Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
808
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 10:20:01 -
[121] - Quote
Tengu has no bonus to RLML?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 11:04:47 -
[122] - Quote
Now is't possible to fit combat probes on t3 in battle fit (by cost of 1 slot usually). With this update its not possible. |
Alessienne Ellecon
Solitude Rangers
128
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 11:29:11 -
[123] - Quote
"Team Five O" wrote: Dual tank bonuses for the Loki
The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no?
*sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth*
"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica
If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3989
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 11:51:19 -
[124] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time
Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading Passive tanked anything are typically just buffer tanked ships with regen modules in place of damage for lows/rigs. Active tanked ships rarely fit buffer as they are fitting reps in their place (occasionally 1 extender to save you from alpha). So I fail to see the problem. If a passive shield tank didn't fit buffer they would have crap all for peak regen, and their tank would be so thin a single alpha could quickly send them sub 30% (break your tank).
Because shields very well can and do fit buffer differently than shields a buffer onyx is fit and used very differently than a passive onyx same with the chimera. A passive will have far higher peak recharge but much lower buffer. Onyx buffer 148-200kehp with 800-2kehp/s recharge vs a passive 80-130kehp with 3k-6kehp/s recharge.
Not to mention armor simply can't passive tank.
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3989
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 11:53:56 -
[125] - Quote
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:"Team Five O" wrote: Dual tank bonuses for the Loki
The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no? *sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth*
Duel tanking is not a no no. That is something told to newbros because 99% of the time that is the rule. This isn't a naff thing as by the time they know enough about the game to figure this out they understand why the few fits that did use it work. It's similar to how newbros were told every fit must have a dcu before they were rebalance
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3989
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 11:57:03 -
[126] - Quote
So the ecm bonus on the tengue my math is kinda crap when it comes to multiple bonuses and stacking penalties but my attempts show it may be a bit to strong. This would not be an issue if 100% jams were removed but worth how it is and the heat reduction i can see these locking down small gangs of t1 ships
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Sterling Blades
Windstalker Security Corp United Neopian Federation
33
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 12:48:50 -
[127] - Quote
Having looked back over the Loki offensive bonuses, it makes me happy that I'll be able to fly a drone flight, even if an absolute minimal one, if they don't pull the drone bay from the current offensive system revisions. Overall, with the exception of the missile based secondary weapon subsystem revision on the loki actually making missile fits decently viable, the rest are mostly in line with current offensive loki configs that I've run.
I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good, and already am feeling jitters about them likely pulling the small dronebays out of the loki revisions entirely. Hopefully it stays though. The little buggers are useful distractions and utility tools.
The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
|
Scath Bererund
SergalJerk Test Alliance Please Ignore
59
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 13:21:43 -
[128] - Quote
No hacking and scan probe bonus any more? |
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 13:25:58 -
[129] - Quote
Scath Bererund wrote:No hacking and scan probe bonus any more? Only with covert-sub. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
48
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 13:59:13 -
[130] - Quote
Sterling Blades wrote:I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good yeah not sure why the footnote says that they dont really look that good to me well proteus is good but its gallente so its expected loki looks good but still projectiles tengu and legion look crap
|
|
Mr Floydy
Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic
362
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 10:51:49 -
[131] - Quote
Blade Darth wrote:Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much. I'm torn on this. Really comes down to some other stats to whether it's really usable.
One one hand 50mbit is pretty rubbish on it's own, but that set of drones plus something like 500dps from missiles that's a whole lot of pain the ship could put out. Considering you can get 8 low slots on the Legion having 4 damage mods to boost both missile and drone dps is definitely achievable. |
Geanos
The Scope Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 12:19:56 -
[132] - Quote
From the dev blog: "The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective"
You might have considered it, but anyway, here it goes: what if the T3's would be a single racial hull with hardpoints for each subsystem? And each subsystem would add some extra antennas, different nozzles for the engines etc., just like T2's have extra graphical assets vs T1's. This could open up skinning for T3's.
Another (probably silly) idea worth exploring would to make the strategic cruisers be like a Gnosis, with a blanked of roles / slot layout and make each subsystem to behave like a specialized rig that add / removes bonuses and fitting slots / hardpoints. This could open up interesting possibilities, for example like not fitting a prop subsystem in order to get an extra slot somewhere. To make it easier for balance you could remove rig slots altogether. |
Kesthely
Almost Dangerous Stranger Danger.
178
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 14:09:25 -
[133] - Quote
I don't think you understand, probably the biggest limiting factor for the amount of modules and combinations is due because of the art department. They need to visual rework 48 combinations.
This means that the arguments of "add another combination" is virtually undoable in the timeframe they want to release it. For game development and balance its also that they are balancing 48 ships at the same time. Wich is twice the amount of Unique ship bonus combinations than there are TII cruiser hulls.
This combined with the unique versatility with Strategic cruisers might make this the most diffficult balance pass since they've decided to step away from tiercide. As a first draft, i'm reasonably content with the proposed changes. The dps total seems a bit high but i've posted previously an option about that already. Hopefully the'll have a working format to release in Juli, looking forward to it.
|
Geanos
The Scope Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2017.06.05 15:33:32 -
[134] - Quote
Humm, it seems that the graphical part needs a better explanation. As I see it, at the moment the T3 hull is just an empty placeholder where you fit different subsystems, each with his own model. So even if you reduce the number of subsystems you still have a lot of graphical combinations. This also means that we'll probably never get T3 skins.
But if you replace that empty placeholder with an actual ship hull and make the subsystems change the look of some small elements like nozzles, antennas etc., the things would get easier for the art department. For example, one could save a lot of work if he would make the weapon subsystem be like a carbon fiber black strip on the hull and you only need to change the number of weapon hardpoints. Another example: it would be like a LEGO ship on which you don't need to change the whole back of the ship (which is a lot of pieces and work to fit everything), but instead you only change the pieces for engine nozzles. You could think at the T3 to be like an unfitted ship with hardpoints, but instead of placing turrets on those hardpoints you would place subsystems.
You would end up with having to maintain only 4 hull models (which is easier to skin) and the small graphical elements that would be the subsystems. |
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
89
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 13:31:28 -
[135] - Quote
tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10
loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here .
maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) .
yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 15:59:34 -
[136] - Quote
In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage?
Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity
Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu.
Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 16:02:57 -
[137] - Quote
Also, I think the free rig swapping ability should be compensated for with slashing calibration size by 50-100 points. |
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
89
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 16:19:55 -
[138] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage?
Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity
Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu.
Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles.
in '12 ccp castrated HML by about 10% of dmg (5% they returned lol) and 12% exp rad , so about 25% of applied damage . since then hml become wastly unpopular
so 25% of exp rad might become too op .
i'd start by about 3% exp + 7.5% rof AND 1% to hml\ham damage thus granting 10 eff launchers and kinda old application
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 17:04:09 -
[139] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Also, I think the free rig swapping ability should be compensated for with slashing calibration size by 50-100 points. Rig swapping is useless! |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
832
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 17:15:53 -
[140] - Quote
Something that a lot of people may not have noticed that i feel needs to be addressed (if it hasnt already). Cargo space, loki especially had terrible cargo space (sub 300m3). If you want a decent missile loki, it needs to have enough cargo space for its ammo, paste, boosters as needed.
Lets make sure T3Cs get at least equivalent cargo as t3ds (for whatever dumb reason t3ds got so much cargo for a dessie).
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 17:53:06 -
[141] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10
loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here .
maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) .
yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles
|
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
90
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 17:58:11 -
[142] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote: not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles
yep . that point i overlooked . in armor tank insane , rlml with application with bonuses + web\painter\track comp = looks like instapopping small ships
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1201
|
Posted - 2017.06.06 18:08:30 -
[143] - Quote
Still waiting for final stats on nerfs / modification like ehp / resist / speed and sig rad to be sure but right now i feel(not know) that 5L loki armor tank(web sub) is too much of a nerf to it with all above nerfs it should continue to have 6L slots and be in the line.
I really don't want to see it go down like that just so one role it does extremely good atm all other possible roles for armor loki are ignored PVE and PVP please CCP reconsider WHY are you doing this and for WHO and should that be a reason to balance a ship?
I would like to see high slot from missile sub go down to low so armor loki get it 6L slot back or at least high get swapped to mid or something to use extra sensor boosters to be harder to damp....
All in all i dont think that one borderline oppressing and certainly annoying setup(that don't even use guns thus extra tank / dual prop) web loki should nerf ALL armor side of loki like that, that is used for both pve and pvp and i think just nerfs to t3 in general with achieve enough by it self.
They are counters out there and with reduction in overall tank ,mobility and being able to get hit easier...and since this balancing passes don't happen more than decade at a time......
Can anyone on CCP comment on this to the rest of us?
You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear
Because >>I is too hard
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18945
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 10:48:25 -
[144] - Quote
Few things in my book that need addressing.
Powergrid is way too high for a cruiser, for example.
Proteus 1820
Thorax 1025 Exequror Navy Isuue 1038 Deimos 1313 Vigilant 1313 Talos 1375 Astarte 1688
A lot of the issues around T3C come from this massive powergrid problem, its a big part of how they can get such huge EHP numbers while still sporting the firepower and utility.
Base HP is another issue that helps them get so much better EHP results than other cruisers. Again looking at the bog standard proteus fleet fit (augmented plating).
Proteus:
Shield 6100 Armour 13700 Hull 3460
Deimos:
Shield 2930 Armour 5560 Hull 4760
Vigilant
Shield 3750 Armour 4630 Hull 4900
Talos
Shield 3020 Armour 3500 Hull 4030
Astarte
Shield 8290 Armour 13000 Hull 9330
Again it cannot be right that the proteus is getting more than twice the base armour of cruisers and is even edging the command ships. It should be brought into line with the rest of the cruisers.
Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.
Fourth, SP loss should go. Its just going to be used to justify the ships being overpowered compared to other cruisers, it disproportionately impacts younger players as older players such as myself don't have much to train for so can afford a few days training the skill again or can afford to simply throw isk at getting those skills back again. Its fairly rare to lose one.
Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly. |
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
90
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 11:51:19 -
[145] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18946
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 12:12:27 -
[146] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:baltec1 wrote:Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field
If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship. |
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 12:20:59 -
[147] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:zbaaca wrote:baltec1 wrote:Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship. T2 command ships (with passive tank bonus) usually have more EHP then t3. -íomparison passive proteus with Astarte (with armor rep bonus) is not valid. Check EHP of Absolution or Damnation. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3373
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 13:17:06 -
[148] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:zbaaca wrote:baltec1 wrote:Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship.
Of if it's really needed, they could always re balance the rats in the sites. It's not like it's not like their currents stats are something that can't be modified at all... |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
812
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 13:57:49 -
[149] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Please stop commenting about exploration or any PvE stuff. You have no idea how to catch explorers (hint: it's not on the gate, Rise even gave you d-scan immune ships for that). Covops and nullification will be hard nerfed I presume to the point single handed gate camp will have the chance to catch it.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3206
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 14:01:10 -
[150] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.
Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly. I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these.
I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps.
Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |