| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
1. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
sure about the 70km? im too lazy to check tranq, but on sisi I could attack much further without any problem. Control range of 70km for a carrier would be beyond stupid, maybe you have a bug?
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.07.06 21:29:07
|
2. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
its actually a lot worse than 3 drones, if it were 3 drones then it would not be possible to reduce their damage by 50% by damaging them to 50%. And it would be possible to repair them back to 100% without buying new ones. The current system has t...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.07.02 20:23:05
|
3. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
I agree with Vic. I can understand why people complaining against that insta blapping at gates, so a certain alpha nerf is fine with me. But such a blanket nerf on carrier is unecessary and it will be really sad if capitals vanish again from most...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.27 20:48:30
|
4. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
You seriously want to tell me that 3 TPs and 3 web is a typical sitation? This is your best guess? Really? Why do you think everyone flies this kitey stuff? It would not even remotely work when everyone always had 3 webs and 3 TPs on him as soon a...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.27 19:31:30
|
5. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: "The majority of situations" depends entirely on how you use the ability and what you use it on. Because this is such a subjective measure I personally feel it should be discarded in favor of simply looking a...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.27 18:50:18
|
6. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: That is just not possible anymore, its as much a burst ability as autocannons are a burst weapon. Just check the damage numbers. Against most targets it will do less alpha than the main gun. Ev...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.26 18:52:14
|
7. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Claiming that carrier are just hands down better than subcaps is silly, thats really not the issue. Are you in a pvp alliance? Or do you know one? Is everyone just flying carrier? No. And thats even before the nerfs. Because carriers have huge di...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.26 17:18:02
|
8. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
C-137 wrote: Morgaine Mighthammer wrote: C-137 wrote: You seriously want a PVE carrier to do more than 600 dps to a speed tanked cruiser? wow I don't even... yes, a carrier setup for ratting, eg hitting everything from battleships thro...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.26 16:06:31
|
9. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Btw. here are some other dps numbers to compare against that Onyx (assuming a perfect transversal speed for the Onyx), for other ship classes (all ships get 3 damage mods and 2 application mods): Ph+Šnix: ~650 Nagl: 800 (depending on range, 824 o...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.26 15:43:29
|
10. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
C-137 wrote: The light fighters are doing 600+ dps to a speed tanked cruiser, with a PVE RATTING CARRIER FIT. So what is the problem with that? You think its too much? Not enough? Why? 600 dps does not seem much too me, considering we are t...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.26 13:33:11
|
11. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Marranar Amatin wrote: The purpose already is defeated. There is hardly a reason to use it for anything else besides just spaming it for more dps on larger targets (fun fact: I was already critizing this when the capi...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.26 12:19:54
|
12. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Auto-repeat on the ability kind of defeats the point of it, as does increasing the charge count to a ridiculous degree. The secondary missiles are supposed to be something you use tactically, not just a flat increase to ...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.25 22:25:54
|
13. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
I like the idea with a dedicated support fighter tube. But this was already suggested quite often when the great capital changes were first on the testserver, and never got any feedback from ccp. Another option would be to increase the number of ...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.25 18:23:34
|
14. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: (...) My entire point is, and has been for a good several pages now, that other people don't have any good evidence for the arguments that they're trying to present (...) "This is going to result in X% drop in damage! I...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.20 20:52:46
|
15. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade your argumentation gets us nowhere, you contradict yourself and do not put ANY argument that is actually in favor or against the nerf, or even related to the nerf. so its quite pointless for this thread, so I am just going to be brief. Cad...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.19 18:20:56
|
16. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
So here is a suggestion that would give a better result in my opinion: Based on the planned changes, so the starting point are the nerfs that ccp suggested, i.e. a 350m radius on secondary: DRF 3 -> 4 Primary damage 72m2 -> 100 (for Templar...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.18 12:20:20
|
17. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
This is dps.
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.18 11:55:12
|
18. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
So here is a calculation of the damage changes against various targets. The sig and velocity are just simple eft values, without links or anything, just using a typical amount of rigs, plates, extenders. The absolute dps number is for a single tem...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.18 11:26:28
|
19. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: The point here is that CCP have sufficient evidence and proof for their purposes that this should be changed and that that change will be good for the game. This is simply wrong. If that would be the case, it would no...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.17 20:48:00
|
20. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
I think the idea that nerf is ok because there is no conclusive proof that no one is complaining is flawed. Even in this thread I can see no one actually argueing that Carrier are too strong against bs or capital, the defense of this nerf seems to...
- by Marranar Amatin - at 2016.06.17 15:51:06
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |