These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Does anybody remember why...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-04-08 23:32:27 UTC
This thread is for players to ask a very simple question about a module or ship change that hopefully will receive some CCP and/or adequate player response to the question. Please do not turn this into some debate or into some suggestion thread. There is places for those and this is simply not it. So please quote and reply with a link of some solid explanation from CCP if you know. Smile

I will go first:

Does anybody remember why the module Reinforced Bulkheads have a maximum velocity penalty?
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#2 - 2012-04-08 23:53:56 UTC
Does anyone remember why CCP nerfed damps but failed to buff the hull-bonus on the Celestis, Lach, Arazu (etc)?

Does anyone remember why the web/scram changes in the nano nerf occurred without consideration to blaster boats?

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Azemar
Voidhounds
Pretenders
#3 - 2012-04-09 01:19:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Azemar
Do you really think hybrids, specifically rails, actually have a niche now? If so, what is it and how have you achieved the data? If not, what areas would you buff/change them?
Perihelion Olenard
#4 - 2012-04-09 02:17:00 UTC
Does anybody remember why these forums have become generally unfriendly and unhelpful?
Boomhaur
#5 - 2012-04-09 03:09:13 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Does anybody remember why these forums have become generally unfriendly and unhelpful?


I don't remember why I left for a year and came back and the forums were went downhill. My guess is overflow of people from 4chan. We did after all have the whole pony meme thing going on after they took out the ship spinning awhile back.

Welcome to Eve. Everyone here is an Evil Sick Sadistic Bastard who is out to get you. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to scam you or use you.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-04-09 03:38:45 UTC
Guys, seriously?
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#7 - 2012-04-09 03:40:34 UTC
Anyone remember why hybrids were made as one weapon system, but split into two racial ones in the eyes of the devs?

thhief ghabmoef
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-04-09 04:10:34 UTC
Azemar wrote:
Do you really think hybrids, specifically rails, actually have a niche now? If so, what is it and how have you achieved the data? If not, what areas would you buff/change them?



Small rails/hybrids work well and are more then a niche in both PvP and PvE. I feel that they really shine here.


Med rails.....still kinda blow. Better then nothing on your arazu.

Large rails great at PvE. Naga and Rohk make good use of them for PvP. Seen a few odd rare sniping megas as well.


I achieved this data by living in low sec.

**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **
Crellion
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#9 - 2012-04-09 05:41:23 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread is for players to ask a very simple question about a module or ship change that hopefully will receive some CCP and/or adequate player response to the question. Please do not turn this into some debate or into some suggestion thread. There is places for those and this is simply not it. So please quote and reply with a link of some solid explanation from CCP if you know. Smile

I will go first:

Does anybody remember why the module Reinforced Bulkheads have a maximum velocity penalty?


I see the "So please quote and reply with a link of some solid explanation from CCP" bit but my guess is by now you are pretty desperate so I ll give you a reply with no quotes: CCP has placed velocity penalties on all armor tanking mods and I think/fear they will view this as consistent with that train of thought. (Might also have something to do with speed mods nerfing hull... agaon pretty consistent)...
Biced
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-04-09 05:54:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Biced
to the op i am pretty sure that was the original penalty on the module as in it came with it out of the box and was never tweaked.
what they did tweak was the stacking penaltys on everything.
didnt really gave much thought for rigs implant sets and links so right now hull tanking is only for real men.
edit* why it has it passive cause all passive buffer have a draw back.
shield = sig.
armor = mass.
hull = speed.
The Djego
Hellequin Inc.
#11 - 2012-04-09 15:08:10 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Does anyone remember why CCP nerfed damps but failed to buff the hull-bonus on the Celestis, Lach, Arazu (etc)?


CCP assumed that this hulls would, similar like the ECM ew ships, mount full racks of this EW, ignoring pretty much the point that this wasn't the case.

Wacktopia wrote:
Does anyone remember why the web/scram changes in the nano nerf occurred without consideration to blaster boats?


Because CCP didn't play her own game and completely ignored many blaster pilots that stated this would happen. Given the latest hybrid changes, that mostly ignored the core issues(point blank control and damage application), there hasn't changed much in this regards. I still remember stuff like "I think, blaster ships will be even better after the patch." from CCP Zulu. The actually thread where CCP Nozh did discuss it at least once was a total disaster, going from fitting multispec ECM, undersized turrets and using the utility slots on blaster ships, to get around the "small issue" that you can't hit targets at point blank in a way that it would be acceptable for blaster pvp.

Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#12 - 2012-04-09 16:16:05 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Does anyone remember why CCP nerfed damps but failed to buff the hull-bonus on the Celestis, Lach, Arazu (etc)?


This was done because of the 10 damp caracals winning AT5 or AT6. Go back and watch it and you can see the devs looking mighty angry at all the damp setups by the end of the tournament. The result was damps being cut in half (scripts) and then further nerfed in effectiveness (~60% IIRC?) less than a month later.

As to why they didn't buff the damp based ships back up: CCP Zulupark said they weren't negatively affected by the nerf. So they didn't need a buff. :psyduck:

Quote:
Does anyone remember why the web/scram changes in the nano nerf occurred without consideration to blaster boats?


It was considered to be a buff to blaster boats. For the most part, I agree with this.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-04-09 16:39:44 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
Does anyone remember why CCP nerfed damps but failed to buff the hull-bonus on the Celestis, Lach, Arazu (etc)?


This was done because of the 10 damp caracals winning AT5 or AT6.


Also the 4 damp fitted nos curse was a total nightmare

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Biced
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-04-09 17:56:13 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
Does anyone remember why CCP nerfed damps but failed to buff the hull-bonus on the Celestis, Lach, Arazu (etc)?


This was done because of the 10 damp caracals winning AT5 or AT6.


Also the 4 damp fitted nos curse was a total nightmare


pretty much this. I only had 2 damps and the spec at 4 and it was op.

every single nano ship that had a way to fit 2 or more damps did it and it was very effective, so a nerf was in order.
ccp not looking at gal recons and not buffing the racial bonus was really dumb but back then gallente were fotom, so the tears werent as bad.
so here we are crying about the same ******* thing for 3 years now?

from what i hear td will effect missile boats now?
gal racial ew will be more effective, been waiting for that for the longest time...
so ccp why dont you boost target painters as well? to not only boost sig radius but also targets velocity (explosion velocity)

ecm - fine.
td got buffed (to effect falloff)
damps got nerfed (gal ew ships will be buffed soon so it will be usefull)
what about target painters???
Hawklandier Taranogas
Old American Syndicate
Optimistic Wasteland
#15 - 2012-04-09 22:43:41 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread is for players to ask a very simple question about a module or ship change that hopefully will receive some CCP and/or adequate player response to the question. Please do not turn this into some debate or into some suggestion thread. There is places for those and this is simply not it. So please quote and reply with a link of some solid explanation from CCP if you know. Smile

I will go first:

Does anybody remember why the module Reinforced Bulkheads have a maximum velocity penalty?


They have a velocity penalty because they are supposed to impact on the mass of the ship. I dont see any change to the mass if i fit one to a ship, but then again, i dont see any change when i fit a nano either. But its makes your structure stronger by adding denser materials therefor increasing the weight of your ship which will impact its velocity.

I have likes? How the hell did that happen? :D
YuuKnow
The Scope
#16 - 2012-04-09 23:43:11 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Does anybody remember why these forums have become generally unfriendly and unhelpful?


Because CCP got too lazy for a any real forum moderating so trollers dominate the forums now.

yk
YuuKnow
The Scope
#17 - 2012-04-09 23:45:06 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
This thread is for players to ask a very simple question about a module or ship change that hopefully will receive some CCP and/or adequate player response to the question. Please do not turn this into some debate or into some suggestion thread. There is places for those and this is simply not it. So please quote and reply with a link of some solid explanation from CCP if you know. Smile

I will go first:

Does anybody remember why the module Reinforced Bulkheads have a maximum velocity penalty?


I'll go.

Does anybody remember why CCP made supercarriers in the first place? Did anyone really ask for or need them?

yk
Flurk Hellbron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-04-09 23:59:44 UTC
Does anybody remember why... ................. no
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#19 - 2012-04-14 22:03:33 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Wacktopia wrote:
Does anyone remember why CCP nerfed damps but failed to buff the hull-bonus on the Celestis, Lach, Arazu (etc)?


This was done because of the 10 damp caracals winning AT5 or AT6. Go back and watch it and you can see the devs looking mighty angry at all the damp setups by the end of the tournament. The result was damps being cut in half (scripts) and then further nerfed in effectiveness (~60% IIRC?) less than a month later.

As to why they didn't buff the damp based ships back up: CCP Zulupark said they weren't negatively affected by the nerf. So they didn't need a buff. :psyduck:

Quote:
Does anyone remember why the web/scram changes in the nano nerf occurred without consideration to blaster boats?


It was considered to be a buff to blaster boats. For the most part, I agree with this.

-Liang


I know why they nerfed the damps and saw it happen. My question was why they didn't in turn buff the bonus on the Gallente hulls given that at level V you only get a 25% bonus, which is poor given that damps are stack penalised so using more than 3 on a single target is fairly pointless. So using 3 on the bonused hull is like 3.75 - hrrrmf.

I'm not a lover of ECM but damps feel underwhelming on hulls I would expect them to feel powerful on.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com