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 Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2163
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:11:00 -
[91] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: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?
Shifting parts of the bonuses from the ganglinks to the other skills and bonuses is an option we have been considering but we have not made a decision there yet. It's likely that the gang link stuff will not all show up in one patch.
And we have no plans to remove the gang link cpu reduction bonus from the Combat Battlecruisers (formerly known as tier 1 and 2). Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Dinta Zembo
Snuff Box
77
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:12:00 -
[92] - Quote
So if I have battlecruisers 5 and each racial cruiser at lvl 3, does that mean I'll get every racial battlecruiser skill to 5? You're saying 'if you can fly it now you'll still be able to fly it', but I'd like to know on what level. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
145
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:12:00 -
[93] - Quote
Quote:How the flying fXXk can this 'faster specialization'?
They're removing the need for lower-class skills to IV or V, and this is assuming racial battlecruisers remains the same rank as it does now. Right now, training for a T2 battlecruiser requires: Racial Frigate V, Assault Ships IV, Racial Cruiser V, Heavy Assault Ships IV, Battlecruiser V, Command Ships I (and a slew of support skills, but those prereqs aren't changing).
Afterward: Racial Frigate IV, Racial Cruiser IV, Racial Battlecruiser V, Command Ships I. Cutting out Frigate V, Cruiser V, AS IV, and HAS IV will save you ~30 days of training (actually, I think that's lowballing a little). |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:13:00 -
[94] - Quote
Typhoon
Surely the raven should be more mobile as it's role will be to keep range so the phoon should be slower armour tanking still i hope it won't be changed to shields. its most useful in RR arm bs fleet as caldari don't have armour ships this is rather useful for missile pilots to be useful in armour tanking fleet please don't change this or you will be reducing its role effectively. |
Alara IonStorm
3405
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:13:00 -
[95] - 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. I think they could do the best of both worlds make one the Shield Boost and the other the Artillery Ship.
Maybe tracking, or Falloff on the Tempest, Dmg Bonus and 7 Turrets / 6 Mids 5 Lows. Or give the Shield Boost to the Tempest and make the Mael all Fleet.
|
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:14:00 -
[96] - Quote
Dinta Zembo wrote:So if I have battlecruisers 5 and each racial cruiser at lvl 3, does that mean I'll get every racial battlecruiser skill to 5? You're saying 'if you can fly it now you'll still be able to fly it', but I'd like to know on what level. Has been answered a couple of posts earlier: You'll get each racial BC 5. |
DeltaPhalanx
Hordes Of Belial
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:14:00 -
[97] - Quote
Will the changes to Gang Link bonuses be made "Role Bonues" or will the second gang link bonus supplant the existing second bonus for the Command Ships skill? Ie, would the Vulture's second Hybrid Optimal Range bonus become the 3% to Info War link bonus?
To clarify, each command ship has four bonuses based on Command Ships skill level; will the bonuses to links become native to the hull, plus having four bonuses, or will we have two bonuses and two gang link bonuses? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2163
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:15:00 -
[98] - Quote
Dinta Zembo wrote:So if I have battlecruisers 5 and each racial cruiser at lvl 3, does that mean I'll get every racial battlecruiser skill to 5? You're saying 'if you can fly it now you'll still be able to fly it', but I'd like to know on what level.
To the same level. So yes in that case you'd get all four skills to level 5. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:15:00 -
[99] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: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. I think they could do the best of both worlds make one the Shield Boost and the other the Artillery Ship. Maybe tracking, or Falloff on the Tempest, Dmg Bonus and 7 Turrets / 6 Mids 5 Lows. Or give the Shield Boost to the Tempest and make the Mael all Fleet.
Perhaps make the tempest a larger stabber instead of its heavy ruppy style. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1084
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:16:00 -
[100] - Quote
Hi Fozzie!
On the harbi, the issues I've had with it are CPU and CAP. Not necessarily slot layout or modules. Fill that ship with lasers and you cap out pretty quickly and don't have room for much. Other BC's do this without an issue.
Furthermore, if you want to fix the brutix, prophecy and harbi in one quick stroke, adjust the mass penalty for armor tanking. Potentially the rig drawbacks would solve the issue.
Ferox as a sniper? I always viewed the Ferox as a close range brawler. I believe there are other ships in the caldari line who would make better snipers and need more love than the Ferox (eagle/cerberus) The only reason it's not used is that the drake currently is much more powerful.Not to mention that the T3 battlecruisers will always out perform their siblings as snipers.
Lastly, please pause the fixes to HML's. If you fix the rest of the battlecruisers, you will open the potential for HML's platform ships to become completely obsolete.
Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2166
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:16:00 -
[101] - Quote
DeltaPhalanx wrote:Will the changes to Gang Link bonuses be made "Role Bonues" or will the second gang link bonus supplant the existing second bonus for the Command Ships skill? Ie, would the Vulture's second Hybrid Optimal Range bonus become the 3% to Info War link bonus?
To clarify, each command ship has four bonuses based on Command Ships skill level; will the bonuses to links become native to the hull, plus having four bonuses, or will we have two bonuses and two gang link bonuses?
Very likely they will become role bonuses. Once we're done we intend all 8 command ships to be useful for blowing stuff up and all 8 command ships to be useful for gang boosting. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
179
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:17:00 -
[102] - Quote
ReK42 wrote:in your current model we're losing a lot of EHP on everything due to the lack of a 5% hull
The boost from a 5% bonused link maxed with a warfare link implant is 35.16%, the boost from a 3% bonused ship is 32.34%. I think you can live with 2.82% less ehp.
hint: on an abaddon that is dual plated with slaves and trimarks, it only loses 13k ehp from the original 340k with boosts. That's hardly anything. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:18:00 -
[103] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie I hope vulture will become brawler too op range is pointless on it needs to be a heavy brawling ferox with links also will they both get the same T2 resis and will any be losing resis/tanking bonus in favour of a more attacking dps/range bonus? |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
146
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:19:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
I am disappoint. Have you guys considered the possibility of giving links an optimal range that they work inside of, rather than an on-grid/off-grid distinction. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:22:00 -
[105] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. I am disappoint. Have you guys considered the possibility of giving links an optimal range that they work inside of, rather than an on-grid/off-grid distinction.
An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
160
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:23:00 -
[106] - Quote
These are ambitious but largely good ideas. A few quick concerns:
1. Amarr drone boats. The Arbitrator/Curse/Pilgrim is really the most effective Amarr drone boat hull, and it's effective because the drone DPS is largely incidental to the overpowering ewar and cap warfare. Making the prophecy into a drone boat that is distinct from the myrm but still worth using will basically require making it an ewar/capwar BC, which is awesome, but ultimately you can't make it more effective at ewar/capwar ship than the recon ships without making them obsolete, so in the end you still end up with something that nobody uses. I think you might be backing yourself into a corner there, so I encourage you to consider alternatives. As a side note, the size of drone bay/power of drones trade-off is not really an even trade under current mechanics.
2. The Ferox. Ah, caldari rail boats. Mid-size long-range guns are really not that useable right now, and that might be something that requires a broader fix. They will always be out-ranged and out-alpha'd by big ships and more recently by tier 3 BCs that can fit large guns. Sure, they can hit smaller stuff more easily, but against ships the same size that they are, large guns are always going to do far better. If you have some stat wizard still around, run the numbers on how many people use rail Ferox fits versus blaster Ferox fits now and I'm reasonably sure you'll see a pretty hefty blaster preference. I would much prefer to see the Ferox become a shield version of the current Brutix, in-your-face and heavily tanked.
3. Fix active armor tanking, then rebalance ships with active armor tanking bonuses. You'll save yourselves a lot of trouble.
4. Command ships and bonuses and tech 3s oh my. Multi-bonuses: Awesome. Reducing bonus strength: Yeah, ok, tech 2 links + mindlink + current bonuses can be a little over-the top. Problem: The general philosophy you've mentioned is "make the tech 2s more specialized and the tech 3s more versatile". I think you're going the wrong way with the command example. Making the tech 3s the ship that are able to support more links makes them more role-specialized, while the tech 2 ships now all become ships that are designed to fight AND boost. I think a better approach might be to keep the current command ship model, but leaving the extra link type bonus on the tech 3 and give them a hard cap of one active link (honestly, you could just axe command processors). That way they have versatility in which link they run and more versatility in their battlefield role. The main problem with the current command tech 3s is offgrid boosting combined with their stupidly high bonuses. A tech 3 running 3 links is incredibly fragile and never on the field, making it so they can only EVER one run link will put them back on the field of battle where their versatility can come into play.
As a w-space denizen, I think there's a lot that needs to be discussed with rebalancing tech 3s. The current ideas are...well, worrisome. I like the idea of making them more versatile and less specialized, and to me that means they can do things no other ship type can. Right now I think the best example of that is the cloaky-scanny combat tech 3: It fulfills a totally different role from any other ship, since all the cloaky-scanny ships are either fragile or ewar-based, and none of the combat ships can cloak or scan. That's a much bigger discussion for another thread. |
ReK42
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:24:00 -
[107] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:ReK42 wrote:in your current model we're losing a lot of EHP on everything due to the lack of a 5% hull The boost from a 5% bonused link maxed with a warfare link implant is 35.16%, the boost from a 3% bonused ship is 32.34%. I think you can live with 2.82% less ehp. hint: on an abaddon that is dual plated with slaves and trimarks, it only loses 13k ehp from the original 340k with boosts. That's hardly anything.
It's still a nerf to the boost itself and, in the context of everyone talking about removing off-grid boosting, it should not be taken lightly. Please don't CCP this and nerf a very important mechanic from both ends.
Also, 13k EHP is in no way insignificant, especially when you consider that it's per member. That means that, in a 100 man fleet, you're removing 3-4 entire battleships' worth of tanking. |
Mors Magne
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:25:00 -
[108] - Quote
Ship re-balancing is ok, but more resources should be invested into making new content.
"Walking in stations" should have been adjusted to "walking through deserted space stations looking for loot".
Just re-balancing will get boring. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2169
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:25:00 -
[109] - Quote
Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:
- Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.
- The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1103
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:28:00 -
[110] - Quote
looking forward to on-grid boosters 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 |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
414
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:28:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:As for the gang link nerf discussion. It's extremely clear that the addition of the 5% bonused T3s combined with the T2 gang link modules created a perfect storm with gang boosts. These have become far too powerful and it has become almost impossible to compete without a booster alt. We're not switching command ship and T3 bonuses straight up because 5% links are overpowered, so everyone should probably start getting used to that idea.
Hopefully that balancing will involve a thorough look at the gang links themselves, some of which are absurdly overpowered - Interdiction Manouevres and Evasive Manoeuvres for a start, while the Info Warfare links are relatively useless - although still arguably overpowered, as we'll see when people start flying about with 90% tracking disruptors. Basically, the magnitudes of the bonuses from all warfare links are far too high, even from the unused ones! |
Ogogov
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
29
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:28:00 -
[112] - Quote
Please fix information warfare links, or change them to something more useful. They are currently amongst the weakest type of warfare links primarily because the racial flavor covers ECM, which Gallente generally don't use (because sensor damps suck)
I'm not sure the Mega can stand to lose much EHP, but if it can be made more viable for getting in close, it may work.
The Hyperion/Myrm/Brutix are all victims of the active armor tanking/cap/MWD issue. They'll stay broken until active armor tanking becomes effective or is dropped entirely.
The Myrm/Dominix are victims of the terrible drone AI and the fact that EVE is far more hostile to drones in general than it used to be.
I'm looking forward to how these changes pan out - I hope its enough to me to warrant re-subbing my other accounts! |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
111
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:31:00 -
[113] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote: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 ?
The same guy who said they should be cumbersome in small gangs. I accidentally... the bookmark. How much is it worth? |
Alara IonStorm
3405
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:31:00 -
[114] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting.
You once said the Bantam would take over the Rail Based ship for Frigates before Support Frigates.
With the Merlin and Moa now brawlers the last T1 Medium Rail Boat that could be fixed is the Ferox and you are wondering if you can even make that work with 2 dedicated bonuses. If you give up and make this one a Blaster Brawler that will be it. You are saying you could not pull one solid range based Platform out of Medium Rails with 2 bonuses.
I like to think it is possible to make a Good Mid Range Rail Boat for Caldari skirmish fleets, just sad it wasn't a Cruiser. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
414
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:32:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Ferox and sniper/brawler role Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system. [/LIST]
It'll be tricky to design a "big Moa" without one of the "big Moa" or Moa being obsoleted by the other. OTOH, you'll meet the same problem with the snipey Ferox and the Naga. So, er, good luck! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2169
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:32:00 -
[116] - Quote
ReK42 wrote: It's still a nerf to the boost itself and, in the context of everyone talking about removing off-grid boosting, it should not be taken lightly. Please don't CCP this and nerf a very important mechanic from both ends.
So I want to make clear that we don't have a timeline for when pushing links ongrid will be possible. It won't be happening at the same time as these other listed changes.
Harvey James wrote: An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers
However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres? Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:33:00 -
[117] - Quote
Quote:With the bulk of our work out of the way though, this begs the question, what are we going to do now with all that precious free time?
Uhm, fix bugs? :) Sure you have tons of bugreports in your tracker...
Oh, and please don't kill the AC phoons, those are just awesome with those neuts, in solo, or smallscale. You are making more and more matar boats missile ships, or drone vessels. Every race is fine with its primary weapon, while matar needs to train all drones, missiles and projectiles now to be able to fly decently. Next to this, a lot of matar ships are not really good, like those citadel torps are horrible on the naglfar, they are so horrible that the ingame fitting panel doesn't even consider them in sieged mode. Hels die super fast, they are bullet catchers on the battlefield. Why can't we just use projectiles on matar vessels? This really scares away noobs from flying matar, and takes them a lot of time to train the race up properly.
So, if i have 4 cruiser 5s, 4 frigate 5s, destroyers 5 and battlecruiser5, i'll get all splitted bc/royer skills on 5 after the patch?
Command ship stuff seems nice, tho how come you're going to add a matar bonus to an amarr command ship? using the enemy's weapon? :) Though seeing the minmatar t3 boosting spec, i think it'l lbe pointless to field a matar tech3 booster. Either amarr or faildari. Having both armor and shield at once is less favorable than having information and skirmish at once. informathion+skirmish at once WITH a shield OR armor link is WIN. having shield and armor boost at once... dunno, maybe for blobs? :)
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:33:00 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:
- Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.
yes gallente need more speed!!!! and info links need to be looked at and maybe made to amarr flavour.
- The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
"Big Moa" is the only way to go really sniping is specialized after-all leave it to the Tier3's as they already have this versatility to choose from and will do it much better than the ferox could ever hope to as medium rails/long range turrets are simply too weak. |
ReK42
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:33:00 -
[119] - Quote
Fozzie could you comment on the boost amount issue? Why did you bring it down to 2%/3% rather than keep it 3%/5%? Are you open to considering reversing that and giving the one on-race bonus 5% on command ships? |
Azura Solus
Good Game Quit Qrying
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:33:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots |
|
|
|
|
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 |