Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 07:29:00 -
[151]
large blasters are not the main problem, megathron is the problem:
1. too low cpu 2. guns, tank AND propulsion heavily compete for capacitor use 3. low slots divided between tank, damage and fiting
1. decrease blaster cpu as proposed AND increase mega cpu by about 50 2. give mega a amarr like bonus. either +cap per level or -blaster cap use per lever (or repairer cap efficiency) 3. above points solve this one
no non-caldari ship should be ever severely CPU limited ... we are the electronics masters so we have to pay for the choices.
I have never flown a mega nd will never do, so treat this post as you like. ------------------------------ if you want peace, prepare for war ... ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well |
Drilla
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 07:54:00 -
[152]
Okay so now Minmatar or Caldari dont need any cap to shoot = easier to make a tank. But Amarr and Gallente do, and their offensive mods are the hardest to fit?
Maybe a significant boost to Amarr and Gallente BS ships CPU is what is needed the most?
Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost! |
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 07:56:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Drilla Okay so now Minmatar or Caldari dont need any cap to shoot = easier to make a tank. But Amarr and Gallente do, and their offensive mods are the hardest to fit?
Maybe a significant boost to Amarr and Gallente BS ships CPU is what is needed the most?
Tbh, i'll fit thron ok when they reduce cpu by 10%. But i want it to do damage. Not just have easier fitting and still die to anything, even if i start in my optimal.
Die, die, die. |
Deviana Sevidon
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 08:03:00 -
[154]
Still no love for the Deimos. Decreasing Neuton Blaster PG-Needs will not help either. The Ship is still lacking the ability to even fit Ion Blasters effectivly.
I am really dissapointed.
|
Maggot
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 08:15:00 -
[155]
Very very disappointed not to see a damage boost for large blasters.
|
Ysolde Xen
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 08:22:00 -
[156]
I think in the deluge of replies Tux has gone looking for cover
But seriously, my oar's worth:
The Jaguar Changes unlikely for thiscoming patch - great! More time to fully test stuff. I'd still like it to be a little faster but not at the loss of it's Optimal bonus. Currently, this bonus is what allows the Jagaur to make the best use of Artillery and be the Minmatar's sniper. The Wolf can't do it (not enough PG for Artillery) and it's configured to be an AC boat anyway. The Jaguar's current role is that of flexibility. It already can tackle, it can go up close with the ACs and it can sit back with the artillery and make rude gestures at targets with web/nos/scram - all depending on what is needed at the time. By speeding it up at the cost of it's optimal bonus, it's losing the ability to make the best use of the artillery/long range option and becomes another up-close AC beast. I know ACs are normally the way to go in a fight but this is only further removing the niche capability of artillery support in a firefight when the need arises, which the jaguar can do.
Oh yeah - any word on the proposed slight CPU boost for it? That been dropped or still in the pipeline?
AF Sig Rad
Oh pants WTB Sig Rad reduction skill (2% per level)
Projectile Cap use
Good to see it's been removed. It was severely borked with certain guns requiring tons more cap than others for no readily apparent reason. That and we always get everyone whining 'but your guns don't use cap' and it's nice to see that become a valid argument
To all the people going 'Vagabond will be unstoppable as it won't need cap now!!1!' - passive-tanking missile boats anyone? *cough*caldari*cough* There's nothing wrong with the Vaga (or a missile ship) still being able to fire its weapons if it's nossed to oblivion when others can also do it. The ability to set up a ship to be nos-immune is a great idea because everyone relies on nos to be an I-Win button.
Arty changes
Good to see the lower tier artillery having a point now. Only people I ever saw fitting them were either 1) newbies who hadn't discovered the truth yet, 2) stubborn people who didn't care or 3) people waiting for their skills to train up to be able to squeeze 280s.
Bigger clip size for both tiers would be lovely though. Doubling it wouldn't be so overpowered would it?
Blasters Only use them in passing on some of my Gallente ships but I've never been able to come up with a reason to fit Neutrons because the severe gimping the rest of the ship suffers was too much to make up for the potential gankage. Not sure why all neutrons didn't get the PG reduction but, oh well. We'll see what happens with further tweaks.
Cheers for the info and updates Tux! -----
Just because you couldn't get a ship to do what you wanted doesn't mean it's a crap ship - it means you're a crap pilot of that ship.
|
Ishana
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 08:27:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Tuxford
Projectile Capacitor need removed from all projectiles 1200mm, 650mm and 250mm artillery get a 10% damage increase
Considering that the lower tier artillery is not that much easier to fit than the top tier ones their damage output is pretty poor. This is even more evident when comparing the relationship between different tier of artilleries to different tiers of railguns.
Talk about useless... For normal/higher skillpoint player I doubt that cap was ever an issue with the larger projectiles. Although it's "nice" it is a total token change without any basis. The lower tier howies are still useless. No reason to fit them ever. There are allot bigger issues with the projectiles which have been laid out and calculated by players on this forum allot. Maybe you should actually read some of the stuff they say for once, instead of throwing them a rotten bone.
Originally by: Tuxford Tacyon beam I've already posted a bit about this. Its getting a boost so now it does about 5% more damage over time than mega beam laser.
pppppffff
Originally by: Tuxford Typhoon Projectile optimal range bonus changed to a siege and cruise missile launcher rate of fire bonus
I've already posted about this. This bonus makes the damage output on a typhoon to pretty good although it does require a bit more skillpoints to pilot than most other battleships.
It's still a broken ship, although it helps a little bit. it's not enough by a long shot. I'd rather have a 7,5% drone damage bonus instead tbh.
Originally by: Tuxford Hawk Now gets 4 launcher hardpoints and 2 turret hardpoints hybrid optimal range bonus changed to missile velocity bonus
There were three assault ships I mentioned, the Hawk, Vengeance and Jaguar. Even though the Hawk changes are a bit larger they are a bit more straightforward. Give it missile slots and change hybrid bonus to missile bonus. The other two ships would need more player testing before I'm satisfied with the results.
Meh... hawk will be the best AF in game now because of the way missiles work. Although that's not bad it sucks that the other AF's are complete rubish. And they are getting a nerf to signature aswell!
_________________________________________________________
|
madaluap
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 09:12:00 -
[158]
this entire typhoon lacks dmgoutput after changes is total and i mean total bull****..
The Raven is the powerhouse of the Caldari Navy. With its myriad launcher slots and powerful shields, few ships can rival it in strength or majesty.
Special Ability: 5% bonus to Cruise and Siege Launcher Rate Of Fire and 10% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo Velocity per level.
Typhoon # Projectile optimal range bonus changed to a siege and cruise missile launcher rate of fire bonus
If we take a raven with 4X launcher and a typhoon with 4X launcher, both of them will get --exactly-- the same dmgoutput.
but onoes the raven has 2X extra launcherslot, well to bad that the typhoon has 4!! than...
after the changes ill be flying this trashcan and its gonna be omfgwtfhax, its uber ^^.
and personally i think most people whine simply because they dont like the 50/50 layout and the fact you need more sp in either gunnery or missiles..and offcourse drones.. _________________________________________________ In worldwar 2 they called me *****slap |
Sadist
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 09:17:00 -
[159]
Very disappointed to see no changes to PG requirements of medium rails, especially the 250mm, which is unviable on most gallente ships at the moment. --------------- VIP member of the [23]
Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
|
Bacchuss
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 09:34:00 -
[160]
yay, no need to fit blaterthron with half faction stuff to safe CPU
**************************************
"What you gonna do, when I come for yoU?!"
**************************************
|
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:08:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Sadist Very disappointed to see no changes to PG requirements of medium rails, especially the 250mm, which is unviable on most gallente ships at the moment.
I think thats the fate of the top medium guns, None Matari ship can fit 720 howitzers without using 2 PG modules
Summertime - Campingtime!
|
Bellum Eternus
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:09:00 -
[162]
not that I need to restate all the obvious problems w/ the proposed blaster changes that have been so well desribed already, but I just want to post to let the devs know that this is one more customer in agreement that the blaster changes are way too little. none of it solves any of the existing issues. might as well do nothing.
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:14:00 -
[163]
Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though.
Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant.
Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. _______________ |
|
Ishana
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:22:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though.
oh FFS why not? and how long do we have to wait this time?
Originally by: Tuxford Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant.
It might be small but it's still a nerf to an already struggeling ship class, any way you look at it.
Originally by: Tuxford Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse.
I think people just get their hopes up that stuff get ballanced sometime, but at this rate..... _________________________________________________________
|
madaluap
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:35:00 -
[165]
Edited by: madaluap on 05/05/2006 10:39:46
Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though.
Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant.
Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse.
/rant on
Its just going waaay to slow, a lot of stuff has been added to the game, but now we want balance.
basicaly what i think the eve-community wants is modules that arent used, to be made usefull and not LESS crap...yay neutron are less crap, but i still cant fit 7X neutron 2 and go fullout gank, while a tier 1 geddon can with its megapulse.
Also "fixing" "issues" like 2 capusage/sec on large howitzers dont make people happy, when they have absolutly no reason to fit a 1200 over a 1400.
Please start on the big fixes instead of all that small crap...we have waited long enough and if you alone cant handle such fixes on a short term (6 months) than raise payment for eve with 1 euro each month and hire more testers...
/rant over _________________________________________________ In worldwar 2 they called me *****slap |
Hygelac
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:44:00 -
[166]
Excellent changes all-over. I'm very impressed with all of these, including the sigradius change on the AFs which has been long overdue imo.
|
Lucus Ranger
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:46:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though.
Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant.
Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse.
Does that mean that these blaster changes are just to slightly improve them until a proper fix can be found and properly tested?
|
Hygelac
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:49:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Ishana
Originally by: Tuxford
Projectile Capacitor need removed from all projectiles 1200mm, 650mm and 250mm artillery get a 10% damage increase
Considering that the lower tier artillery is not that much easier to fit than the top tier ones their damage output is pretty poor. This is even more evident when comparing the relationship between different tier of artilleries to different tiers of railguns.
You've obviously never been at the mercy of a well flown Dominix Ishana. After the first time you find yourself unable to shoot back with your projectiles it kinda starts you wondering why you can't muster up enough power to pull the trigger. Projectile use comes with enough penalties as it is.
Of course I agree that this is a low impact change for Artillery users but you'll be thanking Tux next time you step into an Autocannon Phoon ... which will hopefully be a lot more prevalent once the bonus gets added (if it gets added :D)
|
Kenan Waroria
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:50:00 -
[169]
I don¦t think the problem with Proj cap use was that it¦s to high, rather that missiles don¦t use cap at all.
Solveing the cap issue would rather be that all guns and missile launcher would use some cap to activate (it¦s not logical that you don¦t need cap at all). I would rather se something like this:
Large: Mega pulse: 40 cap/activation (no change) Mega neutron blaster: 15 Siege launcher/800mm repeating: 2
Medium: Heavy pulse: 13.33 Heavy neutron: 4,5 Heavy launcher/425mm AC: 0,5
Small: Medium pulse: 4,44 Light Neutron: 1,5 Standard launcher/200mm AC: 0,1
Conclusion: no ship is immune to drainers. Still blasters use a lot of ammo where lasers don¦t so why would it use more or as much cap (assuming maxed skills)? I¦m nut sure what to do about long range ships, I only know that Railguns uses about as much cap as Beam lasers.
On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =- |
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 10:55:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Lucus Ranger
Does that mean that these blaster changes are just to slightly improve them until a proper fix can be found and properly tested?
thats the problem they dont improve anyhting,
the cpu decrease is so low it just means insted of fitting a t2 cpu mod you can fit a t1 cpu mod :/
the cap reduction was not thought out well at all! you need to take into account that BS blaster ships need to get into range thus need a mwd killing 25% of the ships cap! but a pulse gedden with its 48km optimal doesnt need to do that. with 15% cap reduction we just use the same amount of cap as pulse users but none of the advantages like fighting in optimal no ammo, 48km optimal fast ammo chance ect !
and the last one, decreaseing heavy neutron PG, what was the point there? i think its trying to buff the deimos but you still cannot fit 5x neutrons and mwd let alone the remaining 1h/2m/5L -------------------Sig-----------------------
Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen |
|
Pesadel0
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 11:08:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though.
Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant.
Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse.
,Rest in peace typhoon .
|
Ishana
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:16:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Hygelac
Originally by: Ishana
Originally by: Tuxford
Projectile Capacitor need removed from all projectiles 1200mm, 650mm and 250mm artillery get a 10% damage increase
Considering that the lower tier artillery is not that much easier to fit than the top tier ones their damage output is pretty poor. This is even more evident when comparing the relationship between different tier of artilleries to different tiers of railguns.
You've obviously never been at the mercy of a well flown Dominix Ishana. After the first time you find yourself unable to shoot back with your projectiles it kinda starts you wondering why you can't muster up enough power to pull the trigger. Projectile use comes with enough penalties as it is.
Of course I agree that this is a low impact change for Artillery users but you'll be thanking Tux next time you step into an Autocannon Phoon ... which will hopefully be a lot more prevalent once the bonus gets added (if it gets added :D)
I've flown against some domies and they wtfpwnd me because I had no tank rather then not being able to shoot. 3 cap/shot (without skills mind you) won't turn off when you use an cap injector like any 1v1 bs has. It's still a moot point since even if this would matter, vs anything but an extreem nos boot you won't even notice the difference... yeah great "buff". I'd rather have something usefull, like increase clip size for my autocannons. (which should have already been in game a very long time.) _________________________________________________________
|
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:38:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Kenan Waroria
On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons.
Hope you have fire-retardant clothing, you're going to need it... ----------
- Office Linebacker -
|
Miklas Laces
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:52:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Tuxford Blasters Decreased Capacitor need by 15% Decreased cpu need by 10% Decreased powergrid need by 10% on all heavy neutron blasters
All the long wait for THIS ? Oh well..
Medium Blasters didn't need the CPU decrease, neutrons are still not usable on any cruiser/hac. Cap reduction is fine.
Large blasters cap reduction is not enough. They also need more tracking.
All in all those changes won't change much. Both Deimos and Mega would still have the same problems they have now.
|
ChalSto
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 12:59:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Kenan Waroria
On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons.
A friendly advice from me (and all other Bthron-pilots) -> RUN VERY FAST NOW!
@Tux -> erm.........I have waiting over 2 1/2 years now got get my blasters fixed.........and now THAT! Only 10% reduction in CPU? and 15% reduction in cap-use is just....erm.......LOL Current Location: Relax and drinking a beer with Dreez and waiting for Blaster changes UPDATE -> Still waiting... |
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:16:00 -
[176]
Originally by: j0sephine
Ouch. it makes certain sense, but... assault frigates already generally play second fiddle to interceptors, increasing their signature radius will now make them easier to kill, taking away the main reason one would want to pick them over the 'ceptor. Dunno if that's such good idea overall.
Have to agree here. Interceptors are already arguably superior to AFs in most pvp, this just increases the gap -- and makes AF more generally vulnerable also. Was the smallish sigrad really a problem? These ships don't move very fast, after all.
If these was another part of this nerf that was reducing the combat ability of interceptor and making them more, well, interceptors, I wouldn't have much problems. But now inties are in danger of becoming totally overpowered vs AFs -- which you could say they already borderline are.
A bit worried.
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:20:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Klurig I guess this means there is a grim outlook for the drone AI getting looked at? :(
I'd settle for just an increase in the "scoop to drone bay" distance, at the moment drones more often that not crawl to *almost* scoop range -- and then stop. No idea why that happens, but it's a killer.
Simply increasing the scoop range a bit should be an easy stopgap fix with no balance issues I can think of.
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:22:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
The reason people don't like AF much is because they have the mass of freaking cruisers and are actually like 10% faster than a cruiser as well in many instances. Also those "resist bonuses" aren't really bonuses at all, pretty lame.
Yeah. If you keep the sig increase, how about dropping their mass a bit to compensate? At the moment AFs really do handle like cruisers.
|
Kenan Waroria
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:22:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Originally by: Kenan Waroria
On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons.
Hope you have fire-retardant clothing, you're going to need it...
I think you need better arguments than that.
Vindicator is close to being a blastership, but it would be better with a cap reduction to blasters rather than tracking bonus.
The problems with blasters isn¦t the tracking so why use it on a ship with tracking bonus? Because Megathron can "almost" fit 7xBlasters, tanking, cap injector and MWD no other ship is close in doing it with blasters but it¦s still "only" almost the right ship.
Personally I think the Dominix was designed for Blasters and drones, Megathron was designed for Railguns. -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =- |
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2006.05.05 13:33:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 05/05/2006 13:37:37
Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though.
Ouch. I assume this has something to do with why the latest mirror went bad the first time around? EDIT: ...or not. I just found an additional post on the game development forum saying it had something to do with agent data.
Second hypothesis: time and manpower constraints?
Quote: Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse.
Props for being forthright and up-front about this. Also props for sticking to your guns rather than risking unbalancing the game for months due to lack of testing. -Wrayeth
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |