Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
|
CCP Falcon
541
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 14:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
EVE Online: Retribution is just around the corner and with it will come a whole heap of ship balancing.
But what happens beyond Retribution?
CCP Ytterbium is here to talk about more potential changes to your internet spaceships in the future to make them even more awesome.
You can read all about it in his latest devblog!
Please use this thread for all your constructive feedback. CCP Falcon -á-á||-á-áEVE Community Team -á|| -á-áEVE Illuminati -á-á||-á-á@CCP_Falcon
-á-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea -- |
|
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 14:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
1st? its a possibility... "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
434
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 14:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
First finally :) Damn second Meta-gaming for NULL SECCers: Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up.-á Typical NULL seccer whine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u299-o66wo&feature=related |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
403
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 14:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Your current plan for the Ferox is doomed. Short range shield brawlling is the key here.
Brutix should have a utiliy high and active armour tanking bonuses should diaf. Otherwise, please proceed. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
505
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
On the whole I am positive about these plans. I kinda like the way the Ferox works as a Brawler now, not sure if you want to mess with that. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:1st? its a possibility...
Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :) "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
179
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
ferox needs to keep its tanking bonus and get a damage bonus, rails have way enough range, plus, it needs to be viable as a blaster AND a rail boat, not just forced to rails.
Just give it a 6th midslot, some more velocity (at least faster than drake) and a damage bonus instead of optimal, and it's good.
For the drake, -1 highslot and its good. Could use a little more speed considering the missile nerfs however.
Naga and oracle really don't need much of a speed nerf. It's pretty much just the talos and tornado that are too fast (too competitive with the speed of cruisers)
Raven better be good after the update...should have much better tank than the drake rather than like 5-10% better at least. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
429
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:cBOLTSON wrote:1st? its a possibility... Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)
VERY MUCH THIS !
Rebalancing is good, making everything the same is not. Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Braxus Deninard
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:11:00 -
[9] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:cBOLTSON wrote:1st? its a possibility... Also please CCP be careful not to overbalance the ships, making them all very equal. We like things to be different, just not OP :)
I have to agree with this, you can't balance everything out so that it's all super similar. Each ship still needs to have a unique sort of weakness, and needs to excel in certain areas. There still needs to be some thought put into what sort of ship you choose for what situation, and some ships need to excel in certain situations better than others.
Rebalancing is great when done a little bit, but make sure you don't go too far. |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
197
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Don't these skill changes kinda screw new players at the same time as giving older players a huge pile of free skill training? This seems backwards to me. |
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Amarr get Amor and Skirmish for their command ships? Seriously? I think we are playing a different game. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
524
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:Ferox: we would like to reinforce the sniping nature of this ship, most likely by replacing the shield resistance bonus with a hybrid damage bonus. Nothing is set in stone yet, as we need to find ways to ensure it doesnGÇÖt compete with the Naga.
You might want to change that bit
Otherwise I like what I'm reading there. Sensible changes all around. I'm glad the tier 2 BCs are going to be slightly nerfed. The command ship changes were totally unexpected and blew my mind.
By the way, what's the plan with armor vs shield tanking balance? Can you disclose any details yet? |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
NO DO NOT MAKE CAPITAL SHIPS REQUIRE {Race} BATTLESHIP 4.
Capital ships are not the same as sub-caps, DO NOT CHANGE THAT, it should require the extra month to get into.
I have nothing against new players who want to get into them, i was the same. But they just are not the same as all the subcaps and should be treated differently. |
David Laurentson
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:NO DO NOT MAKE CAPITAL SHIPS REQUIRE {Race} BATTLESHIP 4.
Capital ships are not the same as sub-caps, DO NOT CHANGE THAT, it should require the extra month to get into.
I have nothing against new players who want to get into them, i was the same. But they just are not the same as all the subcaps and should be treated differently.
That's why they require Advanced Spaceship Command V, Capital Ships, and a million years in jump skills, surely?
I do think that tweaking medium rails to be something other than 'mediocre at all ranges' would help the Ferox and the vulture. |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
No offense but your proposed changes to Tech III Gang-links are pretty dumb. Because a gang-link Tech III is anything BUT versatile and 2% bonus for a ship that costs at least twice as much as a command ship I don't see any incentive of people using them at all if this goes though. You would need to drastically change and improve the Tech III warfare subsystem for it to have any fleet value after this change. Besides I do not see the point of having a Tech III able to carry more then 3 links there just iss'nt any incentive to use that. Because the way fleets work you use 2 separate command ships anyway. To get armor bonus's and skirmish bonus's for tackle wing.. |
Cliverunner
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Quote: Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill.
Does this mean that to get all the racial BC's at 5 you will need all the racial Cruisers at 5 as well? |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
345
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:21:00 -
[17] - Quote
Quote:Reimbursement details:
Let us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill. With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.
so if you have 4 race crusiers at 3 and bc 3, you will get all 4 race bc's at 3 right? same with desy's?
lv5's for the 4 race bc skill's if you have bc5? OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
463
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
"Brutix: this ship role conflicts a bit with the Talos, mainly because the latter is more mobile and packs more punch. We want to explore options on how to turn the Brutix into a more reliable close-range brawler, while the Talos keeps a kiting advantage."
I think the active tank bonus should be replaced with a passive armor bonus.
They see me trolling, they hating... |
NeoShocker
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
136
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
No, i disagree on the multi bonuses on the races for command ships, its not even distinct.
If you are going to do that, then AT LEAST the specific race have better bonus over the other. Like vulture gets 5% shield bonus and 3% skirmish. I mean come on, 3% across the two race? :( |
Baki Yuku
Nordgoetter Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
NeoShocker wrote:No, i disagree on the multi bonuses on the races for command ships, its not even distinct.
If you are going to do that, then AT LEAST the specific race have better bonus over the other. Like vulture gets 5% shield bonus and 3% skirmish. I mean come on, 3% across the two race? :(
I agree! and being able to use more then 3 links on a Tech 3 lol what is that supposed to be good for its useless.. wanna know why because we already have tons of boosting alts.. so why would we use a ship that provides 2% which is freaking useless and not even close to cost efficient.. |
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
Great job guys! Looks good overall! Keep them coming. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
1032
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
I'd like to see some experimentation with the Typhoon getting a sig bonus for missiles and be a little better at hitting smaller targets?
Since it's not going to really be a front of the line battleship, but more of a support battleship for lighter fleets, with the ability to handle a few different battleship scale utility slots (heavy neut, rep, etc) - the sig bonus would make it a formidable beast when taking on smaller support ships.
Just thinking out loud here.
Where I am. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
346
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
so rather than leaving the bonses to boosting at 3 and 5% but swapping them around, you feel like nerf'ing what we already have.
so much for what you have today yourll have tomorrow.
5% for commandships and 3% for tech 3's is the way forward. OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Ifly Uwalk
Empire Tax Collection Agency
333
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium done did a devblog and wrote: GÇóHarbinger: assuming direct control.
Here's to hoping EvE doesn't end like Mass Effect.
Also:
CCP Ytterbium done did a devblog and wrote: we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid.
No. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
393
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
With the Scorpion split into a separate line, there's room for more battleships, isn't there? Like a tracking disruption BS? :D |
PaNtHeeRa
Rep-X Hashashin Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Amarr get Amor and Skirmish for their command ships? Seriously? I think we are playing a different game.
LOL, you lack imagination |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
214
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:31:00 -
[27] - Quote
Very interesting stuff coming!
As for the ships sucking because of active tanking bonuses, do the one right thing and switch them to resist bonuses, which work for both active and passive tanking. |
Kurt Ruthven
Scapenet Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:31:00 -
[28] - Quote
Do the skill changes apply on the 4th? |
PaNtHeeRa
Rep-X Hashashin Cartel
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:31:00 -
[29] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:so rather than leaving the bonses to boosting at 3 and 5% but swapping them around, you feel like nerf'ing what we already have.
so much for what you have today yourll have tomorrow.
5% for commandships and 3% for tech 3's is the way forward.
This is the better option by far. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
179
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:"Brutix: this ship role conflicts a bit with the Talos, mainly because the latter is more mobile and packs more punch. We want to explore options on how to turn the Brutix into a more reliable close-range brawler, while the Talos keeps a kiting advantage."
I think the active tank bonus should be replaced with a passive armor bonus.
They will never do this because "gallente doesnt get passive armor bonuses"
unrelated:
Please make fleet and field command ships have 5% boost for one type of link. Example, Vulture: 3% siege, 5% information. Nighthawk: 5% siege, 3% information. Damnation: 5% armor 3% skirmish. Absolution: 3% armor 5% skirmish. etc.
Should not take away that maximum 5% boost rate. It nerfs max speed, projection, everything. As well, give the strategic cruisers at least 3% boost rate. 2% isn't worth the ISK for a T3. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |