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) |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 14:56:45 -
[241] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Ah ok. Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! My problem is the new cloak defensive subsystem is linked to a local repair bonus, which will be useless in 90% of the situations cloaked ships are currently used for. There are so many sacrifices you have to make to fit a viable local reps tank that is is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused.
I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so.
Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:09:26 -
[242] - Quote
im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems
legion laser sub is a waste of time legion missile sub is a waste of time tengu rail sub is a waste of time |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:12:46 -
[243] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Noxisia Arkana wrote: I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.
For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also. Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets. What about the drone bay on the Proteus? I think that's an important detail of the balance too. Should it be Ishtar, Stratios, somewhere in between or lower? Personally I would love to see the drone bay as a fixed stat on the ships. That being said, the Ishtar has 375, Stratios has 400, VNI has 200, current Proteus has 225, I think bumping it to 250 would be OK but I could also see dropping it down to 200.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:16:03 -
[244] - Quote
i think all the subs desrve a 25mb drone bay its dumb to think any ship[ builder would build a cruiser without a flight of light drones to defend itself |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:28:15 -
[245] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems
legion laser sub is a waste of time legion missile sub is a waste of time tengu rail sub is a waste of time
Fozzie mentioned pretty early in the discussion (late may?) that the original spreadsheet some of the subsystems looked a little powerful and some lackluster. I'm sure they'll change; eustise, caprisunkraftfoods, exooki and others had pretty solid feedback.
I suggest reading the comments on the focus group; the spreadsheet was a first pass - and I think they're aware that there are some extremely strong and lackluster weapon systems:
Captured from the May 30th logs (conversation starts around 1500). The link is in the first post if you'd like to read.
ccp_fozzie @mawderator Legion drone/missile is probably the one that seems most likely to break things, but Proteus hybrid and Loki projectile also seem a bit dangerzone
ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.
ccp_fozzie well if you don't balance based on small subsections we'd only ever balance for highsec
ccp_fozzie what I had in mind in this version of the design would be that the cloak subsystem wouldn't have a raw HP penalty compared to at least the normal active rep one, but that the HP would be less concentrated into the main tank types
There's a lot of concern about niche play styles, creating differences between the t3cs and other ships, and making sure the weapon subs make sense.
Edit - I had to edit out the time stamps because the forum thought I was using html... |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:38:17 -
[246] - Quote
@Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.
I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:53:52 -
[247] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:@Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.
I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken. I am in no way suggesting that the Bandwidth should be a fixed part of the hull, if possible I would like to see it added or subtracted based on what subsystem you have on the hull. Simply the drone storage section would be fixed. Edit: also I think the drones need to be removed from the blaster sub of the proteus.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 16:38:59 -
[248] - Quote
@Omnathious Deninard: ah the bay, I thought you were thinking both. Right now the blaster prot gets +25 mb and the drone gets +100. Seems okay. I think having the bay on the hull might be weird because you could end up with 25 mb and have a 200 m3 bay or 100 mb with 200m3; which would make the drone sub kind of crappy (less flights). The m3 is hypothetical, not based on any real numbers but illustrative. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 16:41:51 -
[249] - Quote
You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 19:04:17 -
[250] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay. I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price.
Noxisia Arkana wrote:I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so.
Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats. Here is a wild idea to make T3Cs' cloak unique: remove the local rep bonuses, but allow them to use local rep modules and the nano repair paste while they are cloaked, maybe with reduced efficiency.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 19:27:54 -
[251] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! I would argue with this. A good example are the sleeper cache sites: if you screw up something you get a lot of dps on you. If you tie the cloak and the probe+analyzers together, I see 2 potential results: - with the exploration subsystem you have a fair chance to complete the site, but a little mistake will probably result in losing your ship - with an actual tank based defense you have a good chance to survive when the site blows up, which will happen because your analyzers aren't as good as they should be
Separating the cloak from the rest means you can have a good tank and a good exploration equipment, so you only need to worry about other players. If you are a hunter you have the same options: have a cloak to sneak up on people, or have a tank and better chance of winning, while you don't have to sacrifice your probing bonuses.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 13:23:34 -
[252] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay. I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price. The Proteus is not supposed to have a similar drone bay as the Stratios or the bandwidth of the Ishtar, it has options that both of those ships don't have, needing to sacrifice a little bit of drone bay is a fair trade off. The reason I didn't like to use a drone proteus was the difficult slot layout it created 6 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints, 3 mid slots and 7 low slots is a difficult drone cruiser.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2267
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 18:36:22 -
[253] - Quote
Although it is not a problem for my play style, I think that people do have legitimate concerns with regards to the cloak and scanning roles being linked.
Again, I would suggest that a new line of industrial/pve subsystems are added and that the exploration roles could be tied to this. This would mean keeping the 5 subsystem model.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
220
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 21:54:38 -
[254] - Quote
Any reason why we don't have access to the google doc anymore? Changes? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 22:46:46 -
[255] - Quote
I would expect it's because they are updating to the new figures.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 23:26:43 -
[256] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Any reason why we don't have access to the google doc anymore? Changes? Here are the new documents: Legion Tengu Proteus Loki
Finally some numbers! Good news: free probe launcher for everyone and a dedicated subsystem bay.
The analyzers are still together with the cloak though.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
19
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 01:32:07 -
[257] - Quote
When I first heard that there would be a shake-up of the Strategic Cruisers, with fewer subsystems, I actually hoped that they'd get the same mode-switching mechanic that the tactical destroyers do. As a twist for the cruisers, though, the bonuses for each mode would be determined by the subsystems fitted, with the Core subsystem being always active. It seemed like it might make this "do everything at once" problem a bit easier to balance out. |
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
93
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 03:41:53 -
[258] - Quote
it looks like ccp dont hear THAT CALDARI DONT LIKE STUPID KINETIC LOCK
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
Ele Rebellion
Fat Dragon Mining Co. Darwinism.
78
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 03:47:18 -
[259] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
I'm looking at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q0HSnCO8ZF5L_VdoIqPRBPqexbWAj2LPWJhhRh7BALk/edit
3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it.
My Current Tackle Proteus Setup HighSlots -Covert Cyno -Cyno -Sisters Core Probe Launcher -A-Type Small Nos -Cover Ops Cloak
Midslots -B-Type 50mn MWD -True Sansha Warp Scrambler -True Sansha Warp Scrambler -Federation Navy Stasis Web -Sensor Booster II
Lowslots -Damage Control II -Imperial Navy Enam -Imperial Navy Enam -Dark Blood Energized Explosive -Federation Navy 1600 -Federation Navy 1600
Subsystems -Graviational Capacitor -Covert Reconfig - Cap Regen Matrix -Augmented Plating -Friction Extension
Slot Layout H5 M5 L6
I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it)
Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?
|
Eustise
Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
9
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 04:43:54 -
[260] - Quote
An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing
In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now, compared to most current sub fits. We'll also enjoy a fully bonused offensive system.
That aside... we're really in the crapper EHP wise.
All T3's lost 17% resistences off the top 2 main ones. That wouldn't be the end of the world, but without a defensive sub (judging off a future explofit), we're looking at the raw HP of the main tanking surfaces each losing roughly 45% HP, and considering hull as well, we're looking at 38% drop in overall raw HP. Combined with the 17% resistences, it's almost certain that we may need to switch to a Defensive sub to run any ghost/sleeper caches.
I'll be asking and figuring out if this is part of the plan, but i'm honestly not expecting for a lot of consideration to be given to the ability of an 'adaptable' T3C to not need to 'adapt', aka, running the sites in full cloakynullified. |
|
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
128
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 04:58:13 -
[261] - Quote
Having the drone bay (not bandwidth) as part of the hull makes sense in that if you swap offensive subs to a non drone carrier, you suddenly have to stash a huge amount of drones in cargo.
9 highslot proteus might be entertaining til it crashes your client repeatedly. if its workable, sign me up.
Trying to tie exploration to a terribad tank isn't fun, it's annoying, re: Stratios Since exploration bonuses have zero weight in the system just make 'em hull bonuses instead. It does after all fit with the theme T3c's were created with originally.
HAC's and Recons: both have issues and need work, trying to balance against them while they're still dysfunctional is kind of pointless, seems like we need a slow burn focus on fixing T2 cruisers as a whole. This is also beyond the scope of the current project.
Been waiting for this rebalance for years guys, let's not shove it too far the other direction, I'd rather not be stuck driving donut ships around hisec til 2021. |
Siobhan MacLeary
Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 05:46:01 -
[262] - Quote
Public access to the WIP spreadsheet seems to have been revoked.
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
|
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 07:03:16 -
[263] - Quote
Quote:5% bonus to the benefits of overhearing armor and shield hardeners. This bonus work good on shield ship, you can fit 1-2 Adaptive Invulnerability Field overheat them and get effect of bonus. But at armor ship with redused base resistance this bonus is usefull only at owertanked ships with 4 Armor Hardeners. |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 09:31:23 -
[264] - Quote
Ele Rebellion wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it.
I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it)
Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?
I think the localized injectors subsystem supposed to have 1 mid instead of 1 high. But an explorer configuration still only has 3 mids which is really few.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 09:38:02 -
[265] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:it looks like ccp dont hear THAT CALDARI DONT LIKE STUPID KINETIC LOCK Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way? Amarr: EM and thermal Caldari: thermal and kinetic Minmatar: kinetic and explosive
I know, Caldari is the missile faction, but the other 2 are using missiles quite often, and this would fit the factions' damage pattern too.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1266
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 10:38:27 -
[266] - Quote
it would be so much easier too just bake all the stats and slots into the hulls instead of each sub adding/subtracting slots having different stats/drones etc...
subs should just be about bonuses and nothing else with all changes in the bonuses/traits section.. it would be so much less of a headache...
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 11:22:06 -
[267] - Quote
Why did the Proteus Drone synthesis projector take such a large hit to the drone bay size? 175m I very small for having 100mbps
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
823
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 12:55:12 -
[268] - Quote
Align time is too high. From instawarping to BS align time?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions
2267
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 13:47:04 -
[269] - Quote
So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
87
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 14:37:26 -
[270] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote: Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way? Amarr: EM and thermal Caldari: thermal and kinetic Minmatar: kinetic and explosive
agree. may be something different: Amarr - damage and RoF (propose sub) Minimatar - only RoF (proposed sub) Caldari - only damage (currently only RoF plus kinetic damage) |
|
|
|
|
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 |