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) |
RoCkEt X
Hostile. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 11:38:00 -
[751] - Quote
nikon56 wrote:Nemesis Bosseret wrote:DarthNefarius wrote: First finally :) Damn second [quote=Some BIGSHOT DEV] GÇóDrake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull GÇô while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here. The tank on this thing of course is not going to be affected by the HML change.... question is should CCP nerf the Drakes tank or buff all the other BC tanks I perfer BUFFs over NERFS every day TBH Honestly i dont get why they are trying to nerf any of the T1 BCs, Drakes, myrms, Harbs, hurricanes are all relatively balanced to begin with, Maybe the drake has too much shield tanking ability with it being capable to run lvl 4s missions but its DPS horribly sucks in compairison to other BC's which should make up for its buff on tank. All of the base line battlecrusers massively suck except the cyclone which suprisingly is doing alot better. If anything they should be the target of the rebalancing and targeting T3 crusers with there ability to everything better than anything. Base line battlecrusers should be tough as hell while the Tier 2 battlecrusers should be the primary grunt pvp ship while Tier 3s are the speed tanked dps boats.... this slot number change is also very disturbing, why take away fromt the slot count? that nerfs all of them riddiculously and takes away from versitility... plus anyone who thinks they should shield tank a harb for solo pvp is a moron i can see the lack of tank being kinda disturbing going in a shield fleet but its an amarr ship and thats the price you pay to go all gank. i agree with giving a buff instead of nerf, like quoted above but if anything buff the hell outta command ships while leaving the standard battlecrusers for the most part alone except minor tweaks... my opinon of course but pretty sure there is alot of people who get conforable flying a certain way then CCP comes out completely wrecks hell on it... The nerfs are getting old, instead of limiting our options why not expand them with more ships modules or maybe go into making T3 battlecrusers or more T2 battlecruser instead of messing with something that isnt broken. i disagre about the drake DPS. it as a bit too much tank, taht's right. it's DPS is slightly less on paper, BUT it can apply it more efficiently. this, combined to the HM and HAM upgrade incoming will solve the DPS side of the equation. only it's tank shall then be balanced to align it to the others BC (wether it's tank is nerfed or the other BC tank is buffed doesn't matter to me, just balance it). also, fix the drones. why shall my dps die to sentrys? either make the sentry ignore drones, or make them also damage the weapons of other ships, balance it, drone boat are almost of no use in lowsec because of this stupid game mechanic
drake fleet lol fleet; also - drones are fine... this is why you'll never see a domi coming through a PHEW cyno :) |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 11:59:00 -
[752] - Quote
nikon56 wrote:actually, it's impossible to kill a rorqual lolwut? If you have no idea how to use Rorqual, please refrain from commenting.
|
Jeremiah Kaiso
New Paradigm Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:40:00 -
[753] - Quote
Given that the Ravens problems are acknowledged to be with it using cruise missiles, when are cruise missiles going to be looked at and made useful outside of PvE? |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:48:00 -
[754] - Quote
Suggestion for the Offgrid POS-Parked Command Ships:
Make all Warfare Link Modules unusable inside POS-Shield (Except Mining Links, the belt is not ne place for a Rorqual) Standing ouside on a Safe is slightly more Dangerous than inside a POS, in warp you cant boost, so you have to burn around in the Middle of nowhere but being scaned down is still possible.
Second Suggestion: if its possible with the grid mechanics, make it AoE to 1 AU...
This only on Grid workin is horrible for PvE boosters: 1. My Alt gets money, therefore my Mates hate me^^ 2. When the AI is Changed, my alt is useless, because tanking enough in PvE and Boosting is quite hard (Get inside a Maze with a Boosting ship and new AI = Dead boosting ship) Ok, when you take logistics with you, you may survive^^ 3. Incursion Boosters, God damnit my Mates will hate me for getting double money^^
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
427
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:49:00 -
[755] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:+1 for allowing pilots to switch implants (perhaps only hardwirings) without having to use a jump clone.
Bad idea I think, it'll increase the perception that implants are a "required" item without which you are seriously disadvantaged in combat.
Similarly, jump clone timers should not be decreased, as easy switching to a clone tailored for a specific combat doctrine would have the same effect.
The multi-bonused mindlink is a viable idea, IF the bonus is cut down to about 10%, instead of the absurd 50% it currently is. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:50:00 -
[756] - Quote
nikon56 wrote:actually, it's impossible to kill a rorqual unless the pilot screw up, it will stock to the pos and voila.
What?
Next time you're in game: try to move or warp with sieged capital (Rorqual's deployed mode works just like siege mode for dreads)... |
Undeadenemy
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:59:00 -
[757] - Quote
Overall I like the changes, especially since after 5 years, CCP has decided to make Gallente desirable again.
Here are some suggestions for making the Gallente ships more viable:
Myrmidon: Allow the Myrmidon a 4th heavy drone, keep the drone bay size the same.
Eos: Allow the Eos to field 5 heavy drones again.
Dedicated Drone Boats:
1) In addition to the already implemented bonuses to drone hit points and damage, give a bonus to drone speed and agility, equivalent to having a Drone Navigation module fitted. This will allow drones to get on target faster and apply their damage.
2) Drop the weird drone control range mechanic, instead make the limitation the ships own locking range. For example, it makes no sense that Warden IIs by default cannot target out to their optimal range.
Command Ships/Link Tech 3 Bonuses:
I realize that keeping a ship in a POS or safe spot is not the intended way of using a link ship, and that something should be done about it in general. However, this also goes up there with the "AFK Cloaker in System" game mechanic, and should never be nerfed out of existence.
My Proposal for Fixing POS/Safe Spot Linking:
I've noticed that all the changes to linking proposed result in LESS bonus overall (even the Command Ships), instead of nerfing the bonuses across the board, swap the bonuses between Tech 3 and Command Ships: i.e. give the 5% bonus to command ships and the 3% bonus to Tech 3. Also, as a reward for putting the ships on the field, buff those bonuses by a decent percentage if the ship is on grid with the fleet.
Example: Command Ship off-grid: 5% bonus Command Ship on-grid: 7% bonus Tech 3 off-grid: 3% bonus Tech 3 on-grid: 5% bonus
OR: Command Ship off-grid: 3% bonus Command Ship on-grid: 5% bonus Tech 3 off-grid: 2% bonus Tech 3 on-grid: 3% bonus
(I like the first one better, but the second may be more reasonable)
This way, the ships still give very viable bonuses either way, but when on-grid, the extra 2% will allow a gang to push themselves just a little bit further. Some might say that 7% is too much, the exact amount can always be played around with to get to an acceptable level. What I don't want to see however is a gang with no possible way to perform at current levels with maxed bonuses and a mind-link, which is what we would get if the max bonus is 3%.
|
Blastassin
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:06:00 -
[758] - Quote
I read through most of this and can't seem to grasp the answer.
If I have Destroyer V but only Minmatar Frigate trained it seems I'll get Minmatar Destroyer V... but do I get points reimbursed?
With Capitals if you only need Racial BS to IV if someone has BS V will that be reset to IV and the point reimbursed? (I don't fly capitals just trying to understand if points will be reimbursed to people who trained things to V only to fly another tier of ship.. ie T2 frigs, cruisers, ect.. |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:12:00 -
[759] - Quote
My view of the proposed changes:
*Prophecy - Don't make it a Amarr Myrmidon, thats just silly. Make it a 'Abaddon'-like BC instead.
*Ferox - Make it a brawler, with one extra mid. Nobody uses it as a sniper now that we have Naga.
*Brutix - Fix armor tanking and you might fix the Brutix at the same time. Add one more low slot.
*Cyclone - Probably fine as is. But I'm interested in ideas.
*Harbinger - a bit more grid/cpu maybe, otherwise fine as is.
*Drake - Remove shield resistance boni and even the field for the other bc's. Controversial, I know.
*Myrmidon - See 'Brutix. Otherwise fine, I think. But don't nerf shieldregen
*Hurricane - OP bc that should have its powergrid reduced a bit. No more dual-neut shield setup and 425MM guns.
I'm just gonna list those proposed changes to battleships that I have a opinion about:
*Typhoon - Leave it alone!. Break fozzies fingers if you have to. There is nothing wrong with the jack-of-all-trades approach. That leaves people guessing until they get hit by it.
*Tempest - I liked the old Republik Fleet Tempst that had six mids and six lows, before that was scrapped for semi-useless armor tanking. Give the ordinary tempest six mids and six lows and let people be creative
*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?
*Hyperion - It's getting old, but I say it anyway. Fix Armor tanking, and you fix the ship at the same time. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:29:00 -
[760] - Quote
GÇ£Hurricane: counting CCP FozzieGÇÖs adjustment to its fitting, the cruiser boost should reduce its over-the-top versatility, especially if battlecruisers slot layout is altered to 17 as mentioned above.GÇ¥
Hi all GÇô IGÇÖm excited about Tiericide as it will give us more ships to play with. But I am nervous about the above quoted statement, especially the part where we talk about reducing versatility.
To put it crudely and in an extreme way GÇô If we reduce Versatility in the Hulls too much we might as well just get rid of {the ability to change} modules GÇô because anything other than the cookie cutter fits will be Fail.
Versatile is fun. Limited and inflexible is not, (in my opinion). IGÇÖm not sure why Versatility is something we need to look at reducing. I acknowledge this might be na+»ve. But can someone indicate why we need to reduce versatility in Hulls? Please! Or at least how the reduced versatility might manifest itself.
I trust CCP and the Devs. This is just my only concern/confusion in an otherwise super exciting development!
{EDIT for Clarity} |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
427
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:29:00 -
[761] - Quote
Lord Eremet wrote:
*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?
Nah |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:40:00 -
[762] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Lord Eremet wrote:
*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?
Nah
"Drake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull GÇô while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here.
GÇóHurricane: counting CCP FozzieGÇÖs adjustment to its fitting, the cruiser boost should reduce its over-the-top versatility, especially if battlecruisers slot layout is altered to 17 as mentioned above."
Really interesting Kill Board Stats. But the Dev blog suggests the Drake is OK - But the Hurricane is "Over the Top". When the Drake is the number 1 PvP ship by almost 60%.
Are missiles - "Being looked into by CCP Fozzie" - being improved or nerfed? - I thought they needed improved? What's the fix here then?
And where are we likely to lose the Module Slot on the Drake and the Hurricane? |
Hard King
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:47:00 -
[763] - Quote
regarding skills :
with my current skills i can fly every cruiser in the game.
lets assume:
gallente frig: 4 caldari frig: 4 minmatar frig: 4 amarr frig : 4
gallente cruiser:4 caldari cruiser :4 minmatar curiser : 4 amarr cruiser : 4
destroyers : 1
so after the changes i will still be able to fly every cruiser which means i will have magicaly trained every racial destroyer skill to 4 ? |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
167
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 14:08:00 -
[764] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote: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.
This. With the loss of 5% shield bonus, Caldari won't have a close range battlecruiser anymore, the drake is already used at medium range in most fits and is also losing its tanking bonuses.
This will leave T2 Cruisers, T3 SC and Battleships as the only realistic option for use at close range with logistics. Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
189
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 14:09:00 -
[765] - Quote
Hard King wrote:regarding skills :
with my current skills i can fly every cruiser in the game.
lets assume:
gallente frig: 4 caldari frig: 4 minmatar frig: 4 amarr frig : 4
gallente cruiser:4 caldari cruiser :4 minmatar curiser : 4 amarr cruiser : 4
destroyers : 1
so after the changes i will still be able to fly every cruiser which means i will have magicaly trained every racial destroyer skill to 4 ? No. Skill requirements are bypassed according to every comment made by CCP developers since this was announced.
With that skill layout you would end up with [Racial] Destroyer 1 for every race. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
191
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 14:58:00 -
[766] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote: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. This. With the loss of 5% shield bonus, Caldari won't have a close range battlecruiser anymore, the drake is already used at medium range in most fits and is also losing its tanking bonuses. This will leave T2 Cruisers, T3 SC and Battleships as the only realistic option for use at close range with logistics.
I'd much rather see the brutix as well as the astarte retain a buffed 10% per level active bonus instead of just copy pasting bonuses seen on almost all other ships. IMO this "role" system is normalizing ships far far far too much between classes and in the end is just removing variation. I'd rather see active tanking fixed instead of just turning every ship into another copy paste fleet ship.
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
316
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:05:00 -
[767] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Lord Eremet wrote:
*Rohk - Does people really use it in PVP, seriously?
Nah "...Drake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull GÇô while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here....
Already the drakes have atleast +20% HP advantage than any BC and they want to nerf the missiles. Bravo!!! What we expecting from CCP ? They have problem with Drakes, they nerfing all missile boats becuse missile nerf. ROTFL
Harbinger with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16000 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 65k EHP Brutix with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16300 armor (hard to fitting, need smaller med guns). 61k EHP Hurricane with 1600 plate +3x trimark rigs has ~16800 armor. 59k EHP Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP |
Blastil
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:05:00 -
[768] - Quote
Quote:First, letGÇÖs have a look at the disruption line, which only has one ship so far
never has two words been more subtle, yet so impactful to my soul... |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:21:00 -
[769] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Skill point loss is dumb. Plain and simple. Get rid of clone upgrade costs. The only thing it does is punish older players for playing the game and discouraging players from flying edge-of-the-seat ships that die a lot resulting in pod loss. I agree. Upgrading a clone to keep skillpoints is not really a choice, or at least not a very interesting one, it's just another mandatory cost following podding. Instead let players upgrade their clone to provide a benefit. ("Eifyr and Co. presents the Speed Daemon mk. 1 grade clone package, 1% bonus to ship velocity!" or whatever) If you want to turn it into a decent isk sink you make the upgrades run out so you have to renew them periodically if you want to keep enjoying the benefit. That would also get some isk out of clones in highsec, where podding is rare. If you desperately have to, skillpoints could still be a factor in determining the price of upgrades, so that the best upgrades gets exponentially more expensive as pilots age.
Yeah - this is good. TBH - If I ever got podded and had forgotten to do my clone - maybe because I was drunk - and lost ~3 years of skills - I'm not even actually sure how this works - but you lose - Everything??? - Well - do you have stats on people who this happens too - do they ever re-sub? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:58:00 -
[770] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well presumably CS will get an 18/19 fitting slots being the T2 variant as atm CS only get 17 slots and tier2 bc's get 18. Except minnie CS that have 18 slots? god know's why :P
A note on links besides exchanging the info for skirmish on the gal CS as they are the second speed race and need it and amarr are more disruption based.
Maybe add a new drone based link boosting all the drone stats to varying degrees and add them as options to the EOS and legion. replacing the skirmish link on the legion and EOS to add more racial flavour and give people a reason to use the EOS and drone fleets in general. That and drones really need a overhaul and this would help differentiate things a little more.
Also on the idea of AOE links i assume the info link would need more range to be useful on e-war ships but i would propose a strength penalty to balance the extra range. I would encourage the armour and siege links to be the shortest ranged links as they focus on buffing tanks which is a brawling fighting style. And the skirmish could be inbetween as speed ships will be spread out more and will have a harder time staying in range and would have a more moderate penalty for the slight extra range.
Drone command links there could be 3 distinct links that add the following: -adds orbit velocity -adds tracking boost -adds shield and armour resistances |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2738
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:59:00 -
[771] - Quote
h4kun4 wrote:Suggestion for the Offgrid POS-Parked Command Ships:
Make all Warfare Link Modules unusable inside POS-Shield (Except Mining Links, the belt is not ne place for a Rorqual) Standing ouside on a Safe is slightly more Dangerous than inside a POS, in warp you cant boost, so you have to burn around in the Middle of nowhere but being scaned down is still possible.
Second Suggestion: if its possible with the grid mechanics, make it AoE to 1 AU...
This only on Grid workin is horrible for PvE boosters: 1. My Alt gets money, therefore my Mates hate me^^ 2. When the AI is Changed, my alt is useless, because tanking enough in PvE and Boosting is quite hard (Get inside a Maze with a Boosting ship and new AI = Dead boosting ship) Ok, when you take logistics with you, you may survive^^ 3. Incursion Boosters, God damnit my Mates will hate me for getting double money^^
Sounds like a great incentive for the other pilots to train up a boosting alt. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:25:00 -
[772] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Drakes with 2x shield extenders +3x CDFE rigs has ~21400 shield (fitteable to HAM) 96.5K EHP
Your Drake is overtanked. If you really want to compare that to something compare it to dual plate Prophecy.
Replace one of the LSEs with something more useful like a target painter. |
Radius Prime
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:40:00 -
[773] - Quote
Does this mean that capital sitters will get ALL the new prerequired skills for capital ships maxed for free?????? Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first. |
Tzel Mayon
Wind And Flame
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:51:00 -
[774] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Caldari Battlecruiser V, and Minmatar Battlecruiser V
Hello ... Someone else asked the same exact question I am about to ask, on this thread about this topic... but it has been unanswered by CCP:
In the future will Faction Cruiser IV be required for faction Battlecruiser I, and if so, will people automatically be given Faction Cruiser IV, if they already have Faction Cruiser III, and Battlecruisers I?
If this is the case, will people who have Faction Cruiser IV and Battlecruisers I be reimbursed for this training time, since other people will be getting it for free??
Thanks!!! |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1847
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:53:00 -
[775] - Quote
CCP said like a million times now; that if you can fly it before the patch, you can fly it after. Why do people keep asking over and over and over and over....
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Tzel Mayon
Wind And Flame
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:02:00 -
[776] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP said like a million times now; that if you can fly it before the patch, you can fly it after. Why do people keep asking over and over and over and over....
The question is not if you can fly it after... Please reread.
The question is if the requirement for Faction Battlecruiser I will be Faction Cruiser III, or Faction Cruiser IV... And if so, will people be given Faction Cruiser IV for free. And if that is the case, will people who already have faction cruiser IV be reimbursed for that skill, since others will be getting it for free.
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha.
77
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:15:00 -
[777] - Quote
Given this blog and the lack of new blue tags in the cruiser/destroyer feedback threads. Does this mean that the listed stats for those ships are now locked in for Dec 4th and feedback is no longer desired? |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
253
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:33:00 -
[778] - Quote
Tzel Mayon wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:CCP said like a million times now; that if you can fly it before the patch, you can fly it after. Why do people keep asking over and over and over and over.... The question is not if you can fly it after... Please reread. The question is if the requirement for Faction Battlecruiser I will be Faction Cruiser III, or Faction Cruiser IV... And if so, will people be given Faction Cruiser IV for free. And if that is the case, will people who already have faction cruiser IV be reimbursed for that skill, since others will be getting it for free. The answer you are looking for is, if you have racial cruisers 3 and battle cruisers 1 then post change you will have racial cruisers 3 and racial battle cruisers 1. Ideas for Drone Improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1658683#post1658683 Updated 10/10/12 |
Lord Calus
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
45
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 17:56:00 -
[779] - Quote
I am still not seeing any dev post explaining how they plan to bring armour tanking back in line with shield tanking.
As it stands, and by dev admission, the problem with anything under capships is the tanking difference. So what is a theoretical plan?
All of the theorycrafting and hoping and dreaming will not account for anything until we get something besides a vague admission that there is a problem.
So, Raivi, what IS the problem? How are you going to attempt to fix it? When can we expect the fix? Why are ships being iterated upon before the underlying mechanics of the tank + weapon systems? Was the release of the ASB the single worst idea in quite a while? How did that make it through playtest and QA? Why has it taken nearly a near to be addressed? Why do you love matari ships so much? When will amarr ships get a useful 3rd bonus? Can I quit asking questions now? |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
191
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:00:00 -
[780] - Quote
Tzel Mayon wrote: If this is the case, will people who have Faction Cruiser IV and Battlecruisers I be reimbursed for this training time, since other people will be getting it for free??
Why should you be reimbursed for your training time? You haven't lost anything.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |