Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:18:00 -
[331] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: There aren't supposed to be any specifically shield blaster ships at all. Caldari are supposed to be rails, gallente are supposed to be armour. And neither Cane or Harbi is supposed to be nano-shield fit. And yet they are, because that works better. Shoehorning a ship into one specific fitting ain't nice. A shield+damage bonus for the Ferox wouldn't make it more a blaster ship, than rails. That medium rails suck, and it would be used with blasters, is the module's fault. Same with a tracking+damage bonused Brutix, should just as much be viable with armor (or rails?), if not for the way the game works.
It's better to fix things than give the scrubs what they want. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:20:00 -
[332] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: It's better to fix things than give the scrubs what they want. Oh, I'm full behind any fixes to broken things like medium armor repping below doing it x3, or medium rails.
However, I would still consider forcing a ship for one tank type, and one weapon system of the two it has bonuses for broken as well. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Romvex
423
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:24:00 -
[333] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... this Post with your main |
Friar KIte
Mixed Metaphor
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:26:00 -
[334] - Quote
Prophecy drone boat? Be still my heart~ |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:27:00 -
[335] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: It's better to fix things than give the scrubs what they want. Oh, I'm full behind any fixes to broken things like medium armor repping below doing it x3, or medium rails. However, I would still consider forcing a ship for one tank type, and one weapon system of the two it has bonuses for broken as well.
I don't think so. Only minmatar are supposed to be able to really choose whether they go shield or armour, and even then, only on some ships. If they made armour tanking less bad, and maybe allowed some sort of non-cap booster active tanking, and maybe made some sort of actual downside to buffer shield tanking, then all would be well. |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:30:00 -
[336] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: I don't think so. Only minmatar are supposed to be able to really choose whether they go shield or armour, and even then, only on some ships. If they made armour tanking less bad, and maybe allowed some sort of non-cap booster active tanking, and maybe made some sort of actual downside to buffer shield tanking, then all would be well. And only WINmatar should be able to go maybe shields and short range weaponry while also having the option for armor tanking, or arti, compared to which caldari should be shoehorned into shield + railguns on their turret ships every time?
If one race can more or less manage both shields and armor, short and long range turret systems, why shouldn't two sharing a weapon system manage at least their respective tank and have the option for both short and long range? Because of lore, and theme and whatnot? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Ultimate Gunpower
Knysna Grim Reapers SCUM.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:33:00 -
[337] - Quote
Ok so by rebalancing BCs to make them all viable at the current state of affairs as outlined by the proposed changes to each ship we are having a funeral for the Hurricane, Drake and Harbinger and the new whoop ass BCs are going to be in the following order: Prophecy and the Myrm with close procession of the Cyclone, Brutix and Ferox...
Great job, kill the two favored BCs dead and make 2 new over powered BCs the Prophecy and Myrm :)
CanGÇÖt say I am ever happy when I read these proposed changes because quite simply the bulk of the logic behind it does not resonate with me or make much sense to me.
The Hurricane got whacked bad on the release of Retribution and so did the Drake indirectly with the missile nerf and now these two fine BCs are getting shot in the back of the head and left for dead with the new proposed changes :( great!
PS on the drake I love this part: First you nerf the DPS and now you nerf the tank and agility :) awesome.... So one question, what is left? Nothing On the Hurricane u nerf the power grid so bad and now u want to nerf the tank and agility :) awesome.... So one question, what is left? Oh yes a bit of modest DPS that was always balanced.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:34:00 -
[338] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: I don't think so. Only minmatar are supposed to be able to really choose whether they go shield or armour, and even then, only on some ships. If they made armour tanking less bad, and maybe allowed some sort of non-cap booster active tanking, and maybe made some sort of actual downside to buffer shield tanking, then all would be well. And only WINmatar should be able to go maybe shields and short range weaponry while also having the option for armor tanking, or arti, compared to which caldari should be shoehorned into shield + railguns on their turret ships every time? If one race can more or less manage both shields and armor, short and long range turret systems, why shouldn't two sharing a weapon system manage at least their respective tank and have the option for both short and long range? Because of lore, and theme and whatnot?
Railguns are only bad at mid range because they have to be compared to TE'd short-range weapons, which end up with more damage and 9999x tracking and fit easier. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
738
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:34:00 -
[339] - Quote
it has been stated before but i will say it again: please consider changing the drake's damage bonus. either remove one launcher and add a RoF bonus or make the damage bonus apply to all missile types. you can even make the 25% kinetic damage a role bonus and add a 25% em, thermal and explosive bonus if you like.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:34:00 -
[340] - Quote
Sigras wrote: #1. your 33% number is using a 2/2/1 configuration . . . most people for simplicity sake used 3 heavies which do 285 DPS which means the ship does exactly 33% more drone DPS. Yes optimal configuration is 2/2/1 but that was rarely used.
#2 nobody and I mean nobody uses blasters on the myrm . . . they take cap, cost more PG, have less range, and a non select-able damage type when compared with autocannons. Autocannons were used before and they will be used after this change. #1 the 2/2/1 combo was brought up in the combat cruiser thread and was deemed acceptable for actual use, on this I agree with you though.
#2 on this one imagine the new player who is training Gallente drone ships, starts with the Tristan then moves on to the Algos after that presses on to the Vexor, up to this point all these ships are drone/hybrid combo ships, then moves up to the Myrmidon and is told to train for T2 projectiles for the best use of this ship, after that moves on to the Dominix and its back to hybrid turrets. Most are going to skip training yet another weapon system, making 3? for drone ships, not gonna happen until they start cross training. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Backfyre
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:48:00 -
[341] - Quote
Cool. With +1 low slot, the Brutix can fit even a better shield tank! |
Alli Othman
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 13:59:00 -
[342] - Quote
Tiericide- moar like utilityhigh-icide |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:00:00 -
[343] - Quote
Hello Fozzie.
I'll go down the list :
Prophecy :
This one is pretty good.
Enough PWG to fit what it needs to fit, plenty of lowslots, it should become a usable ship. Thank you for that.
Harbinger :
This one is pretty good too. Despite everyone thinking "He's nerfing the Harbinger, bwaaaah", I think it's a buff actually. Less guns, more damage, less cap usage, minor changes here and there.
The only wrong part is the CPU nerf. Harbingers are VERY HARD to fit, CPU-wise. I would get rid of that CPU nerf and even add 15 or so CPU. I'm serious about this.
Ferox :
I like the changes, but please. Please. At least switch the optimal range bonus to a falloff bonus or something. This bonus is just not usable right now.
I would buff the PWG a bit. Adding another turret to that ship means you have to add the PWG to fit it. +80 PWG would be fine. It would still be quite a tight fit, but that'll do.
Drake :
That's a tricky ship to balance.
I heard a couple months ago that the shield resistance bonus had to go in order to make it balanced. And I agree with that.
Now notice the trend :
Prophecy => Tanking bonus Harbinger => No tanking bonus
Cyclone => Tanking bonus Hurricane => No tanking bonus
Ferox => Tanking bonus Drake => Tanking bonus
Brutix => Tanking bonus Myrmidon => Tanking bonus
I think the Drake should lose his shield resistances bonus. I don't really know what to replace it with, maybe a range bonus or a ROF bonus, I don't really know.
Brutix :
I like the new Brutix. Maybe if you could change the active tanking bonus to either a 10% active tanking bonus, or an armor resistances bonus ? That would be kinda cool.
Myrmidon :
This Myrmidon is boss. Don't touch it, it owns.
Cyclone :
I like this Cyclone very much. It owns.
Hurricane :
I don't see why everyone's getting mad at this. Seriously, I don't.
Ok, it looses the ability to fit 2 medium neuts. Sure, it's quite a change.
But other than that, it's still a good ship.
Actually, if I had only one request to make about that ship, is that considering it will lose one of his utility slots, it should get some PWG back. That will re-allow the Armor cane fit (With 220mms). Just add maybe +60 or something, that'll do.
Currently I see two fits for that Hurricane.
The regular shield-cane still works, you'll just need either a +1% implant or a meta 4 LSE to fit it.
The armor-cane (if you add 60 or so PWG) will work once again, reaching 69k EHP while still having 622 DPS.
Overall, Fozzie, I do like those changes. Some tweaks are needed on the Ferox, the Drake and the Harbingers' CPU, but I'm sure you'll be able to fix that.
Looking forward to the battleship changes ! Please, post the battleship changes ASAP |
Destroyer of Souls
Serenity Prime Kraken.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:01:00 -
[344] - Quote
Well I guess that is it. Come on Harbinger. Come out back . Time to put you out of your misery.
The worst part is, I just trained for a Drake and Hurricane. |
Trash Ice
Black Sharks Division
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:03:00 -
[345] - Quote
Backfyre wrote:Cool. With +1 low slot, the Brutix can fit even a better shield tank! YAY! I want shield amarr and galente
SMT008 wrote:The only wrong part is the CPU nerf. Harbingers are VERY HARD to fit, CPU-wise. I would get rid of that CPU nerf and even add 15 or so CPU. I'm serious about this. I like this man |
Ethan Revenant
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:07:00 -
[346] - Quote
Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
109
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:07:00 -
[347] - Quote
Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse?
0/10 |
Achelois Theodorakis
Knysna Grim Reapers SCUM.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:07:00 -
[348] - Quote
Destroyer of Souls wrote:Well I guess that is it. Come on Harbinger. Come out back . Time to put you out of your misery.
The worst part is, I just trained for a Drake and Hurricane.
Was just thinking of the noobs that chose the 2 more popular races Caldari and Minimtar that were thinking that they would fly the most viable ship class for both PvE and PvP the battlecruiser (its cheap to buy and versitile)... Well quess they will spend the next year training Amar and Gallante :( |
Rancor Kane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:13:00 -
[349] - Quote
meh,
Drake kinetic bonus needs to go, for a overall missile bonus.
Now that it's damage/range/tank/agility/and slots are nerfed, it would be nice to have 1 trick op it's sleaf.
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:16:00 -
[350] - Quote
Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V
Well, EFT says that the current Harbinger, fitted with Heavy Pulses, 2 damage mods and 5 Hammerheads can dish out 693 DPS with IN Multi, 755 with Conflags.
Considering the changes, a Harbinger with 6 Heavy Pulses, conflag ammo, 2 damage mods, will deal 613 DPS.
The current Harbinger (7 turrets, 5% damage bonus) will deal 596.
That kind of DPS looks good to me. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
288
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:21:00 -
[351] - Quote
It doesn't truly strike me as a through rework of former tier 1 and tier 2 battlecruisers. I do however very much like the EHP of the Battlecruisers coming closer to the current tier 1. Some things will have to be taken into consideration though:
*feedback in progress* |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Raiden.
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:25:00 -
[352] - Quote
Fozzie: you are not going to take a look into tier3 BC-¦s this time around? :( I think they need iteration pretty bad, speed nerf or something along those lines. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
110
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:27:00 -
[353] - Quote
LakeEnd wrote:Fozzie: you are not going to take a look into tier3 BC-¦s this time around? :( I think they need iteration pretty bad, speed nerf or something along those lines.
yeah and remove a few turrets from each of them |
Mund Richard
244
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:27:00 -
[354] - Quote
LakeEnd wrote:Fozzie: you are not going to take a look into tier3 BC-¦s this time around? :( I think they need iteration pretty bad, speed nerf or something along those lines. Mund Richard wrote:Raid'En wrote:I though the tier3 bc would have a few changes also, surprised not a number changed. Hint: Combat Battlecruiser topic As in, not attack, assault or whatever CCP calls those. I hope that helps (again). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Black Core Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:30:00 -
[355] - Quote
Ethan Revenant wrote:Upon reflection, the Harbinger would pull through these changes a lot better if the capacitor bonus was some damage-related bonus instead, like tracking or ROF. The DPS bonus is underwhelming compared to current at anything less than (will-be-Amarr) Battlecruiser V. I have never, in my long history of Harbinger flying, had any kind of problem with the Harbinger's capacitor unless I was running my microwarpdrive forever. Sure, this would take it from "never had a problem" to "unforgiving energy hunger", but the Absolution and Abaddon cope just fine.
And, y'know, maybe not hitting the fittings as hard. I'm trying to EFT-dream a heavy pulse armor Harbinger and reality is harshing my buzz. I was so disappointed with the current Harbinger when I gained perfect fitting skills and a sweet PG implant and couldn't upgrade my fit at all. Can we not make that worse?
So minmatar pilot here, but doesn't a capacitor bonus mean you can use more cap demanding crystals that do more damage? -1 turret too with just a tiny DPS increase means that the Harby will be competing for versitility with the hurricane. |
Noisrevbus
378
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:31:00 -
[356] - Quote
The big winners are the drone-boats.
In 2012 we already saw a profileration of drone-boats, and 2013 will obviously continue the trend.
Considering the slaughter of fitting-options, the big winners turn into even bigger winners in their ability to retain tanks and still field projectible damage (should current trends and field meta continue).
The losers (not only because of the tiercide, but due to the double shaving of fitting) seem to be the former Tier 2 ships barring the Myrm, along with any use of BC as makeshift boosters (though hardly anyone used them as such anyway, right?) and most appeal to fit LR-setups on any other ships than the bonused ones, leaving most BC more singular roled.
The Brutix got a slight fix to it's mobility issues, but still remain somewhat clunky. Not because "active armor sucks" as some degenerates propagate at any given chance, but because it's difficult finding any ideal role and any broader use. The Myrm will simply outshine it in almost any concept, because that free cap-less damage is just too good.
Something similar goes for the Ferox where they're currently keeping the incredibly unintuitive resist-reach bonus while the ship won't be able to capitalize on both of them at once anyway. I'd rather not see it change into another "brawler" with a resist-damage pair as there are already too many ships in that narrow speck of gameplay. Though, of course, as things currently stand that would be the most appealing. The best solution would obviously be a range-damge bonus ontop of an "attack" role with better mobility - and the complete removal of the massive mistake called Tier 3 BC.
As long as those ships exist though, having a medium-sniper is absolutely pointless - wether Zagdul can figure out that Tech I L-rails are better than Tech II M-rails or not .
Giving the Ferox the ability to capitalize on both bonuses at once would require an overblown amount of fitting bonuses that just are not reasonable and even then you'd have to question wether the gun-performance or overall slotting would make it functional as a baby Rokh anyway. As it stands it doesn't have the reach, damage or tank to describe itself as.
Keeping the KN-bonus on the Drake is a good thing. We have already gone overboard with the addition of ships with flexible damage types that obscure and imbalance the reason to have different resist profiles. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:39:00 -
[357] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
This to me just shows your disconnect with the game. Have you ever flown a minmatar ship where half of your hardpoints are dedicated to one ammo type (missiles) and the other to another type (projectile) . Yes I understand what you saying "BUT IT'S NOT A COMPLETE 50/50 SPLIT...) this is true, but when you have to choose fitting 5 of one type and 3 of another, then it is pretty dang close to a 50/50 split. Just because it is a 70/30 or 60/40 split doesn't mean that it still isn't a split platform. Seriously? And you are a DEV? No wonder your suggested remedies look like crap to most of the player base.
Rather than try to make the BC a less desireable class of ship, why not give this class a buff, similar to what you did with the Frigs/ cruisers? You are ruining the area of the game where the majority of your players play. BC class ships are the backbone of EVE. If you screw up these ships people will leave in droves, because they grow out of the frigs, there is nothing in between until they get to larger class ships.
Seriously and stop screwing up the cane!
|
Conjaq
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:39:00 -
[358] - Quote
Dear Fozzie, happy to see Battlecruisers getting a helping hand :) So far the changes look good, except for a few wierdoes.
I still dont quite understand what the Active tank bonus is good for? - Granted it's the watermark of the gallente, and i personally think it's a cool bonus. However...
Reading this link; https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=169936
You will see why the resist bonus on ships are so much better than active tank bonuses.
I was really hoping to see a buff in that regard, preferably with this "battlecruiser face lift" ... but it does not seem that, it's on the agenda? - why not?
I was under the impression you would do something with the passive tank vs active tank question, but so far the only reference is from an old dev blog, stating it would be looked at in the near future. But so far you guys have been skipping this question like a cat getting wet. Does this mean youre working on it? or does it mean you dont intend to work on it... please, give us a hint!
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1170
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:43:00 -
[359] - Quote
Although the command links don't see regular usage on T1 BC's, they are a VERY VERY valuable and cheap way to provide warfare links for lower SP players and fleets. The issue in general with any fits involving warfare links has to do with the general state of warfare links right now, which is clearly screwed up.
Utility slots for these BC's to use that link slot is pretty important. Where I am. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
422
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 14:48:00 -
[360] - Quote
Rabble rabble *active tanking bonuses suck - especially armour ones* rabble rabble Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |