Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
399
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 13:27:00 -
[181] - Quote
Sensor Strength and Lock Range: Caldari > Gallente > Amarr > Minmatar
|
Khaim Khal
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 03:06:00 -
[182] - Quote
Onnen Mentar wrote:(1) How is sensor strength decided on? Is it racial or based on other factors? Vigil has lower sensor strength than the crucifier, but the typhoon has higher sensor strength than the armageddon for instance. As best I can tell, CCP's idea is that each ship "class" has a base sensor strength, and then a racial adjustment is added on top of that. This probably applies to all stats, not just sensor strength.
Onnen Mentar wrote:(2) Compared to battleship, these frigates also have interesting increments. For instance the domi and scorpion have high sensor strengths (22, 23), whereas the armageddon and typhoon have low sensor strengths (17, 18). For the frigates the increment is just +2 each time. I suspect that these numbers will eventually be changed. They can't rebalance everything at once!
X Gallentius wrote:Sensor Strength and Lock Range: Caldari > Gallente > Amarr > Minmatar That was kind of my point, earlier. Targeting range can be useful, but mostly in sniper-fits. Sensor strength, not so much - it only matters when a player tries to ECM you.
Also, did you know that T1 ships get +10% racial armor resists? Can you guess which race is most heavily biased towards shields? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
399
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 05:22:00 -
[183] - Quote
Khaim Khal wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Sensor Strength and Lock Range: Caldari > Gallente > Amarr > Minmatar That was kind of my point, earlier. Targeting range can be useful, but mostly in sniper-fits. Sensor strength, not so much - it only matters when a player tries to ECM you. Also, did you know that T1 ships get +10% racial armor resists? Can you guess which race is most heavily biased towards shields? Targeting range is useful as a defense against remote sensor dampening. Sensor strength is good for resistance against jams. So, Caldari are pretty much the most e-war resistant race (especially with missiles not affected by td's). Conceptually Gallente is second because of these values as well as drones.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
95
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 07:45:00 -
[184] - Quote
How about these frigs get a bonus to the new ewar drones? Some of them are still totally useless. What if a bonus to the ships were "ewar drones have no stacking penalty" and "20% bonus to the factor of ewar drones strength pr level".
We all know that the dronebays will just be filled up with Warrior II's, and the ewar drones will never be used. But what if the Maulus could send a flight of SD drones that had the effectiveness of half or two thirds a sensor damper. I would use them... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
1864
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:03:00 -
[185] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:How about these frigs get a bonus to the new ewar drones? Some of them are still totally useless. What if a bonus to the ships were "ewar drones have no stacking penalty" and "20% bonus to the factor of ewar drones strength pr level".
We all know that the dronebays will just be filled up with Warrior II's, and the ewar drones will never be used. But what if the Maulus could send a flight of SD drones that had the effectiveness of half or two thirds a sensor damper. I would use them...
The problem with ewar drones is that they stack nerf...
-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
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
95
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 08:13:00 -
[186] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: The problem with ewar drones is that they stack nerf... -Liang
You mean they stack with ship modules? Yeah, but if a flight of drones could compare to a module you could possibly free up a midslot to use for something else. I dunno, just thinking about stuff that could make people use those drones.... |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces Caldari Protectorate Forces
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:04:00 -
[187] - Quote
Like many stated before: Target Painters suck, they suck hard for a frigate. Painters are the weakest e-war (if it can be called e-war at all), and it doesn't help this ship an a 1vs1, as the other e-war-frigates' bonuses do. Having its bonus this way poor Vigil wil rarely ever be used, as it only helps others.
Minmatar's real e-war is webs, webs, webs! This is exactly what Vigils T2 variant, Hyena does. Why shouldn't the Vigil get a web bonus? If a web range bonus should interfere with the hyena's role maybe a web strenght bonus would be viable. or a moderate mix of both.
It makes me sad thet CCP is so stubborn in this concern |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
236
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:06:00 -
[188] - Quote
Sui'Djin wrote:Like many stated before: Target Painters suck, they suck hard for a frigate. Painters are the weakest e-war (if it can be called e-war at all), and it doesn't help this ship an a 1vs1, as the other e-war-frigates' bonuses do. Having its bonus this way poor Vigil wil rarely ever be used, as it only helps others. Minmatar's real e-war is webs, webs, webs! This is exactly what Vigils T2 variant, Hyena does. Why shouldn't the Vigil get a web bonus? If a web range bonus should interfere with the hyena's role maybe a web strenght bonus would be viable. or a moderate mix of both. It makes me sad thet CCP is so stubborn in this concern
Web strength, are you for real? |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces Caldari Protectorate Forces
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:23:00 -
[189] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Sui'Djin wrote:Like many stated before: Target Painters suck, they suck hard for a frigate. Painters are the weakest e-war (if it can be called e-war at all), and it doesn't help this ship an a 1vs1, as the other e-war-frigates' bonuses do. Having its bonus this way poor Vigil wil rarely ever be used, as it only helps others. Minmatar's real e-war is webs, webs, webs! This is exactly what Vigils T2 variant, Hyena does. Why shouldn't the Vigil get a web bonus? If a web range bonus should interfere with the hyena's role maybe a web strenght bonus would be viable. or a moderate mix of both. It makes me sad thet CCP is so stubborn in this concern Web strength, are you for real?
Why not, if it's moderate? And what's your proposal? Any useful idea? |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 14:33:00 -
[190] - Quote
no web strenght. would be a first for minmatar. stick with web range or make target painter worth something. |
|
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:17:00 -
[191] - Quote
Well, range would make the hyena somewhat obsolete, especially due to the cheaper vigil. If it were web strength, then one could penalize the vigil with less/least frig hp.
How about a very small range bonus to Warp Scrambler instead (to reach a max of some 12km'ish range)? Now that would be disruption heh. I'm not against webbing bonuses in general, but hyena should keep that aspect. Nonetheless, EAF will get their love too. confirthisposmed
Yes. I'm a writer. And I'm a writer. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 17:12:00 -
[192] - Quote
Deena Amaj wrote:Well, range would make the hyena somewhat obsolete, especially due to the cheaper vigil. If it were web strength, then one could penalize the vigil with less/least frig hp.
How about a very small range bonus to Warp Scrambler instead (to reach a max of some 12km'ish range)? Now that would be disruption heh. I'm not against webbing bonuses in general, but hyena should keep that aspect. Nonetheless, EAF will get their love too.
yes, it would make the hyena obsolete, but EAF's in general aren't known for their uniqueness. rather make the hyena obsolete now and get a better, more distinct hyena later, ending up with two useful ships than have 2 ships which both are percieved as not good |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
146
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 17:44:00 -
[193] - Quote
It's page ten and several posts in. While plenty of people are fine with the changes, many have expresses concern over TP as a Minmatar bonus. This has taken place in this thread and many others.
CCP Fozzie, thank you for replying to so many in this thread. I appreciated every dev post. It seems clear that you don't agree with the TP change or do not have the authority to change it. Could you at least counter debate my points?
1. In this time of drastic change, isn't this a good time to consider changing the Minmatar EWar?
2. EWar ships are directly protected by direct disruption. TP is not direct disruption. Doesn't that leave it directly unprotected? Is this not a fallacy in applying ship design philosophy?
I actually recall when the bonuses on these ships where changed to EWar. Caldari was not always the ECM race. The Scorpion was not always an ECM boat.
3. Would it not be a smaller change to switch one type of EWar for another than to reduce all EWar down to one?
I read about the Minmatar missile buff coming in the future. They are set to have a TP bonus on those missile ships. I expect they Typhoon to retain its strong defense. By CCP standards, this will be the second EWar BS.
4. Doesn't a Phoon with a strong defense and offence break the EWar design philosophy that says the opposite?
5. With this new initiative, doesn't it make sense to give a TP bonus to the Breacher? Wouldn't it out shine and be more useful than the TP Vigil? Wouldn't the total small gang or fleet damage be greater with fully revamped TP Breachers in most cases? |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
49
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 21:31:00 -
[194] - Quote
The optimal range bonus for TDs on the crucifier is kind of redundant, given the fact that they already have pretty huge optimals anyway..... |
John Nucleus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 21:58:00 -
[195] - Quote
Templar Dane wrote:The optimal range bonus for TDs on the crucifier is kind of redundant, given the fact that they already have pretty huge optimals anyway.....
I think the idea is that you can fit a sensor booster and TD up to 100km. Without the sensor booster, it's useless yeah. |
Lili Lu
342
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 01:46:00 -
[196] - Quote
Griffin - I'm not liking 5 mids, but meh. It means people will fit 4 ecms and a mwd. So you still have the uber ecm boat that removes 3 or 4 enemies from a fight. But, really just make the counters to ecm more meaningful. Give us a skill for each race to increase sensor strength. The game needs some new skills anyway and this would be an indirect nerf to ecm and thus more palatable. Think about making eccm a combo of a whole number bonus to sensor stregth plus a percentage bonus as well. This might make it useful and worth fitting on a frigate or cruiser. With that the Griffin could stay as proposed and still be powerful. Indirect nerfs to ecm will be better I think than another attempt to nerf it directly (which you've failed twice already).
Cruciifer - fine. Just you'ld better make TDs affect missiles range. I really could care less about eplosion parameters but if you want to give them an effect on missiles there too ok. But having tds reduce flight time of missiles might do something about the Drake Tengu overuse problem.
Vigil - really sorta sad. Painters in general. You could maybe up that bonus to 10% strength per level. Even then it would not be equivalent to any of the other ewar but it would at least cause a recipient to say **** I'm being painted.
Maulus - Damps. Ok, how about making that strength effect 10% per level. They already are operating in falloff with no range bonus. They should at least be a serious irritant when they do hit. As for the cap use reduction bonus in my experience oddly it is the Celestis that needs the cap reduction bonus and not the Maulus but whatever. People seem to want it on the Maulus. Damps do suck cap pretty heavily. I suppose I would rather a reduction on the cap use of the module itself directly and then a falloff bonus to the damps. I can understand how an optimal bonus might make them another ecm. Regardless, these ships will not removing 3 or 4 enemies from a fight like the griffin will.
As for the other balancing parameters I think the griffin needs a little more mass and sig. For all that ewar power it should not be granted such low mass and thus agility. |
Sard Caid
Gunpoint Diplomacy
46
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 03:53:00 -
[197] - Quote
I think the idea of making them much faster is in line with how they would fly, and the layouts seem solid. Looking forward to seeing them on sisi, carry on! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1045
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:17:00 -
[198] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:It's page ten and several posts in. While plenty of people are fine with the changes, many have expresses concern over TP as a Minmatar bonus. This has taken place in this thread and many others.
CCP Fozzie, thank you for replying to so many in this thread. I appreciated every dev post. It seems clear that you don't agree with the TP change or do not have the authority to change it. Could you at least counter debate my points?
1. In this time of drastic change, isn't this a good time to consider changing the Minmatar EWar?
2. EWar ships are directly protected by direct disruption. TP is not direct disruption. Doesn't that leave it directly unprotected? Is this not a fallacy in applying ship design philosophy?
I actually recall when the bonuses on these ships where changed to EWar. Caldari was not always the ECM race. The Scorpion was not always an ECM boat.
3. Would it not be a smaller change to switch one type of EWar for another than to reduce all EWar down to one?
I read about the Minmatar missile buff coming in the future. They are set to have a TP bonus on those missile ships. I expect they Typhoon to retain its strong defense. By CCP standards, this will be the second EWar BS.
4. Doesn't a Phoon with a strong defense and offence break the EWar design philosophy that says the opposite?
5. With this new initiative, doesn't it make sense to give a TP bonus to the Breacher? Wouldn't it out shine and be more useful than the TP Vigil? Wouldn't the total small gang or fleet damage be greater with fully revamped TP Breachers in most cases?
1. We have seriously considered it yes, including considering having TDs shared between Amarr and Minmatar. What we concluded was that increasing the number of situations where target painters are useful was a better long term goal.
2. The primary damage reduction method for the Vigil is speed, range and signature radius. On larger ships it will be a combination of those factors and heavier local defenses
3 and 4 are basically covered above
5. Was part of the original plan, but the problem is that frigate missiles do not receive significant benefits from TDs. The idea isn't going away though.
|
|
Obsidiana
White-Noise
147
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:59:00 -
[199] - Quote
That makes sense. Thank you for getting back to me. I really appreciate it. I'll be sure to test the new frigates on Sisi.
On a positive note, I really like how the other ships are turning out.
I also am very glad to hear that serious changes were considered and that my arguments, which seemed obvious me, where so to you as well.
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
514
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:23:00 -
[200] - Quote
What about adding benefits that a TP provides? Right now it increases the size of the target. Your gang buddies can lock it faster and hit it harder. What if it could also decrease a target's shield or armour resistances? |
|
mkint
872
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:25:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Fozzie: what metrics are you going to use to determine if these changes are successful? I.e. these frigs not only get used more but get used for their intended purpose? I can't imagine any changes you could make that would make td and damps a better choice than fitting 'wrong' ewar. If any of these balance changes fails, how will you detect that and how will you compensate? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1050
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:26:00 -
[202] - Quote
mkint wrote:CCP Fozzie: what metrics are you going to use to determine if these changes are successful? I.e. these frigs not only get used more but get used for their intended purpose? I can't imagine any changes you could make that would make td and damps a better choice than fitting 'wrong' ewar. If any of these balance changes fails, how will you detect that and how will you compensate?
Feedback from the forums, the test servers, the CSM, the pvp experience of devs using the ships, with a light salting of statistics here and there. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
173
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:41:00 -
[203] - Quote
heyy fozzie! nice to see u on the forums and keeping in touch with us!
in terms of these ewar frigs etc... and general frig combat, i couldnt be cheeky and ask u to check out the second part of this post could i?
<3 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1050
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:47:00 -
[204] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:heyy fozzie! nice to see u on the forums and keeping in touch with us! in terms of these ewar frigs etc... and general frig combat, i couldnt be cheeky and ask u to check out the second part of this post could i? <3
I'd kinda rather just let frigates in certain circumstances use ewar against supercaps so that the supercaps need to be supported by fleets that can pick off the ewar frigates. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
182
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:50:00 -
[205] - Quote
thanks for ur time bro! |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1102
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:50:00 -
[206] - Quote
I still wonder why you don't nerf EW and boost the bonuses on EW ships to keep them where they are today.
You did this for webs, and it has made web strenght ships very important and gives them their own role. Targeters on target painter ships are weaker than when used on a ship that isn't built for EW.
This is due to your love of making non combat ships have the weakest tanks. I'd rather put a target painter on a ruppy, why would i put it on a ship that is just going to die in two hits and only get a small 50% bonus to target painter strenght? That means if i fit 2 it's like I'm fitting 3 of them. But would rather have 2 of them since the difference isn't that big, on a big better handled to staying alive.
In fact with the changes the tanky combat frigates work better for simple Ewar like painters and damps.
If you don't want EW to have EW and tank or EW and speed. And make them just EW focused, then you should be going farther with the changes to how EW works.
I still heavily suggest nerfing damp range on non-EW ships and so on so EW ships are actully better. Twice as good at least at EW. That will make them wroth it. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
410
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 18:55:00 -
[207] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'd kinda rather just let frigates in certain circumstances use ewar against supercaps so that the supercaps need to be supported by fleets that can pick off the ewar frigates.
Completely off topic, but all ships should be able to use e-war against all ships, perhaps at a reduced effectiveness. Super capital immunity shouldn't be a 0 or 1 thing. Perhaps all ships' ewar is effective at a N% rate. Choose N% for balance purposes. |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 20:16:00 -
[208] - Quote
TP would need a serious revamp to make it useful. The skill Signature Focusing does so little (5% bonus per level) compared to what fleet boosts can directly counter it ( -32.34% from a claymore). ECM is weakly countered by one of the information links, which are rarely used anyway. Damps are countered a little by the Information Warfare and Leadership skills themselves, and TD is not countered by any fleet boosts. So not only is TP the only non-disruptive ewar, it is the ewar most completely countered by fleet boosts. I'm not asking for those fleet boosts to be changed, but that TP needs to be made useful, especially if the revamped and balanced minmatar ewar frig is to be specialized in it. |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
147
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 11:16:00 -
[209] - Quote
It won't be now, but at some point Minmatar is going to need a new Ewar. Maybe when EWar is looked at and tweaked/revamped they will do that. Until then, the situation has been inherited from the early years of EVE.
I do agree that boosting the skill would be useful. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
50
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 20:58:00 -
[210] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:It won't be now, but at some point Minmatar is going to need a new Ewar. Maybe when EWar is looked at and tweaked/revamped they will do that. Until then, the situation has been inherited from the early years of EVE.
I do agree that boosting the skill would be useful. I just thought to this : maybe minmatar already have speed to protect themselves and hence don't really need EWAR to do the job. They are supposed to have weak electronic to compensate for their speed supremacy. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |