These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Online: Retribution 1.1 Feedback

First post
Author
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#381 - 2013-02-21 11:26:23 UTC
Peter Powers wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
WRT DSTs/BRs and the BCs:

and what is that in terms everyone understands?

Exactly what you skipped. If you don't understand, then you simply have to live with it.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison

NewAge Domakinya
HE KOCETE TPEBATA
#382 - 2013-02-21 11:51:15 UTC
mouse over ships in space , player and npc, dosnt work anymore, nothing is shown
Noddy Comet
Lysdexic Agnostics - Thier is no Dog
#383 - 2013-02-21 11:56:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Noddy Comet
TheButcherPete wrote:
Zhan Kor wrote:
Why did you remove a missile Launcher spot from my Drake?


They removed the slot, but upped your damage bonus by 50%


Someone failed at simple maths, which we all know maths is hard when it comes to Internet Spaceships.

Lets break it down.

Les say previously I had 7 turrets.
Those turrets BEFORE adding the whopping 5% bonus (to just scourge missiles, aka 25% of total missiles available) did an output of 200 damage per volley. I'm using easy round numbers as not to confuse the ones sleeping in the back row, bear with me.
Add the 5% "bonus" previously given (again, to just scourge) and I am hitting with a whopping 205 damage per volley.

Now, take away one turret, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%, (I'll wait why you do that maths on your fingers and toes) I am hitting per volley pre-"bonus" for an astounding 172 damage.
Add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% bonus (to just scourge missiles) and I'm still only hitting for 189.2 per volley.

Yeah, you all keep using that word "buff" and "bonus" with your Drake-hate but I don't think you all really know what it means..

[i]"The biggest problem with quotes on the Internet, is that just because it's on the Internet too many believe them to be real" -[/i]Abraham Lincoln's "Berlin Wall" speech at the 1984 Winter Olympics.

Zevv Kal'Jael
Bluestar Enterprises
The Craftsmen
#384 - 2013-02-21 12:01:28 UTC
Plekto wrote:
I have a legitimate question, which is why are all the ships and missiles getting nerfed when the solution is to lower the power of t3 ships so that they aren't the only ship anyone wants to fly? t3 ships are too easy to train and fly as it is. They allow new players to avoid the t2 ship paths entirely, and make the efforts and training spent of older players almost useless.

Consider the new ship changes due this summer. Everything looks acceptable until you hit Command Ships. Then it turns out you need an extra *month* to fly one. WHY? Why are you making t2 ships so much harder to train and fly than the t3 Swiss Army Knife do-anything ships? Why are you lowering the power of decent ships like the battlecruisers and making it harder on the newer players? Do you want everyone to just train for t3 and ignore every other ship in the game? Because you're accomplishing it quite nicely if that is your goal.



Conspiracy theorie.. :) dont take this to serious but.....

If they continue weeken all other ships.. and give t3 more advantage with every patch.. some day they can say.. well guys.. no one flys t1 and t2 crap lets turn this into Tengu online ( not eve-online )... rofl.

T3 are much to powerfull and make most of the specialized ships unusefull... and it gets worse with every change.
I dont fly this no brainer bullshit but there will come the day where you either fly it or step back from eve :) I give it 2 or 3 years
then we have it :) *ggg*
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#385 - 2013-02-21 12:16:39 UTC
Kaylyis wrote:
Micro Jump Drive: No one I know uses it.


Then you don't know the right people :)
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#386 - 2013-02-21 12:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Noddy Comet wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
Zhan Kor wrote:
Why did you remove a missile Launcher spot from my Drake?


They removed the slot, but upped your damage bonus by 50%


Someone failed at simple maths, which we all know maths is hard when it comes to Internet Spaceships.

Lets break it down.

Les say previously I had 7 turrets.
Those turrets BEFORE adding the whopping 5% bonus (to just scourge missiles, aka 25% of total missiles available) did an output of 200 damage per volley. I'm using easy round numbers as not to confuse the ones sleeping in the back row, bear with me.
Add the 5% "bonus" previously given (again, to just scourge) and I am hitting with a whopping 205 damage per volley.

Now, take away one turret, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%, (I'll wait why you do that maths on your fingers and toes) I am hitting per volley pre-"bonus" for an astounding 172 damage.
Add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% bonus (to just scourge missiles) and I'm still only hitting for 189.2 per volley.

Yeah, you all keep using that word "buff" and "bonus" with your Drake-hate but I don't think you all really know what it means..


You did your maths wrong.
7 Turrets *1.25 = 8.75 turrets worth (25% kinetic damage bonus)
6 Turrets * 1.5 = 9 turrets worth (50% kinetic damage bonus)

You forgot to multiply the bonus by 5 for the 5 levels of BC you should have.

P.S. 5% of 200 is 10, not 5, meaning you should have had 210 in your maths anyway, even allowing for you forgetting the bonus is per level of BC.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#387 - 2013-02-21 12:34:57 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Noddy Comet wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
Zhan Kor wrote:
Why did you remove a missile Launcher spot from my Drake?


They removed the slot, but upped your damage bonus by 50%


Someone failed at simple maths, which we all know maths is hard when it comes to Internet Spaceships.

Lets break it down.

Les say previously I had 7 turrets.
Those turrets BEFORE adding the whopping 5% bonus (to just scourge missiles, aka 25% of total missiles available) did an output of 200 damage per volley. I'm using easy round numbers as not to confuse the ones sleeping in the back row, bear with me.
Add the 5% "bonus" previously given (again, to just scourge) and I am hitting with a whopping 205 damage per volley.

Now, take away one turret, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%, (I'll wait why you do that maths on your fingers and toes) I am hitting per volley pre-"bonus" for an astounding 172 damage.
Add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% bonus (to just scourge missiles) and I'm still only hitting for 189.2 per volley.

Yeah, you all keep using that word "buff" and "bonus" with your Drake-hate but I don't think you all really know what it means..


You did your maths wrong.
7 Turrets *1.25 = 8.75 turrets worth (25% kinetic damage bonus)
6 Turrets * 1.5 = 9 turrets worth (50% kinetic damage bonus)

You forgot to multiply the bonus by 5 for the 5 levels of BC you should have.


Not to even mention 5% of 200 is 10, not 5.
At level 4 Drake does same damage it did before the patch at level 4. At lower levels less launchers causes lower damage.
Gervmeister
Ireco Industries
#388 - 2013-02-21 12:51:33 UTC
In my opinion ccp has lost its grip on making new content. Like the creation of wormhole content which added a whole new feel and adventure. Now they just go around and mess with whatever they can to screw things up. They think they are making things better but a vast majority deem otherwise. If you cant think of new ideas don't do like the cinema industry and try to remake an old film by polishing it as new. Remakes rarely if ever outshine the original. Keep it up and EVE will be like world of warcraft. Adding kung fu panda like garbage. Way to screw up a dungeon and dragon game. Look how the captains quarters went. Nuked playing eve on older computers. They are on the same path of self destruction. Pull your heads out of your...and get on a better path.
Just an observation.
Scaugh
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#389 - 2013-02-21 12:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Scaugh
CCP Greyscale wrote:
WRT DSTs/BRs and the BCs:

Everything that's a "thing" in EVE, from planets to ships to trit, sits in a three level heirarchy of type (Omen), group (Cruiser), category (Ship).

The type encapsulates all the data specific to that actual thing, so every time we make a new "thing", we make a new type. At the other end of the spectrum, it's pretty rare that we have entirely new categories of thing, so the list of categories is fairly constant and caterogization serves mainly to break types up along pretty fundamental lines (a celestial is not the same thing as a module).

In between these two levels sits the groups, which end up doing a fair amount of heavy lifting as doing things "by group" gives us the ability to affect related sets of types at a nice level of granularity, ie without either special-casing per-type (which makes adding other, similar types a pain) or going up to the category level (which affects very large numbers of types in a fairly indiscriminate manner.

So, BRs and DSTs. They've always been referred to as those two separate things in their descriptions, and they serve separate roles, but previously they were all in the same group as, despite their stats being wildly different, they were sufficiently "functionally the same" to not need group-level separation.

The thing that changed in this patch is that we've made an effort to get rid of "CPU hacks" to restrict modules - the "99% reduction to CPU use of blah" that we used to kep, for example, covops cloaks or warfare links restricted to certain ships. It's a thoroughly ingenious solution to the problem that leverages our content tools to enforce restrictions without requiring new code, and thus "back in the day" was an eminently practical way to solve the problem of "not every ship should be able to warp cloaked". However, it's also somewhat hacky and unintuitive and has generally poor UX, which makes us sad.

Since this was originally done, we've gained a new tool, called "can fit to group", which allows us to tell a module which specific ship groups it can be fitted to. This is nicer and cleaner and less hacky and we generally prefer it, so in Retribution 1.1 we've made the final push to eliminate the old "99%" solution and use "can fit to group" instead.

Those of you following along at home will see where this leads us to, though: in the case of the covops cloak, for example, we want to fit to the BRs but not the DSTs, but to do that in the new system they need to be in separate groups, so they've been split thusly. The same thing happened with warfare links and battlecruisers: if they're functionally different in terms of what modules they can fit, they have to be in separate groups. In the case of T2 industrials, the distinction has always existed on paper, but now it exists in the type hierarchy as well Smile

[edit] Oh yeah, one other thing... 10 points for the first person to spot the place where this paradigm still doesn't work nicely, and 50 points for the first person to guess how we're solving that right now Cool


And in English?????Lol The WRT DSTs/BRs stand for exactly what?
Arronicus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#390 - 2013-02-21 12:52:25 UTC
Noddy Comet wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
Zhan Kor wrote:
Why did you remove a missile Launcher spot from my Drake?


They removed the slot, but upped your damage bonus by 50%


Someone failed at simple maths, which we all know maths is hard when it comes to Internet Spaceships.

Lets break it down.

Les say previously I had 7 turrets.
Those turrets BEFORE adding the whopping 5% bonus (to just scourge missiles, aka 25% of total missiles available) did an output of 200 damage per volley. I'm using easy round numbers as not to confuse the ones sleeping in the back row, bear with me.
Add the 5% "bonus" previously given (again, to just scourge) and I am hitting with a whopping 205 damage per volley.

Now, take away one turret, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%, (I'll wait why you do that maths on your fingers and toes) I am hitting per volley pre-"bonus" for an astounding 172 damage.
Add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% bonus (to just scourge missiles) and I'm still only hitting for 189.2 per volley.

Yeah, you all keep using that word "buff" and "bonus" with your Drake-hate but I don't think you all really know what it means..


You cannot seriously be THIS bad . Clearly, you are trolling. However, for the sake of other people who might fall for your crap you are making up,

Lets say previously you had 7 LAUNCHER HARDPOINTS (That's right, believe it or not, the drake does not fit turrets, just another example of you trolling, or not actually being an eve player). those turrets BEFORE adding the (5% per level, so 25%) did an output of 200%. Add the 25% bonus (not 5) and you are hitting with a whopping 250 damage per volley.

Now, take away one LAUNCHER, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%. You are now hitting, pre bonus, for 172 damage. Now add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% per level, aka 50% damage bonus (to scourge missiles), and you are now hitting for (172*1.5)= 258 damage per volley.

Imagine that! When you do the math properly, and have the ship trained to a decent level, your damage per volley went UP!
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
#391 - 2013-02-21 13:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: May O'Neez
Great UI changes, as allways.

however ...

I understand the need of rebalancing, but am a bit disappointed by the fact that it has been driven toward PvP at an unbalanced manner, ignoring PVE usages behind (hint: count ships destroyed or bought is *not* a good metric). Minmatar now don't have anymore PVE ship on BC class (Tornado is for ganks and Hurricane has too much low slots), and look like to continue their conversion into Caldari (so will the Claymore ...).

Moreover the ship lines system seem to uniformize all ships types among races, reducing diversity and playstyles (eg. combat battlecruiser = missile + armor ??? and you did quite the same at cruiser level). I thought that EVE was great because we had a lot of different manners to play, but it's being narrowed for the sake of simplicity and to drive people not where they want, but where they should.
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2013-02-21 13:47:26 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Kelle
Rhazjin wrote:
Shig Tawny wrote:
Rhazjin wrote:
Just so you know. Making all the ships equally worthless isnt what I call balancing. Im about done with this game. Tell ya what. If you actually give us station environments in pos ill stay. (That thing you promised? And never delivered on?) Figure it out ccp. Your alienating your player base with all these changes. (AND STILL NOT THE ONES YOU PROMISED FOREVER AGO) With the way you are changing things im honestly scared to skill for anything impressive. (as it is almost guaranteed to be taken away when a bunch of noobs get scragged by that particular ship.) (and cry)
un-**** this mess. Stop changing ships to the point they have no purpose. Thanks for nothing in advance.



yet another angry post with no intelligence. what is your issue with the bc's? they all have the same role they did before just more focused. If you have troubles with versatility of bc's train more and fly non-trash ships (bc = trash = welp). get a HAC or BLOPS. The next step up in training is a BS and every race has a versatile set of these.

Thinking that something is crap means nothing if you dont know why it is this way. If the vast mojority of poster on this thread had even researched the issues they posted they would find alot of misunderstanding. I heard it was a drake nerf until took the proper time to rework my drake fits ( i HATE DRAKE, but have a few uses for it) and every fit was improved by the time i was done refitting. I started angry about a nerf on a ship already thought was crap and found that the case was that it actually was slightly less crappy than before.

The point is this. If you are going to be angry put some good info and numbers to it so CCP might be able to adress it. Else, risk looking like a fool :(



Did you miss the first part of the message? Put out what you say your gonna put out (station environments for pos) and also my point is still valid. Why would I want to skill for something for months when it becomes just as crappy as everything else? I may be mad, but your jumping to conclusions that my post lacked intelligence. And I did research the update, and im still not happy with the changes. If you had something useful to post id appreciate it. Instead of your smarmy tude.


Plus given time CCP will nerf the damm BS set as well. I belive they are still dumming down stuff so the crying Noobs and players who want all and want it now types can get stuff easier and easier. I fyou want easy or want simple go play WoW or some other no-brainer game.
MainDrain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2013-02-21 13:54:52 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Noddy Comet wrote:
TheButcherPete wrote:
Zhan Kor wrote:
Why did you remove a missile Launcher spot from my Drake?


They removed the slot, but upped your damage bonus by 50%


Someone failed at simple maths, which we all know maths is hard when it comes to Internet Spaceships.

Lets break it down.

Les say previously I had 7 turrets.
Those turrets BEFORE adding the whopping 5% bonus (to just scourge missiles, aka 25% of total missiles available) did an output of 200 damage per volley. I'm using easy round numbers as not to confuse the ones sleeping in the back row, bear with me.
Add the 5% "bonus" previously given (again, to just scourge) and I am hitting with a whopping 205 damage per volley.

Now, take away one turret, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%, (I'll wait why you do that maths on your fingers and toes) I am hitting per volley pre-"bonus" for an astounding 172 damage.
Add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% bonus (to just scourge missiles) and I'm still only hitting for 189.2 per volley.

Yeah, you all keep using that word "buff" and "bonus" with your Drake-hate but I don't think you all really know what it means..


You cannot seriously be THIS bad . Clearly, you are trolling. However, for the sake of other people who might fall for your crap you are making up,

Lets say previously you had 7 LAUNCHER HARDPOINTS (That's right, believe it or not, the drake does not fit turrets, just another example of you trolling, or not actually being an eve player). those turrets BEFORE adding the (5% per level, so 25%) did an output of 200%. Add the 25% bonus (not 5) and you are hitting with a whopping 250 damage per volley.

Now, take away one LAUNCHER, reducing your total damage output per volley by 14%. You are now hitting, pre bonus, for 172 damage. Now add the "NEW AND IMPROVED" 10% per level, aka 50% damage bonus (to scourge missiles), and you are now hitting for (172*1.5)= 258 damage per volley.

Imagine that! When you do the math properly, and have the ship trained to a decent level, your damage per volley went UP!


Confirming that with a well skilled, but not max drake. my raw dps from launchers has gone up exactly 8
Roseline Penshar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#394 - 2013-02-21 13:58:46 UTC
how about give me an option to unshake the missile only?
MainDrain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2013-02-21 14:05:26 UTC  |  Edited by: MainDrain
Gervmeister wrote:
In my opinion ccp has lost its grip on making new content. Like the creation of wormhole content which added a whole new feel and adventure. Now they just go around and mess with whatever they can to screw things up. They think they are making things better but a vast majority deem otherwise. If you cant think of new ideas don't do like the cinema industry and try to remake an old film by polishing it as new. Remakes rarely if ever outshine the original. Keep it up and EVE will be like world of warcraft. Adding kung fu panda like garbage. Way to screw up a dungeon and dragon game. Look how the captains quarters went. Nuked playing eve on older computers. They are on the same path of self destruction. Pull your heads out of your...and get on a better path.
Just an observation.


The last 2 years of updates including the massive rebalancing has been done because of player demand. New content was planned (see WiS) however players decided that we didnt want that. CCP along with the CSM discussed that improving the FiS aspects where a priority, hence the revamp of war decs, faction warfare, bounty hunting and the ship rebalancing.

They cant simply do everything at once in one expansion, they do not have the time or the manpower. However my understanding of the CSM minutes, and the current planning for the summer expansion should see us get new content (in some form or other) Dont forget they still have other issues that the player base as a whole are crying out to be improved and worked on such as Science and Industry tab, Corp Roles, and the entire POS system.

You say a vast majority of people hate the changes, you base this on what? People moaning on forums? The vast majority of players likely do not interact with the forums at all, and those that do are far more likely to post when they dont like something. Players that like the changes (i for one am loving the changes to the brutix and myrm) tend not be so vocal. No matter what they do some people will like them, some will not. The Devs will cater for the majority, not just the people that moan on here. In case you think they don't listen to people on the forums, initially there were plans to release new rigs in this patch alongside the changes to armor plates etc, however following comments on the forum about the initial plans these were pulled for a latter date (or trashed altogether not sure)

You reference Captains Quarters causing problems for people with older computers, yet you want them to keep pushing ahead with the new content. They cant do this if they are simply relying upon older harder etc. One of the downsides with being a PC gamer is you have to update your PC to keep up with the developments in games. (Not to mention after complaints about CQ they re-introduced ship spinning and disabling CQ)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#396 - 2013-02-21 14:19:49 UTC
Peter Powers wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
WRT DSTs/BRs and the BCs:

and what is that in terms everyone understands?


"With Regard To Deep Space Transports/Blockade Runners and the Battlecruisers"




Ten points each for mynnna (guessing it as an afterthought) and Intagus (going straight for the prize: the big remaining issue is T3s, because the hull is always in the "strategic cruiser" group, but the modules it can fit vary depending on what subsystem is fitted. Types have to belong to exactly one group and we can't change this dynamically, so we can't solve anything that way! (Recons, large industrials, carriers and cloaky frigates all already have separate groups for the different sets of functionality.)

A further 25 points to Intagus for this guess, which is true but misses out the gory/silly details:

Quote:
The only other solution I can think of is to allow fitting (based on groups) of gank links, cov ops cloaks to any t3, but then disable the fitting on the ones that have the wrong subsystem.
Home Girl
Home Holding
H.O.M.E. Coalition
#397 - 2013-02-21 15:50:51 UTC
WE HAVE CONNECTION ISSUES!
WAKE UP, CCP!

"No connection could be made to the content server. Please make sure that your Internet connection is up and restart the Launcher."

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207984

.. and as usual.. no response at all...
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#398 - 2013-02-21 16:43:00 UTC
The Myrmidon permanently looks like it's missing a turret now. Since it has 5 highs now can we get the model fixed?
Eodp Ellecon
Mostly Snuggly
Initiative Mercenaries
#399 - 2013-02-21 18:16:43 UTC
Was considering that since Armor Reppers power grid needs have been reduced, 'logic' would extend that skill base to the Remote Reppers as well.

Likewise the Rig modifications that affect Armor Reppers where the drawback was changed from speed to power grid would also extend to the Remote Repper rig, while having to be careful to not make the ships un-fitable for their role.
Isaiah Harms
Troll Legion
Unspoken Alliance.
#400 - 2013-02-21 18:34:02 UTC
Rio Bravo wrote:
Anyone who has played EVE for any legnth of time, if they were honest with themselves, knew that Drakes and Hurricanes were very over powered compared to the other ships in thier bracket. From a macro systemic point of view, a nerf was over due. Drake was a favorite ship of mine, and though I wasn't well trained in projectiles, I respected (dreaded) the hurricane.
I like that they have been humbled. They are still good ships...maybe just more incentive to start flying T3, BS, or pirate faction cruisers.
Guess a plus side is that they will come down in price...always a nice thing for the comsumer. For people who early on got stuck on flying the Drake or Cane early on and never trained up or sideways, there are other ships and new techniques of flying you are missing out on. Might broaden your horizones, to train new tank, guns, utilities...might find a new play style too. Keeps it fresh!



Yup. So nerfed they're now just "great gas cloud harvesters."

Oh CCP. You have fallen so far.

P.S. The Hurricane never had a great tank. You dreaded the Hurricanes because their pilots had skill and knew how to use their ships.

Well now EVE is dumber for all you rookies. Congrats.. Smart pilots can fly most every ship anyway.