've basically eliminated the Curse and Pilgrim as viable ships now, and the rest of our ships were generally lacking in certain areas....oh wait, thats gave us missiles...

You've already admitted the problem with Amarr is that all the other races ships can simply tank us with two resists, and yet instead of boosting us, you weaken TD's, to go with the weakened NOS...way to bring Amarr up to snuff. This should do wonders to add to the population of Amarr pilots.

It seems the devs may be a bit partial to Minnie ships atm, as they seem to be king of the battlefield in most instances. They seem to be getting the fewest affecting nerf's from all the races, though the ARM's do affect them as well, the larger number of their ships are remaining unaffected through the nerf storm of 07.(please note this is biased opinion, as i havent looked too deeply at the facts, just off the top of my head).

Seriously, Galant and Amarr recons just got ****d, while Minnie and Caldari recons just got stronger.

I dont mind the changes, and alot of them i hear the lager player base complaining about amounts to little or nothing, but you are killing the playability of Amarr, and soon, there will be very few of us left in game, as people sell, trade, or biomass their now neutered Amarr alts.

Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.11.26 20:45:00 - [237]

WTS Gallante/Caldari pvp pilot, 40mil SP, can fly Eos, Ishtar and Rokh.



No buyers? Figures...

Ephemeral Waves
Silver Snake Enterprise
Posted - 2007.11.26 21:12:00 - [238]

My only concern with the ARM scripts is having to carry another charge - and having to get that charge from Jita out to wherever I happen to be living.

Why not make it a right-click option like the manual/auto on the reppers?

It's bad enough already: AM/Ld/Iron, Faction AM, Spike, Javelin, Cap800s, and now....range/res scripts and Tracking/Range scripts?


Frozen Salvation
Posted - 2007.11.27 04:52:00 - [239]

my 2cents on the new stuff...

the ARM nerf: my question is why? CCP you have made the modules that use these soooooo awful that at their current level they are laughable... why in God's name would I ever want to fit a RSD in Trinity or even fly a Keres or any of the new EAS's other than the caldari one. Why would anyone want a ship like this in a gang when one can get a ECM boat and be exponentially better? My understanding was that the NOS nerf gave people a reason to use energy neutrilizers. So CCP please give pilots a reason to use the other forms of EWAR other than ECM!

HICs: My opinion is that the infini-point should stay. Logic follows that some form of EWAR will eventually counter WCS, but there should also be a counter for the infini-point. My suggestion would be some kind of low slot active module that cancels out the effect. The only thing would be that WCS will be obsolete so perhaps the module only cancels out the strongest active point on the ship meaning that bubbles will still catch the ship and that if any other point is placed on the ship it can still be caught (don't want an infini-stab). Also putting a limit of one module per ship and allow only transport ships to use multiple modules at a time (perhaps a limit of 3?).

drone changes: drones from my understanding are feable little RC-ships that are used to supplement your ship's primary DPS (aka turrets and missles) while some ships rely on them as primary DPS. Seeing drone spam in action on TQ is impressive and is one crazy lag fest (reduction in ROF and an increase in damage might help). However with the drone changes they won't last very long and this is a problem. I am on board with the idea of a sig radius reduction (seems obvious to me, these are ment to be stored inside the ship so they should be small) or an HP buff. Perhaps give AF's a sig resolution and eplosion radius bonuses to allow them to hit drones for them to have a role other than "better than T1Confused" Razz

Zenith Affinity
Posted - 2007.11.27 10:09:00 - [240]

Wow, I've never seen so many babies in an EVE-O thread to date, not even from the Goons


I like the Drone Bandwidth changes, they were a much needed element required to balance certain ships (such as the Myrm) and the scripts are a nice concept, although they could have been implemented better (changing from one script to another takes ages as the activation time on the mods is far too long)

Heavy dictors are awesome too. For those complaining that the 'infinate point' will suddenly make low-sec off-limits to haulers, I don't really think much is going to change. You can pop most T1 haulers with a single sensor-boosted Zealot before they're able to warp anyway and BRs will simply be able to warp before they're even locked, plus always has that MWD in the unlikely event they'd get scrambled (a BR that relies 100% on warp strength deserves to die). That, and it's already possible to fit multiple points to a ship specifically to counter stab*****s.

The main reason people stay out of low-sec is the lack of reward there, rather than the risk. It's barely risky at all if you know what you're doing. Obviously risk is a factor, but is seriously blown out of proportion by the 1-week old trials who autopilot there to pick up some Ammo, get killed at the first gatecamp and never even try to go back, saying it's far too risky etc. The only way to stop that happening would be to make low-sec completely safe, or somehow stop such people venturing there until they learn how to survive.

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

These forums are archived and read-only