Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 58 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
408
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:17:00 -
[691] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Bandwidth of Ishtar and vexor navy to 100 Bandwidth of heavy drones to 20.
You've reduced Ishtar dps by 20 % with sentries but keep its dps with heavies Still viable to use either heavies or sentries Vexor, prophecy, myrmidon all get improved dps projection due to their drone change load out (vexor/prophecy are now 3/1/1 heavy/med/light. Myrmidon can flight full 5 heavies. Stratios has the option for full flight of heavies.
Proteus drone configuration now viable as it could now fly a full flight of heavies.
It is not a small change, but it is a thorough one.
Only problem I have with this is implications for carriers Blue-Fire Best Fire |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:19:00 -
[692] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Bandwidth of Ishtar and vexor navy to 100 Just this would be enough. Both ships would remain competitive with the other HAC and Navy Cruisers.
And bump the Prophecy to 100mbs to match the Myrmidon.
Battlecruiser level of damage for a Navy Cruiser or HAC is good enough. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:20:00 -
[693] - Quote
Aquila Sagitta wrote: Only problem I have with this is implications for carriers
carriers should be able to field only fighters and bomber fighters |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
330
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:26:00 -
[694] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:One small addition - I'm going to even out the cargo capacity on HACs some in this release, the Zealot's very sad 260 cargo was very annoying. My low-roaming Vagabond would appreciate that More room for loot and spare mods.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1479
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:27:00 -
[695] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Aquila Sagitta wrote: Only problem I have with this is implications for carriers
carriers should be able to field only fighters and bomber fighters
The last developer that announced exaclty that change was the subject of the most intense shitstorm this forum have ever seen.... several years ago... "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
77
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:33:00 -
[696] - Quote
Odithia wrote:
And bump the Prophecy to 100mbs to match the Myrmidon.
That is the entire flavor of Amarr vs Gal in drones. Amarr get less bandwidth and more drone bay space, where gal get more bandwidth and less drone bay space.
You may as well say that Prophecy needs to drop the resist bonus and get armor rep, or myrm drop armor rep and get resists.
Cookie-cutterism is bad m'kay. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3432
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:34:00 -
[697] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
I was out of the office yesterday but I did get caught up here finally. I don't have a lot to add for the moment. We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass but I'm going to get folks together once vacations are over and have a larger conversation about sentries and drone balance overall. I definitely agree that being destructible doesn't end up being an actual drawback for sentry drones in almost all situations. We could expose that weakness more by changing things like drone bay or drone HP but the August release is too close for that kind of change so I'll just get the conversation started and we'll see how things look for the following release.
I don't doubt that the Ishtar will still be strong, and we could definitely remove it from the meta by attacking the sentry use more directly, but we want to try and reach some middle ground before going that route.
One small addition - I'm going to even out the cargo capacity on HACs some in this release, the Zealot's very sad 260 cargo was very annoying. During that conversation, please take 2 seconds to remind everyone how much Eagle sucks.
Oh god. |
Alec16
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:35:00 -
[698] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
I was out of the office yesterday but I did get caught up here finally. I don't have a lot to add for the moment. We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass but I'm going to get folks together once vacations are over and have a larger conversation about sentries and drone balance overall. I definitely agree that being destructible doesn't end up being an actual drawback for sentry drones in almost all situations. We could expose that weakness more by changing things like drone bay or drone HP but the August release is too close for that kind of change so I'll just get the conversation started and we'll see how things look for the following release.
I don't doubt that the Ishtar will still be strong, and we could definitely remove it from the meta by attacking the sentry use more directly, but we want to try and reach some middle ground before going that route.
One small addition - I'm going to even out the cargo capacity on HACs some in this release, the Zealot's very sad 260 cargo was very annoying.
How about you say something about the sacrilege. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:38:00 -
[699] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Sara Tosa wrote:Aquila Sagitta wrote: Only problem I have with this is implications for carriers
carriers should be able to field only fighters and bomber fighters The last developer that announced exaclty that change was the subject of the most intense shitstorm this forum have ever seen.... several years ago... prevedible that every cap pilot would feel butthurt, still a capital ship with frigate and cruiser tracking weapons, can field twice the normal number, a lot of slots for bonus giving modules and an unlimited drone bay make ishtars look tame |
afkboss
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:49:00 -
[700] - Quote
I have waited so long for a HAC balance pass so something can finally be done to fix the sacrilege and it doesn't even get a ******* mention. Even worse a ship that is blatantly overpowered barely gets touched. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1482
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 18:56:00 -
[701] - Quote
afkboss wrote:I have waited so long for a HAC balance pass so something can finally be done to fix the sacrilege and it doesn't even get a ******* mention. Even worse a ship that is blatantly overpowered barely gets touched.
Funny I like my sacriledge. It is not on the level of the deimos and ishtar but it is ok. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:07:00 -
[702] - Quote
afkboss wrote:I have waited so long for a HAC balance pass so something can finally be done to fix the sacrilege and it doesn't even get a ******* mention. Even worse a ship that is blatantly overpowered barely gets touched. I remember many many people clamoring for an extra low or higher damage for the Sac prior to the last HAC balancing pass, and I also remember that the Devs shut it down for the purposes of :versatility: for :reasons:.
I still think that the Sac could use another low slot, or an enhanced damage bonus to make up for the relative lack of options in fitting an armor tank with a weapon system that has literally NO midslot weapon upgrade. I love the utility high slot, and yes, it does have :versatility:, but it's (still) slow as balls, and barely breaks 480 missile DPS with 2x BCU Rage HAMs, and even then, only out to 25km. Any other missile loadout drops off precipitously. The full flight of med drones helps on this, but only until the NPC AI shreds them, or until they get smartbombed off the field.
Compare to the Ishtar, using 5x Garde II and 2x DDA: 621 DPS with 41.2 km optimal - and falloff after that. Considering that the Ishtar has some flexibility options for its tank, it can even sport that DPS and MORE TANK than the Sac. Never mind the instant-hit factor of sentries, or the speed advantage, or a full second faster align time, or the possibility to fit the highs in any desired configuration for :versatility:.
Actually, you can compare it to most of the other HACs. The Sac does need some love. Godly cap regen only goes so far. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3432
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:11:00 -
[703] - Quote
I like how this thread started out as 'a few minor tweaks' and has turned into 'go back to the drawing board and start again'. lol. Oh god. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
263
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:12:00 -
[704] - Quote
The Sac is fine (and some would argue the best HAC depending on utilization) for PVP in Low sec. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:13:00 -
[705] - Quote
Meandering Milieu wrote: That is the entire flavor of Amarr vs Gal in drones. Amarr get less bandwidth and more drone bay space, where gal get more bandwidth and less drone bay space.
You may as well say that Prophecy needs to drop the resist bonus and get armor rep, or myrm drop armor rep and get resists.
Cookie-cutterism is bad m'kay.
Amarr get less drones brandwich but get EWAR bonus, except the Prophecy. The Ishtar is Gallente, can launch has many drone as a Dominix and more than an Armageddon and and has the same drone bay than the Armageddon
Resist bonus is comparable to active tank bonus, one being for fleet, the other for solo and small gang.
The Prophecy was used in fleet due to it's resist bonus but now people have figured that's it's better to go full gank with Ishtar, with the smaller sig radius and better speed, you don't even lose that much tanking ability. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
854
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:14:00 -
[706] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:I like how this thread started out as 'a few minor tweaks' and has turned into 'go back to the drawing board and start again'. lol.
don't they always Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Ivory Kantenu
Applied Anarchy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:20:00 -
[707] - Quote
Limit Cruisers to heavies, only Battleship and up should be able to use sentries. Enough of this reign. Every nulsec entity is tired of flying Ishtars / being forced into them to compete in the larger meta. Learn the basics of Wormhole Selling: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101693&find=unread
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
589
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:26:00 -
[708] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Aquila Sagitta wrote: Only problem I have with this is implications for carriers
carriers should be able to field only fighters and bomber fighters
Hear that? It's the song of your people... How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
524
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:27:00 -
[709] - Quote
Sentries are fine as a battleship weapon system. They cap at out a max of less than 800 dps up to only ~50km, with no higher damage option for shorter range. At longer ranges they're down below that. They're also locked into particular damage types at a given range--there's no long-range thermal option, and there's no high-damage explosive option, for example.
The problem is when you put sentries on a cruiser. Sure, drones are meant to be versatile, but it's still fundamentally giving that cruiser battleship-level DPS.
The problem with not allowing cruisers to use sentries is that non-sentry drones are in a fairly bad place right now. They look fine on paper, but in game they're slow to switch targets and very vulnerable to dying (especially to NPCs). Look at the Gila--in order to make medium drones viable they had to buff them up so that the flight of mediums does the damage of a flight of heavies. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1484
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 19:39:00 -
[710] - Quote
Ivory Kantenu wrote:Limit Cruisers to heavies, only Battleship and up should be able to use sentries. Enough of this reign. Every nulsec entity is tired of flying Ishtars / being forced into them to compete in the larger meta.
you mean basically limit that complex weapon system to 2 T1 ships plus a few faction ones?
This is dumb balancing.
Sentry concept is OK. The problem is that they should track as badly as long range turrets that share same range.
So around 1400mm tracking. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:14:00 -
[711] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Ivory Kantenu wrote:Limit Cruisers to heavies, only Battleship and up should be able to use sentries. Enough of this reign. Every nulsec entity is tired of flying Ishtars / being forced into them to compete in the larger meta. you mean basically limit that complex weapon system to 2 T1 ships plus a few faction ones? This is dumb balancing. Sentry concept is OK. The problem is that they should track as badly as long range turrets that share same range. So around 1400mm tracking. then why use them instead of 1400mm? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
228
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:21:00 -
[712] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Ivory Kantenu wrote:Limit Cruisers to heavies, only Battleship and up should be able to use sentries. Enough of this reign. Every nulsec entity is tired of flying Ishtars / being forced into them to compete in the larger meta. you mean basically limit that complex weapon system to 2 T1 ships plus a few faction ones? This is dumb balancing. Sentry concept is OK. The problem is that they should track as badly as long range turrets that share same range. So around 1400mm tracking. then why use them instead of 1400mm?
EWAR immune, still able to fit a rack of guns/missiles to name a couple. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1484
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:23:00 -
[713] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Ivory Kantenu wrote:Limit Cruisers to heavies, only Battleship and up should be able to use sentries. Enough of this reign. Every nulsec entity is tired of flying Ishtars / being forced into them to compete in the larger meta. you mean basically limit that complex weapon system to 2 T1 ships plus a few faction ones? This is dumb balancing. Sentry concept is OK. The problem is that they should track as badly as long range turrets that share same range. So around 1400mm tracking. then why use them instead of 1400mm?
No ammo, no fittings required, do not reload, ecm immune Track disruption immune.. a LOT of advantages.... "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1906
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:25:00 -
[714] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
I was out of the office yesterday but I did get caught up here finally. I don't have a lot to add for the moment. We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass but I'm going to get folks together once vacations are over and have a larger conversation about sentries and drone balance overall. I definitely agree that being destructible doesn't end up being an actual drawback for sentry drones in almost all situations. We could expose that weakness more by changing things like drone bay or drone HP but the August release is too close for that kind of change so I'll just get the conversation started and we'll see how things look for the following release.
I don't doubt that the Ishtar will still be strong, and we could definitely remove it from the meta by attacking the sentry use more directly, but we want to try and reach some middle ground before going that route.
One small addition - I'm going to even out the cargo capacity on HACs some in this release, the Zealot's very sad 260 cargo was very annoying.
What about our sad friend munin? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad. |
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
77
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:32:00 -
[715] - Quote
Odithia wrote:Meandering Milieu wrote: That is the entire flavor of Amarr vs Gal in drones. Amarr get less bandwidth and more drone bay space, where gal get more bandwidth and less drone bay space.
You may as well say that Prophecy needs to drop the resist bonus and get armor rep, or myrm drop armor rep and get resists.
Cookie-cutterism is bad m'kay.
Amarr get less drones brandwich but get EWAR bonus, except the Prophecy. The Ishtar is Gallente, can launch has many drone as a Dominix and more than an Armageddon and and has the same drone bay than the Armageddon Resist bonus is comparable to active tank bonus, one being for fleet, the other for solo and small gang. The Prophecy was used in fleet due to it's resist bonus but now people have figured that's it's better to go full gank with Ishtar, with the smaller sig radius and better speed, you don't even lose that much tanking ability.
Yeah, and assuming we both stick around to brawl, my solo pvp deimos will chew through a Talos. Assuming the Talos kites, he can't apply dps properly and simply cannot kill me. Comparing HACs to BCs is useless. The cerb surpasses the drake. The myrm might have sheer dps tank on an ishtar, but loses in terms of raw firepower. Something something minmatar hac vs min BC. ( I don't fly them).
The ishtar sports the 5 drone configuration because that is the appeal. An Ishkur does really well compared to most frigates too. The only reason it isn't used as a fleet doctrine is probably a lack of small sentry drones. Hilariously a Harpy fleet is basically a fleet of small sentry drones on an anchor.
I'm not suggesting the prophecy doesn't possibly need some love to be useful. I'm saying that removing flavor and differences to do so is bad.
And what are you talking about when you say the Armageddon cannot field as many drones as an ishtar? It has 125 bandwidth. It has to, because for a battleship that would be crippling. In exchange, it has the same bay as the domi. The difference between them is domi gets tracking/optimal bonuses and Geddon gets neuts.
If anything, I'd suggest removing the resist bonus and giving them the neut bonus that other Amarr drone ships get.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1272
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:35:00 -
[716] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass. Why? Can you please be clearer about this? The overwhelming feedback in this thread was very clear: people are sick of 'Ishtars online' and want a change. Why not reduce the bandwidth? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1169
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:51:00 -
[717] - Quote
Zappity wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass. Why? Can you please be clearer about this? The overwhelming feedback in this thread was very clear: people are sick of 'Ishtars online' and want a change. Why not reduce the bandwidth?
Gotta leave everyone a change to finish hopping on the bandwagon while it's still a good one to hop on. Think of all the people training Gallente cruiser V right now. |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 20:56:00 -
[718] - Quote
Meandering Milieu wrote: And what are you talking about when you say the Armageddon cannot field as many drones as an ishtar? It has 125 bandwidth. It has to, because for a battleship that would be crippling. In exchange, it has the same bay as the domi. The difference between them is domi gets tracking/optimal bonuses and Geddon gets neuts.
If anything, I'd suggest removing the resist bonus and giving them the neut bonus that other Amarr drone ships get.
Sorry for the confusion, I meant to write that the Ishtar did as much damage as a Dominix (due to application/projection bonus) and more than an Armageddon then messed up changing the beginin of the sentance to "launch drone".
Deimos should be compared to Brutix not Talos. I think the Brutix has good chances. Same for Zealot and Harbringer. Vagabond and Hurricane. Eagle and Ferox. Cerberus and Drake. Ishtar and Myrmidon, nope.
Funny how every ship that uses drones as its main weapons is either useless or completely overpowered patch after patch. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1484
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:10:00 -
[719] - Quote
Zappity wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass. Why? Can you please be clearer about this? The overwhelming feedback in this thread was very clear: people are sick of 'Ishtars online' and want a change. Why not reduce the bandwidth?
because someof the last ships they nerfed explicitly simply disappeared from eve, like rupture (nerfed when compared to the other cruisers larger buffs) sttaber fleet issues (same thing) etc... "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1272
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 21:27:00 -
[720] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Zappity wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We are still leaning towards more gradual changes for this particular pass. Why? Can you please be clearer about this? The overwhelming feedback in this thread was very clear: people are sick of 'Ishtars online' and want a change. Why not reduce the bandwidth? because someof the last ships they nerfed explicitly simply disappeared from eve, like rupture (nerfed when compared to the other cruisers larger buffs) sttaber fleet issues (same thing) etc... So what? All the people who previously flee Drakes (or whatever) are now flying a wide range of other ships. Diversity is good. And Gallente Cruiser V is plenty powerful enough even without Ishtar dominance. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 58 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |