Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
150
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 08:49:00 -
[451] - Quote
Valkyrie D'ark wrote: This is a horrible idea. You guys concentrate on one piece of a jigsaw puzzle but forget the big picture. Remember that capital ships are also part of the fleet booster family. Do you expect them to run after and keep up with all the members in the fleet? What about Rorquals and Orcas?
You could keep your fleet within range to receive boosts from the capitals. Or just have separate boosters for capitals and subcapitals.
Quote: Also you would want your squads throughout the solar system to be receiving bonuses, no matter where they are, not force them to blob.
Multiple command ships. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2655
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 08:51:00 -
[452] - Quote
The megathron changes are not very well thought out. The ship, as is, already has low EHP by battleship standards with virtually any feasible fit. Lowering it further to add speed will not fix the ships glaring deficiency in its inability to close range - it will be dead on arrival in most cases.
There are better aspects of the ship to trade off for added maximum velocity. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1061
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:00:00 -
[453] - Quote
Good changes, best blog I've read in a while, looking forward to this but one thing:
COULD YOU PLEASE HURRY UP AND FIX THE T2 SHIPS THAT I SPENT YEARS TRAINING FOR, they kinda all got marginalized and while I do realize they're coming, its taking FOREVER.
Inties are largely outshown by faction frigs
Hacs are outdone by t3's in almost every case and every way
Recons are largely ok, unless you fly an arazu or a pilgrim
The rest are pretty much fine once you do this thing you've got planned for command ships but
those are the ones I think a LOT of us are waiting for. |
Infinion
Awesome Corp
32
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:03:00 -
[454] - Quote
CCP realized that having t2 gang warfare links made their bonuses on t3 cruisers way too overpowered, so now they are nerfing the t3 cruisers so a t2 warfare link gives the same bonus as a t1...
Also I hope CCP decides to finally make t3 cruisers reconfigurable in space because that's something they promised a few years ago that never got done amongst other things. |
pussnheels
The Fiction Factory
704
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:03:00 -
[455] - Quote
open mind about the ship balacing i will see when the final stats come out what i am worried about the the skill overhaul racial frig lvl 4 < racial destroyer lvl 4 < racial cruiser lvl 4 < racial batlecruise level 4 racial battleship level 4
ok i understand why and see the logic in it but why change it and what about people who never bothered to train destroyers or battle cruiser to level 4and are now flying a cap or other ship that need those skills , you can not expect them to be happy that all the sudden they can not fly their ship anymore just because they miss the destroyer or battle cruiser skill
i can already imagine the threads on the forums about that I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
74
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:04:00 -
[456] - Quote
My feeling is that the battlecruiser line ought to aim for the baseline of the Tier 1s - 16 slots rather than 17 for a start... The biggest difficulty is the Tier 3s. The Ferox focussed on long range firepower is never going to work when compared to the Naga with its eight higher base range battleship guns, their higher base damage and the ship's damage bonus.
The tier 3s are, of course, glass cannon but in many situations glass is more than enough when the damage they can put out is considered.
I'm almost tempted to suggest ignoring the Tier 3s when it comes to balancing the BCs... They're just too great a paradigm shift. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1818
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:06:00 -
[457] - Quote
Remove rig penalties.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jack Mayhem
Kaer Industries
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:06:00 -
[458] - Quote
Some good changes, some bad.
Ferox should be left as close-range brawler. The hull is finally being flown after recent changes, and you want to put into shelf again. Plus with sniping Ferox, Caldari BC line won't have any close range brawlers (if Drake loses it's resistance bonus).
Information links should be buffed. One idea is making them boost gun/missile bonuses (optimal, fall-off, tracking). Though that would make shield kiting setups even more powerful.
I would much prefer keeping off grid boosting, but making it less powerful than on-grid. That's the only way to fight 2-3 ships and still manage to kill at least one before you die yourself.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
70
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:09:00 -
[459] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Typhoon - The thing is designed to be versatile. It is one of the fastest BS. Even with four 1600 plates on it - it will go 1km/s. It has a sig radius of 320 - one of the smallest BS out there. It has a 175m^3 drone bay - second only to the Domi, at least T1 wise. You can go five AC or five Torps. Hell - I still will go 4 and 4. The thing can break 1k DPS without any damage mods on. With the changes coming to skills application to Torps and the possible application of TE and TC to both the AC and the torps - the sky is the limit. The are nuet variants and hospital variants. The only real weakness the ship has is it's fitting grid. It's anemic. It's one of the few Minmatar ships to truly have issues. I'm not even sure that's a bad thing. But if you wanted to make it more new guy friendly that is where I would start. Forcing it to go pure torp may very well relegate it to PVE for eternity. Let's face it - BS have fallen out of favor in the past couple of years. They are slow. They lock slow. BC are more flexible tools that can get the same job done. Some BC approach BS level tanks. With all the tier 2 BC losing a slot, BS may very well make a comeback. But I think a lot of people wanted to see changes to mass, lock time, EHP, etc. The typhoon is loved by it's pilots for it's flexibility. If you haven't seen many of them out and about it's probably more due to armor tanking issues, torp issues, and BC popularity then the ship itself. Let's not turn it into a jumbo Bellicose please.
i see it the same way. turning the typhoon into a torp-boat would be a vicious kick into the minmatar soul's groin. this ship can do soo much and it's actually balanced with the restrictive fitting resources. it's one of the examples where split weapons actually work. why would anyone destroy that?
turning it into a armor raven may be good for the statistics in a spread sheet, but dont fix it when its not broken! in a way you already have the possibility to use it as a torp boat and with the upcoming torp buff their will be uses for this kind of phoon, but please dont take the other candies away. |
Jackie Fisher
syrkos technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
138
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:11:00 -
[460] - Quote
Mention of armour tanking balancing is made again, as it has been in other balancing threads. Is there any timetable for this yet? Obviously not for Dec 4 but will this be after the BC/BB balancing? After T2? After Ipswich Town win the Champions League? Fear God and Thread Nought |
|
Ricc Deckard
Trux Germani Ev0ke
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:23:00 -
[461] - Quote
Quote:With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.
Would you recomment in the opposite case.... let's say if someone is skilling a pure carrier character .... to wait with skilling BS V even if it doesn't fit into the remapping scheme? ;) Or will this change (Only Racial BS IV needed for Racial Carrier skill) come more likely later in the next year?
Would be pretty awesome to get a hint on this - could save me a month |
Noisrevbus
272
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:27:00 -
[462] - Quote
I hate always having to be a negative nancy, but every time a new balance thread comes up these days it scares the living crap out of me - because they never make sense, they are never explained and they never seem to look at how ships are actually used.
It's common among player to throw out statements without proper definition and it's also common for players to look at if ships get used but not how or why.
If you are game designer at CCP, i naturally demand more from you: you are a professional.
Yet here we are looking at devblogs and we see comments such as "the problem of shield versus armor tanking" and "the problem of active versus buffer tanking".
What god damn problems? Motivate them!
I mean, those are issues we have been discussing quite alot in the community (without CCP participating), yet they are still highly disputed topics that recur from time to time. The simple assumption that these are issues without any depth and motivation, that is the most shallow standpoint representated by the least intelligent and discoursive players. Yet that's the standpoint assumed in the devblog. It's appeasing stupidity.
The balance of active versus buffer for example, is entirely tied to scale. It's simple math and logic. Regardless of how a ship is tanked: any ship will die if it's buffer is volleyed. As gang sizes grow, and volley damage stack, it thus become natural to raise the relative buffer of your ships (and buffer tank them, aided by remote repairs).
As long as scale (the size and setup of gangs meeting each other) remain below what you can volley on an unfit ship, there is no "problem" with active tanks over buffer tanks.
The balance between armor and shield is even more complicated, so when you throw out a random assumption of problems in it's balance, you better explain to us what the problem is and how you intend to fix it.
Without those fundamental concerns adressed, there is no possible way you could hope to achieve a good final balance.
The same goes for analyzing ship use (the how's and why's).
Your take on the Command links serve an excellent example. It's an exhausted topic. It's been discussed in several lengthy threads here on the forums. It's been discussed in various playerblogs and it's been up on the popular community news sites. There's been little participating from the developer side and now you roll in with a very final idea without commenting on any concerns raised.
One of the most important factors Tech III command links play now, is that it's superior bonuses allow smaller groups to bridge the gap required to interact with larger groups. That creates content, as they have a chance or purpose to engage. I'm not necessarily speaking of the most common concern in this regard. Several players have raised the issue that if links are required on grid a larger gang will just pop the smaller gang's booster while they are unable to respond. I'm not sure if i entirely agree with that statement, instead, i look at how the ships are used now.
The superior bonuses have up until recently primarily been used on smaller agile or flexible gangs that can't commit. That last bit is important, they can't commit. Seeding those links over to a ship class with much less flexibility in how it commits will just further chafe off "up engagement" from this game. It will discourage attempting to engage a gang you can't commit to. This is important, because logic tells you that it should be on the advantageous gang to take risks and play offensive. Large gangs rarely do that today, in this buffer-projection era.
Notable examples include fast gangs, where the Tech III ships either are speedy enough or cloaky enough to keep up. This include bringing a booster to supplement various frigate and cruiser gangs. If you look at the two CS that traditionally have seen alot of use, the Claymore and the Damnation, their use is motivated by the same reasons: the Claymore was fast enough to stay with shield-tanked cruiser-sized gangs (the Vulture wasn't, so it has only been used as a fleet dispenser) and the Damnation was tanky enough to stay with battleships (the Eos wasn't, so it was kept as a specialist small-gang, small-ship booster rarely seeing the light of day; in part also because the Proteus did all that better).
They also include cloaky gangs, and that is perhaps where the example is most visible. With speed and reach losing it's ground as equalizers, cloaking - and more importantly: control - have for quite a while now remained as the last bastion. The ability to engage a larger gang with an advantage in speed or reach shifted over to engaging a larger gang with superior control (it became all about not making sure the few lynchpins got to play their role - when a gang had many basline ships and a few important lynchpins). That's how a cloaky gang remained functional, because everyone was a lynchpin and the gang retained a higher control thanks to a higher amount of total EW and better bonuses to the EW (they pointed, webbed, ECM'ed and damped from further away - not necessarily shot from further away).
Give strength bonuses to slower, larger and more cumbersome CS and you shift that dynamic too, in favour of a larger and more bulky gang. The smaller gangs (wether they are speedy or cloaky) can not bring a CS so they will have inferior bonuses to things like speed and control which they rely on. Funny thing, isn't it?
Don't you want smaller gangs to have a reason to interact with larger gangs? Everything you've done recently suggest the opposite. |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:37:00 -
[463] - Quote
I don't get how people always assume that large fleets never have T3 links as well. Ugleb > and TDR won't log in so long as their core members are demotivated for whichever reason is in flavour this week |
Noisrevbus
272
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:43:00 -
[464] - Quote
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:I don't get how people always assume that large fleets never have T3 links as well.
I think you're missing the point chief.
The question is not wether small or large gangs use boosters.
The question is what kind of gangs a Tech III and a CS respectively can fly with, what kind of tactics those gangs are able to pull and wether that in turn have an effect on scale.
So it's not really a question of a large gang using Tech III links versus a small gang, it's the difficulty of a small gang to use CS links against a large gang - wether you look at the composition of the gang or the situation for a CS on the field.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2877
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:46:00 -
[465] - Quote
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:I don't get how people always assume that large fleets never have T3 links as well.
It's because they want to protect their advantage, but know they can't really justify that position. This forces them to appeal to emotions in an effort to get the other side to back down without a fight and ignore the obvious holes in their logic. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
540
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:11:00 -
[466] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:One of the most important factors Tech III command links play now, is that it's superior bonuses allow smaller groups to bridge the gap required to interact with larger groups.
The notion that offgrid boosting is good for the game because it allows small groups to fight "the blob" is a big lie. It's an attempt to associate the cheesy OGB with small gang PvP that everyone respects, as if larger gangs never had access to OGB (in reality the likelyhood of a gang having OGB grows with its size).
In reality OGB has already done massive damage to small gang PvP because if you don't have OGB you're not competitive. This drives people into blobs, into getting OGB themselves (worsening the problem) or out of PvP alltogether.
Basically OGB is the cause of the problem it pretends to be the solution for. |
Yabba Addict
Red Shift Enterprises
40
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:17:00 -
[467] - Quote
T3 command ship is being shafted into never being used, silly, very silly. You should've had the T2 BCs as the blob command ship, 3% boost to on grid and off grid and a huge tank and largish sig (see whatidid there?). Then T3 for gangs, 5% boost to on grid only (because it's designed for gang fights you'll need 5% to make any difference, to make using it worthwhile), no crazy tank but can do a reasonable job at it, and can't fit command processors, and does pretty good damage. There ya go, 2 different roles that will both be used. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:19:00 -
[468] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Forlorn Wongraven wrote:I don't get how people always assume that large fleets never have T3 links as well. It's because they want to protect their advantage, but know they can't really justify that position. This forces them to appeal to emotions in an effort to get the other side to back down without a fight and ignore the obvious holes in their logic.
It's less that large fleets don't have T3 links. It's that they tend to make worse / less use of them.
ie. When the only ships making full use of your skirmish links are your tackle and they're getting mercilessly webbed and blapped; the fast gang is at an advantage.
or, when an EWAR based gang is getting Info Links and your gang isn't.... then targetting anything with your key ships is going to be tough.
All that being said, I'm holding judgement on "on grid boosts" until I see what Command ships look like, and what the precise implementation is. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
56
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:23:00 -
[469] - Quote
As someone with all leadership skills to 5 all I can say is:
YAY!!!!!! thank you thank you thank you!!!
Offgrid boosting is so boring it isnt funny, and cant wait to be able to dps in my sexy damnation! ROAR!!!!! |
Anje Lovisa
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:31:00 -
[470] - Quote
Quick question...
Will the Rokh finally get a small upgrade on drone capacity so it has 75m3? I never quite got why it had so small a drone bay. Probably a very minor detail but it's bugged me for a while now.
Rokh +25! |
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
496
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:31:00 -
[471] - Quote
This may have been mentioned, but can you just clarify...
If you currently have Battlecruisers & Destroyers 5, then we will get ALL the racial Battlecruiser & Destroyer skills to 5 also ?
You say that "if we can fly it now, we will still be able to fly it". Just being able to fly it, is not enough, we need to be able to fly it to the same standard as before, as we put in the training time to do that.
If not, then we will need a reimbrsement of the skill points spent on this as is now of no use, seeing as we will have to train all racial skills to 5 seperately. |
Noisrevbus
273
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:33:00 -
[472] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Noisrevbus wrote:One of the most important factors Tech III command links play now, is that it's superior bonuses allow smaller groups to bridge the gap required to interact with larger groups. The notion that offgrid boosting is good for the game because it allows small groups to fight "the blob" is a big lie. It's an attempt to associate the cheesy OGB with small gang PvP that everyone respects, as if larger gangs never had access to OGB (in reality the likelyhood of a gang having OGB grows with its size). In reality OGB has already done massive damage to small gang PvP because if you don't have OGB you're not competitive. This drives people into blobs, into getting OGB themselves (worsening the problem) or out of PvP alltogether. The OGB apologists present OGB as the solution to the problem OGB itself has contributed to creating.
You too are assuming too much and missing the point, chief.
I'm not talking about OGB.
I'm talking about the Tech III being a cloaky and fast cruiser.
The CS is a slow and bulky battle cruiser.
The change in command links will provide slower and bulkier gangs with better bonuses (which they already have through Titans).
The fact that a large gang is usually slow and bulky while a small gang tend to be fast or cloaky is of secondary importance. The fact that you can offgrid a Tech III easier isn't really much of any importance.
A small specialist gang have less use of "more yet weaker" bonuses, they don't have enough ships to make proper use of more bonuses and they rely on having superior bonuses to function, because they are specialist ships. With this change their engagement envelope goes down. Regardless of who they fight. So they will fight less. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1818
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:34:00 -
[473] - Quote
Every fleet medium to large scale has T3 boosters filling the slots. It is simply standard protocol. So the most a small gang can hope to do is tie as far as bonuses goes. If boosters are forced on grid only then what that would allow a small gang to do is be able to take advantage of off grid prey. Ships who venture off scouting other parts of the system or warp off to a celestial during a large fight. That small gang can stick together, with their on grid booster, and actually have an advantage over the stragglers from the main fleet.
Anyone arguing off grid boosters should stay for the sake of small scale PvP is simply lying their ass off to protect their off grid boosters for their massive fleet fights.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 10:56:00 -
[474] - Quote
i was asking myself a question about the BC / destro skills.
i understood that, since i have all cruiser 4 and BC 5, i will have all BC skills granted.
BUT, i couldn't find if they will be granted at level 5, allowing me to still fly naga, myrmidon and hurricane the same way i do today, with the same bonuses.
if no, then don't even bother bring this on TQ CCP |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2293
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 11:06:00 -
[475] - Quote
nikon56 wrote:i was asking myself a question about the BC / destro skills.
i understood that, since i have all cruiser 4 and BC 5, i will have all BC skills granted.
BUT, i couldn't find if they will be granted at level 5, allowing me to still fly naga, myrmidon and hurricane the same way i do today, with the same bonuses.
if no, then don't even bother bring this on TQ CCP
I can understand the confusion so I'll repeat on this page so as many people see it as possible:
You'll be able to use the ships you could use before, at the same skill levels you could use them at before. So if you can fly Hurricanes with BC V, you'll get Minmatar BC V Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
407
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 11:11:00 -
[476] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:nikon56 wrote:i was asking myself a question about the BC / destro skills.
i understood that, since i have all cruiser 4 and BC 5, i will have all BC skills granted.
BUT, i couldn't find if they will be granted at level 5, allowing me to still fly naga, myrmidon and hurricane the same way i do today, with the same bonuses.
if no, then don't even bother bring this on TQ CCP I can understand the confusion so I'll repeat on this page so as many people see it as possible: You'll be able to use the ships you could use before, at the same skill levels you could use them at before. So if you can fly Hurricanes with BC V, you'll get Minmatar BC V
given i have BC 4.5 (trained 50%) and all cruiser skills at V, will i get all BC skills at 4 or at 4.5 ? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2293
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 11:39:00 -
[477] - Quote
Rational Integers only Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 12:06:00 -
[478] - Quote
Quote: First, letGÇÖs have a look at the disruption line, which only has one ship so far:
Scorpion: fine at the moment, it dies fast in fleet of course, but thatGÇÖs what the ECM role brings to the hull anyway.
Not sure I liked this section. There were earlier comments about making all t1 BS's have an EWar bonus. I do not like have an entire role held up by a single battleship.
The command changes look pretty good. If you are looking at forcing them on grid to give boni then maybe the answer to the tank problem would be to add a slight tank bonus to the ship received from the link itself that way they are extra tanky and it's offset by the reduction in DPS from the loss of a high slot. Alternatively, you could give the mods themselves a restriction similar to probe launchers and smartbombs to which they cannot be activated within an online pos. I've been thinking that we should get the majority of the boni from the links and not the mind-links too, there is too much focus on an implant for the role - in my eyes.
The real test will be if those command ships can fit a full tank and all 3 links.
Additionally, you should look at removing command processors as a whole with this change, just an idea. |
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 12:09:00 -
[479] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?
So in each tick you want to select all ships on field belonging to a particular fleet, and then run a distance calculation from all boosters for every ship, and then repeat for all fleets.
Don't get me wrong I like the concept, but you're a braver man than I am... |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage Peregrine Nation
59
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 12:10:00 -
[480] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:As someone with all leadership skills to 5 all I can say is:
YAY!!!!!! thank you thank you thank you!!!
Offgrid boosting is so boring it isnt funny, and cant wait to be able to dps in my sexy damnation! ROAR!!!!!
But unless that sexy ship gets some serious bonus to tank, you will be boosting for a very short time before it becomes a sexy wreck and you a sexy frozen corpse. I would think the first target priority will be the on grid booster and it wouldn't take much to dust it. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |