These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

This expansion just became 25% less awesome?

First post
Author
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2011-11-02 11:42:02 UTC
luZk wrote:
Okay how about this idea. Lets turn it around.

After many years of stuggle and factions seeing their own weapons turned against them they all invent a ship that counters just that.

Minmatar builds the bc that has a bonus against webbing.
Amarr invents a bc that has a bonus against neuts and nos.
Caldari builds a bc that has a bonus against ecm.
Gallente builds a bc that has a bonus against sensor damps.

Would that work?



Damps? Really?

I don't recall the last time I was sensor damped.

Webbed, nueted, NOS'd and jammed sure.
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2011-11-02 11:44:22 UTC
The Talos having it's web bonus removed makes sense, since it was overpowered for gate-camping, and just about useless in fleets. The tracking bonus is.. well, I'd have liked a range or damage bonus better, but I guess that would have been OP.
luZk
Fivrelde Corp
#83 - 2011-11-02 11:44:32 UTC
Onictus wrote:
luZk wrote:
Okay how about this idea. Lets turn it around.

After many years of stuggle and factions seeing their own weapons turned against them they all invent a ship that counters just that.

Minmatar builds the bc that has a bonus against webbing.
Amarr invents a bc that has a bonus against neuts and nos.
Caldari builds a bc that has a bonus against ecm.
Gallente builds a bc that has a bonus against sensor damps.

Would that work?



Damps? Really?

I don't recall the last time I was sensor damped.

Webbed, nueted, NOS'd and jammed sure.



Drone damage then?

http://i.imgur.com/1dl4DM6.jpg

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#84 - 2011-11-02 12:01:05 UTC
@hans

Not too worried about the Tornado or the Oracle as the weapons systems are compatible with what I think is the concept of the ship class. Talos and to an increasing extent, Naga are in bad shape.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#85 - 2011-11-02 13:37:53 UTC
Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.


Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:


  • Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
  • Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
  • Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
  • Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
  • Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant



In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests Pirate).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

Because indeed, we would like you to realize the initial data that was spread around was just that, initial data, and that it is supposed and expected to change at any time during the development process.


Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time.


Hope that helps a bit.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#86 - 2011-11-02 13:43:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.


Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.

On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.

The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:


  • Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
  • Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
  • Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
  • Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
  • Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant



In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests Pirate).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.

Because indeed, we would like you to realize the initial data that was spread around was just that, initial data, and that it is supposed and expected to change at any time during the development process.


Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time.


Hope that helps a bit.



so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?

OMG when can i get a pic here

Angel Lust
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2011-11-02 13:52:19 UTC
So.. there we go....
supercaps can not kill subcaps...
Bs/bc can not kill frigs ??

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#88 - 2011-11-02 13:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Rainus Max
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
.


Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time.




so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?


Suggest you read the TL:DR section
Cedric deBouilard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2011-11-02 13:57:08 UTC
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hope that helps a bit.



so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?


R U sure u know how to read?
Deckard Gates
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2011-11-02 14:00:20 UTC
So taking away the web bonus in order to not pigeonhole the Talos as a blaster boat is ok, but keeping blasters lol range and the stated "especially point blank range" weakness of the tier 3 BCs is also ok? So you're pigeonholing it as a rail boat then.

I understand that blasters may change a lot from what we have seen proposed. But as a pilot that's dedicated SP to blasters and not rails, please tell me what a blaster Talos' role would be. Blasters still look to have unique deficits not shared by any other gun (range of a cocktail skewer) as well as missing out on pretty uniform advantages that all others have (ability to actuslly apply this fabled "superior blaster damage" to actual targets without playing station or gate games). Please tell me more blaster changes are incoming.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2011-11-02 14:03:29 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:



In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.

For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests Pirate).

However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.




So what is the Talos supposed to do against any BS that can field heavy drones and neuts?

It simply doesn't have the tank to hang out under the guns, and is neut vulnerable, so are we to understand its meant to be a rail ship, or just sub-par?
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#92 - 2011-11-02 14:03:34 UTC
Cedric deBouilard wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hope that helps a bit.



so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ?


R U sure u know how to read?



yeh he said they are subject to change, but qualified it by stating that will happen on tq also. which lead me to think, there done, it will land on tq in current state and then they will unnerf them in 2-3 years, kinda like the same plan they had with black ops

OMG when can i get a pic here

Gazmin VanBurin
Boma Bull Corp
#93 - 2011-11-02 14:15:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Gazmin VanBurin
They say they dont want the ships to preform outside their roll, then make them worthless in compairison to multi roll ships. (a shield typoon will probialy be as cheep and as efective as a naga, with a better tank and drones.)

I know these changes may not be final by a long shot, and i shure hope they will not, because there is a reason no one flys the raven for pvp, and with out alittle help hitting smaller targets the naga will suffer the same fate. Regaurdless of price it will have a even crummyer tank and no one is going to fly it as long as the Tornado and Orical are more balanced in dps at range (that actualy hits for close to full damage.)

Same gose for the talos, your making its role out to be a slightly longer range gank brutix, not asking for the web back but for the love of jove dont make it another cookie cutter bonused ship.

Over all im not buying this Bull S*** that its a bridge into flying a BS, new pilots are more likely to jump stright into a BS and end up on a killboard as they are likely to jump into these new ships and do it twice as fast.

As for being a new super capital killer, these really arnt any better than a welp cain because at least welp cain fleets can cap the super out wit the newts in their utility highs.

So CCP , make these ships have a more defined roll than just a stepping stone desposable gank ship so people will actualy be compelled to fly the none amarr / mimatar ones, just like most the best pvp ships in the game are amarr / mimatar.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#94 - 2011-11-02 14:38:16 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
@hans

Not too worried about the Tornado or the Oracle as the weapons systems are compatible with what I think is the concept of the ship class. Talos and to an increasing extent, Naga are in bad shape.


I can see the Talos working out well if it has support. Range is an issue like with all blasters, but I've always seen Gallente ships as more or less useless unless you warp them onto your victim, or rely on drones and only use the blasters defensively.

A squadron of Talos's though should be staggering DPS when properly landed on a tackled victim. They seem the most like suicide heavy bombers to me.

As for the Naga, I'm kinda shocked they're using torps as their weapon system - cruise missiles are already underused in PvP and could benefit from a viable platform. To me they seem the most anti-capital of all the weapons - Cruises are useless against smaller targets, and normally suffer the issue of pinning your target long enough for them to work. But against capitals, the fights will last plenty long enough for proper long range bombardment to be effective. I can see a flight of them warping in at a range outside of heavy neuts and pouring cruise missiles into a scrammed supercap, hitting for full damage of course. Naga could have a really nice cruise damage bonus and not be overpowered - as a squadron of them at range will be completely tore up by anything that get close to them.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#95 - 2011-11-02 14:38:39 UTC
Onictus wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests Pirate).




So what is the Talos supposed to do against any BS that can field heavy drones and neuts?

It simply doesn't have the tank to hang out under the guns, and is neut vulnerable, so are we to understand its meant to be a rail ship, or just sub-par?


Onictus makes a good point here. If the devs had a lot of fun with the Talos, wouldnt players aswell? And could some other aspect be tweaked to prevent the Talos becoming a 'omgpwnzmobile'? Maybe it just has 2 mids (MWD/AB + Web) so it needs support? Or weakening its tank further?

I think (and I may be inviting pain upon myself in a future gank here) that the Gallente Blaster Boat pilots have waited a looooong time to get something good: 8 Neutron Blaster Cannon II face melting is that goodness.

Throw 'em a bone CCP.

C.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#96 - 2011-11-02 14:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.


Hope that helps a bit.


Awesome post, thanks. Seems like you're one of those rare sane individuals at CCP :)

I like your approach. Can they please get you working on other crucial things, too? Like, you know, those mentioned in my sig :)

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Dr Sodius
#97 - 2011-11-02 14:44:17 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
So according to the latest SISI data dump, all the tier 3 BATTLE CRUISERS lost some speed, HP and had some of their bonuses turned down...

Most notable of all was the Talos... Losing it's web bonus AND drones...

Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter...

What?


lol, sometimes i wish ccp would rate EVE for 18+ ppl

how about a little bit patience before you start to act like a little child?

i love thread starters like you, hopefully you'll play another game this winter.... b/c EVE is nothing for you
Ranka Mei
TANoshii Incorporated
#98 - 2011-11-02 14:48:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranka Mei
Pattern Clarc wrote:

So no one has any issue with the revision?

You knew that stuff was beta. Worse even; more like the beta of a beta, and yet you act surprised. How dumb can you be?! Or was your desire to rant at CCP so paramount, that you were willing to scream red about anything CCP says? I see a pattern, Mr. Clarc.

-- "All your monies AUR belong to us!" -- CCP

Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#99 - 2011-11-02 14:51:35 UTC
So these new ships are to be niche ships to be used in whelp fleets in null against the evil the super caps floating out there. I guess I won't be having one in my hanger then.

I am not saying these ships won't be used (well the Naga and Talos might be rather rare critters). But they will be used as the cheap ship replacements for the blobs which puts them below the status of drakes and cains because at least those ships can do other roles.

I am just disappointed as I am sure others here are as well that these new ships and their wonderful models will be nothing more than disposable platforms with no real use outside of the large alliances that can field them in lemming like numbers.




Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#100 - 2011-11-02 14:59:09 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
But they will be used as the cheap ship replacements for the blobs which puts them below the status of drakes and cains because at least those ships can do other roles.

I am just disappointed as I am sure others here are as well that these new ships and their wonderful models will be nothing more than disposable platforms with no real use outside of the large alliances that can field them in lemming like numbers.


So you expected them to be on pair with Drakes and thus overpowered by definition? Okey....

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.