Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3309
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:23:00 -
[61] - Quote
tgl3 wrote:With regards to the AAR - "Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper" Does this also include when being "fuelled" by a cap booster? If so, that means that cap boosters only fuel the increased rep amount, right?
This is correct. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Brie DeMarllene
University of Caille Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:23:00 -
[62] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:I'd like to know the reasoning to limit the AAR to one per ship while not limiting ASB in the same way, "it's different" is not a reason in and of itself and there needs to be a balancing logic behind it. Not saying I'd want to have more AAR per ship but rather that I'd like ASB to be limited to 1.
Also fitting those AAR in combination with those new rigs is going to be hilariously difficult for some ships to a point where they simply can't do it.
I'll be using BOTH the ASB and the AAR on all my faction/deadspace fitted battleships, so take THAT CCP! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1441
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:23:00 -
[63] - Quote
Not convinced about the plates - I'm pretty sure the reason everyone only fits 400s to frigates and destroyers and only 1600s to anything above that has little to do with the mass penalties, its purely because they are the largest plates that can be made to fit. Tweaking the mass penalties doesn't really affect that. Adjusting the fitting requirements and HP increases they grant might. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
xo3e
Fallen.Society CALL THE P0LICE
66
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:23:00 -
[64] - Quote
lold
so :ccp: are you even playing your own game?
armor is so bad not because reps rep nothing or because buffer is insufficient.
the problem with armor is generally because majority of armor boats cant do shet against kiting and it follows that you cant escape shet when you need to. and all your super-slaved-buffers-with-bonus-legion will not help you.
im talking about solo-to-small-scale warfare. Signature removed. Navigator |
WNT TK
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:24:00 -
[65] - Quote
Does this change by extention mean that passive tanking shield rigs are getting velosity penalty? becouse one way to balance is to boost one thing, and other is nerf its counterpart. I think that this small boost wont get armor tanking anywhere near shield-tanking unless they get some good old nefbat treatment.
On the megarep subject - well thats what you should have done to asb. Now its too late and making armor-tanking module that needs both capbooster AND another rep to be able to compete with 1 asb, when you can fit 2 or even 3 of them( asb that is) is bullshit. Once again i understand desire only to boost stuff, but that would only get you so far. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3309
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
xo3e wrote:lold
so :ccp: are you even playing your own game?
armor is so bad not because reps rep nothing or because buffer is insufficient.
the problem with armor is generally because majority of armor boats cant do shet against kiting and it follows that you cant escape shet when you need to. and all your super-slaved-buffers-with-bonus-legion will not help you.
im talking about solo-to-small-scale warfare.
If only we were letting you reduce the mass penalty of all your plates by 25%, and for active tankers remove the speed penalty on the rigs? That would be great maybe we should do that. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2907
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:25:00 -
[67] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus Maybe that's the reason you should just take the other sizes out of the game and buff the ones people actually use instead . . . People prefer these sizes because when you're fitting for buffer you want the most buffer you can fit, and these are the "biggest" you can get on in the relevant ship classes. People put MSEs on frigates and LSEs on everything else, leaving SSEs to have not that much use really, once your fitting skills are up. You might as well buff SSEs for no apparent reason just because nobody uses them either. The problem here is that the "biggest" buffer modules we have are fittable on less than the biggest classes of ships, so you have pretty wide range where nothing else makes sense to use. Of course that's going to make them look "overused."
I disagree. More diversity is always welcome rather than changing everything into the same old ****.
I have always liked the 200mm plate + small repper layout on the rifter, but it have never worked on larger ships and with the buffs to other ships that layout is currently underwhelming. Maybe its time for small plate + repper layout to return again and this time be useful to larger ships too. Would love to see how well a cruiser with 800mm plate + medium AAR will perform. Seems like it will have enough burst tank to survive fights and the AAR allows it to gain advantage over longer fights and rep between battles.
Alice Saki for CSM! |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
738
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:26:00 -
[68] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ahhhhh, so THIS is what you had in mind for active armor tanking Fozzie.
i still say 10% to armor rep per level would be better then 7.5% and also making the skill afffect incomming RR would make it usefull for fleets...
because all the plate skill did was make the abbadon that much better... (please see 25% to armor resist vrs just an active tank bonus)
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:27:00 -
[69] - Quote
So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? |
iskflakes
291
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:28:00 -
[70] - Quote
These changes seem very balanced and thought out. I don't solo armor PVP much, but I like the sound of this anyway. - |
|
Heimdallofasgard
Apex Overplayed Coalition Fatal Ascension
398
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:30:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Heimdallofasgard wrote:Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits: FitAnd that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :( These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits.
FREAKING YES! I took 10% off the total PG amount by accident >.< Kick Heim... MATE |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3323
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed?
It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.
There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.
You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:30:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:xo3e wrote:lold
so :ccp: are you even playing your own game?
armor is so bad not because reps rep nothing or because buffer is insufficient.
the problem with armor is generally because majority of armor boats cant do shet against kiting and it follows that you cant escape shet when you need to. and all your super-slaved-buffers-with-bonus-legion will not help you.
im talking about solo-to-small-scale warfare. If only we were letting you reduce the mass penalty of all your plates by 25%, and for active tankers remove the speed penalty on the rigs? That would be great maybe we should do that.
What about the difference in fitting between extenders and plates? |
1Of9
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
93
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Heimdallofasgard wrote:Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits: FitAnd that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :( These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits.
I am very disappointed by your answer. Clearly you do not play the same eve online rest of us do :( |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
738
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction. There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it. You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.
how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare?
its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR!
presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships! At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Alice Saki
28218
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:33:00 -
[76] - Quote
Two step wrote:So much for catching up to you in likes....
I am great big Cheater Happy Bunny is Happy ^_^ |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:33:00 -
[77] - Quote
WNT TK wrote:Does this change by extention mean that passive tanking shield rigs are getting velosity penalty? becouse one way to balance is to boost one thing, and other is nerf its counterpart. I think that this small boost wont get armor tanking anywhere near shield-tanking unless they get some good old nefbat treatment.
And then the balance of what is functional and what isn't either waffles from shields to armor, or everything becomes equally useless, which is a pretty screwed up definition of 'balance'.
So yes your proposition will probably run Minmatar into the ground in one way, and then do the same to Caldari in another way because then they'll all have the speed of plated battleships, when plated battleships are now moving faster than them given that Caldari base speeds are already lower than everything else by quite a bit.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3323
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:34:00 -
[78] - Quote
I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.
At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3323
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:34:00 -
[79] - Quote
fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction. There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it. You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission. how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare? its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR! presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships!
And also super overpowered. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
386
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:36:00 -
[80] - Quote
All aboard ancillary train!!1
CCP Fozzie wrote:Why not just buff all armor reps?One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Any comments on state of sustained tanking? Honestly, I'm afraid that we are approaching the state where cap-using active tanking will be pretty limited in ability even if we are exclude neuts from equation. Aren't we there yet though?
Other than that, I think I like active tanking rigs changes and ofc plate changes are nice. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
116
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.
At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.
I hate you so much. |
Blood Valentino
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:37:00 -
[82] - Quote
Man, this is a cool change, however im tired of people crying about rigs breaking their individual fits. Learn to adapt, or go play world of warcraft |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2748
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:38:00 -
[83] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.
Do you have any plans to take a look at the Proteus' cargo bay with the armor tanking subsystem? It doesn't have enough space for normal cap boosting, let alone AARs. IIRC there are several other Gallente ships that are expected to active tank and have relatively tiny cargobays.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
738
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:39:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction. There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it. You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission. how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare? its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR! presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships! And also super overpowered.
elaborate please...
how is it super op in compassion to 5% to resist bonus which makes internal/external/ehp better while the rep bonus only makes internal reps better?
edit i could even live with a reduced effectiveness for incoming RR but you do have to agree there is a disparity between internal rep bonus and resist bonus... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2748
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:39:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:And also super overpowered.
If it is super overpowered, how do you explain resist bonuses?
-Liang
Ed: I don't mean to get in your junk over this. Just that resist bonuses affect EHP as well, which would mean that they'd still be preferred over 7.5% rep bonuses. 1/.25 = 1.33333, 1*(.075*5) = 1.375. The difference in "effective received rep" isn't very great. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3337
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:40:00 -
[86] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission. Do you have any plans to take a look at the Proteus' cargo bay with the armor tanking subsystem? It doesn't have enough space for normal cap boosting, let alone AARs. IIRC there are several other Gallente ships that are expected to active tank and have relatively tiny cargobays. -Liang
We're taking a look at cargoholds and making adjustments as we move through the classes. It's no coincidence that the Brutix gained cargohold in the BC changes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Klown Walk
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
198
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
You should do the same change for the asb. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:41:00 -
[88] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote:Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits: FitAnd that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :(
Rig increases rep PG use by 10% (without rig skills!), which would bring your fit to 51.35/52.5
You should drop the t2 nos for meta 4 anyways, costs 1m less and saves 1 PG |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:44:00 -
[89] - Quote
I was kinda hoping you'd buff armour tanking by nerfing buffer tanks
Tank power creep is awful |
Dracoth Simertet
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
29
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:45:00 -
[90] - Quote
I for one enjoy an extended period of teasing followed by a happy ending, also these changes look good. Any idea when we will be able to check them out on the test server?
o7 Drac |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |