Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:08:00 -
[1]
We have some interesting changes to Khanid and Nosferatus planned for Revelations 2.2 and it's already on the test server. Check out Revised Nosferatu Mechanics and Khanid mk 2 on the Test Server and then go try it out!
Wrangler Community Manager EVE Online
Contact Support - Contact Moderators - Report Bug - Submit News Leads - Knowledge Base Player Guide - Policies - Join ISD - Fan Submissions - DevFinder LiteÖ |
|
Chronus26
Gallente Team Laser Explosion Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:17:00 -
[2]
Realy interesting on the NOS changes. I think you've chosen a very good solution that should keep everybody happy.
Look forward to seeing how it all works out. -----
|
Fon Revedhort
Aeria Gloris Inc United Legion
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 30/07/2007 14:23:17
Fendahl, would you be so kind to tell us whoever decided to spoil Damnation that badly so we can add him to our KOS list?
It just won't fit.
NOS changes do sound good though ---
|
Phillipe d'Rothschild
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:25:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Phillipe d''Rothschild on 30/07/2007 14:30:54
I cannot seem to find a Test patch for my client. I think I'm running running version 3.21.35183. Any help?
Found: http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/test/evepatch35183-35248_test.exe checking to see if this helps.
|
Cypherous
Minmatar Liberty Rogues Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:27:00 -
[5]
Damnation change = bad, it lacks the speed to get in range to make its HAM bonus even remotely worth while, as for boosting its already insane tank why?
TBH the DPS on the damnation with HAM's is so poor it makes the ship useless for anything, mines going to be going on the market before the nerf :( ---------
Liberty Rogues Website
|
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:28:00 -
[6]
I like the NOS changes, it wont affect my Curse or Pilgrim too much, I'll just be fitting a neutraliser or two in order to kill tanks properly.
Khanid changes: Well I hated them to start with, but then I realised how good these ships are going to be, closerange hardcore tanking and missiles. Nice.
============================================
|
Big Al
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:28:00 -
[7]
lolcurse/pilgrim.
Great job nerfing ships that get a NOS bonus while leaving lolsetups like a nosdomi intact.
|
Sylek
Amarr Sybrite Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:32:00 -
[8]
The Nos changes sound cool, will be interesting to see how they change things.
I think the Khanid changes are pretty bad, restricting the bonus to one type of missiles wasn't a very good idea. You don't see ships with bonus to autocannons or pulse lasers, then why should the Khanid ships have bonuses to only close range weapons?
HAMs and rockets are currently unfavoured because they require you to get very close while offering a very slight damage bonus when compared to other missiles with superior range.
|
Terranid Meester
Knights Hospitalier
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:34:00 -
[9]
So I guesss the backstory of the Khanid having the most advanced shield generators outside of Caldari Space should be changed now? Or am I missing something?
|
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:36:00 -
[10]
Edited by: N1fty on 30/07/2007 14:36:10
Originally by: Terranid Meester So I guesss the backstory of the Khanid having the most advanced shield generators outside of Caldari Space should be changed now? Or am I missing something?
Yep and the bit where it says the Sacri is a flexible ship is just not true anymore! Closerange missile spam and tank only...
EDIT: spelling.
============================================
|
|
Sakura Nihil
Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:36:00 -
[11]
This will screw with Curse tactics a bit, but we'll adapt (I think).
The problem that concerns me here isn't that, but the close-range missile only bonuses to the ships. In effect, you're locking them into a singular fighting style by forcing the bonuses to only apply to those modules - its one thing to say "CPU will be tight on a standard/heavy missile setup", that's fine, if it is tight and the player wants to attempt a long-range fit, let them try.
Might as well build in the rocket or HAM launchers for the players.
50m Sig Contest! |
Amanda Zeherah
Amarr ANZAC ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:37:00 -
[12]
Nice well-thought changes that will add some flavour to Amarr (Khanid) ships... Will have to train missiles now.
NOS changes sounds ok...
Also, in a battle, I dont think the GENERAL will be in the front line... in other words, is it intended that a FLEET command ship to fight at close range (even with long-range HAM fitted)?
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:39:00 -
[13]
interesting changes. Gonna be interesting to see how ppl change setups to reflect the new way nos works. nosmyrm n nosdomi look to be out the window . & looks like only real defence against tackling frigates for bs' (being able to nos em dry so cant scramble & mwd indefinately) is gone as well. A question on that though, will the noschanges affect NPCs as well or just for PvP? Im not sure I like it how it reads, but if it works for the better then all the better for it.
Khanid changes look...interesting. Since i dont fly em i dunno ifits for better or worse but certainly its a move away from the current confused hybrid khanid ships seem to be. Just hope both changes get fully tested & feedback is listened to with due attention.
|
Amy Robbins
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:41:00 -
[14]
Thanks for ******* up the curse/pilgrim completely, any planned changes to them or are you just going to leave it as yet another useless ship?
|
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: N1fty on 30/07/2007 14:44:20
Originally by: Sakura Nihil This will screw with Curse tactics a bit, but we'll adapt (I think).
The problem that concerns me here isn't that, but the close-range missile only bonuses to the ships. In effect, you're locking them into a singular fighting style by forcing the bonuses to only apply to those modules - its one thing to say "CPU will be tight on a standard/heavy missile setup", that's fine, if it is tight and the player wants to attempt a long-range fit, let them try.
Might as well build in the rocket or HAM launchers for the players.
Yeah if CPU is tight with longrange missiles then most people will fit closerange anyway, the HAM and Rocket specific bonuses might be a bit redundant.
Originally by: Amanda Zeherah
Nice well-thought changes that will add some flavour to Amarr (Khanid) ships... Will have to train missiles now.
NOS changes sounds ok...
Also, in a battle, I dont think the GENERAL will be in the front line... in other words, is it intended that a FLEET command ship to fight at close range (even with long-range HAM fitted)?
A good leader always leads from the front . And commanders would be expected to be in the hardest ships, just so they can 'stick around' for longer.
Originally by: Amy Robbins Thanks for ******* up the curse/pilgrim completely, any planned changes to them or are you just going to leave it as yet another useless ship?
Nos serveral different targets at once and Neut the guy you are trying to break the tank of. Its called adaptation and any half decent Curse pilot could see this minor tactical tweak.
============================================
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:45:00 -
[16]
Uh, damn, glad I didn't spend the last month training for the curse/pilgrim. Because they'll suck now.
Of all the suggested good solutions (poison the chalice, sig radius, tracking, etc), they pick a crappy one.
At least the curse/pilgrim will suck as bad as everyone else's recons again! God, this thread delivers!
Liang
Originally by: "QproQ"
When people say "Put 'stabs on your 'cane", they mean GYROSTABS"
|
deadok
Amarr Free Space Pilots aka Banderlogs Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:47:00 -
[17]
hehe, we need a HAM bonus on curse, since 1 hi slot will be fitted with neut, 1 with nos (who needs more?)
but that is nice idea - to kill da tank thou shalt loose da tank.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:50:00 -
[18]
Nos changes are welcome.
But wouldn't it make more sense to make it % based on the target ship alone.
The restriction based on % of own cap is gonna mean nos is only really useful in passive shield tanked ships. Drake ftw ?
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:51:00 -
[19]
The NOS change is sort of up the right alley but not exactly what I'd do, but overall I guess I'm okay with it. I just hope it stays useful for killing capital ships, anyway.
And yeah, with the Khanid ships, I'm okay with the armor tanking missile boat thing, but please, don't give the ships a capacitor recharge bonus if their base cap is going to be extra poor to begin with like how the Vengeance is now, if that is in fact what was planned already. For the frigates, I'd much rather have a decent capacitor from the start (Vengeance) or normal resists (Malediction) and a missile velocity bonus instead. That way, you'd have a better chance at hitting things with rockets, but the range still wouldn't really be that great, just pretty good. |
Darian Hazedango
Dawn of a new Empire Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:51:00 -
[20]
How would multiple NOS on a single target work? Would it just bring the two caps to their equilibrium faster? If so there would be a great amount of diminishing returns for having more than one.
And if the equilibrium is measured in percent, surely the transfer amount can't be the same, is it? NOSing a frig of 1% of it's cap won't give a BS 1% of its cap, right?
Sigh, I had my ideal setup too. I guess this is just going to drive up the cost of cap injectors.
|
|
Beef Hardslab
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Dav Varan Nos changes are welcome.
But wouldn't it make more sense to make it % based on the target ship alone.
The restriction based on % of own cap is gonna mean nos is only really useful in passive shield tanked ships. Drake ftw ?
That's what I was thinking - passive tank drake capbuster lol Why there should be a breathalyzer to login to Eve:
Originally by: Alliaanna Dalaii Podding my own alt in a gatecamp while drunk, he was carrying a hauler full of tech II goods, Oops.
|
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:53:00 -
[22]
This is the best dev blog in ages.
I can't tell you how happy you have made this Banana. Oh Gawd, armour tanking missile boats and the nossing domi gets a thump in the knackers.
All my Christmasses have come at once.
|
LeviUK
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:59:00 -
[23]
Both changes are interesting.. watch the Khanid ship prices rocket (pun intended) and the Curse/Pilgim prices will drop.
As someone who regularly flies a dual-rep pilgrim and a speed-fitted curse (the only ship I speed fit), I'm a little disappointed that both setups will be rendered useless (no I refuse to use neuts and rely on however many cap charges I can fit in my cargo hold). On the flip side, the Sacrilege in it's current state on Sisi is rather nice and not having to be as concerned about Nos sucking on my own ships is somewhat comforting.
I would perhaps suggest, at the risk of being ridiculed, that the bonuses for the Curse/Pilgrim are change to compensate for the fact that what was regarded as their main bonuses are now lessened with the Nos changes. In fact, I'd argue that it makes the Amarr recons the weakest of any race, there are no comparable limits after all on the web/scramble/jamming bonuses of the other ships.
|
Mr Krosis
The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:00:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Mr Krosis on 30/07/2007 15:01:40 One thing that stood out to me.
Previously, the only Tech1 frigates that had a +5% resist / level were the Punisher and the Merlin. Previously, all T2 versions of these ships lost their resist all bonus to gain the 15/10% resist "bonus" that all assault ships have built in.
Now the Vengeance is getting this resist bonus back on the AF skill, combined with the best natural T2 armor resists (+EX/KN). Could we either change it to a rep amount bonus or get the Hawk's boost amount bonus changed to a resist all bonus?
As it is currently proposed, the Vengeance will have 70 / 85 / 71.875 / 51.25 base armor resist when fully skilled.
My personal choice would be to drop the "dummy" +15/10% resist bonus that T2 ships get anyway, and give all AFs back their missing T1 bonus.
-- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge. |
Keira Black
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:00:00 -
[25]
In my opinion its all good..cept the nos change, the curse and pilgrim wont be of any use if they cant do what they do now...its like nerfing one ship and leaving all other ships in its class fine... curse and pilgrim dont realyl have weapons, just nos and drones, the nos is what makes them an effective ship. the way ive read this nerf is that u can only nos ur opponent till ur cap is effectively equal, tghen u have to use ur own cap to destroy theres. the curse atm has a very bad capacitor as it is.
sorry but i dont like the changes to the nos, i liked the signiature radius idea one better.
nos works better on ships bigger than its class. good on ships in its own class and worse on ships smaller than its class. meaning medium nos will work efficiently on a large ship ok on a medium sized ship and not so good on a frigate.
this would work well not only for the amarr recons but for any ship using nos. a cruiser wont get uber sucked by a nos domi as bad as a raven would.
what do u think of that?
|
Allan Robertson
Gallente Azure Horizon Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:01:00 -
[26]
Humm I guess it was only a matter of time before the Nos came face to face with the nerf bat, I'm not really that mich botherd about the changes, I'm just glad I don't take part in PvP in this game, it would drive you mad all these changes to get used to.
--- Say YES! to Mining Cargo Holds on barges! |
N1fty
Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:02:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Darian Hazedango How would multiple NOS on a single target work? Would it just bring the two caps to their equilibrium faster? If so there would be a great amount of diminishing returns for having more than one.
And if the equilibrium is measured in percent, surely the transfer amount can't be the same, is it? NOSing a frig of 1% of it's cap won't give a BS 1% of its cap, right?
Sigh, I had my ideal setup too. I guess this is just going to drive up the cost of cap injectors.
If I'm running a neut and a MWD on my nanocurse . I'll want to NOS some other ships than my current NEUT target in order to feed the MWD and NEUT.
Say I am on 30% cap as is my NEUT target [A] whos tank I want to break, then I NOS two more guys [B,C] who have 100% cap, I will take cap away from those two guys until my cap reaches theirs. So probably a meeting point at 40%. Clearly this will work on a per NOS basis, so ship B might drop to my 40% cap level quickly, while C has more cap and so takes longer. The NOS on B will stop transferring before that on C. Nossing A wont have any effect on anyone because if the NEUT has done its job then he will be on 0% cap.
So by spreading several NOS around I can ensure a constant cap drain.
============================================
|
LukAsh
Amarr LFC FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:08:00 -
[28]
Edited by: LukAsh on 30/07/2007 15:11:23
Ok, overall NOS should be nerfed somehow, sure... Tho the way its described in the blog is just weird. When you NOS a player and your cap rises the NOS get less effective.. you have 100% cap... he has 100% cap?
This will be a quite a nerf for Amarr Pilgrim/Curse, they will need to now (need, while before it was an option) to fit neutralizers. Makes the fit less flexible, etc, etc...
Maybe give more damage to Pilgrim/Curse then? Increase slightly their dronebays... they will need to use more costly fit to be able to break the tanks.
Khanid MK2.. finally !!
But...
Damnation... Someone has been smoking something good I see # Fitting: 440tf (no change), 1300mw (-210mw) <- huge nerf, where is the buff then ??
Sacrilege... Could someone please try to make a projected (realistic) DPS graph for the old and new setups... please?
Malediction... # 5% bonus to missile EM damage per Interceptor level (no change) Why only EM? why? Why???? Other Khanid have bonuses to all kinds of damage dealt with missiles, why this exception?
___ Selling T2 BPCs and Cap Ships, Components & Items.
|
Maeltstome
Minmatar Caldari Navy Raiders Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:11:00 -
[29]
Ok, the curse is now dead. I dont even fly one, i hate fighting them - but this is a stupid change. 1 Nos isn't a problem, it's people stacking nos that becomes an issue - once again ccp doesn't listen to the real complaints and just opt's to nerf everything in sight.
Khanid mark II: Seems good, i like the idea 9although you broke my vengeance :( )
one thing though, stop going backwards with interceptors - make the lock range on the malediction longer, its absolution stupid that a ceptor cant lock up to the full range of a normal t1 warp disruptor. It defies the role of an intercetor. This new maledtion will be good for getting in close and fighting, which 'ceptors 'aint meant to do, the whole point is that they hold targets down while larger ships get there lock and EW on the taget ship.
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:11:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Jotan Veer on 30/07/2007 15:13:00
Quote:
The Heretic has similar bonuses to the Flycatcher, but the rockets only damage bonus and the low CPU makes rockets more suitable than standard missiles. The Explosion velocity bonus makes the Heretic better for taking down high speed targets vs. low speed, low signature radius targets for the Flycatcher.
Whoever wrote that smokes some really good stuff, please share. No one in their right mind ever fits flycatchers with standard missile launchers BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CPU NOR THE POWERGRID to be able to fit a rack of (T2) standard launchers + bubble launcher + anything else.
Either give the flycatcher more CPU/PG so it would be able to fit standards or stop implying that the new Heretic will be anything but superior to the Flycatcher.
HUN Corp. recruitment status: frozen
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 56 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |