|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3052
|
Posted - 2016.06.10 18:36:33 -
[1] - Quote
So, I'll repeat the concerns of PG on the nag, but j now have a bigger question: why the change? I could speculate a couple reasons, but most of them smaller issues or pure guesses. I don't know what the intended goal is here. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3053
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 16:59:54 -
[2] - Quote
Why not just have the jam chance apply to each fighter in the squad individually? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3054
|
Posted - 2016.06.13 19:18:59 -
[3] - Quote
Glad to see the Powergrid reduction and addition. Really makes armor fitting still a possibility.
Now before I bite the hand that feeds, is 80k pg enough? That's about how much a compact turret uses, which would mean an overall reduction for all other meta versions. Is this intended? I'd really prefer to take a 90-100k addition. After skills, all the T1 versions fit nicely in 90k and faction/T2 would fit under 100k. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3061
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 14:58:06 -
[4] - Quote
I see the patch day crowd has arrived... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3063
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 18:52:55 -
[5] - Quote
I want to point the irony of some posters telling others to stop whining. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3066
|
Posted - 2016.06.28 21:39:06 -
[6] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Henry Plantgenet wrote:can you please add it to all capital modules if they can't be used on subcapitals? I try to fit this capital shield extender to my vindicator and it says it doesn't fit even though it makes no mention of it ;( Seriously? That PG requirement wasn't hint enough - It would not fit... Or was common sense (check fitting requirements) too hard for you? I mean do Devs also need to put, won't fit on a frigate on T2 1600 plates and Large guns. Yeah but it is a hardcoded limit. Some battleships CAN meet the fitting requirements. Please show me a battleship that has 75,000 PG (T1 Capital Shield Extender). Even the Regolith (62,500 PG) - Which requires the least fitting, WILL NOT fit any battleship, even with 3 T2 Ancillary Current Routers. Have I been missing something? Like a new Battleship that can get at least 3 times the maximum PG of any existing Battleship. Ok, here's a ridiculously blingy one I had in pyfa, but a good proof of concept. Note that it can fit not only the shield extender, but also a full rack of Tachyon beams, which are well known for their insane power grid use. [Apocalypse Navy Issue, Capital Shield]
Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System Dark Blood Power Diagnostic System
CONCORD Capital Shield Extender Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Large Ancillary Current Router II Large Ancillary Current Router II Large Ancillary Current Router I
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Power Grid Management EG-605 With all 5 skills, a compact or faction Capital Shield Extender only uses 46875MW. There's also the Core Defense Charge Economizer rig to reduce that further, and there are no stacking penalties on mods that increase power grid. With a Genolution pod, 6% implant, 2 T2 + 1 T1 Ancillary Current Routers, and a full rack of faction Reactor Control Units, the Apocalypse Navy Issue can hit 140900 PG. And for the poorer/lowskilled members:
[Apocalypse Navy Issue, Apocalypse Navy Issue] Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Co-Processor II Reactor Control Unit II
Capital Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Thermal Dissipation Field II Capital Flex Shield Hardener II, Shield EM Resistance Script
Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I Tachyon Modulated Energy Beam I
Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I
I would show you the dual compact XL extender fit, but that would just be rediculous, no? :) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3067
|
Posted - 2016.06.29 00:35:31 -
[7] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Ok, I'll concede. If someone wants to spends billions of isk on a ship that will be next to useless, in any situation other than bait, they can fit it. Indeed, the nature of a sandbox at work. Creates some fantastic stories.
Sgt Ocker wrote:I suppose it's no different to my Bhal being cap stable perma running 7 heavy neuts with 1 heavy cap booster and 3200 charges. Of course they aren't in a category that states "Capital" as the fitting requirement. Thats correct. Your cap charges don't state any limitations. Other ammunitions typically do. Geuss a difference in intent by developers. Maybe.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Tell me, did you put these fits together with the intention of using them, or just to see if you could fit it? Back to my sandbox remark. You can use them seriously, badly, jokingly, however you like. Ships and modules don't run an intentions check before you undock.
Sgt Ocker wrote:My reasoning still stands, if capital mods need to be marked "Capital Only", Large guns should be marked "Won't fit anything below a battleship aside from a tier 3 battlecruiser". It's funny you mention that. I was just testing this Aug Navy with two Dual Heavy Pulse Lasers. Surely if they were not meant to be on anything smaller than a battlecruiser this would not work? At the least I shouldn't be able to fire them too, no? Quite an odd occurrence really. Would you look at that, it works. Funny.
I geuss putting "for battleships only" would be unnecessary.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Do Eve players really need to have their hands held that tightly? No handholds necessary, but if you need help understanding game mechanics I'm sure we could find you a suitable teacher somewhere...
And look what came in the patch today!: http://imgur.com/jU3lpET |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3073
|
Posted - 2016.07.06 22:01:59 -
[8] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Carriers, in this itteration, are very new and I don't think anyone really knew how they were going to work out. It's funny, I specifically remember people telling me that the extra control range would be useless and no one would ever use it. Similar things about damage too.
Geuss it depends on who's upset that round vOv |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3077
|
Posted - 2016.07.25 13:57:18 -
[9] - Quote
Nya Kittenheart wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Q: How has the missile damage formula been changed?A: The current missile damage formula looks like this (thanks EVE Uni!). That akward moment a GAME DESIGNER realize his company has to rely on a third party website to access the technical documentation about their own game. Pretty much like if secretary of Justice was asking a human right association if by any luck they arent in possesion of a laws codex copy ... No point in reinventing the wheel just to change the tire. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3079
|
Posted - 2016.07.29 14:47:25 -
[10] - Quote
"Dedicated Anti-Subcapital Platform"
In trying to come up with a sarcastic remark, but I'm still flabbergasted that this is a thing. |
|
|
|
|