Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
ArmyOfMe
Alekhine's Gun The Periphery
416
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:04:55 -
[61] - Quote
Oh, and while we are on the subject of ship balancing and all that. And excluding the fact that im a pirate, dirtbag and godknows what else ive been called. Can you explain to me the balancing reason for freighters not being able to fit a damage controll?
As it is, the ship costs well over 1bill, and it costs about 150mill in ships to destroy the damn thing with no hope of it surviving at all. That is to me a bad balancing act, and is caused by dessies being able to put out a massive ammount of damage compared to their price (more then twice the damage of a normal fitted af wich costs about 15-20x more)
Ganking in this game has gone way overboard cause of those things, and its as risk free as you can get, as the freighter hardly has to drop any loot for it to have been worth it. Im all for piracy, etc etc, but suicide has crossed the limit simply cause its now to much of it, and the freighter pilots carry all the risk.
Ps: no, i dont own any freighters, jf's or otherwise. But i would still love to see the freighter hulls buffed when it comes to cpu, so they can fit dc's and eans or hardners.
QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1099
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:01 -
[62] - Quote
Inslander Wessette wrote:@ CCP rise,
What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts .
Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) .
You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms.
Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad .
but gallente ships get tracking bonuses and free mids for TC's
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/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1014
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:08 -
[63] - Quote
Cr Turist wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:I'm ok with no battleship buff, as long as the T3 nerfs continue, and if you fix dread blapping and logistics. ok a t3 nerf is needed. blap dreads are fine however. you have to drop a big lumbering ship that cant evade fire, that must sit in the same spot for 5 mins at least before it can start to go anywhere, and has zero chance of killing anything smaller than a battleship. I think dreads are fine m8. fixing logi is easy. 1. medium reps for everybody. no other changes needed. 2. add another class of logistic ship. maybe a battle cruiser, that has something like a triage mod on it. when its giving reps it don't get reps. this will make players make a decision do I wanna risk my ship to save my fleet members or am I gonna bone this dude and gtfo. I think it would make a pretty cool dynamic. also make this ship MJD capable. 3.T2 Logi frigs just cuz that will be cool as hell.
your entire post is wrong or bait |
Samuel Outamon
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:35 -
[64] - Quote
Look the main problem is you nerfed missile's back to the stone ages long ago , and most t3 cruisers and battle cruisers that use missiles cant keep up with dps output that rails and laser's do hack most cruisers can out dps a missle t3 ship easy , why you ask simple . Time to target damage , its simple make dmg from missiles instant instead of 35s to hit target and wait for the damage to show up . take a nerf bat to shield user's really come on now that craps getting old everyone knows a 3% armor nerf can be made up with hardwires . shields you cant make it up so just keep picking on caldari . Keep this up and guess whats going to happen people are going to keep moving to SC and putting money there instead of here . second the t3 destroyer's should not have rails for caldari you do that nobody will fly the dang thing. nerf the crap out any decent class ship because some one complained about them being to strong or over powered crap . the devs need to stop listen to the fanboy clubs and start listen to players that support the game other wise your gonna end 4th quarter profits in the -25% range .
been support since 2004
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
579
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:43 -
[65] - Quote
Maybe I should keep my opinions about stuffGäó in closed quarters for the time being and I'll ask for the Caldari destroyer of worlds and a nice generous heavy missile range and application buff instead?
signature
|
Valterra Craven
514
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:09:26 -
[66] - Quote
ArmyOfMe wrote: Ganking in this game has gone way overboard cause of those things, and its as risk free as you can get, as the freighter hardly has to drop any loot for it to have been worth it. Im all for piracy, etc etc, but suicide has crossed the limit simply cause its now to much of it, and the freighter pilots carry all the risk.
I don't think I've ever seen CCP balance anything on the basis of risk vs reward.
|
Pandora Myuki
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:14:48 -
[67] - Quote
So you want to reduce Carrier effectiveness even more? Wow Rise, lets change the name to Frigate online. |
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx
24
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:20:57 -
[68] - Quote
Quote:We discussed choosing to expose Skynet carriers to more risk rather than taking away the ability to assist fighters, but in the end this solution felt more convoluted and in reality would probably end skynetting but would still leave a strange and unneeded mechanic in the game. Lazy balancing of badly designed and extremely skewed in risk-reward ships in unneeded mechanic. Go back to discussions and come when you have something less lazy. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
770
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:25:59 -
[69] - Quote
That chart is GREATLY at odds with your other one.
http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg
What am I missing? |
Flax Volcanus
Montezuma's Revenge. Easily Excited
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:31:44 -
[70] - Quote
Coming back to EVE after a three-year hiatus, I see that CCP still treats the time and expense that players spend skilling for ships and systems as fungible. If you're going to nerf T3's, in particular, then we should be compensated by not losing skill points -- or as many SPs -- when a ship is lost. Otherwise, it's a double slap in the face.
I have hangars full of ships that took months of training to use, but which nerfs and other exercises in "balancing" rendered frustrating or ineffective to use. I don't get to skill for these by leveling up like a WoW fiend -- training in this game equates to real money invested. I'd aprpeciate it if someone at CCP eventually internalized that fact. |
|
fredtheevil
modro Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:37:45 -
[71] - Quote
Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously...
Think OUTSIDE THE BOX...... |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:41:27 -
[72] - Quote
fredtheevil wrote:Don't Nerf Bat a ship that has been just about the same though all these years. The other hac's need a boost in effective raneg/dps and the ishtar need's to be left alone or adding 2 mid's to the munin would change the meta up seriously...
Think OUTSIDE THE BOX......
if you honestly think ishtars dont need nerfing you need to stop go take a cold shower go for a long walk and ponder your life. |
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:44:57 -
[73] - Quote
A few remarks on your awesome graph on damage:
- Is it the total damage done? If so, you need to factor in an average damage output per shiptype to get a more realistic view of the amount of ships used. - This graph does not adress the main issue: moving them is too slow to be worth it. So, how many of these fights were one group bridging in bs vs another group bridging in bs / fighting from their staging system?
|
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:51:55 -
[74] - Quote
OK WHAT EVER PETTY GRIPES WE MAY HAVE WE SHOULD ALL PUT TO REST FOR THE DAY.
SPACE FRIENDS SPOCK HAS DIED AT THE AGE OF 83
https://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/leonard-nimoy-dies-at-83-171803235.html
IF CCP DOES NOT DO SOMETHING TO COMMEMORATE THIS TRUE SPACE NERD HERO. WELL SHAME ON YOU
|
Kel hound
The Desolate Order Brave Collective
116
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:54:55 -
[75] - Quote
Quote:Proposed change: None. We are pretty happy with the state of class variation right now and see no reason to make changes.
Reddit calls shenanigans on your graph.
Quote: Edit: In response to comments that this graph is a lie/distortion/incomplete: While this was a "shoot from the hip" response to the original graph, fundamentally the goal was to group ships that are common choices for major fleet doctrines (HACs + T3s + Cruisers makes sense, battleships + blops + marauders does not because nobody considers a fleet of blops and marauder fleets are exceedingly rare). Leaving battlecruisers separate is a more valid criticism, but any choice you make has complex and interrelated variables. So yes, there are a lot of reasons why this "fixed" graph also shows a skewed perspective, and many other ways one could arrange the data for visualization, but I think it shows a less skewed perspective of the meta than CCP's original graph. I also made it in like 5 minutes after seeing the original, so -»\(pâä)/-»
Coelmate |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
268
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:57:09 -
[76] - Quote
If battleships had more EHP it would open up some room for them relative to strategic cruisers and would also give some robustness relative to bombers. As it stands now, even after the defensive subsytem nerfs a strategic cruiser can nearly match the battleship in dps while greatly exceeding it in damage application, mobility, and survivability. I would enjoy having battleships as the standard for survivability at the expense of damage application and mobility. |
Mary Killigrew
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:16:00 -
[77] - Quote
(Ending a radio broadcast) This is John Connor. If you are listening to this message, you are the Resistance. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1015
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:17:03 -
[78] - Quote
Kynric wrote:If battleships had more EHP it would open up some room for them relative to strategic cruisers and would also give some robustness relative to bombers. As it stands now, even after the defensive subsytem nerfs a strategic cruiser can nearly match the battleship in dps while greatly exceeding it in damage application, mobility, and survivability. I would enjoy having battleships as the standard for survivability at the expense of damage application and mobility.
nerfing T3s achieves the same thing without breaking other things |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
774
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:21:26 -
[79] - Quote
Goddamn it Baltec. I bet it was you who screwed up the BS numbers making them look more used than they are |
SamuelK
The Concilium Enterprises Capital Punishment.
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:22:30 -
[80] - Quote
Remember when "expansions" weren't just updates and actually added meaningful content and a level of excitement?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
|
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1104
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:38:42 -
[81] - Quote
SamuelK wrote:Remember when "expansions" weren't just updates and actually added meaningful content and a level of excitement?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
So do I it was about a month ago, then 2 months before that.
Pepperidge Farms has a very short memory.
Yaay!!!!
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
326
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 18:48:49 -
[82] - Quote
Rise, using quantitative methods to aid in rebalancing is fantastic, but I question the relevance of evaluating balance by total PVP damage. Surely on your alts you have tried going solo or small gang in a BS/BC recently? And don't you agree that it is substantially less fun to fly these ships now than pre-Rubicon, primarily because of the slower warp?
I'd say, base warp speed of BS/BC platforms was hit too hard, and they would be much more enjoyable to fly if the base warp speed was closer to the cruiser level. |
Inslander Wessette
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 19:39:32 -
[83] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Inslander Wessette wrote:@ CCP rise,
What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts .
Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) .
You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms.
Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad .
but gallente ships get tracking bonuses and free mids for TC's
yeah . mid slots dont account for damage do they ?
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
340
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 19:46:29 -
[84] - Quote
I am in complete disagreement with your conclusions towards Battleships. Using them still feels terrible, and the speed differential was, in my opinion, wholly adequately met with the large differences in align time and maximum warp speed.
With consideration to the cited damage application data, it continues to seem like you've created an inconvenience that exists solely for the sake of making Battleships and Battlecruisers inconvenient to use; surely their firepower at EHP aren't so excessive compared to Heavy Assault Cruisers to warrant a 15 second delay in arrival between every warp? |
dongoble
Teh Hive Collective Carebear News Network
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:08:48 -
[85] - Quote
i think your skynetting idea is good but goes too far, maybe as far as not limit carriers abilities to assist to anything smaller than say a battleship, but carriers should be able to assist to other capitals, and large class ships in my opinion. |
Pyralissa
Kite Co. Space Trucking
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:14:40 -
[86] - Quote
The damage by type is telling.
Light blue is certainly drones (you can see the Ishtar dominance in HACs). Dark blue is hybrids (Strategic Cruiser showing Tengus), Orange is lasers (this graph was generated before the Svipull was deployed, so it's only showing the confessor), we can only guess at the remainder although yellow is likely projectiles. From what we see battleships show a strong preference towards drones (Dominix) with hybrids (Megathron), lasers (Foxcat/Fauxcat), and projectiles (TFI/Macherial) being reasonably well balanced against each other.
I can understand the argument that battleships are thus balanced because the class is well balanced against itself. I can even accept the argument that whatever problems battleships have is an issue with ships and weapons outside of the battleships class (bombs). However the source of complaints about battleships is two fold: fleet balance and small engagement balance. I can accept that fleet balance is battleships is in a good place, perhaps the best of any other class of ships (the dominix has a preference, but all battleships carry fairly sizable drone bays which means drones will naturally be over represented in that class) however what evidence exists that battleships are being used in groups of smaller then 100 or more? Who's offensive roaming (especially in null sec with it's huge systems) in battleships anymore? Is this really a class that's only meant to be deployed in mass fleet battles, or used for home system defense?
That's the problem with battleships. Bombs are a huge issue for battleships fleets because the nature of timers is that everyone knows when to third-party a battleship doctrine engagement with bombers. But bombers aren't an issue for the gang that wants to add a triple-rep hyperion or a torp raven for additional kill power. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that usage of battleships is in a good place with the current warp mechanics. |
Manfred Sideous
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1067
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:33:01 -
[87] - Quote
Rise i'd like to challenge you to a little exercise. Just reply when you have time and we can play this exercise through quotes.
Scenario:
There is a timer about to exit that you and your allies need to fight over. What are the viable fleet comps you can bring?
Ok now you reply.
@EveManny
https://twitter.com/EveManny
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
577
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:40:28 -
[88] - Quote
Agree with the proposed balance changes, but would like to see much more work done on T1 module rebalancing. This includes taking a look at manufacturing costs of T1 modules vs reprocessing value and overabundance of meta modules.
T1 modules should be the "standard" fit for all ships and where module/ship balancing should start - not based on T2 modules.
T2 modules should be more powerful, but also more difficult to fit, requiring significant compromises in the ship fit, ie. able to fit for max damage or max tank, but not both simultaneously. Metas should always be more expensive and less available than T1, easier to fit than T2 - stats somewhere between the two. Faction and officer gear should be rare and massively expensive - order of magnitude or more, with only slight advantage over T2 (small percentages add up quickly). |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1785
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:43:37 -
[89] - Quote
Thanks for explaining the thought process - that's great. Also, please nerf Ish...oh, well done.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1100
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:48:05 -
[90] - Quote
Inslander Wessette wrote:Harvey James wrote:Inslander Wessette wrote:@ CCP rise,
What about armor platforms using rails . Thoraxes , Deimoses , Proteuses . The armor platforms dont run a triple Mag stab fits like the shield ( caldari ) counterparts .
Its very disappointing that rails on armor platforms will not stand upto beams ( another armor platform ) .
You are taking back 50 % of the changes that u did in odyssey. the balance to the increase in damage was the reduction in tracking ( -15% ) . So now with less tracking and less ROF . The armor platforms will be affected a lot more than the shield platforms.
Rails are used by 2 races on a very different platform . Considering only one race for the nerf is a very sad .
but gallente ships get tracking bonuses and free mids for TC's yeah . mid slots dont account for damage do they ?
application is damage
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/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |