Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:30:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Erotic Irony on 22/05/2008 15:53:37
Quote: Is it safe to assume the gains a black ops like the Redeemer enjoys over the Armageddon should be in parity with the gains a Pilgrim gets over the Arbitrator? If so, then there are some serious gaps I don't follow.
I had to use these two links to get a side by side view but surely you have more sophisticated spreadsheets:
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=643-22428 http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=11965-628
The least controversial is the cap difference I think, for the recons, the gain is 20%, for the battleships, no gain for using tech two. Is this unprecedented in comparing tech one to tech two hulls? No other t2 ship has the same or less cap than its t1 counterpart. This is a crippling deal breaker.
As the Ewar powerhouse, pilgrim justifiably enjoys double the sensor strength of the t1, Black ops again have no difference. Same for locked targets, pilgrim gains one, redeemer is identical to tech one.
On scan res, pilgrim locks 12% slower than arby but has over 100% more lock range. Redeemer comes out ahead initially, 20% faster scan res but for reasons unknown only has 4% more lock range than the geddon--figure in the cloak and again we have a deal breaker. Running the cloak practically means dampening yourself.
On both shield and armor the numbers don't make sense. Both pilgrim and redeemer lose approximately the same amount of shield hit points by upgrading to tech two, 22% and 20% respectively, but this difference is heightened by the resistance gains of the pilgrim to explosive and kinetic, 20% and 15% increases; redeemer on shield gains a paltry 4% and 3% respectively. The redeemer's shield recharge is even longer than the geddon's despite having less hit points.
On armor, the pilgrim gains about 30% more armor and bigger native explosive and kinetic bonuses, 40% and 18.75% while the Redeemer has -20% less hit points than the tech one version and virtually no bonus armor resistance to explosive and kinetic. The only area where the redeemer comes out ahead vis a vis the pilgrim and arbitrator is on hull, the cruiser loses nearly 40% of its hull in choosing tech two while the bs only loses about 20%.
Although I use two Amarr ships to demonstrate this point, it is safe to say all black ops are suffering from this balancing crisis. If these ships are to be so ineffectual relative to recons, their invention costs should be wildly reduced with their skill requirements as no rational person would ever even consider flying one given the current state of recons.
TL;DR****got: There is not incentive to use these ships for any form of pvp.
-Need scan resolution and recalibration bonus -More cap, 10-5% more fitting -Battleship lockrange -Double base jump range -Reduced fitting for bridge, cheaper jumps. -Remove restriction on jump harmonics and implement a module to enable covert bridge movement. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Papa Ina
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:35:00 -
[2]
I'm going to support a look into balancing of blackops in general and not actually read your post, 'kay?
|
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:44:00 -
[3]
Whilst Black Op ships certainly do need a rebalance in general I think it is dangerous to try to copy one type of ship design across to another. So I support a look at the rebalancing of Black Ops but not your exact points. ---
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 14:53:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Heartstone Whilst Black Op ships certainly do need a rebalance in general I think it is dangerous to try to copy one type of ship design across to another. So I support a look at the rebalancing of Black Ops but not your exact points.
I mentioned it to contextualize my point and reinforce how limited they are not to justify making battleship recons. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Damion Zyne
Des Esseintes Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:06:00 -
[5]
I support rebalancing black op ships esp. in regards to cyno jammer. |
hammyhamm
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:43:00 -
[6]
Edited by: hammyhamm on 22/05/2008 15:43:21 Making BlackOps ships able to bridge Jump Harmonics 2 ships into cynojammed systems via COVERT cynos would be an interesting new way to allow BlackOps ships to be utilised.
I'm definately in favour of a rethink of the BlackOps class in general.
|
Phil Exon
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 15:44:00 -
[7]
i support this message, black ops need some loving
|
Gorobom
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:22:00 -
[8]
Black Ops definitely need some love indeed.
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:23:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/05/2008 16:24:58 Someone needs to scrap Black ops and remake it with a role in mind. I have yet to have anybody actually come up with how exactly I am meant to use my Redeemer in a non-comedy way.
Needs to be scraped and rebuilt with real world pvp in mind. --
Billion Isk Mission |
Darahk J'olonar
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:38:00 -
[10]
Anything to make a Black Ops BS worth half the ISK you currently pay for one would be good right now. So yeah I support it!
|
|
White Ronin
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:41:00 -
[11]
Edited by: White Ronin on 22/05/2008 16:42:30 supported
edit... Make it a deep space exploration ship. Solo focus. Forget that crazy idea you have now for a cloaked hauler that you cant afford to take out of drydock.
|
Yorda
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:50:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 22/05/2008 16:24:58 Someone needs to scrap Black ops and remake it with a role in mind. I have yet to have anybody actually come up with how exactly I am meant to use my Redeemer in a non-comedy way.
Needs to be scraped and rebuilt with real world pvp in mind.
The panther is the only one worth anything, and I guess the widow actually has a roll so it's worth the isk (maybe). They really need a roll definement. Panther has it's speed, widow has it's ecm, but the sin and redeemer are arguably worse than their T1 counterparts save the ability to jump bridge / cyno.
Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
|
Cailais
VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:20:00 -
[13]
Supported in general - Black Ops are over priced for their ability.
C.
VITOC - Amarr Corp for Faction Warfare! |
Mystic Twilight
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:29:00 -
[14]
I endorse the above product and/or service
|
Jalmari Huitsikko
Karjala Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 19:41:00 -
[15]
Blackops are way too expensive for their primary use in covert operation type things. Also some of their stats need to be looked at. Mostly cyno jump distance/fuel consumption etc. I'd love to use blackops for moving my recon/covops gang relatively fast in 0.0 but hey 500mil for going over like 50-100 jumps and most likely dying as a result. Meh.
|
Zakgram
Atomic Heroes Souls of Vengeance
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:00:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Zakgram on 22/05/2008 20:00:03 Yes please.
|
Lance Fighter
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:41:00 -
[17]
woah cool.
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:06:00 -
[18]
Im not sure about making them "comparable to recons" - whatever that means. They need to stay as the DPS of a cloak gang, as well as its secret jumpgate. what they DO need is more HP (as much as t1, ffs), a fuel bay, no scanres penalty on cloaks and a better bonus on Sin and Redeemer.
_______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces |
Aleis
Playboy Enterprises Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:42:00 -
[19]
they definatly need something
Gang Assist Guide |
Zadren Radek
Dark Synergy Operations
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:09:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Zadren Radek on 23/05/2008 00:11:22 Please, for the love of all that is sane, fix these puppies up.
We spend huge amounts of training time and Isk for a ship that is utterly naff.
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 00:18:00 -
[21]
Yep agreed, these ships do need improvement. Covert Cyno being immune to Cyno Jammers is only the start of the fix to these vessels. Agree with the general motion.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Kinkie Yuuki
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:24:00 -
[22]
Give something, anything.
|
Suitonia
interimo
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 01:55:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Yep agreed, these ships do need improvement. Covert Cyno being immune to Cyno Jammers is only the start of the fix to these vessels. Agree with the general motion.
Quoting this! this is the key issue tbh. Giving them better jump range/fuel costs etc. would be helpful too! --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots... |
J'Mkarr Soban
Proxenetae Invicti
|
Posted - 2008.05.23 08:37:00 -
[24]
Black Ops ships are not the next in line in the covert ops family of ships, just as Marauders are not the next in line in the HAC family.
However, I do support the general rebalancing of them, with the possibility to shift them so that they are the next in line with covert ops family.
-- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work. |
Mr Ignitious
R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 00:07:00 -
[25]
*applause*
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 01:36:00 -
[26]
Do I actually need to post to support something?
OK. I'd like to support looking at them again, in terms of a role. And then a bit of adjustment to their stats to fill that role. At the moment the jumprange is unusably small, the fuel use is crippling. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
AtomizerX
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 01:44:00 -
[27]
Re-balance the new ships, CCP!
|
Damir36
PPN United Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 09:50:00 -
[28]
. GrnŻe Damir
Beware: German Link!:) Deutschprachige Piloten gesucht |
Hitoshi Yamadori
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 10:03:00 -
[29]
I support this. Please have a look into Black Ops.
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 11:46:00 -
[30]
In general I'm not into the "ship needs buff / ship needs nerf" thing (see link below sig) but I will agree that *as a class* Black Ops needs some clarification as to its purpose and benefits over other classes. Its stated role just isn't met with the current spec.
What is needed though is some 'this needs to be done for the class of ships to make sense' proposal, rather than a 'look at it please' suggestion. Not an overkill of detail but something us CSM members can bring to the discussion table with the Devs.
IZ
My principles |
|
Kuranta
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:21:00 -
[31]
Support for general role and stats balancing.
|
Jolinar Malkshur
Divine Retribution Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 04:50:00 -
[32]
I support this thread rethink the blackops class null "Some one ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back" - Malcolm Reynolds |
Ishina Fel
Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 07:32:00 -
[33]
Black Ops need a little help...
|
Gorbon Hauler
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:13:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Gorbon Hauler on 28/05/2008 18:12:57 I have put off training for Black Ops as there doesn't seem a point in flying a Widow right now. From friends feedback Its not great at ECM, has a very slow lock and doesn't tank that well.
It could be a great ship class as it pushes you towards the prerequisites for capital ships, so good for experiencing jumping etc. However the jump range seems to be such an issue.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 10:24:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 29/05/2008 10:24:28
Note for CSM: Related thread Black Ops - Community wishlist
Originally by: Khan Soriano I searched a little bit and compiled a list of changes to Black Ops proposed by EVE playerbase:
- More cargospace or dedicated fuel bay
- Possibility to use Covert Ops Cloak
- Increased jump range
- More types of ship to jump with
- Longer portal time span and larger activation area
- Ability to jump into jump-locked systems
- Make it at least strong as its T1 counterpart.
- Remove or reduce the reactivation delay on cloaks
- Remove or reduce scan resolution penalty
- Make them a long range ship so they could 'siege' POS infrastructure
|
Abel Tasman
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 11:59:00 -
[36]
.
|
Tasha Voronina
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:49:00 -
[37]
Here's to a general boost to their jumpdrives (and a fuel bay) - there might be some other smaller issues with them, but this is the worst atm (same jumprange as a dreadnought's base jump range - with the range skill trained to 4? ) --- Sig will be updated shortly |
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 03:37:00 -
[38]
-- Knowledge is Power! |
Gazenberg
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 07:24:00 -
[39]
Agreed.
They are either too expensive or to weak for their current performance.
-Gazenberg
|
Mia Den
Rubra Libertas Militia R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 07:31:00 -
[40]
Dont fly one but still support as considering this they arent worth the ISK yet
|
|
Yaar Podshipnik
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 13:23:00 -
[41]
I endores rebalancing of the black ops ships, except module to replace jump harmonics - would be better as a rig in my opinion.
|
Manonamission
Elko Bail Bonds
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 01:06:00 -
[42]
Signage for rebalance/redefinition of BlackOps.
Give this poor bum of a ship a job!
|
Malarki X
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 14:13:00 -
[43]
Ay indeed - these ships could use a bit of a buff.
|
KingOzar
Brute Strength THORN Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 07:52:00 -
[44]
There are so many posts about buffing this. I hope it's done by the end of this year.
|
Hydrogen
Art of War Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:00:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 06/06/2008 12:00:22 BOs need buff.
There is one thing to keep in mind though: BOs were "offered" by CCP to the playerbase as "cloaked hitters". That is exactly why I trained it (since being a really really upset Pilgrim pilot). Nothing came true - as such it would be a pain to again have wasted skillpoints if the role is defined completly different.
a. I expect a fix for the previously suggested role, which includes the ability to actually hit something (not with scan res penalty) b. alternatively 2 BO lines for each race offering the previously suggested role and a maybe new role.
Please make it clear to CCP that another skill point wastage is not an option.
__
- click here - |
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 05:13:00 -
[46]
Make Assault frigs capable of jumping with them perhaps and you kill two birds with one stone.
|
Choobakka
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:02:00 -
[47]
Black Ops definitely need better base jump range. Considering the fact they can only jump to someone with a covert cyno that requires high enough skills to be activated, current jump range really hurts at the moment. Also even though it's wise not to let them jump to normal cyno fields, why it's been made impossible to jump to cyno generators - because that would require UI changes? |
Herring
Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:27:00 -
[48]
Yes. I'd love to have a reason to train for blackops ships.
Boost patch...nerfs: 1) faction passive shield resistance amplifiers, 2) exploration radar sites, 3) faction co-processors |
Pringlescan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:12:00 -
[49]
Black Ops need some loving for all the requirements needed for it to be used 1, alt account with 2 months minimum just for the prerequisites of a recon ship and the covert cyno, or someone willing to train and spend a high slot thats only useful if you log in, with at least 80m spent on that ship probably more. 2, main account with over 5 months of specific training, many on capital jump skills that most of us will never use again, with something like 11 level 5 skills and thats for what it takes to get in the ship, let alone use it effectively. From when you make the decision to get in it assuming you are a high SP player already you are looking at around 8 months and something like 300m on skillbooks to get in it. Then after all that you have to pay 500m which is MORE then what a carrier costs to replace if it is insured.
|
SauI Tigh
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:15:00 -
[50]
You've had something like 6 months to rebalance it already and its painfully obvious that to justify the price tag its going to need some major rebalancing and if you want to take the time to get that perfect I can grudgingly accept that but at least give us a fuelbay and let covert cynos work in cyno jammed systems in the meantime! |
|
Telender
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:24:00 -
[51]
The BOPS battleships need across the board buffs. Currently they are a novelty, a potential logistics tool for recons, and that is about it. Using them in actual battles is just a risky way to lose an expensive ship.
On the same note, T2 ships in general, particularly command ships, often do not offer enough of an advantage over their extremely insurable, extremely low-SP counterparts to offer a worthwhile advantage. BOPS BS and Commands are without a doubt the biggest victims of this problem, with assault frigs also suffering.
|
Khan Zu
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:27:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Erotic Irony Edited by: Erotic Irony on 22/05/2008 15:53:37
Quote: Is it safe to assume the gains a black ops like the Redeemer enjoys over the Armageddon should be in parity with the gains a Pilgrim gets over the Arbitrator? If so, then there are some serious gaps I don't follow.
I had to use these two links to get a side by side view but surely you have more sophisticated spreadsheets:
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=643-22428 http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=11965-628
The least controversial is the cap difference I think, for the recons, the gain is 20%, for the battleships, no gain for using tech two. Is this unprecedented in comparing tech one to tech two hulls? No other t2 ship has the same or less cap than its t1 counterpart. This is a crippling deal breaker.
As the Ewar powerhouse, pilgrim justifiably enjoys double the sensor strength of the t1, Black ops again have no difference. Same for locked targets, pilgrim gains one, redeemer is identical to tech one.
On scan res, pilgrim locks 12% slower than arby but has over 100% more lock range. Redeemer comes out ahead initially, 20% faster scan res but for reasons unknown only has 4% more lock range than the geddon--figure in the cloak and again we have a deal breaker. Running the cloak practically means dampening yourself.
On both shield and armor the numbers don't make sense. Both pilgrim and redeemer lose approximately the same amount of shield hit points by upgrading to tech two, 22% and 20% respectively, but this difference is heightened by the resistance gains of the pilgrim to explosive and kinetic, 20% and 15% increases; redeemer on shield gains a paltry 4% and 3% respectively. The redeemer's shield recharge is even longer than the geddon's despite having less hit points.
On armor, the pilgrim gains about 30% more armor and bigger native explosive and kinetic bonuses, 40% and 18.75% while the Redeemer has -20% less hit points than the tech one version and virtually no bonus armor resistance to explosive and kinetic. The only area where the redeemer comes out ahead vis a vis the pilgrim and arbitrator is on hull, the cruiser loses nearly 40% of its hull in choosing tech two while the bs only loses about 20%.
Although I use two Amarr ships to demonstrate this point, it is safe to say all black ops are suffering from this balancing crisis. If these ships are to be so ineffectual relative to recons, their invention costs should be wildly reduced with their skill requirements as no rational person would ever even consider flying one given the current state of recons.
TL;DR****got: There is not incentive to use these ships for any form of pvp.
-Need scan resolution and recalibration bonus -More cap, 10-5% more fitting -Battleship lockrange -Double base jump range -Reduced fitting for bridge, cheaper jumps. -Remove restriction on jump harmonics and implement a module to enable covert bridge movement.
Originally by: Khan Soriano I searched a little bit and compiled a list of changes to Black Ops proposed by EVE playerbase:
- More cargospace or dedicated fuel bay
- Possibility to use Covert Ops Cloak
- Increased jump range
- More types of ship to jump with
- Longer portal time span and larger activation area
- Ability to jump into jump-locked systems
- Make it at least strong as its T1 counterpart.
- Remove or reduce the reactivation delay on cloaks
- Remove or reduce scan resolution penalty
- Make them a long range ship so they could 'siege' POS infrastructure
This is all very wise. |
Maobechev
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:36:00 -
[53]
Devs you realize the SIN is the biggest joke in the game right? a 2b isk ship that is worse then a 50M(fully insurable) T1 battleship? Come on, why even put ships in the game if they're this terrible.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:06:00 -
[54]
I would like to see the balancing and a little more loving with this ship. I purposely avoided training for it when it first came out because I felt it was going to turn out to be another useful and well conceived ship like the Smart Bomber. Turned out a little better but meh.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:59:00 -
[55]
Jade, when do we have a chance to see your template on Black Ops?
;___________; ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
RedeyeAce
Demogorgon's Army
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:56:00 -
[56]
I dont agree with giving the B'Ops every boost mentioned, however i agree with the resounding concensus that there are fundamental role issues here and they definately need to be reworked..
Please lets make these things useable
|
Mori Felding
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:14:00 -
[57]
yes please, make them sensible.. somehow. |
BlackProphet
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 04:44:00 -
[58]
Agreed please buff |
Shaitis
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:42:00 -
[59]
"What is funnier ? 20 Matari slaves pinned to one tree or 1 Matari slave pinned to 20 trees ? |
Tyrrhena Maxus
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:53:00 -
[60]
I was quite excited when I heard about these ships and totally disappointed when they finally came out. The jump drive uses way too much fuel, and for the cost of the ship, it really isn't THAT much beter. |
|
Aruhcu
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 04:55:00 -
[61]
Please look into this issue.
|
Yitdusdni
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 04:56:00 -
[62]
I would like to see this given a lot more thought and priority.
|
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.06.20 10:53:00 -
[63]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CSM and CCP / Devs is currently discussing Black Ops and an announcement regarding the outcome will be made in the near future. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
My principles |
ceyriot
Entropians on Vacation
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 08:26:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Phil Exon i support this message, black ops need some loving
Supportin this lovin.
Faction Store - Killboard |
Wentau
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 11:28:00 -
[65]
yup
|
Stalkman
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:20:00 -
[66]
100% Supported.
I agree and/or support this idea.
|
Hungry Hippo
|
Posted - 2008.06.24 23:05:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The CSM and CCP / Devs is currently discussing Black Ops and an announcement regarding the outcome will be made in the near future. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
Any updates?
|
Klavis lychnuchus
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 03:01:00 -
[68]
I affirmarize!
|
Thor
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 16:04:00 -
[69]
Would be nice if they fixed the Black Ops ships, pretty useless right now.
|
Synapse Archae
Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 18:48:00 -
[70]
Support. - - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 16:31:00 -
[71]
We had a good long discussion on these. I made the case for the changes proposed in this and other threads on the subject and CSM/CCP debated the role of blackops and current limitations in the game environment. Outcome was that CSM advised this as a high priority ISSUE and the prospective solutions on the table are:
1. Increased fuel capacity - probably through implementation of a custom fuel bay for jump capable ships that allows balancing on fuel capacity independently of cargo bay size.
2. Immunity to Cyno Jammers for Covert Cynos.
3. Looking at the viability of adding other ships to the covert bridge capable class (including potentially the deep space transport grade tech2 industrials)
CCP were less keen on increasing the jump range (felt that landscape of eve regions should still be an issue in deployment - ie those long pirate jumps were supposed to be a problem for blackops)
Similar on the specific buffs for lessening sensor resolution penalty, grid and fitting improvements. Black ops supposed to be valuable for their role, logistics and tactical flexibility - not as straight combat 1v1 ships etc.
As I said though, CSM presented this as a high priority issue - and I'm very hopeful we'll get action on the fuel bay, cyno jammer immunity, and additional classes of covert bridgeable ships within a reasonable timescale. Its flagged as a serious problem and fingers crossed we'll get fuel bays big enough to function and covert cynos in jammed systems soon as possible.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Hungry Hippo
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 18:28:00 -
[72]
Good to hear they will be looking into it.
|
Rudlls
Ascent of Ages Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 18:38:00 -
[73]
Black Ops need rebalancing. Supporting general idea.
|
Vendrin
APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 04:12:00 -
[74]
|
Jaine Serpati
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 03:34:00 -
[75]
Increased jumped range and jammer immunity would be so wonderful. I can't actually see myself going into battle though.
|
Etienne Merten
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 11:22:00 -
[76]
OK, so I haven't seen anything new on this in a while and my useless Widow is still sitting on market collecting dust...what a surprise!
Please give us an update on what and when. It's been far too long with no answer... A happy Boffin... |
Silent Deviant
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:31:00 -
[77]
Yes please look at Black Ops. |
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:58:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
1. Increased fuel capacity - probably through implementation of a custom fuel bay for jump capable ships that allows balancing on fuel capacity independently of cargo bay size.
2. Immunity to Cyno Jammers for Covert Cynos.
3. Looking at the viability of adding other ships to the covert bridge capable class (including potentially the deep space transport grade tech2 industrials)
Good to see that something good is coming out of this. You have my support.
|
Virgo I'Platonicus
Ex Eventus Corpi
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:56:00 -
[79]
Agree to the need to rebalance black ops completely, not simply adding fuel bay.
V. <3 |
Essque
Starlancers
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 03:47:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
*snip* 1. Increased fuel capacity - probably through implementation of a custom fuel bay for jump capable ships that allows balancing on fuel capacity independently of cargo bay size.
2. Immunity to Cyno Jammers for Covert Cynos.
3. Looking at the viability of adding other ships to the covert bridge capable class (including potentially the deep space transport grade tech2 industrials)
*snip*
That won't be enough I'm afraid. They'll need more changes to make them a viable option. Honestly, what's the point of a tech II ship that will *always* die to its tech I counterpart? The ISK/usability ratio is completely out of balance here. The pre-nerfed status CCP released this ships it's one of the worst jokes in this game so far. Sadly not the worst one, but coming close.
I support more changes to the Black Ops from the list proposed by the community.
|
|
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 05:45:00 -
[81]
I know I am in the extreme minority in my opinion, (perhaps the SOLE person with my opinion) but I see NO reason why the Black Ops class should NOT be able to use the Covert Ops Cloaking Device when the two ships below it in class can.
Talk about being SO paranoid about a class that you "pre-nerf" it to hell.....
It makes no realistic sense in roleplaying.
It makes no sense in practicality either. They are far weaker, and with lower damage potential than MOST of their tech 1 counterpats. So, what's the problem?
I know, I know.... everyone wants each and every ship to have its own ROLL..... And CCP will blindly and moronically nerf its way to this goal; even if the servers themselves were on fire. Whatever. I just think its beyond stupid that a Covert Ops AND a Recon can use a Covert Ops cloak, but the Black Ops can't.
Just drop all of this "jumping" non-sense from the class. Make their damage potential a tad weaker, and give them Covert Ops cloak. Oh, and make them not cost 650-900m a pop....
Meh. No one is going to do anything about this anyway.
At the VERY least Black Ops need LOTS of love.
/flame suit on *
* |
Karentaki
Maximum Yarrage
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 14:50:00 -
[82]
Yes please boost them. I'm training up the 'covert' line of ships at the moment (currently training for force recons), andI'd like for black ops to be useful by the time I get one. However, now you are just reading my signature... Or are you...
========= Sporks FTW |
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:07:00 -
[83]
CCP like introducing pre-nerfed ships into the game. Unfortunatly they forget to un-nerf them for years :(
The speed nerf hardly helps with they're bonus to cloaked speed plz take a second look at these ships. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
McDonALTs
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:17:00 -
[84]
Edited by: McDonALTs on 04/08/2008 17:18:07 Back ops are missing 2 arms and 2 legs. These fix's is like giving them a single thighbone upto the knee.
None of them make much difference in pvp because the whole black ops concept is flawed. yes its better than nother but please for goodness sake actualyl try to fly these things in pvp.
People logoff/cloak/warp toa aligned spot when they see a hostile in local, so you wont have time to warp a black ops in to the belt and lock the damm target unless the target is a noob that would die to a carcarel.
|
Fireball Jones
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 17:48:00 -
[85]
I would be simply ecstatic if they could use covert ops cloaks. Or if they would split them into combat black ops and force black ops. Maybe the force black ops are can use covert ops cloaks and are immune to cyno jammers and combat black ops are a more viable PvP ship with more offense but without the ability to use covert op cloaks. Meh, even if they give it a little love, it would have to be something special to get me into it... and I love my Recon.
FJ
|
Javelin6
Minmatar Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 21:24:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
We had a good long discussion on these. I made the case for the changes proposed in this and other threads on the subject and CSM/CCP debated the role of blackops and current limitations in the game environment. Outcome was that CSM advised this as a high priority ISSUE and the prospective solutions on the table are:
1. Increased fuel capacity - probably through implementation of a custom fuel bay for jump capable ships that allows balancing on fuel capacity independently of cargo bay size.
2. Immunity to Cyno Jammers for Covert Cynos.
3. Looking at the viability of adding other ships to the covert bridge capable class (including potentially the deep space transport grade tech2 industrials)
Cheers to the above.
I would still like to see the use of Covert-Ops Cloak module pushed again. |
cianide pro
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:45:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Javelin6
Originally by: Jade Constantine
We had a good long discussion on these. I made the case for the changes proposed in this and other threads on the subject and CSM/CCP debated the role of blackops and current limitations in the game environment. Outcome was that CSM advised this as a high priority ISSUE and the prospective solutions on the table are:
1. Increased fuel capacity - probably through implementation of a custom fuel bay for jump capable ships that allows balancing on fuel capacity independently of cargo bay size.
2. Immunity to Cyno Jammers for Covert Cynos.
3. Looking at the viability of adding other ships to the covert bridge capable class (including potentially the deep space transport grade tech2 industrials)
Cheers to the above.
I would still like to see the use of Covert-Ops Cloak module pushed again.
Yes I would see this mod be possible on this ship class also, as ccp ,quote ''Black ops supposed to be valuable for their role, logistics and tactical flexibility - not as straight combat 1v1 ships etc.'' see them more as logistic then 1 vs 1 pvp this cov ops cloak would fit in perfectly.
|
EveTerrorist
Brigands
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 18:49:00 -
[88]
I would be willing to throw out every other idea if it could only use the Covert Ops cloak.
meh
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |