| 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) |
MIrple
BSC LEGION
Tactical Narcotics Team
158
   |
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:53:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:HydroSan wrote:
Basically Gallente sucks because the game mechanics suck. Can we just get fixes to active tanking and drones? Drone UI needs to be completely redone.
Those are going to be a different dev blog
There better be frog legs. |
Azura Solus
Good Game Quit Qrying
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
Adapt or die right.
"As a side note, as we announced a while ago, we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid. Command and Tech3 ships providing that much of an advantage should commit to an engagement instead of being safely parked inside a POS bubble."
I would beg and implore you to not nerf offgrid boosting. While i agree that there should be risk in using em. I dont believe you should remove that ability completly. A suggestion to that would be to make it impossible to boost behind a pos but allow it off grid at safe spots. It will allow the boosting ship to be scanned downed and dealt with. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
Brothers of Apocrypha.
59
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:53:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
we are not pleased by having Warfare Links work outside the battlefield zone, and will be investigating options to move them on grid.
Of the coming changes I might like this one the best. |
Ifly Uwalk
Empire Tax Collection Agency
333
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:54:00 -
[64] - Quote
Antoine Jordan wrote:So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.
This deffo needs to be answered imo. |
Dracoth Simertet
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:55:00 -
[65] - Quote
Great changes!
One question will ships such as the Claymore still require the logistics skill to fly?
o7
Drac |
MIrple
BSC LEGION
Tactical Narcotics Team
159
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:56:00 -
[66] - Quote
fukier 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. i agree... though personally for racial flavour i would prefer caldari adopt a ROF instead of a damage bonus... as this would make caldari higher DPS and make Galente Higher bust damage. also i would not get rid of the tanking bonus for the brutix just increase to 10% per level and make it also affect incomming external armour RR. i would also make the bonus affect the effectiveness of ERNM... This would allow a brutix to either setup for small pvp (active tanking) or passive fleet setup using ERNM... instead of armour plates which slow the ship down and make it harder to turn...
I think you have it backwards shouldn't Gallente get the higher ROF and Caldari get better burst would be better for sniping rails this way. |
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:56:00 -
[67] - Quote
I am not sure how I feel about the command ship changes. Being able to boost armor and skirmish links on the same hull is sexy and I'm already mentally EFT-warrioring an Absolution, but I fear for my Damnation. Are you thinking of changing their other bonuses as well, or are you just going to tweak their current gang link bonuses and leave the rest alone? I'd rather not have my Damnation turn into an armor-tanked Drake with some command boosts. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
824
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:57:00 -
[68] - Quote
Fozzie: Care to comment on the implications that this devblog makes that you guys will be adding four entirely new battleships (3 disruption and an attack?) 
This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
fofofo |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:57:00 -
[69] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie First off
Ferox needs to be a brawler Naga will outperform any sniping the ferox ever could do.
People have only started using the ferox again after buff to blasters not rails it should follow merlin-moa line.
Drake is this losing its shield resis bonus for ROF bonus it needs too missile range is simply too good for a brawling role they won't need.
Armageddon i was expecting this to be a droneboat otherwise amarr wont have a drone bs.
How about myrmidon bonus will it keep its active tank or more likely follow the hybrid dmg bonus line?
Also i think sig radius on the combat line needs to be reduced as the shield tanked bc's end up as bs size after rigs/extenders |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
699
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:57:00 -
[70] - Quote
The tears on the ogb pilots will be epic. Ground floor almost.
Ferox - Damage plus shield resist vote. You can't get it varied from the Naga otherwise.
Typhoon - I was so proud when I had all the skills for this. I haven't flown one in a long time though so..... Sigh. |
|
|
Iniquita
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
105
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:58:00 -
[71] - Quote
I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve? |
Pawnee
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:58:00 -
[72] - Quote
Your rebalance of the boni for the Command shps sounds sweet!
I can fly all of them and Command ship on 5. Finally the ship class would be worth something again. I cant wait to see this coming. Though I will miss the extra 2 % of t3s. Cant you patch this earlier? 
The other idea, putting the Fleet booster on grid with the whole fleet has its limits:
1) In big fleet fights with several hundred enemies in BS it is clearly a mistake (atm FC mistake) if the Fleet booster is on grid.
Load grid ...
hostile FC: Primary fleet booster - kaboom (and I was raging)
You cant put such an important ship in the middle of such big battles. If you do, you can count the seconds until it is wrecked.
2) In small scale pvp, it became a common tactic to hide a t3 somewhere. I think, they have already a disadvantage then, because they do not take an aditional ship, which they can use on field like a Logi. Often if I have the choice in a small gang whether I take a fleet booster or Logi, I prefer the logi. Again, you can never take a current t3 on field, especially if you want it to carry several links, with the current tank, it can fit.
Just switch the rule boni and it should be ok. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
2159
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:58:00 -
[73] - Quote
Intaki Kauyon wrote:CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes. Quote:Reimbursement details:
GÇóLet 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.
GÇó 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.
With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.
That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance: If I have currently: BC to V Gall Cruiser to V but Caldari Cruiser to IV Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get: Gall BC to V but Caldari BC to IV ?
In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter.
Antoine Jordan wrote:So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch.
This is correct.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
ReK42
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:59:00 -
[74] - Quote
This looks excellent so far, though I think the numbers on the gang link changes should be looked at again. I don't like the new 2 vs 3% choice, I believe it should be kept 3 vs 5%, but only give the 5% to the one racial boost. For example: the Tengu would boost 3 types of links at 3% while the Vulture and Nighthawk would give 3% skirmish and 5% siege.
There are several reasons I think that should be done: in your current model we're losing a lot of EHP on everything due to the lack of a 5% hull, it further specializes the command ship hulls in a way that makes a lot of sense and it widens the performance gap between the specialized command ship bonus potential and the generalized T3 bonuses, making it a more meaningful decision in which to bring.
I am a little confused by the skill point reimbursement. If I had Battlecruisers 5, Amarr and Caldari Cruiser 5 and Gallente and Minmatar Cruiser 4, will I get all four Battlecruiser skills at 5 or just Amarr and Caldari?
Edit: Just saw your above post. Looks like I'd get all 4 at 5 :sun: |
Evenus Battuta
37
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:00:00 -
[75] - Quote
quote:
Allowing for faster tech2 specialization, and slower multi-racial diversification.
How the flying fXXk can this 'faster specialization'?
I will have all battlecrusier V by December and I still I want to say, what can be the point of this change except punishing future newbies? Don't they have enough limitation already?
Does this change even benefit ANYONE except satisfying you own little OCD?
Please deal with it and leave the player alone, CCP
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1103
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:00:00 -
[76] - Quote
Quote:Oracle, Naga, Talos and Tornado: are mostly fine, except for the mobility which is a little too high, and signature radius, which could be increased a bit. Apart from this, little needs to change.
oracle has a double gun cap use bonus. This is is a wasted bonus compared to the other three. Cap use bonus should be a role bonus, since its the role of the ship to be able to use that large laser guns. The BC bonus should be something which makes the ship special.
wasting one bonus attribute just to be able to fire the guns is not cool at all.
a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
2159
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:00:00 -
[77] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Very good news overall, but it sounds like you guys don't want to tiericide the larger hulls. The devblog doesn't mention giving all 'combat' Battleships and all 'attack' Battleships the same amount of slots and roughly the same fitting stats.
The same tiericide principles apply all the way to BS, the blog was talking about roles primarily.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Intaki Kauyon
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:01:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Intaki Kauyon wrote:CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes. Quote:Reimbursement details:
GÇóLet 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.
GÇó 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.
With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.
That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance: If I have currently: BC to V Gall Cruiser to V but Caldari Cruiser to IV Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get: Gall BC to V but Caldari BC to IV ? In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V. You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter. Antoine Jordan wrote:So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch. This is correct.
TY TY. Love you guys. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
179
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:01:00 -
[79] - Quote
Grideris wrote:
Also, I hope more Caldari ships moving over to damage bonus for hybrids doesn't start to step on the Gallente's "TONS OF DAMAGE" motif they have going on.
No, I think it's more of moving towards fixing the Caldari's "NO DAMAGE WHATSOEVER" motif they have going on their "we only want you to use rails too bad they suck" boats.
Bienator II wrote:Quote:Oracle, Naga, Talos and Tornado: are mostly fine, except for the mobility which is a little too high, and signature radius, which could be increased a bit. Apart from this, little needs to change. oracle has a double gun cap use bonus. This is is a wasted bonus compared to the other three. Cap use bonus should be a role bonus, since its the role of the ship to be able to use that large laser guns. The BC bonus should be something which makes the ship special. wasting one bonus attribute just to be able to fire the guns is not cool at all.
They typically have addressed gun cap bonuses with something less pointless (see the new maller for example) |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries
Dark Stripes
347
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
so while im on commandships... the damantion is famed for its awesom tank.. you want the abso to be used in the same role just for lazer users right?
so are you going to buff the abso's tank to be like the damnations? or are you going to CCP the damnation into being as pants at tanking in fleets as the abso?
OMG when can i get a pic here
|
|
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
134
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:02:00 -
[81] - Quote
Interesting ideas. When you rebalance CS and leadership mechanics/offgrid boosting, will you be adjusting the way mindlinks interact with leadership skills? As it stands, mindlinks more or less double the strength of the corresponding ganglinks, making it much more important to have the mindlink plugged in than it is to max out the Command Ships skill or the appropriate T3 subsystem. Are there any plans to shift the emphasis such that mindlinks become less of a must-have for pilots with leadership skills?
Also, will T1 BCs retain the ability to fit gang links, or will fleet boosting become a CS/T3-only affair? |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
111
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:03:00 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Iris Bravemount wrote:Very good news overall, but it sounds like you guys don't want to tiericide the larger hulls. The devblog doesn't mention giving all 'combat' Battleships and all 'attack' Battleships the same amount of slots and roughly the same fitting stats.
The same tiericide principles apply all the way to BS, the blog was talking about roles primarily.
Thanks for clarifying this. Starting tier 1 BC and BS hamstering now.
I accidentally... the bookmark.
How much is it worth? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
2158
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:04:00 -
[83] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Fozzie: Care to comment on the implications that this devblog makes that you guys will be adding four entirely new battleships (3 disruption and an attack?)
Maybe someday, but we have much more pressing balance issues to deal with so we're not going to commit to anything in that regard.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
2163
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:06:00 -
[84] - Quote
Iniquita wrote:I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve?
Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:07:00 -
[85] - Quote
on the command ships/T3
I sincerely hope the links will end up with a AOE range limit maybe with skills/T2 modules increasing the range and cap use maybe.
I would start with 20km range as basic to encourage them to be in LP range so there is genuine danger to them rather than being able to sit at 150km out of range of most things as that would kind of defeat the off grid boosting change and stop T3 alts boosting away in relative safety semi afk.
Also liking the claymore changing to HAMS i assume. |
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
166
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:07:00 -
[86] - Quote
RIP Typhoon. You were my favorite ship, you will be missed.
Everything looks great, though I hope the battleships are getting a better balancing pass than what the blog says. 90% seemed to be "this ship is fine". Even if you aren't changing the roles I hope the HP and slot layouts will be equalized, along with the mineral costs you mentioned.
Also, roleplayer gripe: you're making the Megathron the blaster platform, which is the Hyp's job according to the Info panels. Will need to adjust those.
Love the proposed command ship changes, especially the T3. Is it possible Information links will get looked at during their review? If you give Gallente armor links as planned, I can't see much use for them. I've always though they should be changed to combat support stats. Not straight up damage, but tracking speed, explosion radius, drone speed/tracking, things like that. |
Sinooko
Gespenster Kompanie
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:07:00 -
[87] - Quote
Give the Maelstrom comparable locking range to the Rokh.
Also strip shield booster bonus from battleships. Local reps are completely useless in blobs.
Long Live Eve Online! |
mkint
919
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
balancing does not fix what is broken.
Trying to balance around broken results in even more broken.
a polished turd is still a turd.
-edit: looks like you're trying to remove Gallente's non-drone entry level mission boat. Drones suck. And are getting the nerf in PVE as well. Is Gallente missioning that overpowered, to deserve 2 subsequent nerfs?
Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun. |
Katrina Bekers
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
140
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:10:00 -
[89] - Quote
Typo:
"Here is a picture summarizing the text below as a tl;dr version:"
Should be "above".
____
On the matter: please pretty please with whipped cream on top, do something for the Gallente blasterboats. If you give me a face-melting weapon and no way to be (and survive at least a bit) at face distance, the weapon is useless. Active armor tank and in-your-face don't mix.
There's a reason why most nullsec blocks use generously Abaddons, Apocalypses, Scorpions, Rokhs, Tempests and Maelstroms.
I can't wait to see the day when Megathrons and (bwahaha) Hyperions are even CONSIDERED in fleet doctrines...
<< THE RABBLE BRIGADE >> |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Ev0ke
400
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:11:00 -
[90] - Quote
Sinooko wrote:Give the Maelstrom comparable locking range to the Rokh.
Also strip shield booster bonus from battleships. Local reps are completely useless in blobs.
who said every BS should be usefull in blobs ?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |