EVE Search - Black Ops - Upcoming changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Black Ops - Upcoming changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 12:24:00 - [1] If ccp wants their ideas to work they need to revise a few things. Cyno jammers suffer from the same issue that station services suffer. The second ones were made to be targets for small gangs. But they have tooo much HP. Take HOURS literally with large gagns to take them down. Cyno jammers cannot have too few HP or they become too easy to bring down using battleships and large fleets. But with the current HP count they are too hard for a small gang to dent. So I suggest.. always suggested in fact. Make cyno jammers have 1/3 of current HP. But allow you to have up to 3 in same system. Now to attack a system you can have more than failure and success.. you can have a partial result.... You can make a fast strike take 1 jammer, force enemy carrier to there to repair it then your fleet can enter trough gate more easily and try to get the other ones... just an example. Would make wonders for the usage of small hit and run forces on 0.0 warfare, specially the black ops into cyno jammed systems idea. At same time suggest station services HP dropped to 1/10 of current values.... Without that.. its a VERY DISTANT DREAM that black ops gangs will be used to do anything meaningful against POSs...
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 15:22:00 - [2] Originally by: Vigaz Originally by: TZeer Originally by: Vigaz Widow is a gimp Raven with same ECM capability. It's a BO so you should be able to bridge same Recons after all. There are a lot of complain about Falcons into close range fight (150M isk?), No complain about a Billion ship that have to fight short range with ECM? I strongly believe that no one is going to fit Widow with ECM, just bring a dedicated recon support, and tank as much u can. Widow proposed changed: Correct the hull description -> Raven (it's more a Raven than a Scorpion look at the bonus per Caldari BS level!) Correct the number of launcher -> 6 Remove 2 mid slot and add 1 high and 1 low slot. Remove the ecm bonus. Add 5% lol agility bonus per level. After that, pls boost all BOs to let them to be useful somehow. Gimped raven or a boosted scorp, depends how you look at it... And arguments with, just bring that or just bring this, maybe it`s a small corp, maybe you dont have 200 alliance mates to come join you. Or you just plain and simple aint interested in inflating the numbers. Your changes looks more like bad trolling to be honest, so I`m not even commenting on that. Strange that you find the redeemer useless when thats the one who is actually most used. I'm a Widow pilot. Am I wrong when I say that Widow gain RoF and velocity bonus as a Raven? (where is this bonus into the Scorpion description?) Could u please tell me what is the only BO that has different bonus per its Racial BS level then its tier1 version? because you are forgetting the phanter (hint.. main typhoon weapon are torps not AC) ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.02 15:04:00 - [3] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Good broad discussion on the impact and future potential this change has. I think the black ops commando style appeals to many of us and many of you have good up with good ideas for further expanding on this which have been noted and its deeper role in conflicts, whether through sabotage or surprise attacks and ways in which a heavily camped system could be penetrated besides a full frontal assault. Ideas like these will have much more meaning in the expansions to come. You should, if not already know that sovereignty and null sec are very high on our list of what's coming next from Hammerhead and t0rfifrans talks with the CSM, press and Eve-TV interviews. Suggestions for further improving the black ops A lot of these have a lot of merit and deserve attention. We sadly do not have time needed to commit to making any more changes for this patch but as said previously we are definitely not done yet with Black ops and more changes are to come in the future. Covert ops cloak for black ops There is pros and cons to this, we can definitely see why it would be good and deserved however in combination with the other abilities of the ship would probably make it far too powerful though nothing is set in stone here. Why is adding special cargoholds so hard? It is not particularly difficult but does carry some risk making any changes to the inventory system. More importantly it takes time above all else which is time we used to add changes or fix defects elsewhere with higher priority. We also want to do it right so it add a great tool for us in design to utilize so we can add and develop ships as a result of the ability to add special holds to them. In short, watch this space and we will continue to give our love to this ship line in future releases. but then can't you make an at least temporary chagne on fuel usage for the black ops? So they can do soemthign with their current cargo? As of now basically the Sin and Redeemer are usable because they need none or almost no ammo. Widow focus is not on damaging so same situation. But panther eats ammo like mad and needs half cargo hold for that. Or at least increase a bit the panther cargo hold :( ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.02 15:57:00 - [4] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 02/04/2009 16:06:19 Originally by: Illectroculus Defined I've seen a few mentions of the essential impossibility of taking down a Cynojammer with a black ops fleet, one suggestiong was having multiple smaller cynojammers around a system with fewer hitpoints. That sounds kinda interrresting, but then you still need to bring enough combined DPS. So, how about combining the multiple jammer idea with a specialist bomb for stealth bombers which doesn't do any damage, but disables a cynojammer's jamming ability for a short time, maybe 10 minutes. So then the black ops beachhead operation requires enough recon to locate all the cynojuammers in system ahead of time, and then the attack will require coordinating multiple stealth bombers (and backups in case one fails) to simultatneously disable all the cynojammers and create a short jump in window for plain old fashioned non-covert cyno's. Possibly overpowered, but then the defender can make things harder by deploying more cynojammers in a system. The idea was mine. Is base don the concept that as of now attack any structure in eve is an all or nothing work. And the path between nothing into all is a HUGE one. By separatign in several smaller milestones you give somethign for smaller fleets to work on. You can attack and cripple 1 of the mini jammers. If enemies force you away.. ok you leave. But then you have done something. As of now with the HUGE jammer, you need to bring a HUGE fleet to be able to kill the jammer before a titan appears and makes all your work means nothing. The idea you propose look cool, but then the number of jammers woudl need to be ilimited i think. PErsonnaly I think (IF POSSIBLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED) a second damage bonus of 100% applying only when targeting structures would help a lot to solve this. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.02 17:08:00 - [5] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined Originally by: Kagura Nikon PErsonnaly I think (IF POSSIBLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED) a second damage bonus of 100% applying only when targeting structures would help a lot to solve this. I think other posters have come up with estimates that it would take an hour or so to take down a cynojammer with stealth bombers, even with a 100% damage boost that's half an hour, assuming that the bombers don't get popped by defenders. Check the context of my post. We are talking on using that sided with jammers being divided in multiple WEAK jammers in each system. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.03 11:21:00 - [6] Originally by: Tzar'rim I'd be all for them to actually be able (and have to) mix into the normal fights, give them an increased tank over their T1 counterparts (but not like a T2 BS ofcourse) and allow them to fit stuff properly. THEN you'll see blackops actually in fights rather than being used as a logistics only. S What? Since when Marauders have good tank? Its pathetic for the ship class! T2 BS should ALL marauders and BO have same resists as a Recon ship. CCP made a HUGE screw up with BOTH black ops and marauders.. the most anticipated EVER ships on eve , t2 BS were added as completely worthless pieces of crap for any PVP (AND this is a PVP game.. pve does not matter when a raven can already do anything!!!) ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.03 11:43:00 - [7] Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 03/04/2009 11:40:15 Originally by: Overbrain IF* they had COC, then ccp would give them scan res penalty on top* of that . Get it ? Edit: typos First part of sentence: "IF* they had COC" Second part of sentence: " then ccp would give -->them<--" So "them" in the second sentence points to "they" in the first sentence, which is the ship itself , not the COC . Oh my god , are you still going to elementary school or what. Study your lessons my son , learn to read. Yeah I knew what you meant by them, I just didn't realize you were this dense. So basically you're argument is that if CCP gave COC to blackops, they would implement the scan res penalty of the standard cloaks onto the base ship instead simply out of spite, which means they would effectively remove the scan res buff currently on SiSi, resulting in scan res equal to what's currently on tranquility, except you'd replace your standard cloak with its 35-40% Scan Res penalty with a COC with 0% scan res penalty, which means you're scan res/lock time's would improve by 35-40% over what they are currently. Study your lessons my son, learn to read+write+logic you know, english is not the first language of everyone.. for some is not even the second.. Just by example its my 4th.... so do not insult people because they don have perfect english skills, since very likely you do not have perfect skill son all the languages the people on this forums are able to speak. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar M. Corp	Posted - 2009.04.14 11:59:00 - [8] What we need is a DECENT T2 combat battleship. T2 battleships were the most waited ship in game sicne T2 was introduced. And CCP screwed up with them. A LOT!! Marauders are near useless on PVP.. (come on.. wanted to avoid solo pwnmobiles? just add "this ship cannot use warp disruptors") Black ops are pre nerfed up to pathetic levels ( Can anyone point me other classes where t2 versions have far less HP than the t1 and no huge resists to compensate?) Com on CCP. Give BOTH black ops and marauders RECON level resists. They cost more than carriers!! They shoudl be more survivable than an abaddon. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.