Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Idame Isqua
Vipres' Templis CALSF
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:38:56 -
[151] - Quote
Caviar Liberta wrote:Sibius Aidon wrote:This isn't a balance, it's a nerf. Stop nerfing, and start adding! Yeah, T3's can be quite a tank, but hey, as far as I am concerned they aren't unbeatable, they just take some teamwork. . This. I pulse overloaded my MWD 300-400km with a tech 3 shield BC to get in on a big fight against 2 Strat cruisers to end up with the finishing blows. They aren't unbreakable. You just need to be able to catch them and burn through them.
Our weekend fleet was dunking everyone!
But then we ran into a carrier assisted gate camp with a AB fit Tengu
Our entire fleet couldn't kill the Tengu and many of us died including me This fleet had just dunked a huge cruiser fleet and huge t3 dessie fleet without much difficulty
But no carrier assisted Tengu (with some inties) kills our fleet https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=27676902 Update is named after our CEO Next day CCP nerfs all of that
Illmanatees confirmed! |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
237
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:11:41 -
[152] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote:ThatGÇÖs what I have for you for now. Even though there is so much more to do (hello bombers, supers, ECM and missiles!), we believe ship and module balance in EVE is in one of the best positions weGÇÖve seen in a long time..
I would be careful not to break your arm patting yourself on the back there. Looking at Cribba's Eve Offline website and it's data , comparing the avg online player count of 48k of 2013 to the 41k of 2014 might imply not everything is as rosey as it once was. And if you look at the start of 2015 we have an avg of 27k compared to the same period of time as last year of 33k. Not very positive metrics over all.
I am sure many people will point to many different reasons as to why this is the case. But could it be that Eveonline was more fun on the whole before it became Cruiser/Frigate online?
*Shrugs*
P.S. This is not an Eve is dying post, this is my post stating my disagreement that BB's and BC's are in an "Okay" place, among other things. |
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:11:56 -
[153] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Just to highlight that Eve is the only game I have ever played where inconveniencing the end user/player is a valid balancing decision Twisted It's pretty inconvenient for me to have to run back to lane in League, or wait for units to finish in Starcraft, or not see through walls in Counterstrike, yet for some reason the developers insist on not changing it.
I somewhat disagree, because I think this comparison is not a very good fit. If you talk about production time in an RTS: while a unit is build, there is typically tons of other nice stuff to do, like commanding the units you already built. Same with walls in counterstrike: you can still DO stuff with the walls in place: you can throw a grenade and make it bounce around a corner, you can sneak and hide, etc...
With warp speed in EVE there are several fundamental differences:
Time spent in warp is often just dead waiting time. Except for D-scan there is very little you can do, almost nothing you can actively influence, while in warp. Most of the time it's too short to do trading or some other non-ship related thing and in a big ship, it's too long, to pass by unnoticed. This is bad thing.
Waiting time acts as a deterrent for all PvP related activities. The expectation of exciting combat has to outweigh the dead, inactive, passive travelling time in order to make someone undock, who wants to roam...
In a gaming environment in general, all preperation time, i.e. the time you need in order to get to the fun part, should ALWAYS be considered a serious drawback. In fact all people, that I introduced to EVE and that did not follow through, quit because it takes just too long to get to the places where you can do stuff.
Battleships and battlecruisers don't contribute to the economy/logistics chain, therefore making them faster won't impact the flow of trade goods.
One last heretic idea: why not give each and every ship type a fuel bay and a warp speed selector (like standard/faster/turbo or 1-10 etc.) on the lowest setting, the ship travels just as it does now, but it doesn't consume fuel either. On the higher settings, warp speed increases and fuel is consumed proportional to the total mass (including fitting and cargo) of the ship; potentially also proportionally to the distance to be warped, but that's not absolutely necessary. With just an additional bay (which is already a property that ships can have), a button similar to the legality-safety-switch, and possibly a blueprint for new item (but hey there is already Rocket-Fuel...), you could make a lot of people very happy and add another ISK sink at the same time... Plus there could emerge some extra complexity, when turbocharged ships would actually travel faster and/or cheaper on routes with more jumps but shorter in-system distances. |
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
970
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 02:09:10 -
[154] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb?
Oh it is possible. Every release we have people on here filling page after page of sperg-lord crap-baked ideas about how to run a game or a technology company or whatever.
Everyone is an expert on how to make everything better by making everything stronger except for that one special snowflake that they like to fly that turns out to be the daily driver for everyone because that's basically the definition of OP but that special flake has to always be at least a metric f***-ton better than anything else.
Like this thread.
Medium rails were absolute garbage from 2007-2013 or so. They spent some time in the lime light. They got their day. Now it seems to have been a bit too much. Okay. What's the big effing deal?
During that same time Caldari were awesome for PVE and if you do a search for caldari pvp before 2013 or so, pretty much the only thing you will find is people saying don't f***ing do that.
Things change. Deal with it. The only thing that would **** me off is if you were limited to skills based on race or roll as you are in many RPGs. If I literally couldn't train missiles or blasters after rails got nerfed, okay. I would be pissed if that were the case.
But guess what! That's not the case!! I can train any weapons system I want. Holy sh!tsnacks! All the gripes and arguments just lost any possible validity.
Look, the alternative to nerf is an ever-increasing anti-spiral of doom. Why are things getting nerfed? Because that's the only approach to balance that makes even a modest level of sense. Buff everything to match the current king of the hill is an exercise in either stupidity or madness. Although from the typical comments, I'm not sure that one or the other of those descriptors doesn't apply.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
166
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:05:50 -
[155] - Quote
countdown till they nerf all the weapons.. since they nerfed rails..
next year they'll nerf jumping cause its over-powered.
then he'll figure out how to nerf industry... oh wait!
then the next cycle since everyone is going to be terrified of flying the bandwagon ships.. we'll all be AFK cloaking up a storm left and right.........since that's the only worth while active gameplay.
absolutely brilliant!..
Carrier Pilots.... say bye bye.. to fighter assist..
say hello to well.. looking pretty in super cap and doing nothing with it..
his blog made me want to stab my eyes, pull them out, and then fry them for a nerf-burger.
|
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
389
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:06:18 -
[156] - Quote
I'm not sure why you guys feel a need to nerf a ship just because people like it. So you start off by saying that looking at the numbers the ships seem as well balanced as they have ever been but you are going to nerf the ishtar because too many people fly it. That just seems dumb and counter intuitive. It's like saying to your customers "oh I see you like this thing so I'm going to make it suck so that you don't want it any more". I just don't see how that makes sense anywhere.
Then you go on to say that medium long range weapons are very well balanced right now and the caldari have a couple of ships that are too good so our answer is to nerf rails even though they don't seem over powered. That also seems really dumb especially considering that 2 of the 4 main races use rails as opposed to projectiles and lazors only having 1 each essentially meaning that rails potentially have twice as many ships that they can appear on which means they should see twice the use of all other weapon systems.
I really don't understand where you guys are taking this game and with every release I loose more and more faith in you. Judging by the numbers of players I see logged in, I'm not the only one. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
389
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:31:53 -
[157] - Quote
So you guys give lip service to risk versus reward and pilots needing to be involved. You want to nerf fighter assist because fighter pilots can sit near a PoS bubble and have very little risk but that is very little risk if the pilot is actually at his computer. If he goes afk his carrier would die sitting outside a PoS bubble like that.
On the other hand you have cloaky afk campers. A player can log on in a red system and cloak up and go to work and be sitting 40 miles away from his gaming rig that he's logged into and be in his office doing his job. Mean while the players that live in that system have to stop doing anything in that system or completely change they way they do stuff. Do to the fact that there is no limit to how many people he can hot drop on you in a matter of less than 3 seconds there is literally no way that you can defend against this. The camper can wait and pick and choose when and who he wants to engage and the owners of the system have to assume he could do this at any time even if the actual person behind the toon is out at the bar with his buddies for the evening.
Cloaky campers have a huge effect on their opponents even if they are not "playing the game" with literally no risk what so ever. This is so much worse than a carrier pilot that at least needs to be at his computer. To make it worse the fix to this is very simple just add a inactivity log off timer to the game like other MMOs have but you either can't think of that or refuse to do it.
I just wonder if you guys think before you post sometimes. |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
389
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:48:44 -
[158] - Quote
As far as the ECM thing most of the vocal PvPers seem to be hyper action oriented and just want to slug stuff out and see who can hit the hardest. Anything that brings any strategic element to the game or forces them to fit for anything but max dps and max speed pisses them off.
To me it seems like Ewar is not unbalanced you just have PvPers that don't want to fit anything other than: scrams, webs, damage mods and tracking mods. Maybe a little tank but that's it. Heaven help us if they have to fit a mod to increase sensor strength in case they come up against some Ewar. I mean they seem fine with tracking disruptor since they are fitting the tracking mods anyway. They also seem fine with neuts as they don't want to fit mods to increase cap regen anyway. They'd be using cap boosters regardless so neuts don't force them to make many decisions on fit.
I know I don't PvP and don't understand why people do it but it seems to me that the ECM thing is not a balance issue as much as it is PvPers being hyper action oriented and not liking defense at all. They just want to shoot people in the face and get head shots.
But again this is coming from a non-PvPer. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
168
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 05:14:49 -
[159] - Quote
just wait till ccp rise & fozzie decides to nerf catalyst and well here's the flow of the dev blog
(please excuse me ccp rise but im going to copy from you.. cause well dude.. you're sooooooo pro!)
Catalayst
Problem : it kills too many ships and doesn't cost money, its one of the leading gank ships in the game Proposal : we've decided to change its role into a .........covert electronic attack logistic strategic destroyer!
why? : cause pretty charts and pie graphs said so..
now community please provide feedback and we take this serious ok! o7
THIS! is Eve Online..
going where batchit crazy has never ever gone before!!
Resistance if futile will be NERFED!!!!! |
tasman devil
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 05:34:44 -
[160] - Quote
Try harder next time!
Instead of removing the assist altogether, why not just ALLOW IT ONLY TO BC AND UP???
That would have been a simple and elegant solution, currently this relegates most pilots to reconsider the need for a capital ship.
edit: also instead of removing the fighter warp function, why not have a checkbox, where the player can chose whether or not he wants the drones to pursue the target (as far as I can remember, we already HAVE this checkbox, have we not?)
I don't belive in reincarnation
I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
|
|
tasman devil
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
42
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 06:05:44 -
[161] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:Oreb Wing wrote:Now remove a high slot from the Guardian and we can fight those t3 blobs. ...and Basi only Basi and Oneiros, Guardians cannot fit **** all the crappy tech 1 modules which on a tech two ship is more than lame!
I don't belive in reincarnation
I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
|
Angela Channing
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:37:16 -
[162] - Quote
As for nerfs: while you are nerfing Ishtars (hooray) and Tengus (yay) and Skynet (that really got out of hand), I am not sure Proteuses and Legions need nerfs, but I don't really care. However, what also needs nerfing is T3 destroyers and links.
Properly fitted, T3 destroyers make entire ship classes redundant (frigs [except those fit in novice complexes in FW space], destroyers, and ass frigs) and can virtually not be beaten by a T1 (non-pirate) cruiser except perhaps a Vexor. If the only thing that beats a T3 destroyer is another T3 destroyer, there is something wrong in my opinion. Just like for the Ishtar, no ship should be a panacea against such a large number of ships.
To give you an indication, look at the ships that solo kill T3 destroyers and infer (or look up the data to which we have no access) which ones do not get killed in solo fights. For example, I have distilled six rules of thumb to get your Confessor killed in a solo fight.
1. Fit an MWD instead of a 10mn ab 2. Fit a long point instead of a scram 3. Fit beam lasers (perhaps in combination with 2) 4. Fit no cap booster 5. Fit the low slots for yolo instead of tank 6. Engage a Svipul
By induction, Confessors that do not make one of these fitting "mistakes" seem unusually unlikely to get killed by anything but a Svipul in solo fights. There are of course exceptions like insta blaps, but these seem to confirm the rule rather than give evidence of balance.
Similarly, the bonuses of links are so large that they skew fights dramatically. Now you could say "get links yourself." But all they do in that case is restore competitive parity, which means they are redundant. But if one side has them and the other does not, then they simply create too large an imbalance that is too difficult to overcome with skill. Essentially then, links are fundamentally at odds with the goal of balance. |
Uppsy Daisy
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
637
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:48:30 -
[163] - Quote
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44946821/
10MN AB - check Scram - check Pulse lasers - check Cap booster - check Tank in low slots - check Not against a svipul - check
Took about 30 second to find. Fail. |
Angela Channing
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:57:27 -
[164] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:https://zkillboard.com/kill/44946821/
10MN AB - check Scram - check Pulse lasers - check Cap booster - check Tank in low slots - check Not against a svipul - check
Took about 30 second to find. Fail.
Congratulations, you found what I called an "exception."
|
Senjiu Kanuba
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 15:07:08 -
[165] - Quote
How about changing the way the POS bubbles work? Right now a ship within a bubble cannot target anything and cannot be targeted. My proposal is that the edge of the bubble becomes wider, say, 5km wide. That would create three areas of space around a POS.
Current situation:
Area inside: You cannot target and cannot be targeted, you cannot combat boost and you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: You can target anything within range, you can be targeted, you can combat boost, you can assist your fighters to someone.
Suggested situation:
Area inside: Same as before Area "at the edge" (5km wide, or 3km or whatever): You cannot target anything you can be targeted, you cannot combat boost, you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: Same as before.
This would expose capital ships that are in space to the risk that comes with it, because to become safe they'd have to travel 5km to the inside. It would also adress the problem (if there is one) of carriers repping a POS with virtually no risk at the edge of a bubble.
About titans bridging: I would say that ships that don't have the POS password can enter the 5km area where they receive all the bad attirbutes of the bubble but not the safety that it provides. The password allows you within the inner area, you don't need it for the edge area. So ships waiting to be bridged sit at the POS in the vulnerable area while the titan sits in the invulnerable area. If someone appears and wants to fight the subcaps they will have to leave the edge area to fight back but moving 5km isn't that much of a problem, since the enemy can't web the whole fleet (and if they can, well, you're probably doomed either way).
Disclaimer: I did not consider what that changes for nullsec, since I never lived there but I assume it would work the way it's supposed to. My experience is entirely from lowsec, is what I'm saying. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
789
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 15:23:30 -
[166] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:https://zkillboard.com/kill/44946821/
10MN AB - check Scram - check Pulse lasers - check Cap booster - check Tank in low slots - check Not against a svipul - check
Took about 30 second to find. Fail.
LOL at the damage to kill it though XoD |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1026
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 15:32:51 -
[167] - Quote
Senjiu Kanuba wrote:How about changing the way the POS bubbles work? Right now a ship within a bubble cannot target anything and cannot be targeted. My proposal is that the edge of the bubble becomes wider, say, 5km wide. That would create three areas of space around a POS.
Current situation:
Area inside: You cannot target and cannot be targeted, you cannot combat boost and you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: You can target anything within range, you can be targeted, you can combat boost, you can assist your fighters to someone.
Suggested situation:
Area inside: Same as before Area "at the edge" (5km wide, or 3km or whatever): You cannot target anything you can be targeted, you cannot combat boost, you cannot assist your fighters to someone. Area outside: Same as before.
This would expose capital ships that are in space to the risk that comes with it, because to become safe they'd have to travel 5km to the inside. It would also adress the problem (if there is one) of carriers repping a POS with virtually no risk at the edge of a bubble.
About titans bridging: I would say that ships that don't have the POS password can enter the 5km area where they receive all the bad attirbutes of the bubble but not the safety that it provides. The password allows you within the inner area, you don't need it for the edge area. So ships waiting to be bridged sit at the POS in the vulnerable area while the titan sits in the invulnerable area. If someone appears and wants to fight the subcaps they will have to leave the edge area to fight back but moving 5km isn't that much of a problem, since the enemy can't web the whole fleet (and if they can, well, you're probably doomed either way).
Disclaimer: I did not consider what that changes for nullsec, since I never lived there but I assume it would work the way it's supposed to. My experience is entirely from lowsec, is what I'm saying.
you can still assign fighters and be immune to pvp, just be somewhere and align to a pos/station. there's no point trying to salvage this mechanic, it adds nothing good to the game. also a pos can have a load of stuff on it, and carriers are difficult/impossible to kill with very small gangs anyway. things would still be enormously skewed in favour of the risk averse link bads/capital bads. |
Cardano Firesnake
Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation
171
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 16:25:37 -
[168] - Quote
I think the way you analyze things is the problem.
For example you are nerfing Rail guns because they are making more DPS over time. The reason is that there is more Tengu Fleet than other fleets as the heavy missiles when their were Drakes everywhere.
Just look at caracteristics of modules objectively with all 5 skills and best modules, then with the lowest skills, how they apply on best speed/signature average speed/signature lowest speed/signature.
I don't think it is so hard.
BS and BC need better Range, slightly better firepower and better tank because they will not be able to run.
Mobility is the biggest power on the battlefield, if you can't run or catch your enemy you'd better be very strong.
BS and BC and Capitals should be the kings on large scale engagements. Cruisers should be there to support the biggest ships not taking their place.
Cruisers should be the basic fleet for incursions, harrassments, and scouting. BS/BC/Capitals should be the conquest fleet.
Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4]
Erase learning skills, remap all SP.
That's all.
|
ctx1769
Wychwood and Wells Beer needs you
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 19:55:17 -
[169] - Quote
the tengu won't be worth flying soon |
Esceem
Suns of New Eden
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 21:33:13 -
[170] - Quote
If this balancing thingie would finally come to an end I would be so happy... *sigh* |
|
Adaahh Gee
Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion.
153
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:04:30 -
[171] - Quote
For the T3 Balancing, is there any chance of an active rep SubSys for the Loki? (Armor/Shield or both).
Also, I was always under the understanding that T3's are very special ships, battleship DPS and tank in a cruiser size package, very skill intensive, expensive to purchase and fit well, also the only ship class to have a penalty if lost in combat. surely they should be capable, powerful and dangerous? if they get nerfed to any silly degree, they will just be replaced by HAC fleets etc.
The problem currently (which cannot easily be solved) is you have good retention of players, these players have a high average skill set, therefore, more people in any given group are able to fly T3's well. If you could get more newer players onboard, the average skill set of any given group would be dragged down. Either that or carry on dumbing down, all the older players will leave and you can just let the new guys fight in Rifters and Merlins. |
Circumstantial Evidence
170
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:48:12 -
[172] - Quote
Carrier fighters / "Skynet"
I wonder how much of the increase in this tactic, is due to the buff some time back, permitting drone mods on carriers to affect fighters? If carrier fighters went back to being much less effective at hitting something smaller than a battleship, the 'skynet' tactic might drop away. (Players who farm combat anoms in carriers wouldn't be happy.)
Fighter assist and attack-and-follow, are part of the unique ability and history of carriers and fighters, I wouldn't want to see those abilities removed entirely. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 22:52:05 -
[173] - Quote
CCP Rise, please look into the Legion's sub-systems and the number of Lowslots they provide.
As it stands currently, the Amarr T3 Cruiser in ANY configuration can not go over 6 Low slots, while the Proteus can.
Proteus' 3 Navigational sub-systems have (-1 Mid, +1 Low) configurations, while the Legion's don't.
Please
|
Hanibal Khan Rothschild
Blades Of Athena Bad Intention
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 05:15:50 -
[174] - Quote
Hello CCP Rise,
I would like to express my opinion on the upcoming changes. First, I agree the Ishtar is heavily favored and used too often. I think you're rebalance concerning the Ishtar is spot on and will significantly improve PVP.
I'm not such a fan of the changes made to the Proteus. The fact players lose training when the lose a T3 is punishment enough for flying them. The train into one is significant and as such should be rewarded. I love the effective hit points my Proteus has and would appreciate if you left it as is. In my opinion the Tengu is overpowered and should be considered for rebalance, which brings me to rail guns.
Rails are under powered not over powered. Missiles are dominate in EVE right now. Rails do not provide the DPS, or the range and the tracking is a problem, which missiles do not have. In case you haven't noticed the Caldari race is like playing EVE on easy and is probably the first place you should look for a rebalance.
Please reconsider your proposed changes.
Thank you |
Mr Spaxi
meatshield bastards The Bastards.
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 07:50:24 -
[175] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:just wait till ccp rise & fozzie decides to nerf catalyst and well here's the flow of the dev blog
(please excuse me ccp rise but im going to copy from you.. cause well dude.. you're sooooooo pro!)
Catalayst
Problem : it kills too many ships and doesn't cost money, its one of the leading gank ships in the game Proposal : we've decided to change its role into a .........covert electronic attack logistic strategic destroyer!
why? : cause pretty charts and pie graphs said so..
now community please provide feedback and we take this serious ok! o7
THIS! is Eve Online..
going where batchit crazy has never ever gone before!!
Resistance if futile will be NERFED!!!!!
Your parents really need to stop paying for your subscription.
Blog
Youtube
The Bastards are recruiting! Check us out @ www.the-bastards.net or join our channel @ DBastards.
Fly hard!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
792
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 11:25:19 -
[176] - Quote
Hanibal Khan Rothschild wrote:Rails are under powered not over powered. Missiles are dominate in EVE right now. Rails do not provide the DPS, or the range and the tracking is a problem, which missiles do not have. In case you haven't noticed the Caldari race is like playing EVE on easy and is probably the first place you should look for a rebalance.
Sorry, what?
Maybe in PvE... |
Jacus Noir
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 11:26:32 -
[177] - Quote
Warp changes are incredibly annoying for battleships. The only real viability you see in them is close to staging areas unless they are T2/faction BSes in which they pose a greater movement speed. In all honesty I love the strategy in warp changes, its awesome to see a cruiser warp away, you chase after it in a ceptor, and land waiting for it to exit warp. However, I think the warp changes were a tad bit extreme.
Consider the difference between a T1 Frig and T1 BS. The frig aligns quickly, accelerates quickly, and decelerates quickly. A battleship aligns slow, accelerates slow, and decelerates slow. In all honesty, the frig is going to beat the BS on align time alone. Assuming the two are aligned perfect already, the frig still lands on the opposite side before the BS. You guys have put so much emphasis on acceleration and deceleration that its pretty painful. I do not mind warping slowly and a frigate beating me to the other side, I DO mind have to see the grid and wait forever for my ship to stop in order to do anything.
We are talking about a form of propulsion that is faster than light. In my opinion ALL ships should go into and exit warp damn near instantly. Acceleration and deceleration shouldnt even be factors in a warp. The only reason this didnt work before was because so much time is spent accelerating or decelerating that the ship's warp is pretty much split evenly 3 ways in an average warp. Accelerate, Cruise, and Decelerate. If all ships entered their max warp speed as soon as they go into warp and exited warp instantly, their warp would then be defined as their cruising (aka max warp speed) which is as it should be. In this manner a BS aligns slow, enters max warp instantly, exits max warp instantly, but is warping at 2 AU/sec. The frig likewise is aligning fast, enters warp instantly, but is warping at 5 AU/sec, and exits warp instantly.
Essentially you take out the wait time between subwarp and max warp or rather effectively reduce it to 1% of the total warp curve and thus 99% of the warp is based on the true max warp speed of the ship. Does the frig and BS have the same speed going into and leaving warp? Yes, but considering that time is a second or less, it plays such an insignificant part of the warp curve that align time and max warp is the true warp. Thus the BS and Frig may hit max warp at the same rate (1 second or less) but the frig will still overtake the BS in warp and land on the other side before it arrives. Only the Battleship pilot is given the illusion that he is going the same speed as the frig because of the lack of acceleration and deceleration times when in reality the speed differential remains the same as it is currently. |
IlIIlIIIlllIlIllIIIIll
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 13:02:58 -
[178] - Quote
Damn that is really dumb. You should start playing your game before patching it... |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
269
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:04:46 -
[179] - Quote
Sounds good to me for a first pass. Keep itterating changes like this and the game will be in a good place. I'd much rather see people get upset as their new favourite ship gets brought down in power a bit - compared to years of Drakes online that we had at the start of the decade!
I do feel it is the tracking of the Sentry Ishtars that is the major issue rather than the outright damage.
I'm glad T3s aren't getting a huge nerf straight out, much better to let a complex ship class bed in with the changes and if further power reductions are required do so. |
Mr Spaxi
meatshield bastards The Bastards.
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:01:47 -
[180] - Quote
Jacus Noir wrote:Warp changes are incredibly annoying for battleships. The only real viability you see in them is close to staging areas unless they are T2/faction BSes in which they pose a greater movement speed. In all honesty I love the strategy in warp changes, its awesome to see a cruiser warp away, you chase after it in a ceptor, and land waiting for it to exit warp. However, I think the warp changes were a tad bit extreme.
Consider the difference between a T1 Frig and T1 BS. The frig aligns quickly, accelerates quickly, and decelerates quickly. A battleship aligns slow, accelerates slow, and decelerates slow. In all honesty, the frig is going to beat the BS on align time alone. Assuming the two are aligned perfect already, the frig still lands on the opposite side before the BS. You guys have put so much emphasis on acceleration and deceleration that its pretty painful. I do not mind warping slowly and a frigate beating me to the other side, I DO mind have to see the grid and wait forever for my ship to stop in order to do anything.
We are talking about a form of propulsion that is faster than light. In my opinion ALL ships should go into and exit warp damn near instantly. Acceleration and deceleration shouldnt even be factors in a warp. The only reason this didnt work before was because so much time is spent accelerating or decelerating that the ship's warp is pretty much split evenly 3 ways in an average warp. Accelerate, Cruise, and Decelerate. If all ships entered their max warp speed as soon as they go into warp and exited warp instantly, their warp would then be defined as their cruising (aka max warp speed) which is as it should be. In this manner a BS aligns slow, enters max warp instantly, exits max warp instantly, but is warping at 2 AU/sec. The frig likewise is aligning fast, enters warp instantly, but is warping at 5 AU/sec, and exits warp instantly.
Essentially you take out the wait time between subwarp and max warp or rather effectively reduce it to 1% of the total warp curve and thus 99% of the warp is based on the true max warp speed of the ship. Does the frig and BS have the same speed going into and leaving warp? Yes, but considering that time is a second or less, it plays such an insignificant part of the warp curve that align time and max warp is the true warp. Thus the BS and Frig may hit max warp at the same rate (1 second or less) but the frig will still overtake the BS in warp and land on the other side before it arrives. Only the Battleship pilot is given the illusion that he is going the same speed as the frig because of the lack of acceleration and deceleration times when in reality the speed differential remains the same as it is currently.
I like this, but maybe make the warp difference harder - frigates warp even faster, and battleships warp slow. After all, they are designed as immobile platforms and as such they're best used for defense.
Anyone with some more understanding of the game (compared to me) thinks that wouldn't work? I'm talking about the quoted suggestion.
Blog
Youtube
The Bastards are recruiting! Check us out @ www.the-bastards.net or join our channel @ DBastards.
Fly hard!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |