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) |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 09:43:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers R O G U E
192
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 09:58:00 -
[1112] - Quote
on a side note and just general question to our devs here, why exactly do plates need grid to fit and also why so much of it, i honestly dont understand why it would need power to use a plate you quite literealy just weld onto the side of your ship pretty much. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
93
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 10:36:00 -
[1113] - Quote
ITTigerClawIK wrote:on a side note and just general question to our devs here, why exactly do plates need grid to fit and also why so much of it, i honestly dont understand why it would need power to use a plate you quite literealy just weld onto the side of your ship pretty much.
Game mechanics. Plain and simple. Every choice you make has to have some sort of cost within the game - for fitting this is in pg or cpu. The bigger the benefit the bigger the cost. |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:10:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:ITTigerClawIK wrote:on a side note and just general question to our devs here, why exactly do plates need grid to fit and also why so much of it, i honestly dont understand why it would need power to use a plate you quite literealy just weld onto the side of your ship pretty much. Game mechanics. Plain and simple. Every choice you make has to have some sort of cost within the game - for fitting this is in pg or cpu. The bigger the benefit the bigger the cost. They have a cost: speed. That's more than enough penalty on its own. Guns and reppers cost tons of PG because they do something that logically requires power, and they don't slow your ship down. If you want to drop seven 1600mm plates onto your ship and turn it into a freighter, with the glacial 60s align time and 50 m/s speed that goes along, then so be it. |
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
315
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:23:00 -
[1115] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:armor is still superior for pvp fleets as it has much higher EHP yealds then shield and saved mids for prop and tackle and/or cap boosters, whilst shield needed ancil booster to minimize the amound of tank slots they lost while also beign able to fit prop and tackle. Situations where armor are superior: capital size -please tells us why
Slaves work on capitals.
1,000,000 DPS tank with 1,000,000 EHP doesn't help you when a fleet co-ordinates 1,000,001 damage on you, despite only doing 50,000 DPS
Also remote repping is more effective, efficient and generally better than local repping. Fitting buffer increases the effectiveness of this even more and allows fitting bigger guns due to low PG costs. |
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
315
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:27:00 -
[1116] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Maeltstome wrote:1.ItGÇÖs MUCH more expensive to run an AAR and 2.The lack of GÇÿNavy PasteGÇÖ means that either large AARGÇÖs have a disadvantage over XL-ASBGÇÖs or, if you are balancing these rep amounts against *assumed* navy cap boosters, small AARGÇÖs have an advantage over small ASBGÇÖs (there is no navy 25 booster). Does this make any sense? Typical example of space-poor. Go ask donations in Jita. Also, people that load vanilla boosters instead of navy into ASB - deserve to die in a fire. Maeltstome wrote:HonestlyGǪ remove the cap usage. I repeat - die in a fire.
I'm not space poor - i'm pointing out an imbalance. And i like how you didn't address the main point: The discrepancy in the lack of availability of navy paste caused by navy boosters being an option in the other ancillary tanking module type.
You should crawl into a hole and die, or better yet, jump out of the window of your parent's attic and hope that your troglodyte body dies from impact damage before you burn to death from the first sun-light you've felt in 40 years. |
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
315
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 12:54:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"?
Pretty much hit the nail on the head, i made a post highlighting this but received no reply. Instead, standard CCP 'quote the guy who asked a stupid question that's already been answered' tactics where employed.
I remember why i don't post in feedback threads, intelligent people raise amazingly well thought out concerns and i'm like "Wow, i never thought of that". Then in the next post CCP are like:
CCPDev wrote:UselessNoobCommenter wrote: HUR DURR WHAT DOES IT COST ON MARKET
Exactly what it says in the OP
And i go all 'Jackie Chan face' Meme on my computer |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3831
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:11:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"?
This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP.
It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence". Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
400
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:14:00 -
[1119] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP. It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence".
I know this is a bit off topic however... I was wondering if you and your team have been looking at the effectiveness of nos and intend on any changes in the near or distant future. Thanks fozzie!
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
89
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:16:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? What's the use of MWD if 1 scram switches it off? |
|
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
315
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:19:00 -
[1121] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP. It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence".
Respect lost. You opened pandora's box and now you're trying to shut it without destroying what came out.
Until Bhaalghorhs, Talisman's, egress rigs and passive tanking are totally overhauled, nothing you trying to impliment will take off.
P.s.
I pay to play this game, and reserve the right to be a d*ck on the forums of my peers. You on the other hand get payed to develop this game and communicate with it's playerbase, and everything you say reflect on CCP as a whole - with that in mind i'd like to point out this is the second time you resorted to under-hand and borderline insulting comments against it's players. No one is ever 100% happy with changes or addition, get over it or get a new job. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
513
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:42:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? Pretty much hit the nail on the head, i made a post highlighting this but received no reply. Instead, standard CCP 'quote the guy who asked a stupid question that's already been answered' tactics where employed.
We already have a form of tanking that does not require cap, it's called buffer tanking.
Making ASBs cap-free was a fundamental mistake that shouldn't be repeated. If true active tanking (and I don't regard ASBs as true active tank mods here) is too vulnerable to neuting, then making Nos more powerful and easier to fit would be sensible, along with introducing a module that offered some degree of immunity to neuting. Cap batteries have this, but they're far too hard to fit, in terms of both slots and PC/CPU, and the effect is not strong enough anyway. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
68
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:59:00 -
[1123] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP. It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence".
If this is the case, you are past it with the ASB modules. Unless all ships are made equally capable of sheild and armor tanking, making it a choice of style over substance, then the 2 styles need to be equivalent. Making shields capable of being both cap free and massive repair and leaving armor in the cold isn't balanced unless you want to make the HP bonus of plates equal to what an ASB puts out during one full load of charges. Then you can swap that repair bonus on Gallente ships for a similar %HP bonus to give parity on the % resist of Amarr hulls.
I honestly think making the Ancillary modules repairers in their own right is the wrong way to go. You disrupt less in the balance of current tanking by making them boost regular booster/repairers. You gain flexability by making them a sort of amplifier because then the boost scales with current modules, you can better control the burst tank timeframe, better manage fuel cost, and you allow for logical use of an emergency ancillary system rather than forcing us to replace our current tank with the new one.
If the issue the ASB is supposed to address is lack of mids for tackle and ewar, then address that. Give extra mids, or better yet give us better tactical weapons to cover those needs, like missles that disable warp drives for a set time (reducable by skills), scriptable targeting computers (highslot version?) that add ewar/tackle effects to turret fire to simulate direct fire on propulsion or sensors, improve ewar drones to usability, move most projected ewar to high slots (mids were supposed to be close or local effects) or other things to relieve pressure on midslots, rather than dirupting the balance of tanking. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3834
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:06:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Just so you all know the Sisi update today put the AARs on the market and fixed all the outstanding defects and bugs we have had reported up to now.
Feel free to go play with them. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
119
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:20:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Making ASBs cap-free was a fundamental mistake that shouldn't be repeated. This is a great point. They made a mistake. SO UNMAKE IT. There is this unstated premise in every CCP post here about the ASB / AAR that the mistakes made with the ASB can't be undone. It's your game. Change it. People told you neut immunity was a problem when the module came out. Now you admit neut immunity is a problem, and you say you're not going to go down that road with the AAR. Fine. No problem. Good move. Mission Accomplished: Learn From Your Mistakes.
So when are you going to fix the problem you created by making the mistake in the first place? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
90
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:31:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Making ASBs cap-free was a fundamental mistake that shouldn't be repeated. This is a great point. They made a mistake. SO UNMAKE IT. It's not in the development schedule. |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
115
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:35:00 -
[1127] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Making ASBs cap-free was a fundamental mistake that shouldn't be repeated. This is a great point. They made a mistake. SO UNMAKE IT. There is this unstated premise in every CCP post here about the ASB / AAR that the mistakes made with the ASB can't be undone. It's your game. Change it. People told you neut immunity was a problem when the module came out. Now you admit neut immunity is a problem, and you say you're not going to go down that road with the AAR. Fine. No problem. Good move. Mission Accomplished: Learn From Your Mistakes. So when are you going to fix the problem you created by making the mistake in the first place?
I do not think cap free ASBs are a total mistake. it is all but impossible to fit any kind of a cap booster on to Shield ships. Armor gets enough mids for prop full tackle and a cap booster on most ships. I think the main disparity comes into play when you realize that armor ships under heavy neut pressure basicly are completely shut down. They cannot shoot they cannot tank and they cannot move. While most shield ships can still tank and shoot under heavy neuts. These days neuts are less of a problem since the 1 cookie cutter ship that everybody has been flying no longer has the ability to fit 2 neuts(Hurricane). We should see less neuts overall in space so it should limit the perceived weakness some. CCP should look into lowering the fitting requirements of nos and maybe cap batteries right now they are challenging to fit to most ships.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
90
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:53:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:I do not think cap free ASBs are a total mistake. it is all but impossible to fit any kind of a cap booster on to Shield ships. Dont you find it amusing that you can fit 2 kinds of boosters, and it operates equally well with both? Sure, merging shield booster with cap-booster is a matter of survival for PVP. But I'd expect the following implementation (example of X-L variant): 1) Activation cost without charge = 1000 GJ. 2) Activation with 800 boosters = 200 GJ. 3) Activation with 400 boosters = 600 GJ. And that 1 minute recharge... so contrived. Anyway, what's done is done. It's really not that awful, also it could be better. |
Lili Lu
676
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 15:21:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP. It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence". Respect lost. You opened pandora's box and now you're trying to shut it without destroying what came out. Until Bhaalghorhs, Talisman's, egress rigs and passive tanking are totally overhauled, nothing you trying to impliment will take off. P.s. I pay to play this game, and reserve the right to be a d*ck on the forums of my peers. You on the other hand get payed to develop this game and communicate with it's playerbase, and everything you say reflect on CCP as a whole - with that in mind i'd like to point out this is the second time you resorted to under-hand and borderline insulting comments against it's players. No one is ever 100% happy with changes or addition, get over it or get a new job. Maeltstome, I think you have misinterpreted Fozzie's statement. I think he was making an oblique and grudging admission that they understand that ASBs have presented a problem. In light of that I think your verbal dressing down is misapplied and inappropriate in itself. I do not see an intended insult in what Fozzie posted.
Now you may get more hackles and decide to dismiss me as a Fozzie fanboy. But I agree with you that ASBs (as well as the continuing existence of op BC passive shield regen) have created a problem for cap warfare in small scale engagements. As another poster has requested, we hope they will review the nos mechanics. Neuting can shut off resist modules but yes if the hp regenerating modules and mechanics of ASBs and passive shield regen can be set up to out tank a hefty incoming dps there is a still a problem.
As for being a Fozzie fanboy I was elated to see the long overdue HM nerf. I was mostly pleased with the work Fozzie, Ytterbium, and the team have done with frigates and cruisers. However, I would not call myself an uncritical responder to their work. They have left some missile and mid slot blessed frigates with an advantage through the use of TDs that neuter turrets but still can't affect missiles. At that level missiles remain without a counter, while there is a single module that can counter turrets quite well without needing any ship bonuses. Also, the BC changes and these new active armor additions leave me unconvinced that shield BCs (drakes, feroxes, and cyclones) won't still be preferable, and that the Gallente active armor rep bonuses have any utility, still. And I've said so in some possibly dickish posts, although I try not to be. But I think accusing Fozzie of insulting players and suggesting he quit his job is over the top. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 16:10:00 -
[1130] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just so you all know the Sisi update today put the AARs on the market and fixed all the outstanding defects and bugs we have had reported up to now.
Feel free to go play with them and continue to provide whatever feedback you have.
Fozzie, I don't know much about programing but after all the frustration of trying to get an AAR on sisi I must ask what kind of effort is required to put a new module on the market?
Also can you please stop seeding limited edition ships? I have had five to many adrestias warp on top of me. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
|
Thallius O'Quinn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 16:50:00 -
[1131] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP. It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence". Best. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
93
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 16:58:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Well, having fitted and flown the brutix round sisi briefly I can confirm that it does handle better with the altered rig penalty, but I'd also agree with the other posters that the pg is way too tight. It's difficult to fit a dual rep tank with ions, neutrons are totally out of the equation. Given that this means you either go lower dps and range and get a tank that's decent but not fantastic, or you go with a tank that's still subpar even with the maar to try get neutrons on, or you go with the asb as so many already do. I'm still going ASB I suspect. The continued vulnerability to neuts is such a major drawback with the maar that it really is still a no-brainer.
So if Fozzie thinks the capless active tanking is a step too far he needs to remove the asb. I've said it already, so have others. It was part of the reasoning behind the way ccp was seeding bpcs from rat drops rather than bpos on the markets. It's time to change the asb to use cap or get rid of it. I don't want the aar buffed to be cap-free, i just want a level playing field. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 17:22:00 -
[1133] - Quote
The reasons given above are why I don't consider the brutix to be ideal for an active tank. It doesn't have the mids or PG to do triple rep. You have to drop the guns down from ions to electrons to fit a third repairer and drop a rig to fit an ancillary current router to fit another cap booster on. Then, you don't have a mid for a web to hold targets to close range so you must go down to null ammo on electrons to reach further out.
I think it would perform better as a plater with a different defensive bonus, or even a second offensive bonus similar to the megathron. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1012
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 17:36:00 -
[1134] - Quote
The Myrm and Brutix are different play styles. The Myrm is the tanker. The Brutix is mostly gank with some tank mitigation. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
85
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 17:50:00 -
[1135] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just so you all know the Sisi update today put the AARs on the market and fixed all the outstanding defects and bugs we have had reported up to now.
Feel free to go play with them and continue to provide whatever feedback you have. So you're still going ahead with yet more skillbooks for armor tankers to be effective as well as two gimped Gallente BCs??
|
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 18:06:00 -
[1136] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP.
It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence".
What point? To be unbalance? Ok. This is my point: Burst tanking gives you high quality survival at extremely situations. What is extremely situation? It is: You taking a tonn of dps from 3-4 source. You rappidly lose your cap because of neuts---> your active resists will going down and your tank will be instantly parish. "But armor tank could fit cap boosters to their mid" Cap boosteries just support armor reps for be cap stable. When you lose capa because of neuts - cap boosters cannot help you.
So what we finaly have?
ASB immune to neuts and this why its totaly cool. Yeah your tank will be less w\o capa if you use active resist (let be honest - all shield ships mostly uses active res) but you still have great survival thing - ASB. AAR get neuts and you die because cant do anything. You rep cycle will be equal to cap b. cycle (cap b. cycle> then rep cycle so...). Why? Because you will have capa for use your AAR only when cap b. give you it. For heavy - 12 sec (or 9,6 overheat, and I still at all didn't mention about fit problems with heavy cap b.). Today i were killd like 3-4 times at Sisi only because cap b. was reloading and i cant use AAR. And ofc dont forget perfect thing. That shield boos bonus ships are matars that use art\auto that dont need cap for shoot. So even totaly neuts and 0 capa cyclone still have his full dps and full tank.
"Balance!" -¬-¬P |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
419
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 18:41:00 -
[1137] - Quote
This armor changes should've been done before the ship rebalance started, it looks like it's back to square one. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
141
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 18:48:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Just so you all know the Sisi update today put the AARs on the market and fixed all the outstanding defects and bugs we have had reported up to now.
Feel free to go play with them and continue to provide whatever feedback you have. So you're still going ahead with yet more skillbooks for armor tankers to be effective as well as two gimped Gallente BCs?? If they're gimped you must not be fitting them right. They seem OK to me, and not overpowered or underpowered. Now the cyclone is probably gimped. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1012
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 19:28:00 -
[1139] - Quote
The capacitor batteries at the medium level actually slide in pretty nicely compared to cap boosters. Is there any chance of further buffing to make them worthwhile? |
Maeltstome
Mentally Assured Destruction
316
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 19:39:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:The capacitor batteries at the medium level actually slide in pretty nicely compared to cap boosters. Is there any chance of further buffing to make them worthwhile?
You're entirely missing the point. Cap battery's dont help against neuts.
"But hey they reflect neuts"
Yea they do, but when a neut boat filled with cap boosters makes it their goal to pump 400m-¦ of cap 800's into some nuets, cap battery's only delay the process by a few cycles at most.
p.s. i also agree with taking limited edition ships off of sisi. It achieves nothing other. Also faction ships. I enjoy the vindicator and machariel to fly, but how can you ever test re-balanced ships if there is no reason to fly something that isn't faction or pirate. of course you will loose to them, they are designed to be superior. |
|
|
|
|
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 |