| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Cash Loki
   |
Posted - 2009.05.15 10:49:00 -
[871]
1. Missles need a boost
2. Bring back nano, and a very good well known counter
3. CCP, play the game and put your heart in it and always remember that its pvp first, and Im talking space ships pew pewing each other.
I own three accounts and it was that youre never safe feeling that caught my attention.
|
Grasfer
Minmatar
FinFleet
KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 11:17:00 -
[872]
1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat.
2)Sovereignty - Create an objective based system of control points within a system, constellation & region to gain sovereignty. Allow moons to just be resources within these systems, enable POS's to reinforce the objectives, but not claim sovereignty.
Just make it more fun and active, i think EvE is the only game i have to play other games at the same time not to get bored.
3)Minmatar ships and weapons. (or just nerf amarr down to minmatar level) :)
|
thoth rothschild
Strategic Solutions Ltd.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 11:28:00 -
[873]
1) Blaster tracking is terrible and/or bugged
2) Black Ops is even more terrible
3) Racial balance fleet command ships, recon ships. Amarr looks great...
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 12:32:00 -
[874]
 Originally by: Grasfer
1)Titans - Multiple DD's within seconds == wtfbbqwin. Counter by requiring Titans to enter a seige cycle 1/2 of a that of a Dread or Carriers. Add a greater risk vs reward to the use of Titans in combat.
Again?
Kenzoku never complained when they weren't on the receiving end and held Delve. 
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
The Mittani
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.05.15 18:07:00 -
[875]
Edited by: The Mittani on 15/05/2009 18:08:45
greetings gentlemen i am a mitten! i have only recently begun bothering to think about game design!
here is a simple solution to a problem which will require very little code changes and make a chunk of your playerbase happy!
assault frigates are terrible and only useful for pve, yet they have a lot of sex appeal to newbies as they are the 'first' t2 ship which many newbies ever get. now that stealth bombers have been adjusted, assault frigates are at the bottom of the barrel of 'most laughably terrible ship class', yet the assault frigates have very cool-looking models: rifter, punishers, incursi and merlins (merlins are not actually cool looking but w/e)
for some reason you nerfed this already terrible-for-pvp shipclass a while ago, making their sig radius larger and making them slower. this was no doubt in reply to the massive outcry in the playerbase about these extremely dangerous ships!
anyway enough preamble are you ready here is a minor tweak to help claw AF's back from the brink of complete pvp uselessness:
1. move 1 retribution highslot to a midslot, making it 4/2/5.
that's it! baby steps, let's not try to make grand sweeping changes to the entire class but just tweak the 'most useless in pvp' ship of the class - as it lacks a midslot beyond prop mod - and make it useful outside of pve! a whole new role, with a second midslot it can scramble something or fit a targ. comp
the retribution looks like a cool ship so it's a crying shame that it is terrible and useless in pvp and this swap would require no changes to the model, just the removal of the utility slot in the highs
hth (hope this helps)
|
Nostredeus Morphius
Minmatar
Beyond Transcendence
|
Posted - 2009.05.16 15:01:00 -
[876]
Edited by: Nostredeus Morphius on 16/05/2009 15:02:30
1) Projectile weapons and T2 ammo (all Arts and Large ac's [maybe medium ac's too but it's not as broken]) (fix them)
2) Minny BS's and bigger. (fix them)
3) Gief AF's a 4th bonus. (is it that difficult...)
----------------
ASS movie for your viewing pleasure. |
FT Diomedes
Gallente
Titan Industries Technology Team
Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.05.16 23:27:00 -
[877]
Edited by: FT Diomedes on 16/05/2009 23:28:47
1. The Muninn - it needs to have the two utility highs moved to the mids. Also slightly adjust it so that it is easier to fit.
2. Adjust the non-Sansha faction ships. Some of them are just downright terrible. This includes adding new pirate factions that are Amarr-Gallente and Caldari-Minmatar crosses.
3. Remove the cloaking ability from Titans in 0.0.
...this doesn't even seem to be a regular case of rats fleeing the sinking ship. Seems more like the rats are on fire, the ship is on fire, and the sea is full of drunk Russians. - Jacob Etienne |
Bizheep
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 00:25:00 -
[878]
1-projectiles weapons, large, medium, arty ,AC.
2-blaster Large and medium size
3-minmatar BS
|
Rin Yumiko
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 00:39:00 -
[879]
1> black ops ships needs some love like the sin and the redeemer
|
WillageGirl
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 00:51:00 -
[880]
1. Use of local chat
WH space is a step into right direction. Now we just need a more refined directional scanning system or somekind of a proximity scanner.
2. Sov. system
It's wa too easy to hold sov. on large area's by simpy gathering a blob around defended system. When onl way to take a system is to gather a bigger blob (or disbanding the holding alliance) theres something really wrong with the game. Blob against blob isnt everyone's idea of fun.
3. Large and medium artillery
Large minmatar sniper ships in general have no role in game. Minmatar is supposed to be the race for sneak attacks and hit and run tactics. Right now however, Minmatar BS and BC sized ships are only able to tickle and try to run since theres no great alpha, DPS is low, range is inferior compared to other long range weapons, and speed difference to other races is meaningless on large ships. In short, What ever attribute you want to build your plan on, theres always some better option than artillery when it's time to choose your weapon. Time to bring Arties inline with other turrets.
Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004 |
|
|
Akiba Penrose
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 12:18:00 -
[881]
1. There is no way of making a living from pvp, eventually youll have to rat or mine to get isk to buy new ships. PvP should pay off.
2. More Area of effect weapons/EW. It is an almost unused tactic.
3. Change low sec missions so that it is player skills that decides if a pirate manage to catch a mission runner, and not if he forgot to push the scan button for a minute.
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's
Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.05.17 12:58:00 -
[882]
Originally by: Tekki Sandan
Edited by: Tekki Sandan on 12/05/2009 03:47:49
Originally by: McEivalley
1) Rigs are way too expensive for almost ANY ship. It also means that the very rich and richer always have an advantage in combat. A reduction in salvage parts usage will do the trick without harming the salvage market. Also, someone (forgot who) has previously mentioned in the thread scaling the amount of salvage to the ship size its suppose to be used on. That's definitely a good avenue to explore as well.
I hate that crap. If you spend more money on a ship you SHOULD have an advantage!! its like low SP pilots "aww thats not fair we dont have a chance with the older guys" yes thats because they spent more time skill training for it to be so.
Market prices are a function of supply and demand. However, everyone knows that the markup on rigs is quite stupid in its proportions. Part of that is mainly due to some rigs being more in demand than others (in some cases, due to other rigs being completely obsolete) and the demand is much higher than the supply. Throw in traders to the pot and you get some rigs crossing absurd prices, yet keep rising. Check the ACR for example.
And tbh, what should cost more? a mod that can be ripped and re-fitted at will (modular) or something that cannot be altered once used (one use)... My common sense the former, much like the difference between BPOs and BPCs.
Insert clever remark where?? |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 04:14:00 -
[883]
I can't remember how many times I've mentioned this one:
Hyperion
- 8/4/8
- big powergrid/cpu boost (25k, 850tf after skills)
- 10% blaster damage bonus
- 7.5% repair bonus
- 50mbit/100m3 drones
- swap base speed and agility with Megathron (Hyperion is currently the nimble one, lolz)
It should be able to fit an active tank with Neutron IIs in the same way a Megathron can with Ion II's. Because of the bonus it would be fairly useless with rails. The DPS difference between Mega and Hype wouldn't be huge as one has 5 heavy drones while the other has 5 medium. But the Hyperion would be superior against other BS because of its tank and damage, while the Megathron would be more suitable for smaller fights or roaming where tracking, mobility and damage versatility count.
|
Vibora BR
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 05:08:00 -
[884]
- Minmatar ships need a boost.
- Projectile guns need a boost.
- T2 Ammo needs a boost = less penalties.
|
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 11:52:00 -
[885]
From CSM Meeting 1.2 Minutes:
0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase
While the Nighthawk may have some performance issues, due to the lack of power output, compared to the other field command ships, the ship is not designed to fit Heavy Assault Missile launchers and Micro Warp Drives. CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009, and that this will likely be part of it, with the Nighthawk getting a good look.
---
It is now late early 2009...
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.05.18 18:34:00 -
[886]
span style= font-size:7pt i Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/05/2009 18:34:24 /i /span br BLOCKQUOTE font class=quote size=9px face= Verdana img src= /images/icon_quote_message.gif border= 0 b Originally by: /b i Rip Striker /i hr height=1 noshade From [url=http://evajobse.net/csmwiki/index.php/CSM-CCP_Meeting_1-2]CSM Meeting 1.2 Minutes:
0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase
While the Nighthawk may have some performance issues, due to the lack of power output, compared to the other field command ships, the ship is not designed to fit Heavy Assault Missile launchers and Micro Warp Drives. CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009, and that this will likely be part of it, with the Nighthawk getting a good look.
---
It is now late early 2009...
I would like to point out that many of the same things in this thread were also in that meeting, such as projectiles, Minnie capitals, POS/Sov issues, RSD performance, etc. On that note, we're still waiting for the threads to discuss what's going on with the most commonly mentioned items.
It says that CCP Fendahl was looking into large projectiles and their performance related to other turret types and was investigating some fixes. Can we get an update on what he thought might be a reasonable fix? Or hell, maybe even just start a thread here in gamedev and watch as the players suggest some very reasonable (and some not so reasonable!) fixes.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Att Test
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 02:09:00 -
[887]
Edited by: Att Test on 19/05/2009 02:10:10
1. Assault Frigates need a fourth bonus.
2. Rockets need some love.
3. Nighthawk needs some grid.
(Posted with alt, woops.)
|
AncientLord
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 07:21:00 -
[888]
Black ops:
Re-design in ships and its skins.
Faction ships:
Like nightmare etc.... needs "flavor" speacly Baghalor or whats its name. Best woud be to-redisgn some rare faction ships.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 15:53:00 -
[889]
Edited by: Ulstan on 19/05/2009 16:04:27
1)Rockets badly need addressing. With the fixes to citadel torpedos, I think rockets are the most broken weapon system in the game. They're only really used by a handful of caldari/amarr ships with bonuses to those systems, but the weapon system itself is so terrible that those ships do better damage with other, unbonused weapons systems.
They completely fail in their role of a close range anti frigate weapon. Due to the way they launch, and acceleration issues, their range is miniscule, but most importantly, their velocity and explosion velocity are utterly inadequate to the task of hitting frigates.
2) T2 Ammo needs rework. There are some gems in there, but lots of garbage - very high penalties for a very modest boost.
3) Assault Frigates: while they've made some progress, they still need their other bonus. They could also stand to be a bit more nimble. And of course, the hawk is terrible, less powerful than its T1 version and, along with the vengeance, suffers from bad rocket system. And the retribution only has 1 med slot!!
4) Bizarrely low PG on some ships: this is a pet peeve of mine. Several ships were given more turret slots (that they needed) but not the PG to actually fit the new turrets. Moa and Omen come to mind. Trying to fit those guys with their new guns is ARRRRRGH. They could have 8 turret slots, they don't have the PG to fit them.
One ship, the Raptor, gained a turret slot but then LOST PG. The raptor has got to be hands down the worst interceptor at this point :p Poor thing needs some help. The Nighthawk is another ship with bizarrely low powergrid. It's probably the only T2 ship in the game that loses powergrid compared to the T1 version (drake),and needs 2 to 3 fitting mods to fit even basic PvP fits that other CS can fit with 0 or 1 fitting mods.
|
Lecitus
|
Posted - 2009.05.19 22:45:00 -
[890]
-Fix Matar Battleships and Artillery. |
|
|
SideControl
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 02:39:00 -
[891]
1. Highsec has too many rewards and too little risk.
2. Faction war is basically a free war dec, which is great, but little reward from participating exists. Most experienced players have no interest in faction war, as their is little (isk) benefit from it, leading to newer players often not being able to recieve the guidance of older established pvp'ers. Fac War has recieved little attention afaik since its realease, a response to the issues posed in many threads on the greater forums would better it imo.
3. Seriously, why, unless I pirate would I wish to LIVE in low sec? It is very possible, evading pirates is a hell of a lot easier than some would have you believe. But running a lvl 4 in highsec makes more money than ratting/anomalies in low sec, despite both 0 risk and better markets in highsec.
Boost lowsec or nerf highsec, but make lowsec a worthwhile place to live! |
Kronsur Boon
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 17:08:00 -
[892]
Edited by: Kronsur Boon on 20/05/2009 17:14:22
- Hi-sec mission running. There seems to be a imbalance with the risk and reward. The missions are effectively farmed. The vast amounts of loot dropped (when measured as a whole) make production of T1 ship equipment pointless. The reprocessed loot also has a negative effect on mining. I'm surprised those level 4 hi-sec mission agents are bankrupt yet
- Cloaking and going AFK, there should be some sort of penalty
- Blaster tracking speed seems to be too slow. Considering the close ranges for the weapon to be effective, the Gallente engineers should have realized that good tracking was vital.
|
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity
Ethikos Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 22:28:00 -
[893]
1. Shield tanks in pvp - a lot of people argue that the slots are meant to be that way, and that you have to choose one or the other. Let's examine them for a sec:
Shield:
-Shield tanks have 6 "tank slots" (bs)
-3/8 ships in the game are "effectively" shield tanks
-Other modules that go in mids: Cap booster, MWD, AB, point, WEB total: 5
-Shields have less base resistance than armor
Armor:
-Armor tanks have 7 "tank slots" (bs)
-5/8 ships in the game are "effectively" armor tanks
-Other modules that go in lows: damage mods total: 1
-Armor has more base resistance than shields
I think some leveling is needed.
2. Blasters - give us a boost please
With the extremely short range of blasters, they where less useful after the speed nerf, which some agrue was acceptable. After the WEB nerf, well...
I think a bit more range would solve the problem better than more tracking, but something needs doing
3. Can we make wardec's more than a way to discourage noobs to start corps?
Since there are so many ways to avoid wardec's, and they are so cheap, wardec's have become a low cost hit and miss try to get the noobies mechanic. If this is working as intended, then I think the intention is wrong. Give wars a purpose!
|
Connor Banks
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 08:38:00 -
[894]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: Rip Striker
Edited by: Rip Striker on 21/05/2009 07:48:21
Haven't you guys noticed that according to CCP (most) Caldari ship hulls were never ment to use a MWD and buffer tank. This is where CCP made a HUGE mistake.
Many Caldari ships suffer from having a way too low PG output. Read the bold part below.
Quote:
From CSM Meeting 1.2 Minutes:
0102-01-0047 Nighthawk needs powergrid increase
While the Nighthawk may have some performance issues, due to the lack of power output, compared to the other field command ships, the ship is not designed to fit Heavy Assault Missile launchers and Micro Warp Drives. CCP plans on reviewing the command ships as a whole in the future. CCP Zulupark stated that there will be several balance changes early 2009, and that this will likely be part of it, with the Nighthawk getting a good look.
And yes, I agree, more PG to the Eagle. Or you can simply fit sensor boosters and tracking comps as "is intended" instead of tank and mwd.
And still ccp designed the game in a way, that mwd is mandatory most of the time. If they say caldari is not meant to be use mwd then the didnt designed caldari for pvp at all. They should eighter reconcider caldari design or warn ppl that caldari is solely for pve only race, and give back sp to those who want to pvp in this game.
1. When you create your eve character there really should be information (preferably flashy red) saying that many or most Caldari ships are designed for static and long range engagements.
2. More PG to Caldari ships in general.
3. It would be nice to lower the CPU need for shield remote reps so that we, caldari ship pilots, do not need to mount 2! fittings modules, one for pg and one for cpu.
|
Tuncan
Minmatar
Mortis Angelus
The Church.
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 09:40:00 -
[895]
1-) Large projectiles - Boost
2-) Cap Boosters- nerf
3-) Damage control unit- nerf ( too overpowered module imho )
|
JinChilla
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 13:54:00 -
[896]
1.give some love to large projectile turrets
2.increase rewards for going into low + zero security space
3.increase risk for piracy in empire space
==Sig==
[2009.01.26 13:26:00]Kashimir: Very rational way to deal with this...
[2009.01.26 13:48:00]CCP Claw: Don't say that out loud, people might think that we know what we're doing! |
alpha11
Dynaverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 16:44:00 -
[897]
Is nozh still alive? Is this thread dead? no word from him for a month.......
-artillery/large projectiles
-rockets
-t2 ammo
Thanks for fixing the Nag, but the above are equally if not more broken
|
Shai Haluu'd
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 08:55:00 -
[898]
Edited by: Shai Haluu''d on 22/05/2009 09:07:06
1. Gallente ships
/TIPS:/
a. give the Megathron +10 base CPU (at least), it would make a big difference, after all Hybrids need A LOT of it
b1. give the Brutix some PG (no point in having armor repair bonus if you cannot actually fit an armor repair)
-OR
b2. replace the armor repair bonus with tracking
c1. give the Ishtar +1 turret slot and some PG/CPU to actually fit one (4x Dual 150mm Railguns/Electron Blasters FTW)
-OR
c2. give the Ishtar some PG/CPU so you can fit 3 proper guns
-OR
c3. remove the hybrid damage bonus and replace it with agility/cap/resists/repair amount etc.
-OR
c4. -1Mid +1Low + some PG, though you can forget about the uber_shield_tank_Ishtar_setup
d1. use all Hyperions for scrap and burn ALL Hyperion BPOs
-OR
d2. replace the armor repair bonus with optimal/falloff and change it to -1Mid +1Low slot
2. Blasters
/TIPS:/
a. increase blaster falloff a bit
b. change Null ammo modifiers to 1.3x optimal and 1.3x falloff, otherwise it's not even close to the competition
3. EW
/TIPS:/
a. change Stasis Webifier speed penalty from b/n 55-60% to b/n 55-65%
b. give dampeners and Gallente recons some lovin'
Edit: I sympathize with all Minmatar brethren and I support the Artillery range boost (within reason). Or just increase the optimal modifier of Tremor ammo (or add some falloff modifier) 'cause seeing a 'fleet' Tempest or a long range Muninn makes me so sad...
|
ArcticPrism
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:53:00 -
[899]
1. Assault Ships need a 4th bonus. Only t2 ship without a 4th bonus. If you can't think of anything, at least give them what their t1 hulls give like every other t2 ship. Stabber has 5% velocity per cruiser level, so does a Vagabond. Rifter has 7.5% with its 5% damage bonus. Jaguar and Wolf only have the 5% damage, why?
2. Assault ships have a 20-30% mass increase from their t1 hulls? Even with higher base speeds they are still slower. 50% longer align time than t1 hull, and with the recent changes, 4-5 second align time on a frigate? More if you use plates.
3. Rockets have marginally higher dps than light missiles. Their explosion velocity is half of a light missile. They can barely hit their targets. They have a clip size of 30 ish, yet their rate of fire is quite high and low volley damage. They are suppose to be a close range-anti frigate weapon, but do a poor job due to afterburners significantly reducing the damage. You can get more dps with non-bonuses weapons. Boost rocket dps/explosion velocity so rockets don't suck so bad.
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari
Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2009.05.22 18:10:00 -
[900]
The Legion is garbage compared to the other t3 ships. Undergunned and devoid of interesting bonuses. Barely capable of exceeding 800 dps with overheating, where Proteus can attain 1000+ cold.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 .. 47 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |