Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
127
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 21:33:00 -
[271] - Quote
No. The talos does not need to remove the drones because that is not what the drones do. They don't "blap" jack ****, and chances are they barely have time to even reach the frig and start applying the whopping sub-100 dps before the frig dies. You could happily give drones to all of the t3 bc's and the effect would be the same. They have such amazing dps projection that they will kill most frigs far before their drones can ever reach them to be an issue.
Even if you were to use your 5 hobgobs/warriors against a frig, that was say scramming you, it wouldn't matter because the frig can tank the drones long enough to either kill the drones or kill you with your pitiful tank. In fact it kind of goes to show that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about damage drones, when anyone with 1/2 a brain will just be using ec-300s anyways, gven that they are the only way that you can hope to run away if you get scrammed.
Again though, the amount of versatility that the drones offer to the talos is fairly minimal.
As has been said time and time again, projecting between 600-1000 dps out to 20-70km in the case of the t3 bc's using short range guns is the real problem. They simply give far too much dps, with an insanely overpowered projection to even be remotely considered balanced. You could nerf the speed down to that of a drake, going 1k/s and it still wouldn't matter for gangs because you are still going to be sitting at between 20-70km projecting insane dps in a ship that costs at most maybe 80-90mil after insurance.
The speed of the t3 bc's helps to exacerbate the problem of the t3 bc's, but the real problem has always and will continue to remain in their damage projection. As I have said before, these changes will do nothing of value to fix them. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:16:00 -
[272] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Gorn Arming wrote:Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.
The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.
Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes). Yes, it's actually quite ridiculous that i can run L4 missions faster in Talos than battleships which they are made for... i'm really looking forward to some major fixes in battleships if CCP sees nothing more wrong in tier3 bc's than this. wowowowh stop there. Battleships are not made to run missions. Only marauders are! Do not dessacrate the holy battleships with this heresy! Alright, i can make missions in my Talos almost as fast as in my Golem or Vargur The speed that i can blitz around and large gun dps to kill stuff is just that much of an advantage, and will be even after the mass increase. Then note their price tag difference. Of course you feel safer in marauder and can loot/salvage while killing but that is not my point.
Flying it is helluva fun but this can't be balanced in any way
Try the same in any other regular bc, their dps nor tank just aren't enough. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1435
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 02:33:00 -
[273] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Nah, the hilarious thing is how many people like you that think it's a "joke fit" and then die to it. Combining the unmatched damage projection vs mitigation with scram immunity makes for a pretty boss platform. :)
-Liang
I didn't call it a joke, I called it trash.
|
Strange Shadow
Hedion University Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 08:06:00 -
[274] - Quote
Disagree and disapprove of these changes.
Instead of making all twelve battlecruisers look the same, why not create actual difference between attack and combat BCs? As i see it, the main problem of current attack BCs is the same as with old cane - too much grid/CPU, its really easy to fit biggest close range guns AND solid tank on them without making much compromises. Look at this infamous neutron talos for example:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/58019-Talos-Small-gang.html
(Supposedly) close range blasters suddenly have 15k optimal + 26 falloff with void, with almost 900 dps. Add here 40k EHP, and 1600+ m/s speed.
I dare you to show me brutix fit that meets at least two of the above parameters. Clearly there is some problem, but with reduced agility, talos will just take over brutix role, and will become (surprise!) tier2 battlecruiser! Same goes for harbinger and oracle (oracle easily fits rack of mega pulses AND 1600mm plate), ferox and naga, cane and talos...
Proposed changes: 1. Firepower - same 8 slots, everybody love them. 2. Agility - same, or even increase a little. 3. Tank - same, or even reduce a tiny bit again, so it would rely more on modules to protect itself. 4. Reduce PG/CPU, to the level that fitting full rack of largest T2 guns AND full tank would require a fitting module (RCU or co-processor). Will force pilots to either fit that module, go sniper glass cannon, or tone guns down a bit, this will reduce DPS/range, but enables more solid tank. 5. Speed - reduce, maybe significantly, to make them more vulnerable to frigates/destroyers, and reliant on support to clear the tackle. Current speed allows them too easy mitigate low tracking speed of their guns. Again, current speed should be attainable with a prop mod or two (nanofiber/overdrive/polycarbon), but again, it should be pilot's choice to do so, not ship's default.
Role: Heavy DPS, agile but fragile and vulnerable, similar to torp bombers, but to greater extent.
More fitting possibilities, more choices for either fleet or solo play, without overshadowing battleships too much.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
178
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:19:00 -
[275] - Quote
[Brutix, Brutix fit]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1347m/s - 910dps - 47.9ehp - obviously the range is not as good.
you said it just had to meet 2 of the metrics!
|
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
705
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:47:00 -
[276] - Quote
Medium blaster kiting /o\
Also my view on these things
Reduce speed (Being faster then a nanocane without a nano is quite silly, think they would do fine if the slowest Attack BC was just slightly faster then a cane up to the fastest maybe being as fast as a cane with 1 nano)
Remove the dronebay from the Talos, its already too good at killing small things.
And maybe reduce fittings a bit. its way to easy to fit the largest possible guns on those things. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:48:00 -
[277] - Quote
That Talos does not have 15km optimal and 26km fall off with void. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
178
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:50:00 -
[278] - Quote
Not saying it has to kite! Although it could kite some things. Just saying you can get some of the numbers to match up.
And yeah...with void Talos should be more like 9 + 10, but even with null it does almost 800dps |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
705
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 09:54:00 -
[279] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Not saying it has to kite! Although it could kite some things. Just saying you can get some of the numbers to match up.
And yeah...with void Talos should be more like 9 + 10, but even with null it does almost 800dps
Not really taking issue with you coming up to the challenge, i just don't like the shield blaster no web thing <.<
Also edited my previous post. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 10:14:00 -
[280] - Quote
You can knock a couple Km of that range with the TE change.
Brutix is an armour brawler, I dont really like comparing these ships and forcing them into each others roles, put a Brutix on top of that Talos and I would pick a well fit Brutix and all the new navy cruisers will chase a tier 3 down and kill it close range.
Talos gets a nerf here and in the TE thread, I would suggest seeing how that plays out before hitting them again with the nerf bat. |
|
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 11:33:00 -
[281] - Quote
Have to say i'm still not massively convinced that the changes proposed will really bring these ships into balance.
personally (and i think a fair few people have said similar) is that the major sticking point with ABC's is the alpha damage they apply.
a talos or tornado being able to apply huge DPS isn't really a problem, my point being that it should require some amount of time to apply it's damage rather than being able to hit 10k alpha in the case of the nado.
My understanding was that for some time CCP had been wanting to extend the duration of combat, rather than having it over in seconds. Currently these ships not only go directly against that they tend to lead to engagements ending instantly allowing no room for any viable counter to be utilized.
obviously as with anything insta popping will be obtainable with scale, but I don't think we should really be encouraging a situation where a single ship can insta-pop pretty much any of it's potential predators (taking the assumption an ABC will simply run away from a BS that might have the range to combat it). |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
58
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 12:00:00 -
[282] - Quote
monkfish2345 wrote:Have to say i'm still not massively convinced that the changes proposed will really bring these ships into balance.
personally (and i think a fair few people have said similar) is that the major sticking point with ABC's is the alpha damage they apply.
a talos or tornado being able to apply huge DPS isn't really a problem, my point being that it should require some amount of time to apply it's damage rather than being able to hit 10k alpha in the case of the nado.
My understanding was that for some time CCP had been wanting to extend the duration of combat, rather than having it over in seconds. Currently these ships not only go directly against that they tend to lead to engagements ending instantly allowing no room for any viable counter to be utilized.
obviously as with anything insta popping will be obtainable with scale, but I don't think we should really be encouraging a situation where a single ship can insta-pop pretty much any of it's potential predators (taking the assumption an ABC will simply run away from a BS that might have the range to combat it).
Alpha strike is the whole point of arties because they are inferior on all other aspects (pure range, tracking and DPS). That was an intentional change to increase alpha strike because the advantage that arties were supposed to have was too small a few years ago. That was specially relevant when battleships were used a lot in fleet combat. That time APOCs and railboats ruled completely the field.
The problem appeared when the STUPIDLY CONCEIVED TIER 3 BC were introduced.
What can be easily done is reduce tornado fitting capabilities. Large alpha strikes should be reserved to tempests and maelstroms. Tornados should be running with AC not Arties.
Back when ccp were trying to extend combat duration things got even worse, there was almost no chance for some inferior force to cause damage on a larger force and bug out. Thanks god that they stopped trying to make all ships take 20 minutes to kill another ship. |
Isbariya
The Dancer. Initiative Mercenaries
38
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 12:33:00 -
[283] - Quote
Buzzmong wrote:Sorry CCP Rise, but no, these aren't good changes as they do nothing to address the fact the Attack BC's obsolete pretty much all the gun focused BS's.
This is one time when you really need to go back to the drawing board with the entire lineup.
I'd suggest knocking them down to 5/6 turrets or limiting them via grid or cpu so that they really can't fit an entire top tier rack of guns without serious fitting mods*, with the idea being that they can run around with the lower tier BS weapons as a "normal" fit, meaning they are near BS damage and range but not surpassing it, while still being light, manouverable and cheaper.
*Nb, I'd seriously think you (CCP as a whole) need to go back and relook at *all* fitting requirements. It used to be that if you wanted to fit top tier guns you had no choice but to use fitting mods and have a reduced tank, or you'd choose the medium tier and a medium tank, or low tier guns for a good tank.
It feels as if there's been a slow power creep over the past couple of years where it's becoming more common for people to easily use medium/ top tier guns, have a good tank and not really need fitting mods, which I think is bad for the rock, paper, scissors aspect of Eve warfare.
Supported, this kind of summs it up |
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 12:58:00 -
[284] - Quote
Quote:
Alpha strike is the whole point of arties because they are inferior on all other aspects (pure range, tracking and DPS). That was an intentional change to increase alpha strike because the advantage that arties were supposed to have was too small a few years ago. That was specially relevant when battleships were used a lot in fleet combat. That time APOCs and railboats ruled completely the field.
What can be easily done is reduce tornado fitting capabilities. Large alpha strikes should be reserved to tempests and maelstroms. Tornados should be running with AC not Arties.
This is point i'm eluding to, as i said before the dps a ABC is able to apply isn't a problem really, it is the massive alpha they are allowed along with their high maneuverability. While the changes will make them align a little slower etc, it will make little difference if their target dies before it's able to shoot back.
Quote: Back when ccp were trying to extend combat duration things got even worse, there was almost no chance for some inferior force to cause damage on a larger force and bug out. Thanks god that they stopped trying to make all ships take 20 minutes to kill another ship.
This is one of those funny balancing acts they need to take a bit more of a look at. we don;t want to go back to everyone flying brick tanked drakes and myrms. but at the same time their should actually be some actual combat rather than just systematic insta-popping of ships until one side runs out of ships.
a large part of what they did do when they tried to extend combat time was to (as usual) not finish their actual concept of having sub targeting etc. which left us with the problems you mentioned. if the idea were to have been finished this would have been so much the case and we would have got the dynamic combat they had hoped to give us. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
153
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:23:00 -
[285] - Quote
balance team approving of shield tanking gallente ships |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
791
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:40:00 -
[286] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:balance team approving of shield tanking gallente ships Ones with a bonus to armor reps also. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3859
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:42:00 -
[287] - Quote
monkfish2345 wrote:Quote:
Alpha strike is the whole point of arties because they are inferior on all other aspects (pure range, tracking and DPS). That was an intentional change to increase alpha strike because the advantage that arties were supposed to have was too small a few years ago. That was specially relevant when battleships were used a lot in fleet combat. That time APOCs and railboats ruled completely the field.
What can be easily done is reduce tornado fitting capabilities. Large alpha strikes should be reserved to tempests and maelstroms. Tornados should be running with AC not Arties.
This is point i'm eluding to, as i said before the dps a ABC is able to apply isn't a problem really, it is the massive alpha they are allowed along with their high maneuverability. While the changes will make them align a little slower etc, it will make little difference if their target dies before it's able to shoot back. Quote: Back when ccp were trying to extend combat duration things got even worse, there was almost no chance for some inferior force to cause damage on a larger force and bug out. Thanks god that they stopped trying to make all ships take 20 minutes to kill another ship.
This is one of those funny balancing acts they need to take a bit more of a look at. we don;t want to go back to everyone flying brick tanked drakes and myrms. but at the same time their should actually be some actual combat rather than just systematic insta-popping of ships until one side runs out of ships. a large part of what they did do when they tried to extend combat time was to (as usual) not finish their actual concept of having sub targeting etc. which left us with the problems you mentioned. if the idea were to have been finished this would have been so much the case and we would have got the dynamic combat they had hoped to give us.
You fella's really need to make up your minds. In one sentence you talk about fast moving, high alpha ships ruining small gang vs larger gang combat... and in the next it appears that is exactly what small gangs need to effectively combat the larger forces.
The fact is that Attack BC's are ideal tools for combatting the blob just as they are (with room for minor tweaks)... but as always if it's good for the small gang then the blob can always leverage their capabilities as well.
When much faster and more dangerous "nano ships" were common we heard much the same arguments. Even though the nano ships were fairly easy to deal with if you employed the proper tactics, the majority were either to lazy or too inept to employ them. The Attack BC's are in no way as difficult to deal with as the old nano fleets were... in fact, properly countered, they literally die in droves.
Stop trying to kill small gang options, stop promoting lazy blob tactics, start using your brains to kill these flimsy attack BC's. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
fukier
864
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:[Brutix, Brutix fit]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x5
1347m/s - 910dps - 47.9ehp - obviously the range is not as good.
you said it just had to meet 2 of the metrics!
oh cool so when we getting a fall off bonus for the brutix... since even you admit an armor rep bonus is pointless... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:29:00 -
[289] - Quote
Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.
I still think you guys must make the bonused ships apply the bonus over the overheat bonus as well. That would give them a short term PVP level repair capability. Example. If a ship has 37.5% repair bonus, this bonus should apply to the base ammount repaired and over the 20% (if my memory serves me right) bonus gained on the overheat |
|
Kane Makanen
Integral Science and Research
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:45:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.
why dont you better add a bonus to remote armor reppers that affect the ship that way increasing the effect that logis may have on the armor fleets |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2415
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:49:00 -
[292] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.
Buffing the hull bonus from 7.5% to 10% would do it :) alternatively, buff the medium and large reppers. Since fitting active armor tank means sacrificing damage, and it has a common hard counter (neuts), I honestly see no reason why it shouldn't be more powerful.
Active tanking ftw, it adds an interesting mechanic into PVP and in it's own way complicates combat. Which is a good thing considering the somewhat limited nature of actual ship-to-ship combat mechanics of EVE.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
532
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:50:00 -
[293] - Quote
Kane Makanen wrote: why dont you better add a bonus to remote armor reppers that affect the ship that way increasing the effect that logis may have on the armor fleets
Because Fozzie does not approve boosting the power of remote reps. Ironically boosting incoming reps would not go beyond the effective reps a ship with resist bonus get. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:50:00 -
[294] - Quote
The weakness of self repair bonus also comes from the fact that the whole metagame changed a lot and very small fights are rare nowadays.
7 years ago dual repairer megatrons rules low sec.... hunting their solo prays or even .... 2 ENEMIES!!!!!!!
Todays you are lucky if you can get a fight with less than 3 on each side and most fights are in half a dozen people (for small fights) |
fukier
864
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:51:00 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.
so does that mean we can expect a polish pass for armor 1.5? maybe a real 2.0 for the summer expansion? and i dont think the active tank is pointless just not as usefull on a ship that already is cap hungry in the form of mwd and blasters adding active tank really hurts its cap as you should know... though on the myrm i feel the active tank bonus is suited to the ship and its role...
the rumor is you guys are planning faction bc's so please consiter removing the tank bonus for the navy brutix? maybe make it the attack bc for the navy version and make the navy myrm the combat?
in the end i trust you guys will get this fixed... and hope that one way to balance armor to shields is to nerf tech II logistics... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
fukier
864
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:52:00 -
[296] - Quote
Kane Makanen wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game. why dont you better add a bonus to remote armor reppers that affect the ship that way increasing the effect that logis may have on the armor fleets
fozzie is against this sadly... perhaps you guys going to fanfest can get him drunk enough to support it?
Hannott Thanos wrote:Because Fozzie does not approve boosting the power of remote reps. Ironically boosting incoming reps would not go beyond the effective reps a ship with resist bonus get.
if you made rr work for the bonus then it would be 3% better then the resist bonus but still not have the ehp of the resist bonus... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
532
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
I always thought that repairing armor should be like this:
Activating an armor repairer makes it pulse the same way a cloak does. Armor gets a passive linear recharge just like shield has a natural recharge, and it is equal to the amount repped pr second. Capacitor is drained as if you had a negative value on how long it takes to recharge the capacitor.
Implement this and I will love you forever |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:55:00 -
[298] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game. Thank you for confirming active armor tanking still has hope. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
131
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 15:00:00 -
[299] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.
Well instead of just focusing on the active tank bonuses of the hull, look at the foundation of active armor tanking. Instead of trying to patch a sub-par tanking method by tweaking hull bonuses or coming up with gimmicky modules like AAR's. Just fix normal active armor tanking itself and then the hull bonuses will truly shine. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 15:05:00 -
[300] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:I always thought that repairing armor should be like this:
Activating an armor repairer makes it pulse the same way a cloak does. Armor gets a passive linear recharge just like shield has a natural recharge, and it is equal to the amount repped pr second by equivalent current rep (small, medium large). Capacitor is drained as if you had a negative value on how long it takes to recharge the capacitor.
Implement this and I will love you forever
Would very likely be way way more burned at the server since to keep persistency coherence the database wold have to be updated much more than currenlty is. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |