[10:51] <ccp_larrikin> @here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=484374 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=484374 [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[10:55] <jezza_mcwaffle> Couple of things, increase in CPU on the Nag I'm not sure is enough but no power grid buff at all? You'll kill at as usable dread.
[10:55] <jezza_mcwaffle> ECM immunity on Dreadnaughts rather than FAX's? Seems to be the opposite of what it should be
[10:55] <jezza_mcwaffle> (I'll take a looking at the tracking stuff in a bit)
[10:56] <ccp_larrikin> @jezza_mcwaffle: play around with soem fittings, nag already had a tone of Powergrid
[10:56] <ccp_larrikin> and refresh the post :slightly_smiling_face:
[10:56] <ccp_larrikin> Faux get ECM immunity too
[10:57] <darren_fox> Nice!
[10:57] <darren_fox> It doesn't say so in the forum post
[10:57] <jezza_mcwaffle> Too fast for you larrikin :stuck_out_tongue:
[10:58] <ccp_larrikin> refresh @darren_fox
[10:58] <darren_fox> That broke the *bold* tags :wink:
[10:58] <ccp_larrikin> refresh again
[11:01] <jezza_mcwaffle> I'll check out the Nag's PG in greater detail but I think 0 increase will cause serious problems which the Moros and the Phoenix do not share
[11:02] <darren_fox> For a reference; When the launcher slots and 2 highslots were removed in Odyssey, the Nag lost 180 CPU and 144000 PG
[11:04] <ccp_larrikin> Its something we'll look at :slightly_smiling_face: Its a quick change if we decide its needed. If you want to do some comparison fits I'd be more than happy to look at them
[11:09] <ccp_larrikin> re: missile range changes - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6523910#post6523910 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6523910#post6523910 is this readable?
[11:13] <darren_fox> If you refer to _Missiles now have the correct range when fired from large ships_, it is a kind of broad statement
[11:15] <darren_fox> Which is fine if it is basically a bugfix of missile range from ships with large hitbox
[11:16] <darren_fox> disregard, I refreshed before the second post was updated
[11:20] <titus.tallang> :+1:
[11:31] <tinkerhell> Changes look good
[11:32] <tinkerhell> Much love
[12:28] <xttz> * moves to w-space with a FAX and never loses a ship again
[12:34] <capqu> fujckin wormholers i swear to dog
[12:34] <capqu> i dont think there is a better example of loud minority in new eden
[12:34] <capqu> XxXaDaPtORDiexXxX
[13:18] <scott_ormands> 15% is only a minority when you compare it to k space as a whole and not against the different types of kspace (high, low, null)
[13:20] <scott_ormands> on a side note, is anyone else having trouble changing characters on evegate? the page errors out when I do that
[15:19] <scott_ormands> hmmm the problem went away as soon as i moved a pilot i had out of a citadel and into a station
[16:39] <sisterbliss> @ccp_lebowski: I posted in the feedback thread some points on change management which is driving a lot of ppl crazy. I'm not sure if explanations have been given in here previously or not but can we please start articulating the reasons behind the latest set of changes? On face value I can't help but say many of them instinctively feel bad.
[16:39] <sisterbliss> >.< @ccp_larrikin I meant
[16:43] <ccp_fozzie> I can tell you from experience that providing tons of detail and reasoning doesn't reduce the amount of tinfoil and nitpicking in the replies
[16:44] <sisterbliss> Honestly I disagree and from my experience I can back that up. Even if you provide a 1 liner on the reason so there is an explanation. You don't need everyone to agree to it, but there is a rationale. I'm looking at a lot of the changes in the latest patch notes and I've no idea why you've done them. Not communicating the rationale for changes if very bad practice.
[16:45] <sisterbliss> And I don't mean specifically on this set of patch notes, any time you introduce any significant change, you should do it. Not doing so makes your customers very very angry and drives a lot of negative behaviours in the forums and in the community. Most people are totally ignorant of change management unless they have had to work closely with customers.
[16:47] <ccp_larrikin> Hey @sisterbliss, I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the recent patch notes.
[16:48] <sisterbliss> I have about 5-6 easy ones, but I think you should put them out in the patch notes as standard practise. Honestly I'll buy you a case of beer if you don't find it improves your wellbeing and that of the community.
[16:49] <ccp_larrikin> ask away @sisterbliss
[16:49] <sisterbliss> 1. Why did the capital shield extenders get a 10% reduction in HP?
[16:50] <ccp_larrikin> from the Q&A section of the patch notes (2nd post) > The balance between shield and armor is a complicated issue. Shield gets some passive regen, repairs on the start of the cycle and the ability to fit both damage and tank at the same time. While armor often has a higher buffer and greater accesability to EWar modules while fitting tank.
[16:50] <ccp_larrikin> We believe that for capitals the balance is just a little too strong toward shields.
[16:50] <sisterbliss> ah hang on, I just saw the response to that now
[16:50] <sisterbliss> sec
[16:50] <ccp_larrikin> No problems
[16:54] <sisterbliss> Ok I understand that reasoning although I may not like it (having just converted all our caps to shield, you can imagine we're not amused. Possibly we may bin everything and go back to armor. This is btw the impact on customers). Have you also factored in the sig radius penalty into the equation or is a there a double penalty for shield caps as such?
[16:55] <ccp_larrikin> Yes, we've factored the sig radius penalty into the equation :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:58] <sisterbliss> Ok well that answers my question on the first point. I'd be curious to understand what indicators drove to the conclusion on the need to reduce by 10% of if it was just reflection on the original design. You don't need to answer, I am just curious.
[17:00] <ccp_larrikin> We made the shield extenders just a little too strong with their introduction in the Citadels expansion
[17:01] <sisterbliss> Yeah my question is (again out of curiosity), is there anecdotal evidence to suggest that in terms of a trend, or balance testing or a feeling based on reflection. Again I'm just being curious.
[17:02] <sisterbliss> i.e. I'm not personally seeing everyone switching to shield capitals for instance
[17:02] <capqu> because its too much investment
[17:02] <capqu> literally everyone with a brain knew shield was better post patch
[17:02] <capqu> probably still is
[17:03] <capqu> but the fact is most of the games supers are armor
[17:03] <sisterbliss> well thats why I'm asking CCP
[17:03] <sisterbliss> because there are many factors which influence shield vs armor supers
[17:03] <capqu> why do you need a personal explaination
[17:03] <capqu> can you not read the thread
[17:03] <sisterbliss> fuck off
[17:03] <capqu> if every dumb new csm idiot came in
[17:04] <capqu> and asked dumb questions
[17:04] <capqu> already answered
[17:04] <capqu> u think we'd get anything done? no they'd just ignore this channel again
[17:04] <sisterbliss> my question isn't answered, I don't need some entitled fuckface telling me I cant ask a question
[17:04] <capqu> yea i'm the entitled fuck lmao
[17:04] <sisterbliss> you are, why did you even need to enter the debate by being an asshoe?
[17:05] <sisterbliss> I'm asking a simple question and not being an ass about it
[17:05] <sisterbliss> and you come in like a cunt
[17:05] <sisterbliss> gg
[17:05] <capqu> i disagree
[17:05] <capqu> you started the hostilities not me
[17:05] <sisterbliss> capqu [6:03 PM]
[17:05] <sisterbliss> why do you need a personal explaination
[17:05] <sisterbliss> [6:03]
[17:05] <sisterbliss> can you not read the thread
[17:05] <capqu> thats a question
[17:05] <ccp_larrikin> Lets move on with any more questions, I've got an appointment I'll need to leave for soon :slightly_smiling_face:
[17:05] <sisterbliss> read my question
[17:07] <capqu> any news on the tracking formulae for titans ccp_larrikin
[17:07] <capqu> current plan still up in the air?
[17:07] <sisterbliss> Thanks @ccp_larrikin , my second question was on the Nag PG but I see you've posted a reply on that being under consideration so will wait until you've reviewed.
[17:07] <ccp_larrikin> @capqu: no word yet :disappointed:
[17:07] <sisterbliss> My last question was on the ECM immunity thing and decision to reverse away from the ECM resistance concept.
[17:07] <ccp_larrikin> hopefully next week
[17:08] <capqu> i guess you're waiting for some feedback from some programmers yea?
[17:09] <ccp_larrikin> @sisterbliss: ECM resistance exists, but it doesn't make any practical sence. Giving dreads a 50% ECM resistance would lower the jam strength of anyone trying to jam them by 50%, and the same result could be achieved by increasing the sensor strength of the dread by 50% (don't quote me on that exact figure).
[17:10] <ccp_larrikin> Given player feedback and the immobility of Bastion/Triage/Siege we decided to re-introduce ECM immunity. This doesn't effect other EWar.
[17:10] <capqu> ecms main issue is no dr
[17:10] <capqu> all the other ewar has dr
[17:11] <ccp_larrikin> define DR?
[17:11] <sisterbliss> Ok sorry I didn't mean specifically ecm resistance vs. say sensor strength, but the move away from the ability to jam to not being able to ham
[17:11] <sisterbliss> jam*
[17:11] <capqu> diminishing returns
[17:11] <capqu> paints, damps, webs etc
[17:11] <ccp_larrikin> yeah
[17:11] <titus.tallang> stacking penalties
[17:11] <titus.tallang> 10 damps are as strong as 100 damps are as strong as 4 damps
[17:11] <capqu> with ecm if u have infinite ecm you can guarenteed jam anything
[17:11] <titus.tallang> 10 jams are way stronger than 4 jams
[17:12] <capqu> how hard would it be for a failed jam
[17:12] <capqu> to give the target ship +% sensor strength
[17:12] <capqu> for the duration of the failed jam
[17:12] <ccp_larrikin> and exactly waht capqu said. Their are no diminishing returns for ECM, its binary (which I'm sure your well aware). I know there have been proposals for reducing the jam time, etc. but any changes of that magnatude would be part of a larger ECM rework.
[17:13] <capqu> i dont think anyone would complain about an ecm reword but i suppose its out of the scope of the capital changes
[17:13] <capqu> rework*
[17:13] <capqu> god bless feature creep
[17:14] <sisterbliss> yeah am aware of ecm mechanics vs other ewar mechanics and stacking and so on. you answered 'based on player feedback', thank you
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> I'm sure you guys ahve seen the chats from FF2016. We're always keen to hear ideas for an ECM Rework :slightly_smiling_face:
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> *presentations from FF2016
[17:15] <ccp_larrikin> anyway, I GTG m8s, I'll try and log on over the weekend if people have questions )
[17:15] <sisterbliss> np ty
[17:15] <capqu> ur welcome
[17:15] <titus.tallang> sisterbliss: wspace started throwing 20 ecmgus at everything
[17:15] <sisterbliss> 9
[17:15] <titus.tallang> and deciding fights based on "who rolls jams" is silly :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:16] <capqu> that is a problem of fax power in whs tho
[17:16] <capqu> not just ecm
[17:16] <sisterbliss> (not you capqu, you can fuck off still :stuck_out_tongue: )
[17:16] <capqu> woeOw
[17:16] <titus.tallang> no it's because ecm makes the fax completely useless
[17:16] <sisterbliss> yeah I can see that @titus.tallang
[17:16] <titus.tallang> while everything else has it have some use
[17:16] <titus.tallang> ecm is a fucked mechanic anyway
[17:16] <capqu> no titus.tallang, the reason for mass ecm swap
[17:16] <titus.tallang> considering the delta between "success" and "no success"
[17:16] <capqu> was entirely around how overpowered faxes are
[17:16] <capqu> in whs
[17:16] <titus.tallang> capqu: is that neuts are way worse against them now
[17:16] <titus.tallang> i know
[17:17] <capqu> the gallente one with like a bazinga load of heavy boosters in the mids
[17:17] <capqu> is just stupid
[17:17] <titus.tallang> i know
[17:17] <titus.tallang> :=)
[17:17] <titus.tallang> we have some of those
[17:23] <titus.tallang> so
[17:23] <titus.tallang> is there any way to change the hotkeys for fighter abilities
[17:24] <titus.tallang> because i can't toggle my modules while i have fighters out
[17:37] <sisterbliss> do you mean ship modules or fighter modules?
[17:37] <sisterbliss> I don't think there is hmm
[17:42] <lex_arson> @ccp_larrikin:
[17:47] <titus.tallang> ship mods, @sisterbliss
[17:47] <titus.tallang> because i have ship mods changed to qwertyasdfg etc
[17:47] <titus.tallang> but fighters stop me from using those
[17:53] <titus.tallang> also my fleet tells me to say hi to @noobman
[19:25] <titus.tallang> ok so
[19:25] <titus.tallang> @ccp_larrikin: can we get a confirmation button for when you kick someone else out of citadel control
[19:25] <titus.tallang> i just kicked someone out twice accidentally
[19:25] <titus.tallang> :picard:
[20:08] <xttz> I only get the confirmation when it's another director in the seat
[20:08] <xttz> anyone else gets booted with no warning
[20:08] <titus.tallang> i just kicked another director out
[20:08] <titus.tallang> without warning
[20:08] <titus.tallang> i actually kicked the CEO out without warning too