| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
398
   |
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Myrm - Alright..
Proph - give it a 50 bandwith and a 12.5-15% damage bonus.. makes it more different from the myrm. Also i think it should have missiles.
Harb - I all around like the change, i think it might be loosing EVER so slightly more fittings than it should but i can't tell without efting.. Love the damage buff, and the ability to carry a extra flight of lights along with mediums but.. the greatest thing is the stealth cap buff! Now go and buff nos's so that i can skip using a ******* cap booster.
Ferox - Not sure how i feel about this..
Cyclone - I hate AC's so i like this.
Brutix - Seems alright?
Drake - Seems like it could be losing a bit more?
Cane - same as above? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
398
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 09:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Are people actually complaining about these being nerfed too much?? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
400
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 12:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
kraiklyn Asatru wrote:I dislike that CCP wants everyone to fly the same fit. I want to fly a shield cane. Thats out of the question with these changes. Recently bought a cyclone, hope i can find someone dumb enough to buy it. All in all im happy ive been training amarr, looks like its going to be neccesary. Want to fly gunboats, stop making minmatar a weird caldari hybrid.
Your Cane is fine, stop being bad. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Shasz wrote:
Comparing the Prophecy to the Myrmidon - other than bait tanking, why would I fly the Prophecy?
Same 5 un-bonused high slots (and the Prophecy has to split at least 1 weapon system to use the 5)
Myrm gets superior bandwidth.
For DPS potential, the Myrm wins hands down.
The Poorphecy gets more drone flexibility (bigger bay), and better ability to fit an armor tank and drone damage mods (+1 low slot), but I don't see those as a good reason to choose it if I'm fitting a drone BC.
Because the proph can easily field a 110k ehp tank? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 16:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:Without getting into details, I feel that each race should have 1 ship with bonuses usefull for pve/solo and one with bonuses usefull for pvp. Now this all seems too random to me. The pvp ships should be usefull for short range engagements as the tier III's are more suitable for long range engagements due to their lacking tank.
I don't think tier II battlecruisers deserve such a nerf after their role in pvp is already slowly but certainly being taken over by tech I cruisers.
PVE is **** easy, you don't need a ship designed for it. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
403
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 18:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tennessee Jack wrote:Exterminatus Illexis wrote:fenistil wrote:CCP, Gallente IS the drone, race!What's up with Prophecy having more Drone Bay than Myrm and almost as much bandwith? Also it's a JOKE! that Harb will have more dronebay then the brutix. Suggested Changes to Drone Bays:  Prophecy: 175 Myrm: 225 Harb: 50 Brutix: 75 Funny seeing you here Fen, but the track they were taking with the ships was that Gallente could put out bigger and more drones while Amarr could put out more replacements but not as large. I'm a heavy advocate of the Brutix being able to carry a flight of lights, because as is the thing is vulnerable to... every kiting ship out there. Basically Amarr = Redundancy Gallente = facepunchingmachine .... this is true and makes sense. Harb: 50 Brutix: 75
Harb needs it waaaaay more.. it has loltracking
a flight of lights wont save you from a kiting frig anyways.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
407
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Forgotten N Forsaken wrote:Are you Guys freaking Crazy?!?! Wtf are you doing to the Bc class. Your destroying them.
Cyclone, yes its a good fix
You have Essentially Ruined the hurricane and turned it in to a summer Breeze. The myrm.. Take more tank away from it, take a gun away.. But give it one more heavy? Wtf.. A triple rep Myrm T2 fit. Struggles now to tank 2 cruisers. Its bullshit. My friends fit of 2 caracals both push out over 500 dps each and that's balenced?
Harbinger...You have destroyed it. Its hard enough to fit and to tank it well. and ur killing off some of its PG WTF are you guys thinking?
Active armor tanks I love them personally thats Great bonus, But there Freak in Pointless B/c you guys have put in ASB and there is no way to compete with the rep cycle of those things for an armor tank. Most ships you fight run 2 of them and anyone who is worth there weight knows how to feather the reps so that the other one can be extreamly close to being reloaded.
You guys are KILLING are BC class ships for the most part. There was nothing wrong With the Old Hurricane. ITs counter was the Drake. And lets face it. Drake did much better in terms of out right tank. ANd if people had fit hams instead of heavys. The drake had just as much if not more dps and tank then the cane.
Cyclone and prophcy are Decent changes, but the rest is Really ****.
Dramatic are we?
The BC has been highly OP for years and years.. Imo they aren't being nerfed enough, imo the difference between a BC and a cruiser should be the same as the difference between a dessie and a frig. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
409
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:dexington wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Everybody here who like the drake say goodbye to it, it has now had its final hit with the nerf bat to oblivion. Quit the whining, just because the drake no longer is the obvious choice for everything, does not mean it's not useful. What would you use the drake for?
Same its used for now...
A cheap shield ship that gives good tank/gank for its price.. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
409
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 10:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Karti Aivo wrote:Peter Powers wrote:changing my beloved prophecy to a droneboat?
is that really necessary?
you end up with
prophecy: drones
damnation: missiles
absolution: lasers
3 different weapon systems for the same hull?
seriously?
I see a "rebalance" coming to damnation (and sacrilege) turning it into drone boats. You will hate this idea, it will happen.
If the Sac/veng become drone boats i will go ******* ape... Then first you would hear me cry <_< |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:34:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at.
Talking about the prophecy
I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Talking about the prophecy
I do hope this Proph design doesn't mean you're going to turn the Veng/Sac into drone boats. Seeing how both are incredibly satisfying and badass ships to fly in their current form (Although the later is a bit me due to well.. being an aHac) Edit: scratch that, wrong ships
I personally think amarr should have 1 missile frig and a missile BC
But thats just me |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
410
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 02:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
I agree that missiles on t1 amarr ships don't really make sense..
I just think they would be really good and amarr needs some good stuff =< |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Andre Coeurl wrote:Will the changes give you a reason to fly these BCs insted of HACs or Commandships, if you can? Command Ships? lol... If you're looking for a popular, potent and cheap replacement, CS class is hardly the right thing, dude  Besides, everyone knows current battlecruisers are way too good, so some kind of fix will be of a great benefit for the entire EVE. I think it's pretty safe to assume that all commands (except sleipnir and claymore, which already have +1 slot) will be receiving +1 slot making their total slotage on par with the rebalanced BCs. I think it's also safe to assume that the 6 year old BC HP buff that was missed on Commands (fail much ccp?) will at the very least be partially applied to Commands. These are correct assumptions (bar sleip and claymore; extra high is not the same as extra mid or low), but given the price difference I don't see how comparison of these classes is valid. By that logic we should ask why use Phoons or Pests when Machariel is available. As for CCP much failing, a couple of my favourite quotations: command ships are pretty fine as-is - CCP Zulupark, 2008 Is the Nighthawk really underpowered? - CCP Greyscale, 2011
lol at Zulubadness xD |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:So whats this hint about buffing active armor tanking? Will all modules just get a straight buff you think? Will their be an armor ASB? Will they use less cap or something?
Please god no.. anything but that!
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
415
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 19:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Malcorian Vandsteidt wrote:I apologize for my attitude, but it is within reason:
I am rather upset that my favorite ship the Hurricane is being nerfed into uselessness. It was balanced and fine the way it was there was no need or reason to even touch it buff or nerf wise, it was a perfect ship.
And now as if if nerfing its PG and CPU was not enough (which basically crippled it), your throwing it off the cliff and into the space Junk yard by taking its shields, its armor, its hull and one of its high slots.
I mean really, enough is enough. Stop, put it back the way it was and leave it alone, instead of nerfing the ONLY balanced and worthwhile BC's (The Cane The Myrm, and the Drake) why dont you buff the others to put them in line with them? I mean seriously.
Breaking **** is not fixing ****. Its the exact opposite.
If you continue along this line of development you should refund the skillpoints player spent months and years putting into the Cane. Some people focused specifically on this ship and it is the only one they fly for pvp. By nerfing it like you continue to do you are basically forcing a player to retrain for months in order to get into a ship that is as effective as the one they have already trained for.
For example, I now fly battlships, simply because BC's are no longer worth my time with all the nerfs your giving them and I dont feel like retraining for months in order to "specialize" the others like I was in the cane.
If the above is out of the question, then I seriously suggest you add a function to EvE which allows the player to reset their skill points or to reallocate them. That way when you do stupid **** like this, your decisions do not cripple the player.
Have you EVER tried fitting a harbinger?
I don't get what you're whining about.. You can still fit the ******* world onto canes..
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm starting to agree with those people who say "odd" drone bandwidth sizes are weird an impractical.
I see two possible solutions to this issue, if, indeed CCP believes it is an issue.
A) Lower bandwidth down to 50 M/Bit and increase Damage/HP bonus accordingly.
B) Increase bandwidth and replace damage + HP bonus with a tracking/optimal + HP range bonus.
Also. The Brutix and Myrmidon, like the Drake and the Ferox, sharing the same tanking bonuses should be reviewed.
In the case of the Brutix and Myrmidon. We need to figure out which ship should drop the Active Armour bonus.
The Brutix would benefit from either a Tacking, Falloff or MWD Cap use bonus.
The Myrmidon would benefit from either a Drone control range or a Drone MWD speed bonus.
Last point. All these BC's should have a utility high and the fitting to fill it with a gang link.
Proph should have a higher damage bonus and 50 bandwith
Would also make it far more different from the myrm.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Proph should have a higher damage bonus and 50 bandwith
Would also make it far more different from the myrm.
Considering this, the Prophecy would need a 20% per level bonus to Damage and HP of drones in order for 50M/Bit bandwidth to be equal to 75M/Bit. This would raise some issues of damage application on smaller targets as a flight of smalls would inflict just under 200 dps (Hobgoblin II's) before damage mods. This would mean the Prophecy would have almost no vulnerability to frigates due to very high damage light drones + missiles. I am not averse to this option however. I would Suggest that the Myrmidon would be different however in that it would field 125M/Bit bandwidth but switch it's drone bonus to a 10% per level Drone tracking, optimal range and HP.
I think 15 would be more then enough
The applied dps would be far greater since ogre's are lol
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm starting to agree with those people who say "odd" drone bandwidth sizes are weird an impractical. Odd bandwidth can work with stasis drones in a very limited number of cases - when smaller drones are fast enough to catch the target and slow it down, then larger drones overtake and give it a hug. It could also work with neutralizing drones, if they had different cycle time - much the same as neut modules... but they dont. The only thing that would really justify that wierd bandwidth is sub-capital drone control unit.
I do hope you're joking.. Stasis drones slow ships down about as much as asking them nicely.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
432
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 13:26:00 -
[19] - Quote
This thread needs more devposts... Seriously 1 in 60 pages i a bad ratio. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
433
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 14:27:00 -
[20] - Quote
You don't put ogres on an unwebbed/scrammed target unless you really REALLY want to lose your ogres. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
441
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:55:00 -
[21] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. I'm working on the next version of the BC changes now, but in the meantime two quick things to update. Since we've announced it in CCP Seagull's Devblog, I can let you all know that the Combat BC balance pass is scheduled for the Retribution 1.1 patch on February 12th. To reiterate, the skill split will not be happening in this patch. That change is currently scheduled for our major summer expansion. We're also in the process of putting these changes on a public test server for you guys to play with them. Expect more news on that in the next day or so. There will definitely be changes between this posted design and what releases in 1.1, but for now the test server will have the same versions as this thread's OP. When we update the designs we'll get those onto the test server as well asap. Will there be a nerf for tier 3s on feb 12th as well? whats wrong with them?? they are fine the way they are.
....
If you think that you're an idiot. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
441
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 16:09:00 -
[22] - Quote
Extraterra wrote:Zagdul wrote:
Brutix:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% Hybrid Turret Optimal Range (or tracking)
Fixed Bonus:
99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M (+1), 5 L, 7 turrets
Fittings: 1200 PWG (+50), 435 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4000 / 4000 / 5000(+117)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12250000 (-1,000,000) / 8.1s (-0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7
Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 305 (+5)
Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
I agree with this ... Better then a useless armor rep bonus
Stop trying to make it a ******** shield blaster kiter.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
462
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 11:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:
The Prophecy is a nice and solid ship. It suits the role as drone boat and T1 command ship perfectly, however: Without a laser bonus this ship will be a monstrous bait ship and people will use it for bait only...
Why not give it drone bonus and a bonus towards guns - give it another hi-slot instead and just 6 lowslots. Throw the resist bonus after the Harbinger and fix the wrong 10% damage bonus. Dont get me wrong I love the Prophecy as it is now, but you need to keep focus on lasers for this beauty even as a drone boat. Give people a reason to do it...
Amarr ships without lasers tend to be the best ones.. Unless you're blobbing.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:34:00 -
[24] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus?
Because as it is it will be ******* win with AAR's?
Massive reppage, decent cap, facemelt dps and SPEED TO CATCH CANES |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
490
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:There is no point talking about the Harbinger. The fitting requirements have been and will still be too tight.
If the main Amarrian gunboat can't reach the level of the ArmorCane, then something's wrong.
Buff its fitting requirements so that it can at least fit a 1600mm T2, Heavy Pulses and a MWD without any fitting mods. Then maybe cancel the CPU nerf and that should do.
Who the **** says you should be able to fit all the tank you want, mobility and gank?
I'm fine with the harb needing a ACR to use Heavies as long as canes need ACR's to fit 420's
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I also found the fitting on the Harbinger very restrictive. It's worse than before.
The Brutix needs to have its active tanking bonus replaced by something else (falloff bonus). The Myrmidon is already quite capable in this area and makes the Brutix' active tanking bonus redundant.
Stop trying to change every god damn ship in the game into a fecking shield kiter ffs. Brutix will be one of the best god damn BC's to come out of these changes/armor changes. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Fozzie - Any chance you could check to make sure all of those can fit a gang link without completely and utterly gimping the rest of the fit with 3 fitting mods or something? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 10:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We eventually want links to be something you use on field As I've stated repeatedly restricting links to be on-field only is a bad idea. Fleets can't all always be on the same grid at the same time. The solution to this is that fleet links arent exclusive to the fleet booster, anyone can activate them who have them on their ship, however if multiple people have them active, it still only counts as a single boost overall (prioritizing highest skill boosts) Thus your fleet could be fighting on two grids and have drakes with a siege link on both grids and thus get boosts quite easily on both. I am pretty sure they are decoupling boost link modules from fleet booster type boosts (since they will be on grid only) so this is probably fairly easy to do...
Or people could HTFU? ^^ |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 13:08:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:10%/lvl for harbinger -1gun its a dps boost.
-1 guns from myrmi and same bonuses as before it's a nerf.
This is the balance ????
WTF ? All CCP developer lost his brain ? Another drone boat nerf. Bravo.
It got drone bandwith and bay. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
502
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 20:54:00 -
[29] - Quote
I want the Maller to get the harb treatment =< Lose a gun, more bonus, 1 utility
Would make the cap inherently better while letting you fit a nos
Then if they buffed nos's it might even not cap out. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
502
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 22:02:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:I want the Maller to get the harb treatment =< Lose a gun, more bonus, 1 utility
Would make the cap inherently better while letting you fit a nos
Then if they buffed nos's it might even not cap out. The Maller is pretty great as it is...Don't think it needs any more buffs.
Confirming that you are bad.
The Maller has terrible cap and terrible tracking.. And has 3 mid slots so it has to choose between being able to hit stuff thats close to them and having enough cap to shoot their guns in the first place..
Its a T1 ship that more or less only works in armor cheepfleets. And that is only because it has a decent tank and can use scorch.
Its the worst combat cruiser by a wide margin if you look at its over all application.
If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
503
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 13:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great If a Maller has terrible tracking wouldn't it be a bad idea to be close enough to be in Nos range? I'm asking as a legit question cuz I have ZERO experience using lasers. I would of thought that a cap booster would be almost mandatory on a laserboat, leaving only 2 slots for prop and a point.
Maller is to slow to dictate range, thus at some point your target will be closed to you.
The Maller tracks other cruisers decently as long it has a web
If nos was buffed and the change i suggested done the Maller could fit a web instead of a cap booster. It would probably still not be very good because lasers are kinda lol at everything other than doing the scorch thing. But it wouldn't be the pile of **** it is today.
Johnson Oramara wrote:
So my corp has been under wardecs constantly and there's nothing we can do about it, not even fight back...
Me and all my corp mates are all caldari pilots and used to run L4's happily. We have decent skills for caldari ships and missiles only.
At beginning we had little success but now our enemies learned that we can only fly caldari ships and use missiles decently and very poor skills on gunnery they just slap 2 kinetic hardeners on their ships and since drakes has been the only option against them there is nothing we can really do against them now. Our other damage types dps are laughable and with their hardeners we barely tickle them with kinetic missiles too.
This proposed change to drake will make it even worse. Is it really intended that you can counter these ships so easily?
If you know they fit kinetic missiles use other missiles... Even with the massive lack of damage bonus you will be hitting them in a completely untanked hole
Its not their or CCP's fault that you are being predictable. (Note that with the proposed changes you could train to use a cyclone in 2-3 days and give them a nasty surprise with their kin hardeners?) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
504
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 20:54:00 -
[32] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: If you want to keep up the "Amarr have few midslots" thing you need to make up for it somehow. And seeing how amarr are supposedly the cap warfare race i'd think a slot for nos would be great If a Maller has terrible tracking wouldn't it be a bad idea to be close enough to be in Nos range? I'm asking as a legit question cuz I have ZERO experience using lasers. I would of thought that a cap booster would be almost mandatory on a laserboat, leaving only 2 slots for prop and a point. Maller is to slow to dictate range, thus at some point your target will be closed to you. The Maller tracks other cruisers decently as long it has a web If nos was buffed and the change i suggested done the Maller could fit a web instead of a cap booster. It would probably still not be very good because lasers are kinda lol at everything other than doing the scorch thing. But it wouldn't be the pile of **** it is today. Johnson Oramara wrote:
So my corp has been under wardecs constantly and there's nothing we can do about it, not even fight back...
Me and all my corp mates are all caldari pilots and used to run L4's happily. We have decent skills for caldari ships and missiles only.
At beginning we had little success but now our enemies learned that we can only fly caldari ships and use missiles decently and very poor skills on gunnery they just slap 2 kinetic hardeners on their ships and since drakes has been the only option against them there is nothing we can really do against them now. Our other damage types dps are laughable and with their hardeners we barely tickle them with kinetic missiles too.
This proposed change to drake will make it even worse. Is it really intended that you can counter these ships so easily?
If you know they fit kinetic missiles use other missiles... Even with the massive lack of damage bonus you will be hitting them in a completely untanked hole Its not their or CCP's fault that you are being predictable. (Note that with the proposed changes you could train to use a cyclone in 2-3 days and give them a nasty surprise with their kin hardeners?) Well like i said previously shooting unbonused missiles has low dps. And my bad for being predictable but my concern is how easily they can overcome the whole damage bonus of the ship and dps with any other damage type missiles is just a joke, i mean it's good to have counters but isn't this way too limited? I mean other weapons cause atleast 2 different damage types that you need to tank for. Now if they fit 2 kinetic resists and adaptive one they have effectively countered my dps while using autocannons themselves able to shoot my weakest resists. And yes, cyclone might do the trick but why isn't it limited to explosive damage bonus only then? Why the caldari hate? So i can't fly the ships i like and trained for effectively?
Dude, it doesn't matter what ship you fly... If you only fly one ship its really freaking easy to set something up to kill it.
If you only flew harbingers all you would need is a semi fast ship with one TD to kill you for example... |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 23:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Crazy KSK wrote:
it was a straight up brawl
I was at optimal the whole time had minimal angular velocity(moving away from him) and was overheating for as long as possible he was 2010 I'm 2008 so skills probably in my favor
still lost with the drake about 20% shields left
I'm pretty sure that most people are gonna agree with me that the ferox should be the more brawly ship of the two
now the problem is that the ferox has to fit that web in order not to get kited reducing its tank by so much that its dps advantage is nullified, but what change would allow it to ditch the web for more tank?
Increasing the range bonus to 20% would allow it to use blasters with null up to long point range, reducing the need for a web and allowing it to come close to the drakes tank by fitting a second lse
giving it the ability to fit 2 t2 extenders without fitting mods would also help
they are also equally slow giving the ferox a bit more speed might also help further
yes sadly with all those changes the ferox would probably still not match the drake fully in brawling power as well as still not reaching the same dps at the same range
alternatively you could of course change the drake to a BC sized caracal which I would like very much, but the majority of people probably not ;-)
that way we would have the usual brawler vs kiter spiel, if the kited gets caught it will loose if the brawler gets kited it will loose
You are seeing this the wrong way IMO, and your suggestion to increase the bonus to 20% instead of 10 is the symptom. Why don't you try a more kity fit with one or two TE in the lows instead of all these MFS ? With only one TE, you reach 417dps@10,8 + 11,3km with null. Fitted like your Drake was, you can even kite him, and that's playing the strength of the Ferox : the range bonus. Because be honest : considering the bonuses, the Ferox is not the brawler one, even if you'd like it to be so ; whereas this Drake not a kiting ship at all (rage HAM : 15km range ; CN HAM : 20km range ; should your target go away from you, you won't hit her). PS : and come on, you can't ask for full takle, kiting range and brawl dps AND ehp !! Have to agree with this. 2 TE's 1 MFS would probably make it better however, the real brawling ship in between Ferox/Drake is definitively HAM's Drake imo. Fit 250's, some tank, mfs (thx range bonus) and faction point (28km) on that Ferox, kill that Drake like a pro with no chance of hitting you. Even if the PG difference in between Ferox/Brutix still makes me look like this  (c'mon the shield ship having more pg than the the armor one supposed to fit pg hungry modules? -no wonder it's so crappy hehe)
Medium blasters aren't supposed to be viable at god damn point range >_<
TE's seriously need to be nerfed to put a stop to all this nonsense.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
508
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 07:37:00 -
[34] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Have to agree with this. 2 TE's 1 MFS would probably make it better however, the real brawling ship in between Ferox/Drake is definitively HAM's Drake imo. Fit 250's, some tank, mfs (thx range bonus) and faction point (28km) on that Ferox, kill that Drake like a pro with no chance of hitting you. Even if the PG difference in between Ferox/Brutix still makes me look like this (c'mon the shield ship having more pg than the the armor one supposed to fit pg hungry modules? -no wonder it's so crappy hehe) Medium blasters aren't supposed to be viable at god damn point range >_< TE's seriously need to be nerfed to put a stop to all this nonsense. 250's are medium rails, not blasters.
At least one of those guys was talking about blasters to point range, was to lazy to go back and find his post :P |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
517
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 16:42:00 -
[35] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
I have hope that medium rails will be looked at soon and be brought into line (possibly to be followed by beam lasers). When that happens that will add even more versatility to the Ferox and perhaps give us a real reason to occasionally choose a rail Ferox over a rail Naga for certain situations.
(I'm not dissing what has already been done with rails in general. Other than the mediums they are in pretty good shape, but mediums are a tough one.)
Medium rails are fine.
Its long range ammo on short range guns + TE's that overpowered.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
518
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 11:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Fallen Angel III wrote:GJ dickslamming the BCs, Frigate changes where awesome, Crusier changes where good, Battlecruiser changes are bad, I see a pattern? Battleship changes ******* terrible? Battlecruiser changes are bad
Its because you want epic buffs instead of balance work.
Battlecruiser changes are fine.
So far, i hope tier3's get nerfed as much as they should |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
534
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 12:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The fact that I replied quickly to the certificate question doesn't mean it's necessarily any more important than other questions, just that it is easy and quick to answer. In regards to the armor rep bonuses on the Gallente BCs, I posted earlier in the thread that I recognize that there are strong arguments to be made on both sides and that we are weighing the options. That statement is still valid. The desire for more varied tanking methods among the Gallente Combat BCs is a perfectly reasonable one, although the Brutix and Myrm do both stand up as very fun ships with distinct flying experiences in their current forms as well. Although we are getting close to release I don't want to lock these ships in place for 1.1 until I've had another discussion with some of the other developers internally. I want to make sure we are all on the same page with how the feedback and iteration process works. I will always take all reasonably argued feedback from these threads into consideration and will strive to use that feedback to produce a better product. I am convinced that the process we go through here leads to better design outcomes than anything we could ever do by ourselves internally and that the expertise of the community is a crucial resource that should never be ignored. However taking feedback from the community is not the same thing as always doing exactly what every individual person wants. At the end of the day we need to make decisions based on the best interests of the game as a whole and sometimes I may disagree with some of you on some things. It is also important to reiterate a few other things mentioned earlier.
- We do not intend all bonuses to be made equal, we balance the ships as a whole and part of that is recognizing that some bonuses are going to be more powerful individually than others and planning accordingly.
- We also have no intention to fire and forget with our ship balancing. No matter what form these ships hit TQ with in 1.1, we will be evaluating use in the 'wild' and making more decisions based on that information.
I can definitively state for the record btw that we won't be making the Cyclone an armor bonused ship for Retri 1.1. The cyclone's bonus alongside the extra speed, utility highs and more generous fittings collectively serve to create a ship that is useful in its own right, distinct from the Drake, and fits well with the overall thematic pattern of Minmatar ships. I'm Down wrote:The devs flat out said a while back they won't listen to most player criticism b/c we clearly don't now what we are doing and just want to moan.
They forgot about the fact that they clearly don't know what they're doing and that they have a 6 year recent track record to prove most of that. You know I always have time for you.
Don't take away my theoretical dual rep brutix that i will probably never actually fly because links =< |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
534
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:47:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.
High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible. That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.
I agree with this
But its a bit tricky from a design point of view isn't it?
Because you would feel that with such a drawback should come ample power, but its hard to do that without making the weapon OP in certain situations.
What you REALLY REALLY need to do to fix lasers and laser boats is 1. 2. and 3. remove scorch from the equation entirely, too many ships rely on it entirely.
The entire design philosophy with amarr is kinda faulty, Their weaknesses are cap stability, speed and tracking... And at the same time they have very few utility highs (And if they do whoopdedoo since Nos is kinda ****) so their only choice is to use webs and cap boosters.. But a lot of the ships don't have the midslots you allow you to do that since "Amarr have few mids" (Give the punisher a 3. mid for crying out loud <.<) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
535
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:20:00 -
[39] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.
High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible. That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. You have the right idea for once. I hope you can ignore all the 'feedback' the dps plebs give you. Removing cap bonus has not made good ships so far: abaddon can do it because all BS seem to require cap boosters for some reason, and that covers it, but punisher and maller are both trash, because on proper ships, midslots are life. I think amarr ships should mostly all have the bonus. Btw, TEs, T2 ammo and drones. This had better be happening sooner than you guys doing rebalancing on every ship in the game. Stuff is broken.
I dunno, i'm getting used to my drones constantly switching between AB/MWD and never doing any actual damage.
Things that laser boats need imo.
The cap bonus
Utility high/nos buff
Maybe a midslot or two?
t2 ammo rebalance (Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
536
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 18:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . . Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection) the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range. Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster? TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Laser boats generally don't have the mids to have both cap and web.
Blasters are better in scram range in every single way as the tracking on all lasers is ****. And blasters use less than half the cap that lasers do.
That said the majority of the problem with amarr ships are the ships/slots/bonuses synergising badly with the WS |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
542
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 12:39:00 -
[41] - Quote
SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work.
You're an idiot
Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
544
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 18:29:00 -
[42] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. You're an idiot Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. EDIT: Also the rep bonus isn't wasted on the brutix The brutix looks brilliant atm, at least on paper. On paper is all well and good but this isn't a paper-based game  Seriously, it's on sisi, go and try it. I did. It's not a good ship as it stands. There is absolutely no reason to choose it over the myrm for the one narrow role it can perform. Fozzie claimed the myrm and brutix were different to fly - but I don't see that at all. They are identical in every tactical respect with the myrm being better in every conceivable way except when the target has a lot of smartbombs to wipeout the drones. That is the one and only occasion the brutix would be better. Fozzie, please, so many have pointed out that this is a bad rebalance of the brutix; many have suggested alternative bonuses to the current rep bonus; all agree that the brutix is going to be next to useless as it stands (pg, cpu, bonuses, sig radius). Even an option to use autocannons has gone with this change - we lost a turret for a bigger weapon bonus; this may be good for fitting but it's rubbish for versatility. Why is there such an enormous reluctance to do something about this? If we're missing the reason why we're all wrong please could you explain it? Throw us a bone here, for the life of me this makes no sense in an other wise reasonable balancing effort.
The cap is fine, the tank is good, the speed is good, the dps is great
The only bad thing about it is that its not perfect for blob warfare and i count that as a plus.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
544
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 23:46:00 -
[43] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Nikuno wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:SamuelK wrote:Way to hit the Harbi with the Nerf Hammer so hard that its completely worthless now. Also, way to go keeping the Hurricane on the top of the heap. Ferox buff is neat. Brutix nerf is not. A whole lot of meh to my favorite ship class. Good work. You're an idiot Harbinger is better than it was and the brutix is as well.. EDIT: Also the rep bonus isn't wasted on the brutix The brutix looks brilliant atm, at least on paper. On paper is all well and good but this isn't a paper-based game Seriously, it's on sisi, go and try it. I did. It's not a good ship as it stands. There is absolutely no reason to choose it over the myrm for the one narrow role it can perform. Fozzie claimed the myrm and brutix were different to fly - but I don't see that at all. They are identical in every tactical respect with the myrm being better in every conceivable way except when the target has a lot of smartbombs to wipeout the drones. That is the one and only occasion the brutix would be better. Fozzie, please, so many have pointed out that this is a bad rebalance of the brutix; many have suggested alternative bonuses to the current rep bonus; all agree that the brutix is going to be next to useless as it stands (pg, cpu, bonuses, sig radius). Even an option to use autocannons has gone with this change - we lost a turret for a bigger weapon bonus; this may be good for fitting but it's rubbish for versatility. Why is there such an enormous reluctance to do something about this? If we're missing the reason why we're all wrong please could you explain it? Throw us a bone here, for the life of me this makes no sense in an other wise reasonable balancing effort. The cap is fine, the tank is good, the speed is good, the dps is great The only bad thing about it is that its not perfect for blob warfare and i count that as a plus. Is that the myrm or the brutix? It could be read as either. That's the problem; they're the same ship with one tiny difference - and the myrm is better in every situation except when facing smartbombs. This is not what I expect from balancing. It's not what the majority of people posting seem to want either. And you also pointedly ignored the issues I raised about this myrm/brutix twinning.
Myrm relies on ogres to do dps and ogres are ****.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
549
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 15:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
Your can is still really good, stop being bad.
Not cap dependant,
Selectable damage types
good tracking
great projection
more free mids because it doesn't need a booster
The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
550
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 16:55:00 -
[45] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Your can is still really good, stop being bad.
Not cap dependant,
Selectable damage types
good tracking
great projection
more free mids because it doesn't need a booster
The cane's strength has never been tank/gank. It will remain really good in the hands of people that know what the **** they are doing. I believe the cane will still see use in niche roles but I also see it being more unforgiving compared to some of the other BC's when it comes to it's use. But the point of my post is to temper some of your points. 1. The cane's cap has been reduced sharply which will affect it's propulsion, point and defense, even if the weapons do not require cap just about everything else does. 2. T1 ammo does allow for some choices on which split damage type you wish to apply but this does not apply to T2 ammo and given the 10 second reload times it is not very practical to be switching ammo hoping you hit a resist hole large enough to be worth the lost time on target. 3. I will agree the tracking is a plus of the AC weapon system but it has nothing to do with the Cane hull persay And what if you are trying to use an arty cane then your statement becomes rather false. 4. Projection in to fall off means lower dps and requires that you keep at range, the cane is barely faster than some of it peers now and also is more sluggish than it used to be. 5. Your booster point does not really jive as that is dependent on what fit one is looking at, especially in the realm of shield vs armor. Which the Cane being a jack of trades and master of none as it is, could go either way. But back to what I first said, I don't believe the cane changes will make them non existence, there will be those pilots that can use the cane to their advantage for what niche they wish to fill. But even as your statement implied it will be the good pilots that can make something happen while using it. Given that, I feel it will take more effort to use a cane than say a drake or a harby properly as to wither or not that is a good thing is another matter. *shrugs*
1. If your cane is shield fitted and thus has a cap reliant tank and you're in neut range.. Your cap really won't be your biggest problem.
2. Which is why you switch ammo before fights and only during if you really have too.
3. long range weapons have bad tracking? how odd...
4. No by good projection i mean you have a huge range where you do SOME damage. (assuming AC's, if arties your projection is magnificent)
5. a mid you don't need a capbooster in is great both for shield and armor ships.. For shield its more tank, for armor its more controll.
The cane will no longer be by far the best..
But if you think its going to be bad you're terrible.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
555
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 11:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
Vos Flam wrote:
+Faster cap recharge rate (and lower avg cap per second?)... nice but we use a mid slot to fix that now.
+More mass. I really fail to see how this is a bonus.
+Drone bay by 25... yea cause nothing screams drone boat quite like the Harbinger? Worthless.
It actually has more dps now and a fair bit better cap due to losing a gun and gaining a bonus.
The mass is silly i'll give oyu that
And yes thats terrible.. being able to have both mediums and lights obviously holds no value... none at all.. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
559
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 08:59:00 -
[47] - Quote
Aglais wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The Drake in particular is not a ship I am particularly concerned will be too weak with these stats. I fully expect it to remain the most popular BC by a large margin and if anything it is probably a little too powerful with this version. I hope you realize that you're bragging about how the rebalancing was a complete failure. Mission Accomplished. I'm saying we leaned on the side of caution and are taking advantage of our ability to iterate to ensure that we don't overnerf. Of course you can read into that whatever nefarious motives you want.  Too late for that IMO. I suppose that in the case of BCs vs. Cruisers this'll not really be a horrible thing, but in the BC vs. BC group I'm really unhappy about how the Caldari ones in general were handled. IMO the Ferox is underwhelming in every way but tank (making it Drake II), and the Drake is... Well it's pretty much the same as before but even worse with non-kinetic missiles. Will people actually use the Ferox ever over a Brutix or Myrmidon? For any reason?
Well i'm just spitballing here but i do believe a ferox might be better for shield fleets... And fleets in general since it has better range and good tank..
All in all the ferox is good, its not spectacular, but good. Now if only medium rails were as awesome as small rails. |
| |
|