|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
809
   |
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm very concerned on command ships - namely those under current field badge. Will they retain their full 4 combat bonuses and get another one on top of it to have gang-links as a true option or they gonna get hit (once again) and get something removed for that purpose?
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
809
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ong wrote:While I approve the the strength reduction on T3 boosts please dont make them have to be on grid. Those of us that do sub 10 man gangs and solo just plain need links for fighting 30-40 man gangs and having a chance to kill a few before having to gtfo without all just dying in a fire.
What should happen is:
Command ships be able to give better bonus to the whole fleet but have to be on field
T3 be able to off grid boost but only be able to give bonus to a squad (10 people) and provide less bonus
No command bonus from inside a pos what so ever.
These chances would mean that solo and small gang people still have a chance and command ships still have their role in medium to large War fair.
Agreed.
CCP really should consider making gang-links balanced by splitting the effect they provide depending on the ship number in fleet, so that a ship can no longer boost 50 others for the same effect as boosting just one.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
811
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:I'm really surprised at the way you arranged the double bonuses on the command ships. Why does Amarr get skirmish while Gallente gets information? That seems incredibly outdated. Amarr have no remarkably fast ships, very few ships that rely on fighting particularly up close, and no ships that have any bonuses to tackle. Meanwhile Gallente, who was given the information warfare instead of skirmish, are known for having fast in-your-face skirmishing brawlers, but they have the recon ships with bonuses specifically for tackle range.
Amarr should be Armor and Info. Gallente should be Armor and Skirmish. Doing it otherwise makes no sense to me.
Tbh, the whole concept that one race is capable of skirmishing and the other one is mostly blobtastic is utterly stupid. I want to use Amarr for hit-and-run stuff just like I want to use Matari, Caldari and Gallente for it.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
811
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Quote:Dhaaran wrote:Harvey James wrote:
3. the reduction in overall EHP for proper fleets needs to be counterbalanced by either a reduction in the dps of all ships or a general increase to all ships EHP. in a day and age where you get fights with 1200+ people there is sufficient alpha around to instapop everything, which is neither skillful nor interesting gameplay and voids the role of logistics. higher resists allow logistics to be successful at what they are doing.
Your talking about the problems of blob warfare you can't ask for ridiclous EHP buffs to solve your problem i am aware of that, the least i expect CCP to do is not encourage blobing even more via ship changes
Yeah, this never ceases to amaze:
- omg-omg, we've blobbed up an entity of 40 ships, now everything pops way too fast!
*CCP boosts HP*
- omg-omg, now there are 200 of us, ships still pop too fast!
*CCP boosts HP once again*.
And so on ad infinum.
Noticed how pretty much all the ships CCP has overhauled over last months got HP buffs?
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
811
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Varesk wrote:
not really solo if you use a boosting alt.
It's not about definitions, but rather just about the fact how CCP can easily make gang-boosters hardly available for small-scale PvPers while keeping them easily accessible and usable for larger groups, which is what surely happens if they leave current link mechanics (a ship boosts N others for the same effect as just one) as is and just nerf link range.
That is the point, not how you treat those who prefer to multibox.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
814
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 07:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:
One advantage of the current system is that the number of boosters needs to scale with the size of the fleet.
It is not. A blob of 250 man can be boosted by just one ship and the % gain they all receive is the same with the booster supporting just one ship.
That's as stupid as logistics being able to 'stretch' their reps to heal 250 ships simultaneously with the same efficiency as when healing just one.
No one sees a problem here 
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
818
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 02:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:
Now, you might claim that a single ship + mindlink can give all the boost that matters. That could be considered as an argument that said set of boosts is relatively overpowered (vs the other options), rather than a criticism of the hierarchical mechanics themselves.
No, it's the fubar mechanics.
The effect should proportionally decrease if the numbers go up, so that a full squad gets only 1/10 of what a minimal one receives. A full fleet of 256 results in privates getting just 1/250 of the nominal link strength from their fleet booster, 1/50 from the wing booster and so on.
This also means a blob will have to make trade-offs in their fleet composition, because it will no longer be possible to have all the links for the full effect. Isn't that great?
Then, upon adopting this fundamental principle CCP may have their hands finally untied to toss around any ideas, make links buble-like, grid-wide, make them rely on capacitor heavily and so on and so forth.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
821
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 11:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Debir Achen wrote:
Now, you might claim that a single ship + mindlink can give all the boost that matters. That could be considered as an argument that said set of boosts is relatively overpowered (vs the other options), rather than a criticism of the hierarchical mechanics themselves.
No, it's the fubar mechanics. The effect should proportionally decrease if the numbers go up, so that a full squad gets only 1/10 of what a minimal one receives. A full fleet of 256 results in privates getting just 1/250 of the nominal link strength from their fleet booster, 1/50 from the wing booster and so on. This also means a blob will have to make trade-offs in their fleet composition, because it will no longer be possible to have all the links for the full effect. Isn't that great? Then, upon adopting this fundamental principle CCP may have their hands finally untied to toss around any ideas, make links buble-like, grid-wide, make them rely on capacitor heavily and so on and so forth. In an ideal world warfare links wouldn't exist at all, I don't see how it improves gameplay to have a single ship in a large fleet be significantly more powerful than a single ship on its own by virtue of the fleet having some dude's alt in an unkillable damnation or vulture. Are numbers not enough of an advantage or something? idgi. Maybe CCP just wants command ships to kill off small gang and solo for good But of course CCP is stuck with their awful policy of not removing mechanics once implemented, no matter how bad they are for the game. EDIT: But I like your idea if we're gonna be stuck with gang links, which evidently we are
Agreed, that's what remote boosting/repairing is for. It's:
a) visible
b) short-ranged
c) of limited effect which goes down if you spread your remote mods over your gangmates
d) requires lock and thus can be countered
Current link/gang-bonusing mechanics is FUBAR and the only issue CCP sees is its... system-wide nature. LOL?
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
821
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 14:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:I wonder if I'm the only one that regrets the tier 3 battlecruisers are in the game. Imo the game was better off without them.
I think so as well, but they may actually become balanced over time.
Also, their initial success have been yet another proof of how absurdly overtanked EVE is. DPS/tank ratio of tier3 BC is what all ships should have. Or close to it. And it had been that way before CCP introduced current rigs (favouring tank over damage) and buffed HPs by several times.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
821
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Also, their initial success have been yet another proof of how absurdly overtanked EVE is. DPS/tank ratio of tier3 BC is what all ships should have. Or close to it. And it had been that way before CCP introduced current rigs (favouring tank over damage) and buffed HPs by several times.  Part of why Eve combat is exciting is because it doesn't happen at the drop of a hat, there's no instancing arenas so you need to actually go out of your way to pick a fight. But comparing how long it can take to get a fight to how quick it is over, I wouldn't mind a slight cut to dps overall.
That's right, finding a fight takes quite a while - that's why I prefer to have fun during the said fight and actually KILL ships instead of just watching their endless lifebars slowly getting redish.
But you personally can drop some damage mods and put even more fugly shield extenders or plates. While those not interested in boring slugfests should have a option of fast-paced PvP, which atm is available only for cheap-ass tech1 tier3 battlecruisers.
14 |
|
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
835
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 09:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Yeah, this 'free skillpoints' affair just puts new players (who would join after the changes) at serious disadvantage. While the current ones hardly have to make any choice at all, since most either already have these skills at V or getting them now.
If anything, separate skills for racial sensors are much better in this regard - players WILL have to make trade-offs and pick may be one lineup to get it to V while leaving the rest at level IV. It will take quite a while to max out all 4 races. In case of BC and destroyers everyone will get it for free. Meh.
14 |
|
|
| |
|