Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
141
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 15:12:00 -
[661] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with!
More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
A Gallente ship designed as a shield tank will never happen. They are still bound in the racial tanking philosophy straightjackets. Witness the wonderful Brutix and Myrm. If you are Gallente just figure you have no fleet option in certain classes. Your choices are flimsy diaf shield tank with lots of very close range gank, a cap dependent weaker than an ASB active armor tank, or a weaker than Amarr armor buffer in a fleet.
So to balance it out I guess Gallente gets to keep its 3 extra industrial haulers. Amarr and Caldari stay at the two main. At least for now. I suspect they'll introduce a new hauler for those races in a later expansion "soon". An artifact of old game design choices. But hardly as ****** as the wonderful active armor tanking philosophy with Gallente. |
Kelsi Darr
Orbital Express LTD Ocularis Inferno
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 15:27:00 -
[662] - Quote
Bah! I'd rather have the PI bay on the Iteron IV. I don't like the "needle" shape of the Itty-III and Itty-V. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
205
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 15:36:00 -
[663] - Quote
I still think these ships are "better," but they were so bad to begin with that it hardly means anything. They're still no where near good. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 16:20:00 -
[664] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote: Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with!
More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
A Gallente ship designed as a shield tank will never happen. They are still bound in the racial tanking philosophy straightjackets. Witness the wonderful Brutix and Myrm. If you are Gallente just figure you have no fleet option in certain classes. Your choices are flimsy diaf shield tank with lots of very close range gank, a cap dependent weaker than an ASB active armor tank, or a weaker than Amarr armor buffer in a fleet. So to balance it out I guess Gallente gets to keep its 3 extra industrial haulers. Amarr and Caldari stay at the two main. At least for now. I suspect they'll introduce a new hauler for those races in a later expansion "soon". An artifact of old game design choices. But hardly as ****** as the wonderful active armor tanking philosophy with Gallente. Although Gallente ships aren't specifically designed as shield boats, there are a few ships that can work as shield ships, and that's more of what I was getting at with the 5th mid. Granted, you'll never see Gallente ships with 6 or more mids (outside of a recon or perhaps Navy), but that doesn't mean that 5 mids can't make a decent shield tank, especially considering that the other half of that tank is going to be a dps tank :) with all those lows filled with damage/tracking mods.
I bolded the last part because yes. Active armor tanking is a throwback to another time, and the fact that CCP is desperately holding on to it--even saddling both of its Combat BCs/Command Ships with that terrible and often-wasted bonus is just icing on a very sour cake. And then the ship that really could use the repair bonus--the Thanatos--gets screwed out of it! How is that for irony!
However, Gallente have a couple of fleet ships post-rebalance. Mega is sexy with those 8 lows. Domi does an ok job as a sniper, although if the ship has to move, the drones stay behind, so wtf. Brutix Navy is *very* nice, just to name a few. What we really need, though, is for medium rails to not suck so bad and maybe more medium-sized hulls could find a use beyond "sit at 0 and facerape." It'd be nice to have some other option that'd perhaps involve a longer-ranged weapons system (RAILS!), but that may just be my absolute love for Zealots coming out.
Still, I hold out hope that one day Gallente will not be stuck with useless bonuses in fleet situations and that their alternative weapon system can somehow be buffed so as to make them a decent, viable choice for Gallente ships but still keep them in check for Caldari--not that Caldari is dominating with rails, but with their increased optimals (generally) and more damage from a med. rails buff, it could cause problems.
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
365
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 17:26:00 -
[665] - Quote
Better. Much.
Although, there is still very little reason to train Amarr Industrial. Sure, they have a bit more tank and a bit more cargo space, but the "special feature" ships available via training the other races significantly outweighs this slight advantage.
I'd suggest either a much larger buff to the Amarr ships, or changing out one of the two for a "special feature" ship - perhaps a ship bay? Nothing too ridiculous, but something that can carry 1-2 cruisers, or even just a bunch of frigs, would be an interesting change. This would allow noobs, and alts, to provide a more extended support role, by being able to haul replacement logis, intys, bombers et al to battles. |
Abus Finkel
Caldari Capital Construction Inc.
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:21:00 -
[666] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;) I get why Gallente and Minmatar are the only ones getting specialized haulers. What I don't get is why CCP are calling it balanced. Gallente lost the king of cargo space title by ~2000m3, so they had to be compensated by being given the best ore hauler, the best mineral hauler, and the best PI hauler? |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
330
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 18:36:00 -
[667] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;) I get why Gallente and Minmatar are the only ones getting specialized haulers. What I don't get is why CCP are calling it balanced. Gallente lost the king of cargo space title by ~2000m3, so they had to be compensated by being given the best ore hauler, the best mineral hauler, and the best PI hauler? Because it is balanced? You have to consider that ships are not single-stat items. There are many things to constitute balance; you just have to first realize that the one-dimensional thought process leaves the other bits out.
|
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 19:29:00 -
[668] - Quote
Of course it is better if the specialized ships were of ORE or any other sort - but in this case, it is as it is. And since these are specialized vessels in specific tasks, it is rather redundant to have every single race have the same thing. We just have to take it as it is. Unless there are more combat-orientated hulls, I doubt it is really worth complaining about balancing in terms of hauling and specialized stuff like PI jobs.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see that balance myself but it is likely too complicated. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 20:00:00 -
[669] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Because it is balanced? You have to consider that ships are not single-stat items. There are many things to constitute balance; you just have to first realize that the one-dimensional thought process leaves the other bits out.
It's balanced? I'm trying to find the metric that you're using to measure balanced, because I just can't find it.
If you want to look at my view of "lack of balance" look at the amarr line vs the galente line. In the small/quick ships the amarr loses it's role as tankiest once it has to add cargo expanders, so only when moving relatively small m3 amounts does it fill it's role. The bestower fails as the most potential cargo hauler when compared to the specialist haulers, especially when you consider that most of the cargo that's going to be moved in bulk fall into what the specialist haulers move.
But lets really look at the difference here. To even be competitive the bestower has to fit full cargo, while the specialists can use every single slot for utility and defense. Even with full cargo (2x expander II rigs, 1x expander 1 rig, 6 expander II lows, amarr industrial 5) the bestower has less cargo than the specialists at skill level 0. On top of that the specialists have the fittings to slap on a LSE II + hardeners, DCU, inertial stabilizers/warp stabbers, and rigs to taste. The bestower has blown most of it's slots on pure cargo, ruining it's armor and structure, and it lacks the fitting to match the specialists in tank.
So a better "tanky" industrial, a compariable "general max cargo" industrial, and specialized ships that blow the competition out of the water both in cargo and fitting utility; where exactly is the balance?
person 1 - "Lets go mining." person 2 - "I can be the hauler! I trained amarr industrial to 5 and I trained all the support skills up to 5! I even dropped over 100 mil in cargo rigs on my boat." person 1 - "bleh, I'm making an alt right now. But the time I deathclone him out here he will outhaul you with a 800k ship." everyone else - "lolamarrmaxhauler" |
Endeavour Starfleet
906
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 22:58:00 -
[670] - Quote
Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault. |
|
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 23:44:00 -
[671] - Quote
Abus Finkel wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Khadann wrote: I still don't get why these variation are mostly for gallente industrials.
simply because gallente has so many industrial hulls. you might realise, that the races minmatar and gallente which got specialised industrials are infact those two races with more then two T1-industrial hulls ;) I get why Gallente and Minmatar are the only ones getting specialized haulers. What I don't get is why CCP are calling it balanced. Gallente lost the king of cargo space title by ~2000m3, so they had to be compensated by being given the best ore hauler, the best mineral hauler, and the best PI hauler?
If you listen to the Itty V fanboys in this thread, that still wasn't enough. They're screaming for every M3 to be given back to their precious ship. Oh, and it'd probably be better if only people who trained Gal. Indy to V back in the day ever get to fly them. |
Endeavour Starfleet
907
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:04:00 -
[672] - Quote
I personally still think the Iteron V ought to be changed into a poor mans hauler. Separate 25K bay not affected by rigs everything else lower including build costs. |
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:26:00 -
[673] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:I personally still think the Iteron V ought to be changed into a poor mans hauler. Separate 25K bay not affected by rigs everything else lower including build costs. Please stop hurling that term; it is a poorman's hauler, aka a T1 indy. |
FireT
Royal Advanced Industries
98
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:33:00 -
[674] - Quote
Interesting, I am looking forward to this rebalancing and the new Gallente ships. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:18:00 -
[675] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault.
Chances are if you're hauling ore that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling PI that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling refined minerals that's all you're hauling.
There really isn't any opportunity cost by using these three ships, especially when you consider that they're much cheaper to fit (no need to fill out lows with tech II expanders), are good out of the box with no rigs, and haul much larger quantities. Additionally, if the occasion does arise that you need to haul mixed cargo items you can slide into a itty 5 and haul nearly as much as a bestower. This is 'balance'?
Balance would be if they had actual opportunity cost for training galente. If the itty 5 and the itty 1 were both specialized haulers as well that may be balanced because you would lack the generalist haulers the other races get, but you would get to haul specific things. The fact that you get access to the much superior specialized haulers but retain comparable generalist haulers is a lack of balance.
As it stands there is little reason to train a non-galente hauler, but because these ships don't pewpew the devs could give a f-less. Just get orca's, they're better anyway. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:31:00 -
[676] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Make my Deimos useful again! Great work, Rise! well thats a easy fix. add a 4th mid slot. increase base cap. remove mwd bonus replace with tracking bonus and switch one of the damage bonus for a rate of fire bonus. That and also base increase in speed and HP. or in other terms: Gal cruis bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret damage 7.5% to tracking hac bonus: 5% to medium hybrid turret rate of fire 10% to medium hybrid turret fall off 6 high (5 if the team decides on 15 slots indead of 16) 4 medium 6 low
edit: side note there is a flaw with the ishtar balance. it has 15 slots... but the balance team have claimed over and over again that drone focused ships should always have one less slot then turret based ships... so what gives. Please just add a 16th slot to all hacs other then the ishtar when you do the tech II balance. please see the enyo vrs ishkur as an example of this. thaks Not really the place for this, but holy ****--Deimos with 6 turrets + ROF would be a monster. Or better yet, since 6 turrets would be crazy, move that high to a mid, and you'd have a super Thorax with a respectable shield tank. Either way it goes, I'm excited to see what Rise/Fozzie/Ytterbium come up with! More OT--Rise, can you comment on why Amarr don't have a lolpvp option in the new haulers? Everyone else has one option, with the Amarr line sadly lacking.
sorry meant 5 turret and one utility slot.
i still think hacs need 16 slots and the ishtar 15.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:33:00 -
[677] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: A Gallente ship designed as a shield tank will never happen.
its not that its designed to be a shield tank. moreover you have the option to go max dps/shield or armor/tackle.
4 mid slots for hacs is not uncommon... look as the ishtar it had 5. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1113
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 02:36:00 -
[678] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: the drones stay behind,
if you move away from the sentries and before warping recall them they appear in distant space. in other words you do not loose controll of them. when you warp back on to the grid they then switch to regular control and and you can commence attack. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Endeavour Starfleet
909
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 06:22:00 -
[679] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Its balanced because it can only do that single task as opposed to the general cargo the other ships get. It is sad that some of you just don't get it. They are single task ships.
If you are fitting a Bestower to try to compete you are doing it wrong. They serve two different roles. If someone wants to be an idiot and train Amarr to V to haul ore. Let em! That is their fault. Chances are if you're hauling ore that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling PI that's all you're hauling. Chances are if you're hauling refined minerals that's all you're hauling. There really isn't any opportunity cost by using these three ships, especially when you consider that they're much cheaper to fit (no need to fill out lows with tech II expanders), are good out of the box with no rigs, and haul much larger quantities. Additionally, if the occasion does arise that you need to haul mixed cargo items you can slide into a itty 5 and haul nearly as much as a bestower. This is 'balance'? Balance would be if they had actual opportunity cost for training galente. If the itty 5 and the itty 1 were both specialized haulers as well that may be balanced because you would lack the generalist haulers the other races get, but you would get to haul specific things. The fact that you get access to the much superior specialized haulers but retain comparable generalist haulers is a lack of balance. As it stands there is little reason to train a non-galente hauler, but because these ships don't pewpew the devs could give a f-less. Just get orca's, they're better anyway.
I have already called for the Iteron V to be changed into bay that can't be affected by cargo expanders nor rigs. 25k max at Gal V and cheap so there no longer a ship of the Gallente line that can get near the Bestower as far as potential general cargo (Not specialized)
And as others have said. Cargo expanders and rigs need to go from these ships and hopefully in the future they can all be given bays of various sizes so that not everyone decides to be an idiot by flying ships designed for speed and agility with cargo expanders. |
Highsec Clarke
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 07:21:00 -
[680] - Quote
So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ??? So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials? Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary... |
|
Net7
Legion Of Patriots
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 08:52:00 -
[681] - Quote
Highsec Clarke wrote:So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ??? So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials? Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary...
this... Being serious as well, jokingly I would say however a "medium" orca or something! Talk about a skill added with only ONE ship REALLY in mind (that being the orca). |
Marcus Harikari
Guitar Players of EVE
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 09:39:00 -
[682] - Quote
iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5 |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 11:08:00 -
[683] - Quote
Highsec Clarke wrote:So we talk about T1 Industrials... What about ORE Industrials... ??? So the ambitious miner wants to get into an Orca but has to learn "Ore Industrials" for... ... hmm... mining in a Noctis?... or whatever... So the skill is absolute useless for a miner... What about making at least two of the "Outsider"-Iterons or at least their concepts into ORE industrials? Maybe i'm not right, but I think the above mentioned Orca should be overhauled too... I think the most of us would exchange the maintance hangar for ore space... or at least a part of it... and the bonus should be for orehold... split the mined ore between 3 different hangars is just... unnecessary...
As they've avoided T1 capital ships like the plague through the entire T1 re-balance phase... My guess is they'll keep avoiding them 'till the end.
Honestly I think the Orca is fine as a general purpose hauler. You can throw a few mining boats into the bays, you can fill the other bays with ore. The Orca is perfect as it is, they should instead give us two separate ships specifically for Ore and a Ship Tender type role.... somewhere down the road when art assets aren't the excuse of the day.
Also, they're not taking the Itty's into ORE, it's obviously not in the cards. I think they should add ORE or Interbus ships, but that's also not in the cards with the current Art team excuses everywhere.
I also agree the Itty V should get nerfed to pave the way for a real difference between the racial ships, and that the Eve dev's should swap to bays so we can leave the olden days of all CE's / rigs behind us... but neither are happening in this pass. Also...
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5
stuff like this is why we can't have nice things. |
BadSeamus
Chaos Army
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 11:30:00 -
[684] - Quote
Nice changes - you nailed it. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1036
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 12:10:00 -
[685] - Quote
Given such a low barrier to entry for flying all races of industrials, I don't see the reason to complain about any of it. These are really great changes and gives a lot more variety to an otherwise boring class of ships. Can't wait for T2 updates where the real crying will begin! Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:55:00 -
[686] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5 If you extended that reasoning across every aspect of EVE, we would have total stagnation - nothing would ever change. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 16:56:00 -
[687] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yes, we will be rebalancing the manufacturing requirements in a similar manner to other recent rebalance efforts.
Yes, on to HACs =)
I completely agree that this rebalance paves the way for more industrial ship rebalancing in other classes, but those efforts aren't on the short term radar. There's just so many ships to work on! And new ones to create! And we really want to start chipping away at mod rebalance as well.
sounds good on the mods re-balance what approach are you taking? i would like to see a role based approach much like the tiercide objective
meta 0 - base mod stats meta 1 - low cap usage /base stats meta 3 - low fitting requirements / base stats meta 4 - high all round performance / higher cap usage T2 - best at one specific stat only / higher fitting requirements
of course this won't work on all mods so you would have to balance around other things Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Endeavour Starfleet
910
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 20:20:00 -
[688] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:iteron should keep highest cargo space because of those of us who trained gallente indy to 5 to fly iteron5
No
It also needs a change. And in my opinion a change to a cargo bay that can not be affected by cargo expanders and max 25k at Gallente Industral V is plenty enough for those who took it that high. Especially if it is balanced around being cheap to build. |
Parrot47
0riginated Sons Self Sabatoge
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 21:22:00 -
[689] - Quote
Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.
These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.
Am I alone on this? Not asking for compensation, just to unfit the current rigs.... |
Eladaris
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 22:14:00 -
[690] - Quote
Parrot47 wrote:Those of us that have fitted cargo expanding rigs on our current Ity II-IV should have them removed (not destroyed) since I am assuming that cargo expanders will not affect the specialized bays.
These are expensive (12Mil+ per ship) rigs that are now going to be worthless on them.
Totally wrong actually. As pointed out elsewhere the rigs / expanders in the lows combined with high skills will net you a massive boost in your cargo hold. This is most important in the Itty for PI, because that extra cargo space will allow you to carry a pair of Command Centers.
It won't give you the bang for the buck that hanging them on your old ships gave, but it's plenty of reason for them to avoid a refund. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 30 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |