Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1431
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 14:00:29 -
[211] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Quote:Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000) My proposition : 70 CPU and 125.000 power grid. Exactly what is needed to mount additional gun.
You are forgetting skills in both cases. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 14:03:12 -
[212] - Quote
If there is a single Dreadnought (or any Capital, or indeed any ship) that is the stand-out 'best' of the four races...
Then there has been no balancing.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
620
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 14:07:52 -
[213] - Quote
Wouldn't it make more sense to start with stacking penalties on the NSA before hacking the bonus down as well?
With the decrease in carriers ability to lock and respond it might be worth revisiting fighter stats at the same time to up their HP some to give the carrier pilots more time to respond before their squadrons are all dead.
(edit: While looking at fighters you might want to consider upping their sensor strength slightly as well)
Black Fox Marauders is Recruiting
|
Ripard Teg
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
1267
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 14:20:22 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)[/list] This looks like a reasonable place to start. Thank you for considering everyone's feedback and taking it into accout!
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Greeeeat. So now it only needs 2 RCUs and a PDS to fit arty and tank. You're exaggerating. It's looking like you'll be able to fit one capital size mod on an arty fit with no fitting mods at all. With one RCU, you'll be able to fit two. What other ships that can comfortably hit out to 160+185km can fit a heavy tank?
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1431
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 14:25:26 -
[215] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)[/list] This looks like a reasonable place to start. Thank you for considering everyone's feedback and taking it into accout! Torgeir Hekard wrote:Greeeeat. So now it only needs 2 RCUs and a PDS to fit arty and tank. You're exaggerating. It's looking like you'll be able to fit one capital size mod on an arty fit with no fitting mods at all. With one RCU, you'll be able to fit two. What other ships that can comfortably hit out to 160+185km can fit a heavy tank?
The comedy phoenix?
A better question is what is the point of (sieged) capitals being able to shoot so far when on grid probing remains a thing. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
270
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 15:08:06 -
[216] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Naglfar has an additional +60 CPU and +80,000 PG XL Artillery power grid requirements have been reduced (T1: 162,500 > 125,000)[/list] This looks like a reasonable place to start. Thank you for considering everyone's feedback and taking it into accout! Torgeir Hekard wrote:Greeeeat. So now it only needs 2 RCUs and a PDS to fit arty and tank. You're exaggerating. It's looking like you'll be able to fit one capital size mod on an arty fit with no fitting mods at all. With one RCU, you'll be able to fit two. What other ships that can comfortably hit out to 160+185km can fit a heavy tank?
|
Edriahn
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 15:55:58 -
[217] - Quote
Larrikin, you scrublord, fix my Moros already.
Gallente supremacy.
[20:46:05] Komahal > pl is cancer
|
Darkwing Fiftytwo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 16:27:59 -
[218] - Quote
Carriers should have a recall delay on their drones so they cant deploy alpha a ship and then immediately have them back in their bays.
Add a timer. |
Mia Sedgwick
Lazerhawks
4
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 16:34:14 -
[219] - Quote
Base PG for Faction/T2 Auto's on a Nag is 110k, with skills applied that's 99k, how can removing a role bonus then not giving a ship enough PG to fit the extra gun be good game design?
Also, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply reduce the fleet hanger to 7500m3 than rebalance an entire ship to avoid a fairly niche refitting option, an option not totally removed by the use of DST fleet hangers for example. |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
131
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 16:50:13 -
[220] - Quote
Darkwing Fiftytwo wrote:Carriers should have a recall delay on their drones so they cant deploy alpha a ship and then immediately have them back in their bays.
Add a timer.
No because they have the delay built into when they return (they would have to rearm that one missile volley).
This sort of timer servers no purpose as it is the same thing for drones (you can launch and recall all you want). |
|
Willi Walzwerk
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 22:07:45 -
[221] - Quote
Hi guys,
I have question in this whole dreadnought refitting.
Why cant we field 2 sets of guns ? One single guns is assembled 4000m-¦ big. The Fleethangars are 10000m-¦ big. Would it be that big change to put those Hangars to 12000m-¦ or 14000m-¦ ?
Or would it be a possibility to reduce the size of the guns to 3000m-¦ so every dread can field both sets of guns. It wouldnt be that big difference because we still have to choose our refit point wisely because of the weapontimer and its just wierd to leave one guns behind at home when u should use 3 of them in some combat situations.
I would really appreciate an answer to this because i really like the new dreadnought playstyle since citadel was released. They are now combat beasts, but please make them able to refit their two sets of guns complete without leaving one behind in the home hangar. Two sets of guns, both sets should be useable to its full amount of guns.
Greetings
Willi
PS: Sorry for my broken english |
Frostys Virpio
Yet another corpdot.
2918
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 22:22:21 -
[222] - Quote
Willi Walzwerk wrote:Hi guys,
I have question in this whole dreadnought refitting.
Why cant we field 2 sets of guns ? One single guns is assembled 4000m-¦ big. The Fleethangars are 10000m-¦ big. Would it be that big change to put those Hangars to 12000m-¦ or 14000m-¦ ?
Or would it be a possibility to reduce the size of the guns to 3000m-¦ so every dread can field both sets of guns. It wouldnt be that big difference because we still have to choose our refit point wisely because of the weapontimer and its just wierd to leave one guns behind at home when u should use 3 of them in some combat situations.
I would really appreciate an answer to this because i really like the new dreadnought playstyle since citadel was released. They are now combat beasts, but please make them able to refit their two sets of guns complete without leaving one behind in the home hangar. Two sets of guns, both sets should be useable to its full amount of guns.
Greetings
Willi
PS: Sorry for my broken english
It's like that so you have to make a choice I would guess. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
820
|
Posted - 2016.06.14 23:24:27 -
[223] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense to start with stacking penalties on the NSA before hacking the bonus down as well?
With the decrease in carriers ability to lock and respond it might be worth revisiting fighter stats at the same time to up their HP some to give the carrier pilots more time to respond before their squadrons are all dead.
(edit: While looking at fighters you might want to consider upping their sensor strength slightly as well)
I don't think that carriers and dreads share the same engagement profile anymore. I think that carriers are really more suited to smaller engagements where the opportunistic combat style of fighters comes in to play more. Were eve fought on a 2d plane like world of warships then I'd guarantee that fighters would all have toggled powers. |
Lyron-Baktos
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
491
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 01:59:25 -
[224] - Quote
Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)
What is the impact of this? |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
16
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 02:46:59 -
[225] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%)
What is the impact of this? It means your locking range can be reduced to sh** |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
820
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 05:54:18 -
[226] - Quote
I think it was done to maybe devalue the absolute power of escalation? Just look at the objectives of the capital rebalance top-down and it makes more sense. |
Bakuhz
Luna Oscura Clandestina Armada K R A K E N
170
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 09:20:55 -
[227] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Why nerf to shield extenders? Way to early - we didn't have any big capital battles or citadel sieges. Cutting it by 10% will put shield capitals again below EHP achievable by armor versions, without increased signature.
3 x extender Chimera is 15.4 KM in signature 3 x pladed archon is 9.94 KM
come back when CCP actually has weapons that have signature radius like that lol
https://zkillboard.com/character/584042527/
|
Tim Nering
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
170
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:01:42 -
[228] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:ECM immune capitals?
I don't understand why you decide to break what you had fixed earlier.
This is something I can't approve of in the slightest. I'd love to see your reasoning behind this.
i actually have a really good video to help you understand. Wormhole space is a big reason this change happened. Watch this video as the jam pilots just plop all their ECM on the FAX. They will fail 50 times in a row, but on the 51st try they will finally get one jam, and now since the logi is broken, you get kills until it comes back online.
It was really stupid. It was such a perfect strategy the trumped everything in regards to using FAXes.
Short version: it broke wspace triage in a very bad uninteresting way. The adaptation that occurred was not meaningful and very unfun. |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
79
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:11:37 -
[229] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:We will be looking at... Light Fighter application / alpha. Tread lightly. Carriers can counter the subcaps that are too small/fast for the HAWs to manage, and that's about it. They are a small nerf away from being totally outclassed by dreads.
CCP Larrikin wrote:As always, we welcome your feedback! In other news, supers and titans, after a decade of feedback, are still needlessly expensive ships whose only counter is more supers and titans.
They have a subcap fleet? Bring a capital fleet. They have a capital fleet? Bring a super fleet. They have a super fleet? Bring an subcap fleet. Maybe in another ten years we'll give this model a chance.
Real fleet comps where evey ship matters. That's the EvE I want to play. |
Tory Lynx
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:14:54 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: Heavy Rocket Salvo - Explosion Radius (lower is better): 350 (+200)
It's 100 now so +250
|
|
NaK'Lin
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
65
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:22:50 -
[231] - Quote
Carriers outclassed by dreads for Capital vs Capital. /clap
Carriers now less good at fighting subcaps in small numbers; need moar carriers. N+1 /clap
Micro-gang nerds with a single interceptor will hold a carrier on grid for a good 5+ minutes easily because they should be allowed to take all engagements. /clap
People should never have to adapt to new and emergent gameplay. It was interesting while it lasted, people preferred to whine rather than come up with ways to deal with it (and there were ways to deal with it). Other than shitfit interceptors, no inty would be one-volley'd off grid. that was a myth. None of our intys got one volley'd that I know of.
If the Fighters are now able to get their MWD cycle interrupted entirely by a scram, I would like to suggest shorter cooldown / cycle adjustments. Having your fighter's basically die and watching 100+ Mil disappear now that their firepower is nerfed AND their mobility is nerfed is far from fun. There's no need to fit grams on carriers, when 3 subcaps will literally shred enemy fighters now.
Adjusting Fighter MWD cycle- / cool-down timers would help cope with the scram, and maybe, just MAYBE not be entirely bad on grid? After playing on SiSi and assuming my fighters don't use prop-mod to simulate being scrammed, i can already now with old damage application pretty much kiss my whole squad goodbye. There's no counterplay.
GG to the QQ, GG to CCP. you had Capitals back in the game, being used and dying. Please consider these points. Also, thanks for such a quick notice before patch hits so we can extensively test on SiSi /endsarcasm |
NaK'Lin
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
65
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:51:27 -
[232] - Quote
Additionally, Bombers (Heavy Fighters) should SERIOUSLY not be scrammable by stuff other than Anti-fighters, still) They are already slow as hell, and of no real danger of anything but capital ships. There's no point in throwing Supercapitals another curve-ball.
Please CCP, look at that and consider it.
Furthermore, Fighters are already affected by bubbles and don't warp back to your ship if you warp of and stay in a bubble instead of burning slowboating out and then warp. Which leaves the carrier with agression, still and unable to cloak and no option but to literally abandon several hundreds of millions worth of crap that he can't reconnect to.
Which also, CCP, please. Can we reconnect to our fighters again after abandoning them? I hope that was an oversight, but it makes no logical sense why abandoning a squad of drones has no permanent commitment but fighters it does. For their price we should be able to get them back if abandoned. might as well give them all the Jihadi ability of the shadows. then at least you lose them for a cause.
Thanks for looking into this. |
Anthar Thebess
1539
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 12:52:24 -
[233] - Quote
This Explosion Radius for Heavy Rocket Salvo look extreme now, rename it to Torpedo Salvo or Heavy Assault Missile Salvo as it is misleading people.
Just for reference - by weapon size : S: Light missiles / Rockets M: Heavy Missile / Heavy Assault Missile L: Cruise Missile / Torpedoes XL: XL Cruise Missile / XL Torpedo
Current Heavy Rocket Salvo salvo stats put them between S and M , new fighter missiles put them between M and L, very close to L statistics - when you include player skills for L weapon system, and lack of skills that affect fighter missile.
This is no longer Rocket Salvo
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen
150
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 13:08:16 -
[234] - Quote
I find the nerf to light fighter salvo DPS a bit concerning. Reducing the alpha and application is a good move, but carriers will need at least as much DPS as they have now, if not more, to be viable without the alpha. I would expect roughly a 25% increase in overall DPS with this much of a hit to application, not a ~15% decrease. |
NaK'Lin
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
65
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 13:36:31 -
[235] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:I find the nerf to light fighter salvo DPS a bit concerning. Reducing the alpha and application is a good move, but carriers will need at least as much DPS as they have now, if not more, to be viable without the alpha. I would expect roughly a 25% increase in overall DPS with this much of a hit to application, not a ~15% decrease. I'm not having access to excel right this very moment. Can I get the math behind this?
What's the exact impact to sustained DPS now? -15%? (ignore application, pure perfect numbers)
- it's -40% salvo damage
- reload shortened by 1/3 (6s to 4s)
- More charges by 50% (8 charges to 12 charges) (this should cancel itself out with the shortened reload times. no change on the "hey, i'm not contributing to combat" time)
- Rate of fire increased (18s cycles down to 14s cycles).
Normal "auto-attack" has not been affected in damage numbers, only application, iirc. So only the difference in Special attack (F3) needs to be considered. It used to contribute roughly about 45% of total sustained DPS, iirc. So the sustained number of the Salvo special attack (F3) must've gone down by 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333% for it to affect the total sustained DPS by -15%.
Again, I might be wrong, I'm on the road and doing napkin math. Someone please do an actual math behind this and check by how much sustained DPs is affected. it's rather important.
Thank you.
|
Anthar Thebess
1543
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 13:59:34 -
[236] - Quote
Don't forget about application. Now this new Rocket Salvo look more than Torpedo Salvo. Check how torpedo apply damage.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
620
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 14:48:17 -
[237] - Quote
Do omni's affect rocket salvo sig rad?
Black Fox Marauders is Recruiting
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen
150
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 14:48:27 -
[238] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:I find the nerf to light fighter salvo DPS a bit concerning. Reducing the alpha and application is a good move, but carriers will need at least as much DPS as they have now, if not more, to be viable without the alpha. I would expect roughly a 25% increase in overall DPS with this much of a hit to application, not a ~15% decrease. I'm not having access to excel right this very moment. Can I get the math behind this? What's the exact impact to sustained DPS now? -15%? (ignore application, pure perfect numbers)
- it's -40% salvo damage
- reload shortened by 1/3 (6s to 4s)
- More charges by 50% (8 charges to 12 charges) (this should cancel itself out with the shortened reload times. no change on the "hey, i'm not contributing to combat" time)
- Rate of fire increased (18s cycles down to 14s cycles).
Normal "auto-attack" has not been affected in damage numbers, only application, iirc. So only the difference in Special attack (F3) needs to be considered. It used to contribute roughly about 45% of total sustained DPS, iirc. So the sustained number of the Salvo special attack (F3) must've gone down by 33.33333333333333333333333333333333333% for it to affect the total sustained DPS by -15%. Again, I might be wrong, I'm on the road and doing napkin math. Someone please do an actual math behind this and check by how much sustained DPs is affected. it's rather important. Thank you. My math wasn't precise for the 15%; doing the math again it looks more like 11% less paper DPS while the missile attack still has ammo. The cycle time effectively went from 19 seconds to 15 (remember you can't activate the ability till after the cycle has finished, then you have to wait till the next tick.) for a 26.67% improvement. With the 40% decrease in damage, that comes out to a 24% decrease in DPS for the salvo. On top of the paper DPS nerf, the salvo can no longer fully apply to most battleships, let alone cruisers or frigates.
Beyond the paper math it's more subjective, but I just can't really see a noteworthy use for carriers if they lose the one thing they were good at, which was doing a lot of damage in a very short time. If you want sustained DPS, HAW dreads are a little better against battleships and with proper support, vastly better against smaller targets. |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
16
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 16:36:34 -
[239] - Quote
WTH is with this explosion radius? Please make it similar to that of heavy missiles. This is ridiculous. No one flies heavy missile ships but you want us to be flying torpedos that are restricted to bombers and golems with a bilion tps. |
sHanQ Myteia
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
25
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 16:40:06 -
[240] - Quote
good decision to nerf them, carriers were and probably still are OP |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |