Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Dregek
Pilots Of Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:17:00 -
[331]
Naglafar
As ccp have already stated they wont add a third turret as thats :effort: and as missile suck in every sense of the word a simple solution and something that wont affect it graphically is to bonus the 2 guns as such they would equal 3 guns. Not like you see any graphical effect for a missile launcher as they magically appear in space
Motherships So back to where we started pre-dominion? the fighter bombers are going to need more ehp to combat a capital blob with 10,20 or 30 carriers perma running their smartbombs. Hel should have a drone ehp bonus. oh and name should be assault carriers as supercarrier is honestly the gayest name possible
General capital changes Nice decision on the mass changes for ships in siege or triage but the titan really really need this more than any its meant to have the mass of a moon but can be bumped by a shuttle that in relative terms is the local yob on his 50cc scooter hitting a tank and the tank going backwards
Controversial here but make it so pos warp disrupters/scramblers can tackle a titan/mother ship
|
justin666
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 07:56:00 -
[332]
Edited by: justin666 on 23/12/2009 07:56:39
Originally by: Sajeera
Originally by: Lhyda Souljacker Is this thread a CCP Nozh free zone? Or should I expect him to pop in and ruin some good changes yet again?
Lets see...
I doubt Nozh will show up in the forums anytime soon, even if he do that, no matter the reason he is posting he will be instantly target painted, marked and molested by the entire community.
And he deserve it.
has anyone ACAULLY read forum post from ccp explaining about ccp nozh?? i think you should because it explains what happened because they said he was just the messenger.... the whole department agreed on the changes not just ccp nozh....
im just saying because it seems bit unfair but tbh ccp really messed up the super carriers on tq right now
|
Nauticaa
Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 08:33:00 -
[333]
Any chance the moros drone bonus could be returned to 50% per lvl but only while IS?
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:04:00 -
[334]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 23/12/2009 09:04:17
Originally by: NedFromAssembly
Originally by: Marlona Sky
*sigh*
Let me clarify for you. Remote ECM Burst should jam everything within the burst radius. So instead of just making people lose thier lock, they are jammed for 20 seconds as well.
Does this clarify it for you?
Yup, I already posted that exact request a few pages back. Thanks for taking the time to read the thread before posting.
You said some duration on it. I am suggesting 20 seconds. I was simply being specific.
I have read every single post you have made in this thread. In most of these threads, even if you do give some feedback on the topic, it also comes with some form of troll to the poster. I think you will find COAD to be more your style. Have a wonderful day NedFromAssembly.
|
Slayton Ford
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:31:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Slayton Ford on 23/12/2009 09:31:47 I really understand CCPs wanting to get Fighterbombers into the game but is morphing the MS really the best way to do it? No matter what you do, your going to be getting a lot of pilots po'd due to the decreased value of their ships.
Now why not just leave MSs alone aside from a simple HP boost? You can the address their shortcomings later.
For supercarriers, you can take the existing carrier models, reskin it and introduce it as your 5-6b build cost, docking, fighterbombing, ecm vulnerable, 2x carrier HP ship. This gives you your new ship w/o hanging existing Mom pilots out to dry.
This gets you the best of both worlds. You get supercarriers in game, you keep MSs around as a logistics platform to revamp at a later date and you don't screw MSs pilots out of billions of isk (which is what will happen when build costs drop).
(and you don't even need to reskin it immediately as I know that takes time from the art dept.) --------------- This sig has been censored in fear of recieving the ban hammer... |
Jaron Terrkin
Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:33:00 -
[336]
CCP Abathur...I love u ...
|
groak
Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 09:51:00 -
[337]
The only thing I miss in here is bringing back the old white cynoeffect. oh please Signature removed. Unsuitable for EVE forums. Navigator |
pHenomena1337
HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:10:00 -
[338]
Originally by: groak The only thing I miss in here is bringing back the old white cynoeffect. oh please
That would be great.
---------------------------------------------
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:15:00 -
[339]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: glassmanipulator Make it a true dps dread if you wanna keep it broken with a gimp tank and less shield and armor hp/ehp than all the other dreads. It's OK if it does 300-400 more base dps than a rev.
Compared to a Rev? How about just under 300 more DPS long range and nearly 600 more DPS short range? Because that's about where it is with these changes. The damage gap narrows once you start adding damage mods on both ships but the Naglfar has much better base performance in terms of raw firepower, plus you can select your damage types.
Issue seems to be exactly that the gap gets too small with 3 damage mods for some people perception. Exactly because nowadays dreads always use 2-3 damage mods. Also that at short range, pulses are still superior to AC on engagement evelope, so the advantage is only realistic at longer ranges. Naglfar has a huge disadvantage on HP against revelation. The thing that saves it its not the slightly higher dps, is exactly the selection of damage types. But I persoannly think that is enough. Naglfar does NOT need a HUGE damage advantage.
Could you please post us exactly what are the official DPS numbers you guys are working on with the current changes ?
|
Cpt AngelNova
Amarr Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:28:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Jaron Terrkin CCP Abathur...I love u ...
This news you bring us Abathur is like an Xmas present in its own
As for the Cyno Effects mentioned above.... Yes please do change that for the better aswell, i mean the gate jump effects are perfect, but capitals... they deserve a dramatic entry !
|
|
Deja Thoris
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 10:37:00 -
[341]
Now that te problem of titans one shoting super carriers will be a thing of the ast please reconsider the low sec doomsday.
It provides a lot of scenarios that I quite liked. I liked the fact that lowsec station huggers in cap ships could have it taken away from them in just a couple of seconds. I was also quite excited about setting a trap for one of these titans in lowsec. I think we could have snagged one and the change to prevent dd's firing in lowesec deprived me of that opportunity.
Please reconsider it!
|
Hacra
Minmatar Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 11:03:00 -
[342]
Quote: A special comment on the Hel û we realize that among these ships, the HelÆs bonus to repair might be seen as a bit æmehÆ. The other school of thought is that considering how useful remote repair is, especially when it comes to carrier combat, perhaps the HelÆs bonus is not so bad. So, what would you like to see here? Would an additional boost to the current RR bonus be welcomed? Ponies?
+2.5% armor resistances per level +2.5% Fighter damage per level
Just a suggestion
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 11:15:00 -
[343]
I'm just adding my voice to those who say the Hel should give a fighter (and maybe drone too? ) velocity bonus. Another good alternative might be fighter sig radius reduction.
|
LoveKebab
Caldari Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 11:34:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Hacra
+2.5% armor resistances per level +2.5% Fighter damage per level
Just a suggestion
it would leave hel being the only ms with 2 bonues (apart of the obvious ones)
it should be either: - speed bonus for fighters/bombers - ehp bonus for fighters/bombers (im currently voting for this one btw) - dmg bonus for bombers ONLY (leaving nyx with the fighter bonus only tbh)
xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial |
Hacra
Minmatar Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 11:52:00 -
[345]
Originally by: LoveKebab
Originally by: Hacra
+2.5% armor resistances per level +2.5% Fighter damage per level
Just a suggestion
it would leave hel being the only ms with 2 bonues (apart of the obvious ones)
it should be either: - speed bonus for fighters/bombers - ehp bonus for fighters/bombers (im currently voting for this one btw) - dmg bonus for bombers ONLY (leaving nyx with the fighter bonus only tbh)
But as you can see it shares two different bonuses from two different races, dowsinde being that the bonuses would be halved of normal (+5%), this would actually make Hel worthwhile purchase, also not overpowerfull imho.
|
LoveKebab
Caldari Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:26:00 -
[346]
i would rather take 1 full bonus than 2x 1/2 :x
xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:27:00 -
[347]
Citadel missile training requirements
People are complaining about these not just because Citadel missiles are much more skill intensive then capital guns, but because they don't make any sense.
The trend is that although the overall missile skill tree is considerably longer than any single gunnery skill tree, you have the option to start at various points in the tree. For example, to use Cruise requires only one skill to V - Missile Launcher Operation (MLO). And to use torpedoes, MLO to only IV is required. This is counterbalanced by the sheer existence of two separate skills for large missiles, in contrast to the greater prerequisites for large guns, but the existence of only one skill - e.g., large hybrid turret, with no separation into blasters and rails.
But this logic breaks down in your iteration of capital missiles. Here, we have separate skills for citadel Cruise and citadel torps, following the normal missile trend - but the skill requirements follow those of gunnery, requiring Cruise V and Torps V. This really is the worst of both worlds and makes no sense.
The solution is for citadel missiles to follow either the gunnery pattern, or the missile pattern - not the current mess of following both and ****ing everyone off. The "gunnery pattern" would be for there to be a single "Citadel Missiles" skill with prerequisites of Cruise V to use Citadel Cruise and torps V to use Citadel Torps. Alternatively, they could follow the "missile pattern", where the current separation of citadel missile skills into Cruise and Torps remains, but the skill prerequisites of Cruise V and torps V, respectively, are dropped to Missile Launcher Operation V.
Making citadel missiles follow the gunnery pattern doesn't make any sense, frankly, and would incur problems with the removal of skill points. So I advise that the "missile pattern" is followed, and the skill requirements of Citadel Cruise and citadel torps of Cruise V and torps V, respectively, are dropped to MLO V for both.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:43:00 -
[348]
Ok Super Carriers will be back on the Battlefield but I'm a bit worried with the impact of these ships in 0.0 fleet fights... Not because of the fire power or HP boost but because of the 20 drones/fighters/Fighter Bombers they can and will release during battles. Battles are already extremely laggy and with these big boys coming back to the BF I can easily see hundreds/Thousands of additional drones being deployed during a fight.... everybody here knows what will happen... LAG BOMB...
Isn't possible to diminish the number of drones they can deploy and boost in the same proportion EHP, Fire power etc... This will NOT be a nerf to the Super Carriers but can have a deep impact preventing additional lag in a already extreme laggy BF.
God is my Wingman |
ByFstugan
Big Shadows Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 12:55:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Misanth
Originally by: ByFstugan 1) - FB's are only for capitals and most carriers has at least one smartbomb and all capitals can withstand smartbombs for a very very long time. Hence it's "suicide" to send FB's to enemy capital-blob, but almost no risk for enemy to stop them. So the new role for the capital-killer Supercarrier will not be possible in large scale nullsec fighting, but only in mostly impossible to find 1v1 supercarrier vs some other capital.
2) - Fighters are mostly effective versus Battleships, even if they can be used towards both smaller and largers targets the DPS either has hard to hit (smaller) or doesn't do much very damage in targets total hitpoints (caps). BS's doesn't mostly have smartboms. And even if they did they can't withstand 5-10 smartbombs all over for to long. Hence there are less risk using the Fighters and if U send them into an hostile capital blob U'r not really doing what they was meant to do.
3) - And once again what I think they should change to; if they become an XL Sentry Drone that fires torpedos it's not very strange that they can fly decent distances - and it would look awesome :p
1) Similar to how things are today. That's one major reason I barely used Fighters in capital ops. I've sent mine to Dreads, but if carriers has been on the field I used sentries. That's not gonna change with FB's around (if anything it might get worse). The problem is not the smartbombs (or bombs) in itself, it's how slow they are by default - and directly unresponsible in lag situations. I.e. CCP are adding a Fighter 2.0-concept, a concept that has a design flaw by default.
There's no problem as per se in FB's itself, it's a problem with the Fighter family.
2) Yes, I already said that.
3) That would be 'cool', and it would solve their vulnerability vs smartbombs/bombs, and it would also solve the recall issues in laggy situations. But it goes against what CCP posted as a 'strength' with motherships (and carriers). They've been talking about how one of the defensive mechanisms carriers/motherships have is the mobility on the field (unlike sieged/triaged ships), so giving moms a "sentryfighter" would mean that suddenly we're immobile?
I'm not sure that's what devs want. I could personally buy that concept, but I'd also want a fix to Fighters as they work today (they're too unresponsible, too slow).. and a fix to that would be a fix to FB's be default.
1) Yes, but the big difference is that Carriers main role isn't a fighter on the Battlefield, but instead to be a Logistics support vessel. Hence it's ability to kill caps to the enemy isn't a priotity, it's to keep the friendlys alive. I'm also a Carrier pilot, but I think them having Fighters as they are today is enough, we need to remember their main role and that the Fighters is merely a bonus/option.
2) Nothing to say here ^^
3) In my earlier proposal - http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1236843&page=11#306 - I propose the solution to the mobility issue. This XL sentrys would have a "Return to Ship" engine (which regular ones could need also - even if it would be slow) and perhaps even a "Follow ship" command. _______________________________
The wise knows what he knows not. |
Ivanna Nuke
Gallente Daralux
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 13:37:00 -
[350]
Capitals should play the Rick Roll as they drop onto the battlefield.
|
|
NedFromAssembly
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:00:00 -
[351]
Edited by: NedFromAssembly on 23/12/2009 14:02:01
Originally by: Marlona Sky Edited by: Marlona Sky on 23/12/2009 09:04:17
Originally by: NedFromAssembly
Originally by: Marlona Sky
*sigh*
Let me clarify for you. Remote ECM Burst should jam everything within the burst radius. So instead of just making people lose thier lock, they are jammed for 20 seconds as well.
Does this clarify it for you?
Yup, I already posted that exact request a few pages back. Thanks for taking the time to read the thread before posting.
You said some duration on it. I am suggesting 20 seconds. I was simply being specific.
I have read every single post you have made in this thread. In most of these threads, even if you do give some feedback on the topic, it also comes with some form of troll to the poster. I think you will find COAD to be more your style. Have a wonderful day NedFromAssembly.
Now for the trolling aspect. Do you realize what would happen to 0.0 combat if 5 MS can completely shut down a hostile bs blob? There's a reason I didnt specify "20 seconds" a simple 1-5 second duration would still be pretty overpowered but wouldn't allow half a dozen MS to permajam an entire gang.
In summary, stop being dumb.
PS. Please make the wyvern and nyx larger than dreads.
|
Cain Negestor
Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:02:00 -
[352]
Originally by: LoveKebab
it should be either: - speed bonus for fighters/bombers - ehp bonus for fighters/bombers (im currently voting for this one btw) - dmg bonus for bombers ONLY (leaving nyx with the fighter bonus only tbh)
This, basicly. Also Shield slaves and the old/updated cyno effect.
|
ByFstugan
Big Shadows Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:19:00 -
[353]
Edited by: ByFstugan on 23/12/2009 14:19:41 When it comes to the Slaves vs Crystal on Capitals I really don't think that the solution lies in making Crystals work for them.
Since Titans and MS's [will] have a massive EHP this days the active tank is of no use - so there need to either be a counterpart for the slaves that make a Shield HP-buff or the Slaves need to stop work for the armortankers. _______________________________
The wise knows what he knows not. |
Jade Kitana
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:36:00 -
[354]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
The low sec DD thing - I'll ask. No promises.
The only real use for DDs in Low Sec is for DD drive-bys. If you don't have a support fleet to take out the single target that the DD would destroy, you probably shouldn't be flying the thing.
I don't think DD drive-bys is a good game mechanic. If you have the balls to use this thing, you should have the balls to stick around afterwards.
I think you could still allow DDs in Low Sec if you made Drive-bys far less effective. Possible approaches:
- Increase DD warm up to be in excess to docking timer, but maybe less than the aggression timer. - Increase Titan imobility after firing DD to something like 90-120 seconds.
There should be no reason or incentive to warp a Titan on Grid, engage, then leave again as soon as possible. They should only be used when you intend to stay on grid, as a show of resolve.
Alowing DD drive-bys is just silly tbh.
|
NedFromAssembly
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 14:49:00 -
[355]
I am against the low sec DD but I am also against the DD having a 30-40 second charge up time. That is just ludicrous. Sorry if titans ruined your undock games, but it's been a huge complain from the eve community for a long time.
|
Arzal
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:03:00 -
[356]
Originally by: LoveKebab
Originally by: Hacra
+2.5% armor resistances per level +2.5% Fighter damage per level
Just a suggestion
it would leave hel being the only ms with 2 bonues (apart of the obvious ones)
it should be either: - speed bonus for fighters/bombers - ehp bonus for fighters/bombers (im currently voting for this one btw) - dmg bonus for bombers ONLY (leaving nyx with the fighter bonus only tbh)
option 4 - Target painter bonus! seriously though if its big enough could be usefull! for once....
|
Aylara
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:12:00 -
[357]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Originally by: keuel
Quote: Dual 1000mm Railgun: Damage mod to 5.8
Why not 6.3 that you said before on another topic? I think it suits better from the exchange of the 50% drones per lvl. Or just forget about the rail dmg mod and return the drone bonus to 50, or better, put 25% or 30% and let the 5.8x dmg on rails.
Or we could just balance the 1000mm damage against the other XL turrets regardless of what those silly drones are doing.
Sadly, those silly drones don't shoot past 60km (with max skills), so the Moros is getting a damage nerf past 60 km regardless the setup you might have. You guys should consider a bigger default drone control range, or apply the bonus to the drone control range also.
Ty.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:48:00 -
[358]
Originally by: NedFromAssembly In summary, stop being dumb.
Impossible to make a comment without being an ass?
|
Kersh Marelor
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:54:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Jade Kitana The only real use for DDs in Low Sec is for DD drive-bys.
This. Additionally the low-sec DD can make usage of triage carrier as a support for BS gangs useless when it can be insta-popped with no real way to defend. Thus no point deploying one.
Also: - increase the size of Mom/SC - can we please have a different name for them than the lame 'SUPPAH-carrier'? - bring back the old cyno effect.
|
NedFromAssembly
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.12.23 15:54:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: NedFromAssembly In summary, stop being dumb.
Impossible to make a comment without being an ass?
Is my alliance ticker not showing?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |