These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

This expansion just became 25% less awesome?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1 - 2011-11-02 01:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
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?








Addendum

Quote:
For some reason, this thread appears to be full of people pissed off that I haven't waited till december before providing feedback. Yep. How silly of me, I should have waited till point in time were the developers had already poored hundreds of man hours testing and number crunching these ship concepts, the point many weeks after initial ideas had been locked in, design paradigms fixed and the production plan committed, I should have waited till the point were these guys were in knee deep in the final sprint AKA "UberCrunch" with perhaps a dozen other really important none ship balancing things to do. Yep, I shouldn't have made a comment at the point were the biggest course corrections could be made, or at the point alternative idea's could be entertained with enough time for Q&A before launch.

Silly me.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#2 - 2011-11-02 02:01:39 UTC
they're ******* anti-cap platforms, how many times do we have to explain this to people

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2011-11-02 02:01:49 UTC
jesus they said that it was a first draft too.

Stop being teste!

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#4 - 2011-11-02 02:03:48 UTC
Headerman wrote:
jesus they said that it was a first draft too.

Stop being teste!

I remember similar comments when the t3 subsystems where announced. Lol

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-11-02 02:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
They flat out TOLD you the specs listed were for testing. I know we're not used to believing CCP but the ONE thing you can ALWAYS believe them about is when they say something isn't finished.
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#6 - 2011-11-02 02:04:49 UTC
You know CCP is doing something right when half the posts in the single thread are defending them.

The Drake is a Lie
Lord Ryan
True Xero
#7 - 2011-11-02 02:06:17 UTC
Noob, you're all newbs, knobs and hobbits! Hairy feet little bastards! Get off the guys back, if we learned anything it's CCP will stick it to us if we don't speak up. On the forums we unite ingame it's every asshats for herself. They ban the few, but submit to the many!

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#8 - 2011-11-02 02:07:05 UTC
Original stats from sisi dump were beyond broken... Glad to see that the new "dump" has toned these ships down a bit.

As far as the Gallente ship not having drones... Wait till the hybrid re-balance is done before you start crying bloody murder folks.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#9 - 2011-11-02 02:07:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Jada Maroo wrote:
They flat out TOLD you the specs listed were for testing. I know we're not used to beleiving CCP but the ONE thing you can ALWAYS believe them about is when they say something isn't finished.

So no one has any issue with the revision?

People seem to be telling me that the Chaos development server stats where the first iteration... Some things changed in a questionible direction on the second revision, now we should keep quite because the previous version was the first iteration...

Right.

Roll

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#10 - 2011-11-02 02:08:25 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Original stats from sisi dump were beyond broken... Glad to see that the new "dump" has toned these ships down a bit.

As far as the Gallente ship not having drones... Wait till the hybrid re-balance is done before you start crying bloody murder folks.


Wait till it's done, then wait a few more years amirite?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#11 - 2011-11-02 02:14:39 UTC
yeah, listen up you pack of amateur professors

testing numbers requires actually loading them on the server

that is unless you folks think its better for CCP to run the numbers on a pad of paper and not an actual game environment Roll
Vachir Khan
Rugged Ruff and Ready
#12 - 2011-11-02 02:14:41 UTC
The tier 3s aren't supposed to be normal combat ships, they're anti-capital so they don't need the web bonus and they don't need the drones. I tend to avoid fights where caps could happen (find them terribly boring) so I would probably never fly one in combat but I see no issue with that.

If they're good at what they're supposed to do and allow swarms of lover sp folks to scare the living crap out of Scap pilots then by Jove it's worth it!
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2011-11-02 02:16:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jada Maroo
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
They flat out TOLD you the specs listed were for testing. I know we're not used to beleiving CCP but the ONE thing you can ALWAYS believe them about is when they say something isn't finished.

So no one has any issue with the revision?

People seem to be telling me that the Chaos development server stats where the first iteration... Some things changed in a questionible direction on the second revision, now we should keep quite because the previous version was the first iteration...

Right.

Roll



I'm not even commenting on the stats. I'm only commenting on your surprise that they changed. CCP said it wasn't finished. My god, after all these years, can we agree that is the one thing we can believe them about? They specialize in unfinished, they delivered unfinished, and we're supposed to be surprised? I am not surprised!
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#14 - 2011-11-02 02:19:03 UTC
Morganta wrote:
yeah, listen up you pack of amateur professors

testing numbers requires actually loading them on the server

that is unless you folks think its better for CCP to run the numbers on a pad of paper and not an actual game environment Roll

I am talking about the SECOND ITERATION. They have tested internally, made modifications, which I have seen, and are now addressing in this thread.


Also, the stuff about this being "Low SP anti capital" stuff is bollocks. These will have the survivability of t1 cruisers, which I hear isn't very long during the typical hellcat fleets these days.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#15 - 2011-11-02 02:21:59 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
They flat out TOLD you the specs listed were for testing. I know we're not used to beleiving CCP but the ONE thing you can ALWAYS believe them about is when they say something isn't finished.

So no one has any issue with the revision?

People seem to be telling me that the Chaos development server stats where the first iteration... Some things changed in a questionible direction on the second revision, now we should keep quite because the previous version was the first iteration...

Right.

Roll



I'm not even commenting on the stats. I'm only commenting on your surprise that they changed. CCP said it wasn't finished. My god, after all these years, can we agree that is the one thing we can believe them about? They specialize in unfinished, they delivered unfinished, and we're supposed to be surprised? I am not surprised!

Can you not understand the difference between criticise under desirable change, and criticise change. Nope? Ok. Thought not.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#16 - 2011-11-02 02:23:16 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Morganta wrote:
yeah, listen up you pack of amateur professors

testing numbers requires actually loading them on the server

that is unless you folks think its better for CCP to run the numbers on a pad of paper and not an actual game environment Roll

I am talking about the SECOND ITERATION. They have tested internally, made modifications, which I have seen, and are now addressing in this thread.


Also, the stuff about this being "Low SP anti capital" stuff is bollocks. These will have the survivability of t1 cruisers, which I hear isn't very long during the typical hellcat fleets these days.


and I bet they make some more later.

now STFU and stop being a backseat programmer, its people like you all across the gaming world who cause most game DEVS to never say anything of value.
Amro One
One.
#17 - 2011-11-02 02:24:50 UTC
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#18 - 2011-11-02 02:26:27 UTC
Morganta wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Morganta wrote:
yeah, listen up you pack of amateur professors

testing numbers requires actually loading them on the server

that is unless you folks think its better for CCP to run the numbers on a pad of paper and not an actual game environment Roll

I am talking about the SECOND ITERATION. They have tested internally, made modifications, which I have seen, and are now addressing in this thread.


Also, the stuff about this being "Low SP anti capital" stuff is bollocks. These will have the survivability of t1 cruisers, which I hear isn't very long during the typical hellcat fleets these days.


and I bet they make some more later.

now STFU and stop being a backseat programmer, its people like you all across the gaming world who cause most game DEVS to never say anything of value.

Yep, I'll just keep quiet, continue to pay my subscription and be thankful for whatever we receive broken, unfinished or otherwise...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#19 - 2011-11-02 02:26:39 UTC
I don't recall reading a post from CCP saying that the tier 3 BC were supposed to be anti-cap ships. While I don't argue that they could certainly be used in that role, I also agree that we should state what we think of the current stats, while being patient and understanding that they are not even close to finalized. Perhaps CCP is simply trying out extreme stats at the outset, and then will slowly focus in on what is best. Gotta start somewhere.

Kind of like that game on The Price is Right, Hi & Lo, where the player guesses a price and the host says higher or lower until the player gets it right or time runs out.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#20 - 2011-11-02 02:28:42 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
I don't recall reading a post from CCP saying that the tier 3 BC were supposed to be anti-cap ships. While I don't argue that they could certainly be used in that role, I also agree that we should state what we think of the current stats, while being patient and understanding that they are not even close to finalized. Perhaps CCP is simply trying out extreme stats at the outset, and then will slowly focus in on what is best. Gotta start somewhere.

Kind of like that game on The Price is Right, Hi & Lo, where the player guesses a price and the host says higher or lower until the player gets it right or time runs out.

Exactly.

First of all, the stats are on the public testing server. So, it's pathetic to suggest that we shouldn't offer comment until we see some final sort of state? (How the **** is it suppose to get there in any satisfactory state without feedback?)

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
123Next pageLast page