Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Slider POL
Babylon Technologies The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:12:18 -
[181] - Quote
STOP breaking this game... Instead of implementing new mechanics better fix other bugs. Removing asssist option will make the carrier even more useless! The only thing in my opinion you could change is to turn off "the follow target" option so that the fighters will stop chasing the locked ship through the whole system.
Better focus on cloaky campers that are killing all the fun in this game... Like 30min of non activity (keyboard, mouse) and dc from server. It could also be varied by different cloak modules: like tech I - 10min, tech II - 20min, covertops - 30min. |
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:54:42 -
[182] - Quote
In regard to medium rail guns instead of nerfing a weapon and reducing its abilities. How about asking why people aren't using the other weapons? i.e., missiles aren't as viable for pvp vs other weapons because of delayed damage vs. instant damage etc....
|
Bo Bojangles
Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate
38
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:25:50 -
[183] - Quote
CCP Rise,
Your graph showing pvp damage appears to include damage done by structure bashing. If this is the case, your conclusions are flawed. Structure bashing is not 'fun'. Please include damage done only to other ships and compare again.
Even before BS warp speeds were reduced by a third, they were rarely seen on a proper roam. Now, other then the occasional Machariel, they are never seen aside from a specialized op or pve activities. Even for home system defense vs. roams they are not used. Even at the lowsec to nullsec bubble camps, an activity that typically never see those ships ever leave the system, they are not used. BS's are too easily avoided, and too easily caught. When have you joined a roam, undocked a BS, and NOT been asked to change your ship? As a player, this issue is painfully obvious.
In the very least you could improve the comical 'accelerate to warp' & 'decelerate to out of warp' speed. This process alone is so slow as to give any enemies ample time to burn out of web, point, and neut range of any BS arriving on the scene.
Thank you. |
Loken Grimsward
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 21:32:58 -
[184] - Quote
Where the **** is the Sov changes Dev blog numbnuts |
VIP HOLDER
Therapy. KIA Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 21:34:57 -
[185] - Quote
Hey Rise, So some of these changes seem awesome and I would just like to leave some food for thought.
Tengu/Rails -
The problem with rails is that its optimal range with the tengu subsystems are to great. For example is one of the only t3 that can fit a decent tank with low sig included and throw damage out so far. The loki and even the legion don't come close to the range with damage and tank. Prot lacks the damage.
Ishtar-
I kind of think the ishtar needs to be treated like the gila. The Gila role kind of goes straight for medium drones, I believe that the ishtar bonus should go directly to small/medium/large drones. Leave the sentry out of the bonus completely.
The other think i was thinking was either the drone bay shrinks or bandwidth goes down.
Other than that I am looking forward to SOV change updates. Thank you |
flapie 2
Planetary Traders Union
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:10:58 -
[186] - Quote
Quote: Note: Shout-out here to CSM member mynnna for a great internal discussion on this topic. He raised the point that if you look at these weapon systems on their own, rather than comparing the ships using them, they look very balanced. It would follow then that the problem is more about Tengu, Eagle and Vulture than about rails.
So lets down the effective DPS of rails with 7% so not only the PvPers get a slap in the face but also the PvEers. :facedesk:
On the other hand im getting a extra 150 armor points for my PvE proteus \o/ thanks for that, though im not quite sure about the reasoning behind it.
I also agree that sky-netting is a bit daft at best, but like many before me have mentioned in great concern, making them be more exposed (like actually on-grid !!!!!) would be a far better solution then just removing a feature because people are creative with its intended purpose.
But hey what do i know i sold my Carrier after coming back from my forced brake and read about Jump drive changes, Capital are no longer a ship type i aspire to train for/use (i agree with those changes though, things were getting out of hand for some time already, i just cant be bother with the risk/hassle unless i at some point get back into 0.0 again witch i dont see happening any time soon either). |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 01:53:10 -
[187] - Quote
Hi CCP and Rise,
that one was probably already proposed, but i didn't want to read all the 10 pages.
Keep the fighter assist mechanic like it is and add the range mechanic from the cynos - basically: no launching fighters within 25km off the forcefield so you have to stay either at a station (where you can't dock when using them in pvp) or on a save where you can be scanned down by a prober.
If you take the safe way (cloaking up/docking up) the fighters will become useless and you dont have any possibility to recollect them without scanning them down later/doing a boomark at their location...so risk vs. reward i'd say.
Risk: Losing hundreds of millions in fighters/losing the carrier
Reward: better ticks in nullsec/more kills in pvp/whatever else |
Aineko Macx
331
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 09:34:38 -
[188] - Quote
Tbh I have no idea how those BC damage stats came to be, I rarely see BCs at all. I'd say what they currently offer is not competitive.
Also since you took care of power projection, can you please start to undo the nerfs to titans and supers which were originally done in the name of curtailing power projection?
iveeCrest: A PHP library for CREST || iveeCore: The PHP library for industrial activities
|
dongoble
Teh Hive Collective Carebear News Network
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:26:31 -
[189] - Quote
Why are teh SKYNET changes coming now as opposed to earlier or not at all? I'd like to see T2 BPOs ended but that ****'s still here too ... just kinda seems rediculous to cut the legs off of assist....
Why not make it require a minimum distance from a station / pos, so they cant just magic save themselves... come on... enough with the capital nerf bat already |
Jhaelee de'Auvrie
Underworld Protection Agency Fatal Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:26:08 -
[190] - Quote
The idea of changing things so PvP does not continue to be dominated by a few ship types/fittings is a good thing. That said, I think some of the changes are in the wrong direction.
Firstly, Sentry drones are the core of a lot of the problems and the rise of the current methods of fighting. They need to have some work done across the board, not just to one flavor. The Bouncer sentry drone is not the problem, nor is it better than the others. The primary reason it is favored so heavily right now is the overwhelming presents of Caldari and Gallente ship hulls being fielded (primarily the Ishtar really). With the two races having higher Kinetic resistances, that leaves EM and Thermal for remaining long range damage types to be used. The Bouncer can reach out farther than the higher rate of fire Curator. That is all it is. Not some kind of Bouncer superiority, recent fleets I have been part of which have fielded Sentry drones have actually been carrying flights of both. The balance between the four types of Sentry drones (when compared to each other) is actually in a pretty good place.
Rather than trying to solve a symptom of the problem, look at the issue as a whole. One flavor of sentry drone is not overwhelming all other PvP options, they all are. They have good tracking, range, and damage output and do not require any kind of special fitting or odd setups. Simply use the hulls with the bandwidth and maybe even related bonuses. The downside of the sentry drones being able to be destroyed is often negated by quick GÇÿscoopingGÇÖ and redeploying them or by having 10,000 more in the bloated carrier bay. Often, even skilled bombing runs have trouble effectively forcing this downside to be an issue.
Moving on, the Ishtar. Personally, I think CCP needs to bite the GÇÿout-cryGÇÖ bullet and drop the Ishtar to below 125. None of the other HACs can match their battleship counterparts damage output potential without severely compromising their fits. The Ishtar just has it built in, Dominix/Armaggedon bandwidth with Dominix-like bonuses. Simple fix, switch the IshtarGÇÖs bonuses over to GÇÿall dronesGÇÖ and give it 100mb bandwidth. That leaves the Eos as the only 125mb bandwidth ship below battleship weight/vulnerabilitytobombing.
Oh yeah, the Vexor Navy Issue should not have 125 either; drop it down to 100 at most. Same reason as the Ishtar needing to have less, it should not have Battleship damage output with no downside. If we look at a normal cruiser as having 4-5 turrets (not counting ship/skill bonuses), Navy versions tending to get a effective 25% bonus to that, bring them up to effectively 6-7 turrets. Overall, very good and able to out damage their non-faction counterparts. The VexorGÇÖs 75mb compared to the VNIGÇÖs 125mb is an increase of 66%, making it an already higher end of T1 Cruiser in to an effective 7-9 turret cruiser . . . that could still fit three more unbonused turrets. See the issue here?
So, the Medium Railgun changes are one of the things I am in favor of. Right now Hybrid weapons are king. Look at the supremacy of the Rail-Harpy, Rail-Eagle, and Rail-Tengu (despite the submod being subpar). Instead of just singling out the Medium sized railguns, look at all three of the normal sizes (small/medium/large). If/when battleships become viable again it will just turn back into Megathron 23/7 if the large railguns remain as good as they are right now.
The carrier/fighter changes I am torn on. While I am all for eliminating riskless advantage, I think an over all revamp of fighters needs to be done instead of a wedged-in change. With the fighters no longer being as versatile in their usage, they are no longer going to be worth their mineral cost to build. They barely are right now when compared to the vastly superior and cheaper sentry drone (which more of can be carried). If the fighter drones are intended to just be XL sized drones (or XL+ for the bombers) drop their cost down to be in scale with their damage. Drop their bandwidth and size/volume as well. That will also cleanly solve the problem of near infinite non-fighter drones being fielded by carriers. If the Fighters are only 50m3-100m3, the carrier drone bay can be scaled down to reflect that and thus the carrier can no longer hold hundreds of drones.
Finally the T3s. I do not know what to really say on this except wait. There are a wide number of changes being made, most of which are reactions to very specific issues. Assuming all the other changes go through as written originally, see if the medium railgun rebalance fixes the dominance of the Rail Tengu. Part of the idea of the more rapid development cycle is to be able to make slow improvements, why not do that. Make an adjustment, see how things go, make another adjustment.
Sorry for the wall of text, but a lot of things are being purposed and most of them raise some concerns.
|
|
Wolfensrevenge
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 16:22:03 -
[191] - Quote
This needs to be said so im saying it here... maybe Someone will pass it along and spam it like a bad Chuck Norris joke... Ishtar's need fixed we all agree but its not the bonuses that are the problem we all know this... The problem is that they can kite away from their deployed sentry's its a broken game mechanic that needs addressed in eve as a whole. My personal opinion is that these sentry's should have a range 10-20km to be from the controlling ship to prevent kiting in a 750 DPS ship when no other kite cruiser fit can do over 500 dps. If you want to have that damage you need to be stationary while doing it to give it a vulnerability.... problem solved sentry's were never intended to be deployed and ran away from but the current CCP mechanic controls all drones with "control range". Im not sure they know how to fix this.
Just my thoughts maybe somone else agrees this would be better than just playing with some bounus numbers. all that will do is make ishtar fleets need more members to get the same dps. Fix the problem not the ship. Its the Kite problem not only the DPS problem.
P.S I flew an ishtar before it was cool. |
Steve Atreides
Phoenix Interstellar Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:05:26 -
[192] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb?
For those of us that are quite dumb and have bothered to strinmg together more than a sentence to air their views maybe you'd like to prove your obvious superior intelligence and justify what you say....at the moment you havent said anything of substance. |
Wolfensrevenge
Black Aces Against ALL Authorities
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:12:40 -
[193] - Quote
Steve Atreides wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:are these 'anti-nerf' people actually serious? is it even possible to be that dumb? For those of us that are quite dumb and have bothered to strinmg together more than a sentence to air their views maybe you'd like to prove your obvious superior intelligence and justify what you say....at the moment you havent said anything of substance.
I don't think anyone here is anti nerf we all just know that the ship bonuses are not the problem... |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1998
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:30:53 -
[194] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:The only buff battleships really need is a nerf to bombers
Some warp speed would be nice to have though
Problem is that makes bombers easily useless. BOmbers are too much focused. They need a redesign so that they do not need to be SO GOOD at killing battleships to have a reason to exist.
And then battleships can get some bufffs (like fitting for some of them)
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1998
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 14:32:44 -
[195] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Tbh I have no idea how those BC damage stats came to be, I rarely see BCs at all. I'd say what they currently offer is not competitive.
Also since you took care of power projection, can you please start to undo the nerfs to titans and supers which were originally done in the name of curtailing power projection?
You know where they come? from high sec POCO bashing. Every freaking day a nameless number of POCOS are killed with Taloses with neutron blasters.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
fredtheevil
modro Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 18:11:23 -
[196] - Quote
tasman devil wrote: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 these changes press 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?)
Or restricting assistance from fighters to ships that have no drone bandwidth just an idea?
|
Centurax
Dracos Dozen Unsettled.
60
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 21:23:27 -
[197] - Quote
With the Skynet changes and Carriers having to now be on grid to use fighters and fighter bombers:
Is it possible that the Drone Control Unit will become redundant, as there is a good chance that all Carriers will be logi fit for their own protection. So with that thought would it not be better to apply fighter damage bonuses through the "Advanced Drone Interfacing" (ADI) skill. Maybe 10% per level which would mean a pilot with 10 Fighters will have the equivalent fire power of 15 which you would have if you had Carrier and ADI skill.
Also might be worth considering not locking out all drones when in Triage mode now that carriers have to be on grid, even if they have a 50% reduction in Fighter DPS, it would be useful to be at least able to defend the ship.
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC 404 Alliance Not Found
198
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 02:42:35 -
[198] - Quote
Nami Kumamato wrote:So how exactly did the shuttles damage... anything ?!
Skynet |
Chaos Primal
Black Market Ops
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:51:31 -
[199] - Quote
I'm just curious, has ccp completely forgotten that we still need to make the isk to buy anything?
From a PVP perspective all this balancing over the years has been great and has made for a great sandbox to play in.
However have you guys stopped to consider PVE even for a second? You've nerfed the life out of anything to make isk in. Every single update you guys make me groan and reconsider paying for another month, why? Because I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone makes the isk required to even consider PVP, every boat that could make any decent amount of iskies no longer can without countless hours of boring as grinding with high a high risk of losing ones ship leading to losses instead of gains.
Is every player expected to have a Jita trade alt or what?
Most ships and mods still worth using require weeks of grinding out missions, hauling infinite cargo runs or *groans* mining to afford a single unit now. Null sec pilots don't seem to have any trouble here but honestly I can barely afford to buy a standard T1 battleship 99% of the time and yet you guys keep making everything weaker cept the enemies which seem to be forever gaining hit points as our damage gets more and more pathetic.
I've been playing since 2009 and can barely keep myself in a ship let alone go out buying fun shiny ships to go get blown up in.
Why does CCP hate PVE'ers? Its a basic requirement in eve in order to finance ourselves yet with every "update" and "balance" it becomes more and more unfeasible and a total waste of millions of skill points. Us "carebears" are often mocked yet moving to null requires massive amounts of isk, let alone living there.
Please CCP tell me, HOW are we expected to keep playing when earning in-game money becomes less feasible with every update? You want more people out in low/null sec right? Yes? Then please double the bounties or 1/2 the npc's hit points, SOMETHING to make getting there more financially possible. As things stand I could move to null yeah sure, no problem, cept I can't afford anything to fly while I'm out there and will likely loss it after 5 minutes of use anyway. |
Blake Thunderchild
Blades Of Athena Bad Intention
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 04:54:39 -
[200] - Quote
Very unhappy about the nerf on rail guns and the Proteus, only true counter to a navy Navy apocalypse fleet.
Navy apocalypse fleets will now be untouchable other than with a capital fleet engagements.
In High sec War Dec's they will be unstoppable with a good logi chain.
A least buff some of the other battle ships to counter the Navy apocalypse or balance the Navy Apocalypse . The range bonus on them is ridiculous with short range weapons.
Since there is a double nerf of the Proteus with its tank and rail guns then at least consider dropping the training time penalty. or no one will fly them.
It will become the laughing stock of the game like the drake after it was nerfed.
I also suggest we nerf mining lasers since the miners and care-bears keep wanting to nerf pvp weapons so bad.
A reduction of mining yields would drive up prices and add more risk in the game.
CCP could take a holistic approach to balancing rather than cherry picking and what looks to be appeasing pressure groups.
Balancing is fine as long as it is balanced and we are not left with some having huge advantages over others. |
|
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.08 12:33:02 -
[201] - Quote
Chaos Primal wrote:You want more people out in low/null sec right? Yes? Then please double the bounties or 1/2 the npc's hit points, SOMETHING to make getting out there more financially possible. As things stand I could move to null yeah sure, no problem, cept I can't afford anything to fly while I'm out there and will likely lose it after 5 minutes of use anyway.
This wouldn't fix things for you. It would just cause prices on ships and modules to rise as people have more cash between their hands.
The market works according to supply and demand. The average player can afford to live in EVE, but there are outliers, you might be an outlier if you can't afford to live in EVE. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
553
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:48:15 -
[202] - Quote
Why not just make the T3 cruisers like the T3 Destroyers? Get rid of subsystems altogether and reimburse the skill points. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 18:07:58 -
[203] - Quote
Blake Thunderchild wrote:Very unhappy about the nerf on rail guns and the Proteus, only true counter to a navy Navy apocalypse fleet.
Navy apocalypse fleets will now be untouchable other than with a capital fleet engagements.
In High sec War Dec's they will be unstoppable with a good logi chain.
A least buff some of the other battle ships to counter the Navy apocalypse or balance the Navy Apocalypse . The range bonus on them is ridiculous with short range weapons.
Since there is a double nerf of the Proteus with its tank and rail guns then at least consider dropping the training time penalty. or no one will fly them.
It will become the laughing stock of the game like the drake after it was nerfed.
I also suggest we nerf mining lasers since the miners and care-bears keep wanting to nerf pvp weapons so bad.
A reduction of mining yields would drive up prices and add more risk in the game.
CCP could take a holistic approach to balancing rather than cherry picking and what looks to be appeasing pressure groups.
Balancing is fine as long as it is balanced and we are not left with some having huge advantages over others. A proteus really has no business dealing that amount of damage while retaining similar tank and offering far more mobility.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
211
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 19:00:03 -
[204] - Quote
Esceem wrote:If this balancing thingie would finally come to an end I would be so happy... *sigh* I have some terrible news for you...
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Karsha Amerel
Psy Corp.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 09:54:15 -
[205] - Quote
I don't really want to distract from the main aim of this post, but the PvP damage graph is really bad. The issue is that larger ships tend to do more damage and fights tend to get dragged out for longer, which means there is more repping and hence they do even more damage over the duration of the fight. If you accounted for this, then BSs and BCs (to a lesser extent) are going to drop down the list.
Sorry about the long post.
Anyway, I have been thinking about ways to make BS better and I think it can be done without improving their stats. One way could be to buff large modules and make more modules that compliment a large ship doctrine. I think the micro-jump drive was an excellent way to improve the hull by adding a new module, rather than a strict buff.
BSs are slow, have a large amount of EHP and have good damage projection. I think the proposed Sov mechanics are going to give a lot of room for maneuver warfare, which favours the smaller ships, but I think there is still room for tanky, slow, high damage fleets, and BSs should be better at this than any subcapital fleet, but they need the tools to do it. One of the problems with BSs is that T3 cruisers have similar tank, less but still decent damage and project, and so much mobility that they really overshadow BSs. While some might argue that the T3 should be nurfed, I think the BS should get a little something something to really make them the nuggety bulwark on the grid.
There are a few ways to do this and perhaps this is madness, but I thought I would suggest it at least. One module that most ships can use, but only seriously used on the BS is the smart bomb. The reason is that the large smart bomb has an area of effect that is actually useful, and I wonder if an area of effect doctrine might be good for BSs. Now, what I mean is area of effect reps and area of effect cap transfer. Perhaps this type of module would be too server intensive, but I think it would definitely make mass BS tactics incredibly tanky in mass numbers, but not actually buff a lone BS.
The range of the module could be used as a method of balance, and would also mean that it becomes less effective as ships move to pursue an enemy or drift apart from each other due to bad discipline. The way I foresee this working is that you would have to have the order of 6 ships within perfect spacing before you start to break even over local reps and cap transfer, but the more BSs you have in close range of each other, the better it gets.
You could even have the FC in the centre of the rep ball, so they get the most repping, the ships of the outside of the ball get the least repping and would also require repping from logistics when faced with focused fire. Logistics ships would not need to cap chain since they can mooch off the area of effect cap boost. It would mean that light ships that are damaged could fly through the rep ball and get incidental reps (both friendly and hostile) or give bumping ships out of the rep ball if they were feeling brave. This would also provide some defense against bombers, because unless the bombers can bring enough bombs to alpha the BS fleet, the BS fleet could be back at full health before another run could finish them off (maybe, it would need some serious looking at for balance).
Fast fleets can fly away, but the BS fleet would be the perfect fleet to break a choke point or at least clear a choke point of tackle ships, so that your own side could get faster ships through and go zap some objectives.
Another idea would be projected smart bombs (perhaps one per ship so it does not get too out of hand). Projected smart bombs would not really be a problem for the BS AE repping fleets, but it would easily drive off the fast fleets that rely on logistics, and since the objective is to control the grid, these ships would definitely do it. It would also mess up all those dirty drone users. Filthy!
Perhaps this idea could be exploited, but I think with some fine tuning it could give a purpose back to BS fleets without buff the hell out of them. Powerful, but slow, just like it should be. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 14:17:06 -
[206] - Quote
Despite the reduction of the sentry damage bonus, I still predict Ishtars to cause massive ship-spinning Eve-wide.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Xenuria
Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet
1007
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 17:14:28 -
[207] - Quote
Why rebalance the T3 subsystems but not fix the way in which NPC EWAR affects them?
CSM 10 Candidate
|
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
28
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:05:47 -
[208] - Quote
"The Ishtar has been slightly rebalanced. "10% bonus to Drone hit points and damage" becomes "10% bonus to Light, Medium, and Heavy Drone hit points and damage, 5% bonus to Sentry Drone hit points and damage"."
This is a 16% nerf on sentry DPS and as such nothing like a "slight" nerf. And it is another blow to the exploration community. A little perspective:
Let's talk for a moment about how you practically destroyed exploration as a game style - was de facto the only "deep" niche left for solo players - when you effectively took exploration out of it and made it into grinding, which is what it is today.
Swarmed by so many players that it is now common to enter a system to see two or three sets of Sisters probes in space. This not only in hi- but also low-sec, much due to the press-button-to-explore mechanics now in place and one of the outstanding result of your rather immature analysis that by making things two-dimensional and LOLeasy to access, you are adding to the player experience. Not the case. What you are doing is installing cookie-cutter play style templates instead. You call it diversity and opportunity but it is, in fact, player experience spread thin and bland from lack of potential and depth. The average number of players on Tranq hasn't exactly exploded since the dumb-it-down-and-more-colors dogma caught on. But from what we learned at the 2015 Fanfest this is still the gospell. Everything layed out on a silver platter right there, for god's sake no barriers whatsoever. Well, I don't believe one second that you are "retaining" anyone this way, and what used to be the exploration community is not happy, that's for sure.
Back to the Ishar: The only way of getting a little bit of the exploration feel back is to go to lesser populated outskirts of EVE and play. Out there, of course, the "exploration" mechanics are still dumbed down and no challenge whatsoever, but there is still the challenge of staying alive. Which comes in two flavours: Avoiding or being able to kill / capsuleers on the prowl (bless 'em), and being able to actually do the complexes you find there. And the Ishtar was one of a very small number of hulls (maybe the only one, right?) that offered the combination of DPS and mobility to pull this off. The ship has no tank when fit for reasonable DPS but by using distance, sentries, one could actually complete a complex in a fair amount of time (time * exposure = risk , so not trivial) and not die. Well, not so much anymore.
CCP, it has been said a lot of times before, and I appreciate that you are in denial about it and that you have found what seems to be a surefire way of designing the optimal game, statistics and the mathematical equilibrium. No devblog without an effin graph these days. But nobody cares about your pathological rebalancing programme (especially when you try to be charming about it "blood on the nerf bat") except for a handful of math nerds, who happen to be playing EVE from a spreadsheet instead of designing it from one. But I recognise that rebalancing for the sake of spreadsheet karma is in perfect line with the overall effort to remove all depth and potential in game by making everybody equal and omnipotent.
I'll find a way, though. I am criticising your design philosophy and compulsive "rebalancing" here, not whining. |
Jake Reece
Unimatrix003
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:22:56 -
[209] - Quote
Dedbforucme wrote:Getting rid of Skynet basically ruins the point of flying any super carriers because nobody wants to risk almost 23+bilion isk (600+ dollars) by having their super carriers on the field meaning that those who currently can fly and use them who spent years training to do so are now useless and the training time to use them and make them worth while is now wasted. Also having them orbit close to a safe POS while attacking a system just send a battle ship or 2 out to their POS and just force the Super carriers in there, and then they can't assign fighters unless they want to get blown up, just scan down the POS it is that easy.
In addition fighters not being able to have your fighters warp makes carriers essentially not worth using for PVE either and are just glorified extra large battleships with extra large drones, because if you are in null/low sec using them to make isk and a neutral or hostile come into system and you need warp to a safe location to not die you don't have time to recall them and that is 250-300mil worth assests you are leaving behind.
I agree - total nerf for long time playing and skilling players with NOTHING in return |
Ellariona
Negative Density
159
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 16:51:39 -
[210] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:The "awesome graph of PVP damage by class" needs some explanation of the various colors.
I'm also not convinced that total PVP damage, which is dominated by large fleet engagements, is a good metric for balancing ships that now suck at small-gang warfare due to lost mobility.
This!!!!! Total damage done is an awful metric. The big blocks might as well pick and choose what gets nerfed next. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |