Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
Lord Leftfield
The Society Calyxes
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 08:49:00 -
[211] - Quote
Rawr, I want new skill layout... |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1054
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 09:51:00 -
[212] - Quote
Anvil44 wrote:As I see your progress (and applaud the good work), I stare into the crystal ball and run into an interesting road block: Industrials. I am very interested to see how you tackle those. Most especially Gallente is designed around tiers. If I were to throw out an idea that I am sure someone else must have come up with: Make the industrials modular so that there is only one hull but you can put on different subsystems. One for max capacity, one for higher warp speed, one for more agility and one for more resists/hp. At best, they would not quite match T2s but they could be close.
Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges.
For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized.
Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
733
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 10:30:00 -
[213] - Quote
Yeah good call on addressing issues with the current T3 ships. Most of them feel more like Bumblebee then cybertron prime, at least compared to the tengu. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Sturmwolke
279
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 10:51:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Anvil44 wrote:As I see your progress (and applaud the good work), I stare into the crystal ball and run into an interesting road block: Industrials. I am very interested to see how you tackle those. Most especially Gallente is designed around tiers. If I were to throw out an idea that I am sure someone else must have come up with: Make the industrials modular so that there is only one hull but you can put on different subsystems. One for max capacity, one for higher warp speed, one for more agility and one for more resists/hp. At best, they would not quite match T2s but they could be close. Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges. For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized. I hope you guys aren't planning to homogenize the asymmetrical spread of industrial ships between the races (Amarr:2, Gallente:5, Minmatar:3, Caldari:2). It's one of those areas where choices really do make an impact and it's a common topic between newbies. Discourses about gameplay should be encouraged to keep the interest alive.
|
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
440
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 12:27:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Anvil44 wrote:As I see your progress (and applaud the good work), I stare into the crystal ball and run into an interesting road block: Industrials. I am very interested to see how you tackle those. Most especially Gallente is designed around tiers. If I were to throw out an idea that I am sure someone else must have come up with: Make the industrials modular so that there is only one hull but you can put on different subsystems. One for max capacity, one for higher warp speed, one for more agility and one for more resists/hp. At best, they would not quite match T2s but they could be close. Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges. For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized. Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones.
Wouldn't Iteron I serve best as the fast and agile? since it's smallest (which also has less cargo?)
also all industrials have redundant CPU, you might look into tweaking fittings on them at some point :) perhaps give them some more PG in return so some people can fit more tank if they want. Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
115
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 13:03:00 -
[216] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Anvil44 wrote:As I see your progress (and applaud the good work), I stare into the crystal ball and run into an interesting road block: Industrials. I am very interested to see how you tackle those. Most especially Gallente is designed around tiers. If I were to throw out an idea that I am sure someone else must have come up with: Make the industrials modular so that there is only one hull but you can put on different subsystems. One for max capacity, one for higher warp speed, one for more agility and one for more resists/hp. At best, they would not quite match T2s but they could be close. Ah yes, industrials. Forgot about those. Long term plan is not to make them modular (that's tech3 territory) but have the fill different purposes, just like the Mining Barges. For quick example out of the top of my head, you could keep the iteron V as the super fragile ship with huge cargo hold, have the IV be fast and agile, with a smaller cargo hold to compensate, the III have average cargo but good EHP and so on. We could mimic tech2 industrial roles without being as specialized. Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones. Wouldn't Iteron I serve best as the fast and agile? since it's smallest (which also has less cargo?) also all industrials have redundant CPU, you might look into tweaking fittings on them at some point :) perhaps give them some more PG in return so some people can fit more tank if they want. I would guess that CCP Ytterbium was just throwing some initial thoughts off the top of his head. Details most likely wildly different. Also Sturmwolke does make a good point. However, the one thing I didn't like was being a new player, not knowing what I might like somewhere down the road and having myself 'stuck' with a racial choice due to only really understanding a small amount of the vast ship data. In other words I chose Gallente because I thought the whole 'Privateer' thing was where I was interested in going, and since the Itty V hauled the most, that was what I wanted. Not sure if I would chose any different now but I can fly Caldari and Minmatar now as well so it is so hard to say.
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
115
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 13:10:00 -
[217] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Again, having a modular industrial / mining / hauling cybertron prime transformer hull is more in the area of tech3 ships. Which isn't a bad idea, when you think about it, but not coming for a while. We first need to address issues with the existing tech3 ships before introducing new ones.
So many have theorized on Tech 3 Industrials and this is where I always saw them going. One that could be reconfigured to be a mining ship nearly as good as an exhumer, a hauling ship nearly as good as Transports, a salvager nearly as good as the Noctis and a gas harvester, better than any other gas harvesting ship currently in existence (this should be fairly easy to pull off). I was also thinking of it being configurable similar to a hacking type ship as well but you seem to be doing ok with the frigates there so maybe not. I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1183
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 13:10:00 -
[218] - Quote
Dear Sirs,
you are blatantly awesome. All this stuff is the best thing since I started playing EVE.
<3
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Shaera Taam
Minmatar Death Squad Broken Chains Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 15:44:00 -
[219] - Quote
absolutely amazing work, to all the ladies and gentlemen involved
and to the art department, i want to pass along an especially big hug... the stabber looks less like a flying trash heap and quite in line with it's fast-and-deadly revamp. very nice
the vagabond? omg... looks like some frilled prehistoric predator! much better than the sky-diving-house-elf it is now, lol.
thank you all...
Thus Spake the Frigate Goddess! |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 16:29:00 -
[220] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:I honestly do not understand the desire to nerf a given ship / class in the world of EVE. One of the joys of this game is finding ways to counter and crush ships that are considered to be over-powered. This happens all of the time with FoTM fleets getting countered by imaginative FCs and strategists. This applies to both small-gang and large engagements. What drives me bat-**** crazy about 'the need to nerf' a class of or a specific ship is that CCP [historically] goes to the ******* far reaches of extreme and renders once useful and sexually arousing ships into wet noodles. Not only does this result in killing the fun for that ship's operators, but the massive skills (time and subscription fees) spent on maxing out that ship are thrown away like a used condom: great fun while in use but now filled with fetid seed. Disclaimer: Yeah, I have BC 5 trained up on two characaters. I lost out big-time with the dual Gallente nerfs give years back too with drone back shrinkage and the dampeners getting shafted. Falcon range -- yup, had just trained it up. The list goes on and on.
Ship balance revolves around buffs and nerfs..
You can't JUST buff everything every time you rebalance, you will end up with ridiculous numbers. Some ships are moved up, some are knocked down.
How much time you spent on the ship is completely irrelevant, especially since BC's will definitively still be good quit being bad.
But yes CCP have a history of overnerfing, but they have been doing well recently. |
|
Kale Eledar
Mining and Industrial Services The Irukandji
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 16:33:00 -
[221] - Quote
Read Thorax balancing, had to change pants Spacepunch buffing is always good. Win First come smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 20:11:00 -
[222] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Only thing the cane needs to bring it in more balance is a smaller or non existant drone bay and 100 less powergrid base. Other than that, it's fine.
Drake just needs to lose some PG, drone bay, and the resist bonus while nerfing heavy missiles further.
The other two are pretty fine as is.
The teir 1's are another story all together. They're all pretty much ****.
Why the heck do you feel that heavy missiles require further nerfing?? |
Beagle von Space
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 22:58:00 -
[223] - Quote
Sarah Moonshine wrote:I'm a bit dismayed to get Drakes nerfed. Sure, they're a workhorse, staple ship, but along with tengus, it's the sole remaining viable Caldari Ship (as per current doctrines, anyway) for pvp. Please keep that in mind when making any changes. Same goes for Canes, which seem to be fine as they are.
As for the rest, changes seem to be mostly in the right direction.
Now, wtf is that new stabber hull? I mean, what about the visual identity? Where's the magnet-drawn-through-a-scrapheap-and-fixed-with-duct-tape look? D:
Just kidding, it's pure win.
I think in the case of the Caldari, the problem is not with necessarily the balance of the ship themselves, but the Caldari's two weapon systems. Both rails and missiles could use some reworking to be better for PVP. They are the only race that is effectively limited to filling one role, sniping.
For example, I think missiles should get a buff to their speed and a corresponding adjustment to their flight time to lessen the problem of delayed damage.
And rails....I can't think of anything that won't turn them into copies of artillery or beam lasers. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 00:05:00 -
[224] - Quote
One thing..
CCP, please keep in mind to make rails viable for the new Caldari ships after the balance.
I would really HATE if all caldari boats just turned into shield gallente blabber boats, that would be terrible. |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
189
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 01:09:00 -
[225] - Quote
Sarah Moonshine wrote:I'm a bit dismayed to get Drakes nerfed. Sure, they're a workhorse, staple ship, but along with tengus, it's the sole remaining viable Caldari Ship (as per current doctrines, anyway) for pvp. Say Hello to Shieldcats. "Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise."-á |
Daioh Azu
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 03:51:00 -
[226] - Quote
Salpad wrote:When are you going to update the corresponding T2 frigates? Especially the Covert Ops frigates, so that they match the bonuses and functions of T1 versions?
I'm actually hoping this never happens. Blindly cascading through the T1 bonuses to the T2 hulls, allowing T2 hulls to keep their improved resists and fittings, and adding a role bonus on top will end with the same outcome we have now. T2 hulls will continue to be the ships of choice because they can do everything the T1 variant can do, do it better than the T1 can do, and have additional capabilities for their intended niche.
I would rather see the T2 hulls have to suffer some kind of drawback in trade for their specialization similar to how most T2 modules, while generally being more effective than the T1 version, are also generally more difficult to fit.
Since you've mentioned Cov Ops frigates let's examine them. The rebalanced Exploration Frigates are getting bonuses to scan probe strength as well as reduced cycle times for analyzers, codebreakers, and salvagers. Cascade those bonuses to the Covert Ops and add the Cov Ops additional scan probe strength and flight time bonus, plus cloaking device fitting bonus and you get ships that preform all exploration activity as well as their T1 counterparts, can scan down those sites faster then their T1 counterparts, and can warp to those sites while cloaked. Given those advantages why would anyone chose the T1 hull over the T2, except for lack of in game skills?
If the purpose of T1 rebalancing is to make T1 ships a viable option to T2 ships, then T2 ships will need some kind of penalty for their specialization that make T1 ships seem attractive. If the rebalancing is just to make T1 ships suck less until you have the skills to fly T2 it will certainly do that, but very little else will change. |
MintyRoadkill
Dovahkiin. Tribal Band
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 09:51:00 -
[227] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:MintyRoadkill wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Moa needs cap and fitting, not blasters. Blasters will help, though. The Caracal will be the Caldari Long-Range Cruiser. And while we're at it, FIX THE EAGLE. (Also the Cerberus, but mostly the Eagle) long range pvp doesnt exist anymore.its close-->medium range these days.caracal is useless if flown for long range,caracal the same.cormorant,moa,ferox,rokh all the ships that have bonus for optimal are just useles bonuses in my opinion.replace them with damage/rezists/tracking/faloff bonuses.
The Rokh's optimal bonus is what makes it an excellent fleet ship. Don't listen to this guy! |
Lord Thingol
Polish Mercenaries S.A. The Nameless Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 11:51:00 -
[228] - Quote
Caracal (navy too), Cerberus and Eagle are pretty much useless.
|
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat Ineluctable.
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 14:28:00 -
[229] - Quote
Lord Thingol wrote:Caracal (navy too), Cerberus and Eagle are pretty much useless.
all ships with bonus to optimal and missile flight range,especially the caldari ones are useless these days.nobody fights at 150km-200km these days.
please ccp.give caldari ships better bonuses.example : faloff for hybrids boats,damage,tracking.and for missile boats . rate of fire for missiles and so on
the era of long range battle is long gone. |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 15:30:00 -
[230] - Quote
Also, for both Caldari and Gallente pilots: please, please, please, buff medium railguns. They're peashooters. |
|
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 12:36:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:CCP Ytterbium has juicy new information about the upcoming ship balancing for our winter expansion! In this balancing round we will have a closer look at the massive amount of 40 ships: frigates, destroyers, cruisers - you name it! Read this latest dev blog, learn more about our ship balancing plans and please send us then your constructive feedback and ideas regarding these plans. The dev blog is available here. And the exploration cruiser? [Discussion] - New POS System (Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 03:28:00 -
[232] - Quote
I think instead of people crying that the drake is OP, why not bring all the other cruisers in line with it? Why shouldn't a Harbinger be able to solo Lvl 4's just a Drake does. I understand their logic that Gallente can run lvl 4's in a domi because they can deploy different size drones to account for different size targets...but what does amarr get? Lasers on a BS that can't hit for anything without sacrificing tank for tracking.
Instead of the constant stream of tears to nerf the drake...why not rally behind making the other BC's worthwile. Esp with them extending the training time to get into BS's, it's going to more and more difficult for noobs that want to mission run to make isk.
Any of you elitests that want to start WHINING about how hard you had it, just remember that while this is a nitch game, people will come and go and if you can't make it appealing to a least some people, you'll be hard-pressed to keep the game alive as the population will eventually die.
Cause and effect is a fact of life, yet so few people actually think about the ramifications of an action. |
El 'Terrible
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:15:00 -
[233] - Quote
20% Reduction in damage for HML
Are you serious?
I'm finally able to get into a half decent skilled tengu post incursion nerf and now its pretty much useless. Their have been several major nerfs this year and almost all deal with nerfing the amount of isk a player can make while prices for ships/mods have vastly increased.
Drone nerf - No more drone poo, ship/mod prices rocketed.
Incursion nerf - can more isk running L4s, so why bother trying to get in a fleet?
Missile launcher nerf - No more running anoms/complexes in tengus
Tech Nerf - Tech (although still valuable) will steadily decrease taking isk out of alliances pockets/
All these nerfs this year and not a single buff to anything that isn't completely insignificant and useless (t1 frig buff WTF). Balancing making isk and Pvp'ing is already stupid being able to make 60mil or so per hour max. The only real way for newish players to make their own income is to buy and sell plex, I mean why rat for 12 hours when you can just spend money right CCP? I mean I would have thought you would be more interested in making it easier for players to have a decent income so they can do the only decent thing in the game (pvp), with F2P mmos springing up I'll probably just cancel my subscriptions, I really won't have the time to play this game anymore.
NERF online. |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:59:00 -
[234] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Lord Thingol wrote:Caracal (navy too), Cerberus and Eagle are pretty much useless.
all ships with bonus to optimal and missile flight range,especially the caldari ones are useless these days.nobody fights at 150km-200km these days. please ccp.give caldari ships better bonuses.example : faloff for hybrids boats,damage,tracking.and for missile boats . rate of fire for missiles and so on the era of long range battle is long gone. That's because the warp-to range is below that of large railgun optimal. Extend no-warp range out to 250k and those sniper boats would be fine. Edit- Railguns aren't broken. The game itself is. |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
315
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:12:00 -
[235] - Quote
El 'Terrible wrote:20% Reduction in damage for HML
Are you serious?
I'm finally able to get into a half decent skilled tengu post incursion nerf and now its pretty much useless. Their have been several major nerfs this year and almost all deal with nerfing the amount of isk a player can make while prices for ships/mods have vastly increased.
Drone nerf - No more drone poo, ship/mod prices rocketed.
Incursion nerf - can more isk running L4s, so why bother trying to get in a fleet?
Missile launcher nerf - No more running anoms/complexes in tengus
Tech Nerf - Tech (although still valuable) will steadily decrease taking isk out of alliances pockets/
All these nerfs this year and not a single buff to anything that isn't completely insignificant and useless (t1 frig buff WTF). Balancing making isk and Pvp'ing is already stupid being able to make 60mil or so per hour max. The only real way for newish players to make their own income is to buy and sell plex, I mean why rat for 12 hours when you can just spend money right CCP? I mean I would have thought you would be more interested in making it easier for players to have a decent income so they can do the only decent thing in the game (pvp), with F2P mmos springing up I'll probably just cancel my subscriptions, I really won't have the time to play this game anymore.
NERF online.
Yes, another nerf coming. Who care cruiser cosmetic changes, when another nerfs killing the games ? How many players playing with cruisers ? 0.000001 percents in the game ?
Missile nerf + tracking distruptors will effect for missiles ? -25% missile range reductions ? Too mutch drakes were in 0.0 and need changes which will be ruin the other players of game in empire ???
Drake nerf, Hurricane nerf,Missile nerf,Tech nerf etc. Ridiculous changes again.
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
383
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:43:00 -
[236] - Quote
El 'Terrible wrote:20% Reduction in damage for HML
Are you serious?
I'm finally able to get into a half decent skilled tengu post incursion nerf and now its pretty much useless. Their have been several major nerfs this year and almost all deal with nerfing the amount of isk a player can make while prices for ships/mods have vastly increased.
Drone nerf - No more drone poo, ship/mod prices rocketed.
Incursion nerf - can more isk running L4s, so why bother trying to get in a fleet?
Missile launcher nerf - No more running anoms/complexes in tengus
Tech Nerf - Tech (although still valuable) will steadily decrease taking isk out of alliances pockets/
All these nerfs this year and not a single buff to anything that isn't completely insignificant and useless (t1 frig buff WTF). Balancing making isk and Pvp'ing is already stupid being able to make 60mil or so per hour max. The only real way for newish players to make their own income is to buy and sell plex, I mean why rat for 12 hours when you can just spend money right CCP? I mean I would have thought you would be more interested in making it easier for players to have a decent income so they can do the only decent thing in the game (pvp), with F2P mmos springing up I'll probably just cancel my subscriptions, I really won't have the time to play this game anymore.
NERF online.
The problem most of the hisec bears and wowscrub newbies aren't interested in using their isk for pvp. They just hoard it. They hoard spacebucks for the sake of hoarding spacebucks. Catering to these types of people (if you can even call them people, most more closely resemble bots) is going to be the downfall of eve.
The risk vs reward issues desperately need balancing, more so than rebalancing frigates/destroyers/cruisers
|
Peter Tjordenskiold
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:53:00 -
[237] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:[quote=El 'Terrible] The problem is that most of the hisec bears and wowscrub newbies aren't interested in using their isk for pvp. They just hoard it. They hoard spacebucks for the sake of hoarding spacebucks. Catering to these types of people (if you can even call them people, most more closely resemble bots) is going to be the downfall of eve.
The risk vs reward issues desperately need balancing, more so than rebalancing frigates/destroyers/cruisers
There is no problem putting ISK in a wallet as long as its untouched. 0.0 players paying for PVP up to 2b-10b ISK each month. Nerfing the most effective pve ships is a nerf of PVP, because you need longer to earn ISK in boring anomalies. That isn't motivation to pay for accounts
I addition CCP wants to nerf passive income for 0.0 alliances. The consequence will be much higher taxes to finance sov. This will again lowering the income of 0.0 players. The game is becomming more and more a PVE play to finance 5min PVP per month.
I agree with a nerf of drakes, when the game will be balanced. But this is stupid. |
Ultimate Gunpower
Knysna Grim Reapers Absolute Darkness
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:12:00 -
[238] - Quote
Please do not gimp missiles further. Taking so much damage off already weak weapons is not the right thing to do. The distance is what compensated for the lowered DPS and it rearly came into play.
Nerfing the missiles ultimatly means nurfing Caldari who already as a race is not the tops of pvp by any margin now with the proposed changes it will be gimped totaly. Have you thought of the tengu and how badly it will be affected both pve and pvp wise as well as the drake and the Raven?
I for one will have a degraded gaming experience if this nerf to missiles takes place on such a huge scale like 25% and 20% as I enjoy fly Caldari.
A lot of time and skill training went into training and choosing the missile path.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed changes.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:53:00 -
[239] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote: The problem is that most of the hisec bears and wowscrub newbies aren't interested in using their isk for pvp. They just hoard it. They hoard spacebucks for the sake of hoarding spacebucks. Catering to these types of people (if you can even call them people, most more closely resemble bots) is going to be the downfall of eve.
The risk vs reward issues desperately need balancing, more so than rebalancing frigates/destroyers/cruisers
You do realize that this game intentionally allows players the choice of other paths than ship to ship PvP right? This is not an aberration. Even then there is little in this game that doesn't involve PvP on some level. |
MakStar FreeMasons
Free Masons Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:19:00 -
[240] - Quote
Guys the proposed changes to missiles are ridiculous, the nerf that is proposed of deducting 20% damage on HMLs will make them effectively useless, the tengu and the drake will be done completely. Not to mention torps which are gimped as is and have been for long.
The range nerf is somewhat exceptible but still unreasnable at 30%. The increase of 6.6% in velocity is a tiny gain on all the nerfs.
Adding tracking to missiles is also stupid, that is why expolsion radius was put in place. Now I will have to sacrifice even more damage and DPS by removing damage controls for tracking enhancers so this is a double whammy.
Nerfing missiles is effectively nerfing Caldari as mentioned by others and Caldari already is not the greatest race for pvp so this will just make it comletely and utterly useless for pvp.
I for one should the proposed changes go through will probably close some accounts and play segnificantly less if at all. I have invested alot of time and effort into missiles and they are a challange to compete as is with these changes it will be like throwing rocks at the enemy.
Do not go through with the proposed nerfs on missiles. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |