Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
TradingTooth
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:21:00 -
[2581] - Quote
On a second note, it would be nice to see more implants and boosters influencing missiles |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:24:00 -
[2582] - Quote
The day small gang FC's are laughing at people for bringing Canes, Merms, Harbis then you will know that Drakes are objectively significantly overpowered. The only time I have ever seen an FC in any corp ask people to grab a Drake is when it is an actual Drake fleet, and even then half the pirates wont even own one.
This is the reality I have experienced in game, not only in my own corps, but in the ships I see people grabbing for themselves. No one needs to order people to fly overpowered ships -- they do that on their own.
I don't really have an opinion on the HM nerf one way or the other. I don't really use them and have never had any particular problem with what they can do when I am fighting against them. They are deadly and effective when used correctly -- the same can be said for every other BC in the game.
My concern is for Caldari missile pilots. When it comes to cruiser and up combat ships they have only one weapon choice (HMs) and one ship worth fitting it on (Drake). Take this away and they will have nothing. Caldari missile pilots don't have a working Cruiser (nor will they after this), they don't have HACs, they don't have BS's... they have Drakes. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:50:00 -
[2583] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The day small gang FC's are laughing at people for bringing Canes, Merms, Harbis then you will know that Drakes are objectively significantly overpowered. The only time I have ever seen an FC in any corp ask people to grab a Drake is when it is an actual Drake fleet, and even then half the pirates wont even own one.
This is the reality I have experienced in game, not only in my own corps, but in the ships I see people grabbing for themselves. No one needs to order people to fly overpowered ships -- they do that on their own.
I don't really have an opinion on the HM nerf one way or the other. I don't really use them and have never had any particular problem with what they can do when I am fighting against them. They are deadly and effective when used correctly -- the same can be said for every other BC in the game.
My concern is for Caldari missile pilots. When it comes to cruiser and up combat ships they have only one weapon choice (HMs) and one ship worth fitting it on (Drake). Take this away and they will have nothing. Caldari missile pilots don't have a working Cruiser (nor will they after this), they don't have HACs, they don't have BS's... they have Drakes.
Perhaps they should just nerf goons. Then maybe drake blobs won't exist. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:51:00 -
[2584] - Quote
Rita May wrote:one thing i could not see till now (I know, hard to believe after 128 pages ): TC will affect missles, but need a gunnery skill (TA) to operate. So, is this going to be changed like it is possible to use TCs with GMP too instead of TA only or will we HAVE to skill a "useless" gunnery skill on a missle toon? Or should i say make it like that all those gunnery folks need to skill GMP to use their TC again? *edit* one more thing CCP seems to like to change DMG bonuses to RoF bonuses, which on paper looks like nothing changes, but: Is this not a stealth ISK sink like "buff"? like, if i need x% more volleys to kill stuff i seems to me that all missle generated income is nerved? On your first point-
Trajectory Analysis is indeed a gunnery skill. However, so is Weapons Upgrades (needed for TE). Now one could argue that WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). Which would make TEs whether split missile and gun modules or remaining a unified module an easy and backstory consistent module to train for. Trajectory Analysis would probably have to stay in the Gunnery skill group.
This might be a good reason for there to be a separate modules for missiles akin to TC, that could build off of Target Navigation Prediction 4 (which to my mind is the rough analogue of Trajectory Anaysis) and/or Guided Missile Precision. The trouble with keying any new mTC solely on TNP skill is that it is only a 2x skill while for turret users TA skill is a 5x skill. This would create yet another slight sp advantage for missile use (a la missile skill type ease v gunnery tree sp slogs). I suppose one could key the mod off of GMP 4 but then it would seem odd to have the then also boost "unguided" missiles. One could maybe do some hybrid skill requirement between the two missile skills that would roughly equate to having to train TA4, say like (without running the numbers and only for example purposes) TNP3 and GMP2 as a requirement for a mTC.
This of course brings up the sp investment disparity between TCs and TEs whether for missiles or gunnery and the advantage it could present due to racail slot and fitting propensities. But then there are always choices to be made. You fit a TE or mTE you lose a slot for a damage mod (or a tank mod on an armor tank), you fit a TC or mTC you lose a tackle slot (or a tanking slot on a shield tank). My guess is that shield tankers (being used to their drake tank risk aversion) will sacrifice a low slot damage mod before they sacrifice a mid tanking slot. That the damage nerf on HM is as proposed it may be some inducement to rethink it. It would be a no brainer to use a mTE over a mTC if there was no damage nerf on HM as so many are complaining about. And when talking about Drakes one cannot ignore the tanking advantage they have over other BCs.
On your second point -
I'm not sure to what you are referring when you say that CCP balancing is favoring a rof bonus over a damage bonus. Some examples might be needed to discuss that. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
216
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:13:00 -
[2585] - Quote
TradingTooth wrote:On a second note, it would be nice to see more implants and boosters influencing missiles
Implants wise all the attributes already have implants. Booster wise there could be more. Both implants and boosters use the skill system though so i think ccp thought a GMP booster would be too confuzzling (as it wouldn't effect half the missiles), just one more reason to let GMP effect all missiles. That really only leaves missile velocity and flight time, and no one would use fligh time when they could use velocity instead. So +1 missile velocity booster, which seems a good idea.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
216
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:15:00 -
[2586] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it).
It wouldn't actually necessatize any such thing, there are plenty of skills in the same branch with different attributes. Wups is allready needed for bcus for missile pilots in any case. It should really be an electronics skill.
|
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:19:00 -
[2587] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Lili Lu wrote:WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). It wouldn't actually necessatize any such thing, there are plenty of skills in the same branch with different attributes. Wups is allready needed for bcus for missile pilots in any case. It should really be an electronics skill. Or one could say an engineering skill. Definitely multiple possibilities. However, off the top of my head I'm not coming up with any different attibrute skills within a skill group (other than the flipping of perception and willpower in the ship command skills when looking at tech I v tech II ship skills). Do you have any examples?
Edit - and the more I think about it TEs may have been too easy to train into all along since they use the same skill prereqs as a damage mod. (?) Of course changing the reqs for TEs might present the old problem of what about pilots that have TE IIs fit and use them presently but have not trained TA4 (if the prereq was made to conform to TCs). |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
217
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:30:00 -
[2588] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money.
No it won't, because hurricane dps is terrible at that range and wont break a drake tank, this in spite of a cane being double bonussed for damage as its supposed to be ganky. Apart from anything else the cane has to use a terrible damage type (for against drakes) at that range as projectile damage choice is not what everyone pretends it is. At close range a buffer ham drake will usually beat an auto-cane as well simply because its so much more tanky and because hams are actually very good vs bcs. The canes only real advantage is the cookie cutter 2 med neuts to shut off the drakes hardeners, and ccps grid nerf is going to make that harder.
Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:37:00 -
[2589] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money. Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced.
Are you implying that the way to balance is to see what ship is used a lot and nerf it ?
Edit : Nice empty post by the way, but it does ask the question. What are the criteria for balance ? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:37:00 -
[2590] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Doddy wrote:Lili Lu wrote:WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). It wouldn't actually necessatize any such thing, there are plenty of skills in the same branch with different attributes. Wups is allready needed for bcus for missile pilots in any case. It should really be an electronics skill. Or one could say an engineering skill. Definitely multiple possibilities. However, off the top of my head I'm not coming up with any different attibrute skills within a skill group (other than the flipping of perception and willpower in the ship command skills when looking at tech I v tech II ship skills). Do you have any examples? .
Much of the trade tree has different attributes, planetary management, possibly social and a few science. It is indeed mostly non ship related stuff though. I say electronics because it is to do with computers/sensors and it reduces cpu need, hard to see how it would be an engineering or mechanic skill...
I checked and none of the social ones are different, some science are though in things like doomsday operation. |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:44:00 -
[2591] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money. Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced. Are you implying that the way to balance is to see what ship is used a lot and nerf it ? Edit : Nice empty post by the way, but it does ask the question. What are the criteria for balance ?
Um no, and what do you mean empty post? The way to test ships is to compare them in several different situations, be that 1v1, 1v5, 5v5, 5v5, 100v100, 100v50 or even 100v structure. 1v1 will show the drake as being better than it really is as drake is pretty good in 1v1 situations, especially ones with an escape route (docking games ftl), thanks to its passive regens which become irrelevant in larger fights. Similarly anything with a local rep bonus is going to seem alot better 1v1 while anything long range is gonna seem fail as it needs tackling suppoort.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:54:00 -
[2592] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Bloutok wrote:Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money. Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced. Are you implying that the way to balance is to see what ship is used a lot and nerf it ? Edit : Nice empty post by the way, but it does ask the question. What are the criteria for balance ? Um no, and what do you mean empty post? The way to test ships is to compare them in several different situations, be that 1v1, 1v5, 5v5, 5v5, 100v100, 100v50 or even 100v structure.
You left the 1vs1 and also say that to compare in 1vs1 is dumb......
The drake is also going to lose it's resist bonus, so when you say a cane loses, first, i desagree and after nerfs, i desagree even more. Otherwise, yes, all scenarios count. And in my point of view, the current proposition makes the drake an obsolete ship.
Make amo for different distances. Then we can compare.
|
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate Wormhole Holders
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:00:00 -
[2593] - Quote
All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?
An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage. |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive Blue Nation
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:11:00 -
[2594] - Quote
Im happy with the 25% HM range nerf, and Im happy that TDs now affect missiles. But the 20% damage nerf to HMs is stupid and wil wreck the entire medium missile platform range (HAMs are already terrible). |
JusticeForJake Auduin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:13:00 -
[2595] - Quote
Alua Oresson wrote:Time to stock up on some Pilgrims and curses and go hunting Drakes.
NICE :D |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:14:00 -
[2596] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
You left the 1vs1 and also say that to compare in 1vs1 is dumb......
The drake is also going to lose it's resist bonus, so when you say a cane loses, first, i desagree and after nerfs, i desagree even more. Otherwise, yes, all scenarios count. And in my point of view, the current proposition makes the drake an obsolete ship.
Make amo for different distances. Then we can compare.
i should have said comparing "only" 1v1 is dumb which is what pretty much every poster in here does, my mistake.
Afaik Ccp has not confirmed drake is losing its resist bonuses at any point, in fact from the number of times they say "the csm minutes are just brainstorming" i think they are back pedalling a bit and certainly wouldn't do anything till after they see what these missile changes do. If no one drops tank mods for tes/tcs then they might still do the velocity bonus for resist bonus thing, idk.
There is pretty much no situation a current arty cane will beat a current hml drake if the pilots are similar sp and the drake pilot understands transversal. A current ham drake has an even chance against an autocane unless the autocane has neuts. Though all this is pointless discussion as what you or I or joe bloggs has fit on them is gonna be different and everyone has different experiences on tq. Certainly if i met a solo autocane in my hamdrake i would feel i had a good chance, especially if i saw launchers in the 7th and 8th highs. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:14:00 -
[2597] - Quote
Kaikka Carel wrote:All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?
An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage. Yes, good to bring up wormholes, C3 sites, and the whole pve advantages Tengus have over other Tech III ships except for incursions and Legions. Further reason for the HM changes. And/or changes to wormhole sleeper AI and ewar, etc. It was almost like wormhole pve was created specifically for Drakes and Tengus. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:27:00 -
[2598] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Kaikka Carel wrote:All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?
An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage. Yes, good to bring up wormholes, C3 sites, and the whole pve advantages Tengus have over other Tech III ships except for incursions and Legions. Further reason for the HM changes. And/or changes to wormhole sleeper AI and ewar, etc. It was almost like wormhole pve was created specifically for Drakes and Tengus.
I think they actually said at the time that t3s would be good in wormholes, think they just forgot after they did the tengu. Really alot of the hate for hmls comes from 1 tengu sub that combines a bit too easily with 2 other tengu subs. To my mind this is why they want the range nerf on hmls which is a bit harsh on ships not bonused for range. |
Riku Klayton
Pew. Pew. Jokers Wild.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:33:00 -
[2599] - Quote
TDs WIN! |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:44:00 -
[2600] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.
This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.
These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40.
I agree, posting about flawed patch designs and horrible mechanics really attacks the devs... Keep up the good censorship mate. |
|
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:45:00 -
[2601] - Quote
Doddy wrote: I think they actually said at the time that t3s would be good in wormholes, think they just forgot after they did the tengu. Really alot of the hate for hmls comes from 1 tengu sub that combines a bit too easily with 2 other tengu subs. To my mind this is why they want the range nerf on hmls which is a bit harsh on ships not bonused for range. Certainly tech III rebalancing when they get there will have to selectively look at subsytems. Some of which should actually get buffs and not nerfs. However, the range nerf on HMs had to come if a tech I launcher could get an effective range of 70-80km while the competitor tech II guns and tech II ammo were either stuck at 54-63km or had to fit multiple mods to even get a 70km optimal and for quite a bit less damage as well. But the numbers on that have already been posted multiple times itt, both in the op and followup posts and player posts. Thought we were beyond that discusion. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:01:00 -
[2602] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: On your first point-
Trajectory Analysis is indeed a gunnery skill. However, so is Weapons Upgrades (needed for TE). Now one could argue that WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). Which would make TEs whether split missile and gun modules or remaining a unified module an easy and backstory consistent module to train for. Trajectory Analysis would probably have to stay in the Gunnery skill group.
This might be a good reason for there to be a separate modules for missiles akin to TC II, that could build off of Target Navigation Prediction 4 (which to my mind is the rough analogue of Trajectory Anaysis) and/or Guided Missile Precision. The trouble with keying any new mTC solely on TNP skill is that it is only a 2x skill while for turret users TA skill is a 5x skill. This would create yet another slight sp advantage for missile use (a la missile skill type ease v gunnery tree sp slogs). I suppose one could key the mod off of GMP 4 but then it would seem odd to have the then also boost "unguided" missiles. One could maybe do some hybrid skill requirement between the two missile skills that would roughly equate to having to train TA4, say like (without running the numbers and only for example purposes) TNP3 and GMP2 as a requirement for a mTC.
This of course brings up the sp investment disparity between TCs and TEs whether for missiles or gunnery and the advantage it could present due to racail slot and fitting propensities. But then there are always choices to be made. You fit a TE or mTE you lose a slot for a damage mod (or a tank mod on an armor tank), you fit a TC or mTC you lose a tackle slot (or a tanking slot on a shield tank). My guess is that shield tankers (being used to their drake tank risk aversion) will sacrifice a low slot damage mod before they sacrifice a mid tanking slot. That the damage nerf on HM is as proposed it may be some inducement to rethink it. It would be a no brainer to use a mTE over a mTC if there was no damage nerf on HM as so many are complaining about. And when talking about Drakes one cannot ignore the tanking advantage they have over other BCs.
That is why i didn't mention WU and AWU, those already affect all modules and have no bonus affecting guns only, it doesn't bother me that they are in the "gunnery" group as long as they affect all moduls and i don't need to train a similar skill for missles too. TA doesn't work this way as even if it would affect all moduls it has no inherent bonus for missles but does have one for guns, therefor not needed on missle toons, that is why i'm asking if there will be an adjustment made. I would be totally fine if for example GMP is removed and TA covers that bonus for missles, or if we get a mixed skill prerequesit like you mentioned.
Lili Lu wrote: On your second point -
I'm not sure to what you are referring when you say that CCP balancing is favoring a rof bonus over a damage bonus. Some examples might be needed to discuss that.
Edit - and thanks Rita. This is the kind of discusion that should be occuring itt, by page 128, and not the hyperbolic sky is falling that OT Smithers is still posting.
uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect. so the question if this is intended income nerv or ISK sink, if even a small one, still stands.
cu |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:07:00 -
[2603] - Quote
Rita May wrote:uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect.
5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:22:00 -
[2604] - Quote
I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback.
I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is:
all medium size long range weapons with best ammo selected for specified range and 3 damage mods, assuming a big-non-moving target
[img]http://i.imgur.com/xAlKi.jpg[/img]
The graph has all the weapons in their non bonused state. Note that I assumed fury missiles are getting a slight buff (5%)
First of all: Do not be fooled by the appearent low performance of 720's on this graph. Minmatar ships usually come with 2 damage bonuses instead of 1 for other races, albeit for less turrets. All in all assume its performance as 15% higher puts it actually in line with other turrets.
Second: The current state of HML's actually outrageous. First 10-15km of this graph is actually not as good as it looks for the turrets....as they'll have big problems tracking stuff below 10k. HML's will keep functioning at that region without any problems. 10-20k is the only niche where long range medium guns perform slightly better than HML's. Though that range is actually dominated by short range guns in todays pvp. Post 25k it is HML's have a crazy superiority.
Third: With the new changes the HML's are still dominant beyond 25k, but not as much as today. Additionaly you get the chance to increase your range and your exp velocity throughuse of TC's TE's....but you sacrifice your immunity to TD's for that.
The nerf is crazy.....yes.....but the real crazy thing was how good the heavy missiles were up until now. It is no coincidence that they are the most used weapons system in the game. They were too good. This patch fixes it.
Oh and fozzie....if any amarrian loyalist comes and says a 10% optimal bonus on HBL's would just put it in line with other medium long rane turrets......punch him/her repeatedly in the face.....as I hate amarrians most when they make sense.+
[img]http://i.imgur.com/9tBED.png[/img] *720's normalized by +15%, HBL optimal increasd by 10%
Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:24:00 -
[2605] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Rita May wrote:uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect. 5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level.
This, the overall small increase in isk/hr from bounties due to better bonus and better damage types would most likely cancel out the cost of more ammo used.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:29:00 -
[2606] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.
This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.
These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40. I agree, posting about flawed patch designs and horrible mechanics really attacks the devs... Keep up the good censorship mate.
You just can't be a **** about it. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:31:00 -
[2607] - Quote
Deerin wrote: some good points and examples . . . Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work I beleive you just copy past the web address into the text. It will hypertext it on it's own when you click the post button.
|
Javius Rong
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:40:00 -
[2608] - Quote
This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:51:00 -
[2609] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Well, Add ECM :)
But for DPS ships, and i am not saying they have great DPS, they are sending Caldari into the stone age. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:51:00 -
[2610] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Alternately you could be solely focused on Gallente, and have what BC or BS for fleets?
Also, have you not been following the other threads in this subforum and noticing the frigate and cruiser rebalancing. BCs and BSs are going to be addressed once those are done. Prior to the OP announcement most of the complaint over the step by step approach was coming from those of us identifying the Drake as the biggest balancing problem. Welcome to the club of wishing they could move faster on all the rebalancing now.
Long and short of it is every pilot should have two races of ships it can fly. It insulates you from real or perceived over-nerf. It gives you options when your FC calls for different fleet comps. And it gives you experience with more than one weapon or tanking or ewar system, which gives you a better perspective on the game as a whole, which makes you a better poster on the forums. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |