Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Vakr Onzo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:39:00 -
[31] - Quote
Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? |
Malice Duivels
Pod Reprocessing LLC.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look?
Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship.
Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.)
Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy.. |
Vakr Onzo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
Malice Duivels wrote:Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship. Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.) Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy.. Yes but, more T1 classes is good. Look at the T1 BCs, they have three hulls to choose from per race. The T1 Destroyers? Only one hull to choose from for each race. |
BarryBonez
Ixion Defence Systems Test Friends Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Destroyers are the perfect class for me. T1 frigs are pretty weak, and cruisers are a bit too expensive for a throwaway ship. I like to be able to fit a decent ship for ~10mil and undock it not really caring if i lose it or not and destroyers are right in that price range with good dps. The more the better.
Also, can you figure out a way to make T2 EWAR Frigs cheaper, I would love to use some of those but they are simply too expensive, especially compared to their cruiser counterparts which are far more efficient and cheaper. Blackbird>>>>>Kitsune and I don't think it should be so lopsided. I know they need serious rebalancing, but simply making them easier to produce or whatever it takes to make them cheaper would allow them to see more use in the field rather soon until they can be focused on at a later date. Right now they are on life support. I honestly can't remember seeing one of them in space in over a year. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
830
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:03:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
small medium or medium medium or both?
and when do you give them a distinct name to prevent this confusion? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
924
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing. |
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
143
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:10:00 -
[37] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu). Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:45:00 -
[38] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu). Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot.
Which is why I dont like the proposed changes - cormorant has its uses now, but with only 3 mids, it just becomes a worse thrasher |
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries Li3 Federation
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:These changes are for the small class guns. All the meta levels of Medium Pulse and all the meta levels of Medium Beams, all of which take small ammo. Yeah I know the naming can be confusing. This was the Dev post by CCP Gnauton that set out to address changes to laser names...
What happened to that?
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
92
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Reppyk wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Cormorant was actually quite good for lowsec dueling. 75mm rails, neut, ab, scram, web, MASB, field stab (or dcu). Yes I used it a lot, but the key part of this fit was to kite like a mofo @t 9km. Not possible without that 4th medslot. Which is why I dont like the proposed changes - cormorant has its uses now, but with only 3 mids, it just becomes a worse thrasher
The 8/3/2 layout is by far the best. You can armor tank or shield tank, bring ewar or do whatever you want, and in Minmatars case, fit the biggest guns.
And don't even get me started on the Eris, lol |
|
Sekundary
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:41:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I was really confused about how you were getting explosion velocity of 50 for LM's, until I realized you were talking about explosion radius. Please don't accidentally change the explosion velocity of LM's to 40. |
Malice Duivels
Pod Reprocessing LLC.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Vakr Onzo wrote:Malice Duivels wrote:Eliminates the need for an entirely new hull.. introduces 8 new modules.. (2 per race) and gives an easy platform on which to balance them. (tailor the bonuses and mod adjustments on subs) Still going to be a different model if you let subsystem change its appearance, so why not go all the way and make a new hull to go with the new look? Model design. The subsystem doesn't have to change the entire ship. Edit: My goal was to require as little dev time as possible for introducing a new dessie class (now and in the future.) Dropping in a new 3rd tier bombardment dessie would then be fairly easy.. Yes but, more T1 classes is good. Look at the T1 BCs, they have three hulls to choose from per race. The T1 Destroyers? Only one hull to choose from for each race.
I agree with you and think either of our solutions are valid.. but it comes down to resources and what CCP has available. My proposal was heavy on the spreadsheet side and easy on the creation side.
I don't know what kinda resources CCP has available.. perhaps one of our suggestions can propagate a discussion within CCP to provide a widely accepted solution!
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
23
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:33:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ok what the Coercer needed was more mids..
It did not need more DPS/Range.. It was already really powerful, just couldn't hold anything down... |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
491
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:37:00 -
[44] - Quote
For me destroyers are all about gank. How much firepower can you put onto each dessie frame to kill frigates as fast as possible? Through trial and error I have stopped putting points on the things - you can't really control range with frigates. They will either come into your envelope or they won't.
Thrasher: High: 280mm II x 7 Mid: Limited MWD Sensor Booster II Tracking Computer II Low: Gyro II x 2 Rigs: Ancillary Current Router x 2 Projectile Collision Rig
1854 Alpha - This kills frigates all the time before they can get out.
125mm Catalyst: - imho the only Catalyst worth fitting High: 125mm II x 8 Mid: Limited MWD Sensor Booster II Low: MFS II x 2 TE II Rigs: Ancillary Current Router Hybrid Burst Hybrid Locus Coordinator
You need the genolution set to fit this - it would be nice if it wasn't needed to fit the middle tier rail guns and no tank. However the above fit does 381 DPS with faction Antimatter. If you throw in damage implants it easily breaks 418 DPS at 13km. To put it another way it sends 609 alpha downrange every 1.53 seconds. And it puts 4 volleys downrange before the Thrasher gets off it's second. Again, by the time a target realizes it needs to get out, it's usually dead.
Corm - it currently is a support ship. It's DPS is too weak to do what the Cat and Thrasher do - kill stuff fast. It is usually consigned to sit back and snipe in support of other ships at 70 - 100km. I have fought the dual MSE, 75mm rail corm in the cat fit posted above and wasn't impressed by it at all. It has 7 turrets while the Thrasher, with it's damage bonus, technically has 8.75. I use those four mids for a prop mod, two tracking computers and a sensor booster. Along with an ionic field projector rig I can lock out to 90km and shoot out the same. That range would have to come in alot with the slot change but I'd be able to send more DPS out as well. All in all, still consigned to be a support sniper.
Coercer - I have little experience with this ship. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:49:00 -
[45] - Quote
i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it? |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
491
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it?
For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
286
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
Zarnak, this is how you would fit a Coercer for what you're doing:
Quote:[Coercer, Full Gank] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Co-Processor II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch S
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Energy Locus Coordinator I
378 dps overheat, 728 volley, 19k optimal.
I do find that the lack of warp disruptor limits the usefulness of the ship. While it kills fast, it doesn't kill fast enough to stop frigates that appear on the gate and try to warp off. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
38
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 20:31:00 -
[48] - Quote
The Catalyst needs more powergrid, especially since its mounting one more gun than the cormorant.
The coercer is a much better ship now. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 20:39:00 -
[49] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it? For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much.
I expect people who fit blasters would like it also as the corm has 8 highs but only 7 turrets,
That said I like the utility high for rocket launcher or neut although I would like the eighth turret also, just with four mids. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
224
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:04:00 -
[50] - Quote
Does [Winter] in the title mean we'll have to wait until December expansion to see these changes? |
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
491
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:06:00 -
[51] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i do not understand, why the cormorant has to loose a mid. loosing a high instead of a mid would do the ship a much bigger favor wouldnt it? For snipers absolutely. People slapping blasters on it? Not so much. I expect people who fit blasters would like it also as the corm has 8 highs but only 7 turrets, That said I like the utility high for rocket launcher or neut although I would like the eighth turret also, just with four mids.
The Cormorant should have 7 turrets, 4 mids, 2 lows. Trade out the tracking bonus for a damage bonus. (optimal x 2, damage) Now THAT would be a Caldari destroyer. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1788
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
I'm not a huge fan of the destroyer changes: - I really liked the old 2 HS/2 TE Coercer... but I'm probably the only one who did. I can see why you're making the change, even if I'm not a big fan. - Dropping the 4th mid slot on the Cormorant feels like a nerf. - Why does the Cormorant have so much higher grid than the Catalyst?
Really, I think the biggest problem with destroyer usage right now is the cost of the hull vs the cost of T2 weapons. It's literally cheaper to buy a better frigate like the Retribution or Slicer than fit T2 weapons to a destroyer. Have you considered the old 100% bonus and 3-4 weapon slots?
Quote:MODULES: The point of module changes is to increase usefulness of weapons we consider as either underpowered or just too difficult to fit right now. This includes medium beam laser, medium pulse lasers and light missiles.
- All medium beam laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All medium pulse laser variations: -1 PWG and -1 CPU
- All light missile variations: explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40, damage increased by 10%
I admit I'm not sold the change to Med Pulse/Beams is enough - particularly in the case of Med Beams. The range on them is just so long that it rather eclipses frigate engagement ranges. The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
288
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:34:00 -
[53] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I admit I'm not sold the change to Med Pulse/Beams is enough - particularly in the case of Med Beams. The range on them is just so long that it rather eclipses frigate engagement ranges.
-Liang
That makes no sense. Med beams have lower optimal than 150mm rails and the same optimal as 280mm arty. With lower falloff than both, they're actually the "shortest" long range weapon system. Or was that what you were trying to say?
I think they're underused in part because they're too similar to pulse lasers with scorch and the extra range over scorch isn't that helpful with frigate speeds. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1789
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: That makes no sense. Med beams have lower optimal than 150mm rails and the same optimal as 280mm arty. With lower falloff than both, they're actually the "shortest" long range weapon system. Or was that what you were trying to say?
I think they're underused in part because they're too similar to pulse lasers with scorch and the extra range over scorch isn't that helpful with frigate speeds.
You're probably looking at Multifreq optimals where they just don't track. Try moving out to longer ranged ammos and you'll see what I mean. Still, tracking is a problem but it doesn't matter much because you can't lock that far out anyway.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
103
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 22:24:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: We are talking about the small sized turrets here, that like to call themselves "medium" just to confuse everyone. We should probably rename them to something that actually match their proper size.
+1 for rename |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 23:20:00 -
[56] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.
-Liang
It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a double-damage boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1792
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 23:27:00 -
[57] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: The damage change to light missiles is cool, but the explosion velocity change is going to be extremely interesting.
-Liang It's actually and very likely a typo. The number given, 50, is the current explosion radius, so it actually is a damage-appliance boost by lowering explosion radius from 50 to 40.
That makes a lot more sense, TBH. Ytterbium?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 02:26:00 -
[58] - Quote
Definitely rename any light (small) modules that have 'medium' in their name, they're confusing.
Loving the change for light missiles, they sorely need that buff. And consider making all the long-range missiles and guns more like artillery, in that they are about volley damage (cruise missiles would really benefit from this, but I disgress).
The Corm desperately needs an 8th turret slot, please consider adding this since it doesn't get a damage bonus. You can make a dedicated missile destroyer later
I'm not entirely sold on the concept of destroyers still being anti-frigate hulls. Does that mean we will get anti-destroyer cruisers? And anti-cruiser battlecruisers etc? Stick to your ship lines model - what category are destroyers really in? With poor mobility and poor defence, they don't really fit into the combat OR attack lines, and they're not support. They're in a class of their own at the moment.
That destroyer gun-range bonus; are the tier 2 destroyers going to get that too, even if they're missile or drone based? It just doesn't fit.
Consider removing that and folding the range bonus into the regular attributes for the class to normalise them with the upcoming tier 2's. Hell, if you're still planning to release Line Skills (attack, combat etc) attach that range bonus to the attack ship line skill.
The tier 1's are gunboats, meant for damage, and therefore should be in the attack line and should probably have more speed to fit with the category. Or more resilience to fit them into the combat line. Take your pick, but don't leave them swinging in the wind as they are now. Even the tier 3 BC's would be considered attack line ships as they have speed AND damage output. Food for thought. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 03:25:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dear CCP Yitterbium, CCP Fozzie, and CCP Tallest,
So I've heard a lot about the reasons why historically, as in near the beta, lasers were so good none of the laser ships had damage bonuses and had cap use bonuses instead from players.
However when you bring up the stats today, they are in terms of tracking, range and damage seem to be in line roughly with other weapons minus the fact they use so much more cap. Which makes many Amarr ship fits quite more cap unstable especially in long fights when compared to other races. Much more so than Caldari missile boats or any Minmatar in terms of ability to project damage. I think all these points are facts that most people who played recently would agree upon.
I had asked in the attack frigate thread, though rather late in the thread.
Quote:What are the broad design goals, choices for each of the races combat ships, what are they supposed to be good at?
To me it seems, that Amarr is supposed to be good at lasers, passive armor tanking, and capacitor.
With secondary weapons being drones and missiles, though it looks like your giving most races drones or missile ships eventually.
Minmatar, projectiles, missiles, speed, and active shield tanking. Though by far the most versatile race.
Gallente, Blasters, drones, active armor tanking, agility(?).
Caldari, Railguns, Missiles, passive shield tanking, um 4th thing(?)
These of course don't list the EWAR of each race which is much more obvious.
So I was wondering what the devs think about the general balance of laser cap use, compared to there abilities, and how this factors in recent balance changes where some ships have had their inherent cap changed to make room for a real second bonus on Amarr ships but not all.
Don't get me wrong, I love that you are bringing Tech 1 back into a useable state. And I appreciate many of the changes. I just want some love for my Amarr ships in long fights. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.10 03:27:00 -
[60] - Quote
So instead of Medium Beam and Pulse. How about Small Overcharged Beam/Pulse? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |