Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:40:00 -
[271] - Quote
[Caracal, future] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Optimal Range Disruption Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Medium Ionic Field Projector I
heh. just enough cpu. 50% TDs even without links. |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[272] - Quote
Still not enough TD's, once the missile patch goes live. I mean, ultimate EWar man, they ruin everybody's day. Kinda like the ECM of today, but they don't suffer from chance based mechanics. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:48:00 -
[273] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Do you actually solo or small gang PVP or are you just teasing?
I think he meant solo/small gang PvE only.
What the ****. Is that even a thing?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:55:00 -
[274] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Do you actually solo or small gang PVP or are you just teasing?
I think he meant solo/small gang PvE only. What the ****. Is that even a thing? -Liang
Different people, different priorities |
Dan Carter Murray
125
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:48:00 -
[275] - Quote
how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?
increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed). |
Alara IonStorm
3179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:30:00 -
[276] - Quote
Dan Carter Murray wrote:how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?
increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed). Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates.
If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit.
The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:51:00 -
[277] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Dan Carter Murray wrote:how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?
increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed). Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates. If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit. The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP.
1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:54:00 -
[278] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Dan Carter Murray wrote:how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?
increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed). Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates. If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit. The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP. 1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.
There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable. |
Alara IonStorm
3179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:00:00 -
[279] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: 1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.
And I have written positively everywhere that that is the case. I did not say 1600mm Plates should stay as Cruiser Mods, just that as current removing them from the equation will not help 800mm plates get put into practical use period.
MIrple wrote: There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable.
Yes because Cruisers that are fit with 1600mm plates being terrible the obvious solution is to nerf them further, that will make them more used.
Cutting their HP close to in half is not the solution. Making 800mm Plates worth it to fit and fixing the core tanking imbalance is. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:14:00 -
[280] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: 1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.
And I have written positively everywhere that that is the case. I did not say 1600mm Plates should stay as Cruiser Mods, just that as current removing them from the equation will not help 800mm plates get put into practical use period. MIrple wrote: There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable.
Yes because Cruisers that are fit with 1600mm plates being terrible the obvious solution is to nerf them further, that will make them more used. Cutting their HP close to in half is not the solution. Making 800mm Plates worth it to fit and fixing the core tanking imbalance is.
I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed. |
|
Alara IonStorm
3180
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:30:00 -
[281] - Quote
MIrple wrote: I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed.
A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties.
If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would.
The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg.
But that is just my take on it. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:46:00 -
[282] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:MIrple wrote: I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed.
A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties. If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would. The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg. But that is just my take on it.
I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with. Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think.
slow buffer without cap reliance vs fast active with cap reliance
Both options should be viable ( just with different setups )
But that is just my take on it. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:06:00 -
[283] - Quote
I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:11:00 -
[284] - Quote
There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do. Ideas for drone improvement |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:13:00 -
[285] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.
Your joking right? If you are serious then what about shield extenders they must be severely broken as they can be fit multiple times to cruisers and it is difficult to fit 1 1600 to most cruisers. 800 mm are cruiser sized plates.
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:17:00 -
[286] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.
Now you've done it. You have single handedly killed armour tanking.
Seriously mate, you should stop drinking, it's making you say stupid things. |
Deen Wispa
Justified Chaos
328
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:24:00 -
[287] - Quote
CCP- I'd like to see some out of the box thinking with Gallente ships. As someone else mentioned, adding a dronebay to other ships where they simplly add their Hornet ECM drones only negates the uniqueness of Gallente ships which are known as drone boats.
Why not consider giving Gallente drone boats a bonus to utility drones? Eg; 10% bonus per level to utility drones like webbing drones or neuting drones?
Why not also consider giving a bonus to webbing or scram range to a ship like the Thorax? But don't make it so overpowering that it competes with the Vigilant or T2 ships
Gallente FW Blog http://iamsheriff.com/blog C'est La Eve :) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:26:00 -
[288] - Quote
so CCP Fozzie I'm curious if the stabber fleet issue will get the same bonuses but with its armour layout intact and if you have looked at the faction cruisers yet or if that's something for once the you have done bc's? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:26:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 (-10) Cargo capacity: 450
Question
I'm not seeing any recharge information on the shields.
Will the Caracal still be retaining the ability to passive shield tank, or is the shield recharge rate being dropped, thus suggesting an active shield tank? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:35:00 -
[290] - Quote
MIrple wrote:I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation.
Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then?
I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs. You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases. The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss. Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area.
But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after. |
|
M1k3y Koontz
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:36:00 -
[291] - Quote
HML nerf
GÖÑ you long time!!!
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:42:00 -
[292] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:HML nerf
GÖÑ you long time!!!
HML well wishes, condolences, tear extraction and gathering are that way >> Poor Fozzie takes beatings and evils |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:46:00 -
[293] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:MIrple wrote:I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation. Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then? I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs. You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases. The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss. Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area. But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after.
What could be done to make active tanking more attractive is giving active tanking ships resist bonuses so we can have fewer actual HP but still more EHP that way we can still broadcast in time for reps. While the passive or buffer tanking ships could get a bonus to HP so they have more HP to buffer to allow for reps. You would need to lower the pg on active tanking ships so they couldn't add the plates to make up for this and still keep them fast and agile while the HP bonuses ships could have more PG to fit the plates as they are slower already. Probably not a good idea but this makes more sense to me as in fleets local tank is just not realistic. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Anger Management.
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:54:00 -
[294] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:MIrple wrote: I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed.
A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties. If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would. The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg. But that is just my take on it. I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with. Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think. slow buffer without cap reliance vs fast active with cap reliance Both options should be viable ( just with different setups ) But that is just my take on it.
If you like to pew small gang style check us out.-á
http://exanimo.enjin.com/page/150364/recruitment-á |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:04:00 -
[295] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:MIrple wrote:I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation. Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then? I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs. You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases. The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss. Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area. But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after. What could be done to make active tanking more attractive is giving active tanking ships resist bonuses so we can have fewer actual HP but still more EHP that way we can still broadcast in time for reps. While the passive or buffer tanking ships could get a bonus to HP so they have more HP to buffer to allow for reps. You would need to lower the pg on active tanking ships so they couldn't add the plates to make up for this and still keep them fast and agile while the HP bonuses ships could have more PG to fit the plates as they are slower already. Probably not a good idea but this makes more sense to me as in fleets local tank is just not realistic.
Yeah I'm afraid that local tank in fleets will never really work when logis are around. Buffer will always dominate here no matter how hard you buff local tank on armour ( can't overbuff it, keeping in mind other forms of engagements ). Also, the Amarr ships get this bonus so placing it on Gallente boats would bring those races too close to each other for my taste. Variety is a good thing to have.
I think it would be better to limit practical applications of active tank to smaller engagements. That way it could be actually balanced properly. Trying to balance something like that in the whole spectrum of applications will never work and we will be left with something that is just as broken as before this kind of 'rebalancing'. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:09:00 -
[296] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do. Your joking right? If you are serious then what about shield extenders they must be severely broken as they can be fit multiple times to cruisers and it is difficult to fit 1 1600 to most cruisers. 800 mm are cruiser sized plates. I know this, fact is if you want to use 1600mm plates then ppl shouls just accept that if you are going to, then you will lose offensive capabilities, 800mm HP is fine in the respect that if doubles the raw HP of cruisers from one module, that is pretty good. As far as shields go there is no true battleship size module, as u stated the LSE is a cruiser size module.
So yes i was joking. Ideas for drone improvement |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:09:00 -
[297] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:MIrple wrote: I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed.
A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties. If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would. The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg. But that is just my take on it. I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with. Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think. slow buffer without cap reliance vs fast active with cap reliance Both options should be viable ( just with different setups ) But that is just my take on it. Damnit forum ate my post TLDR removing rig penaltiies (using skills) would allow player skills and fit to decide the performance of a ship. shield is already faster and more agile with better damage projection. If I want to fit my armor ship with speed rigs don't penalize me 2 times first by me not fitting trimarks and then by having a darn penalty. LOL penalize
Yes this should take away hull points not armor points. It would go more inline with nanos that way also.
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:12:00 -
[298] - Quote
Wivabel wrote: Damnit forum ate my post
TLDR removing rig penaltiies (using skills) would allow player skills and fit to decide the performance of a ship. shield is already faster and more agile with better damage projection. If I want to fit my armor ship with speed rigs don't penalize me 2 times first by me not fitting trimarks and then by having a darn penalty.
LOL penalize
Personally I wouldn't mind if ALL rig penalties were removed with evel 5 riggings skills and compensated somewhere else.
In case of plates - they could have their mass addition altered to influence that change so that we won't end with heavily buffer tanked and still mobile ships ( that would be simply wrong ).
Maybe tinkering with calibration values could also help. Making it so that you can't fit some combinations of rigs like 3x trimarks for instance. |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:01:00 -
[299] - Quote
The fact that its better to shield tank the thorax than it is to armor proves that the gallente armor blaster philosophy is broken.
The shield talos is one of the best blaster ships in the game. Fast, mobile, and does lots of damage.
While the failtastic active armor tanking Hyperion is rare used compared to the megathron and its variants.
"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:29:00 -
[300] - Quote
With all these fitting changes it's so hard to know what will be possible to fit after patch and therefor give feedback, any chance you could post a few examples? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |