Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
647
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 05:06:00 -
[181] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:What about the Pirate frigates/cruisers rebalance?
Should be coming with the faction ship rebalance. (Worm especially needs one) |
Callduron
183
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 07:25:00 -
[182] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:What about the Pirate frigates/cruisers rebalance? Should be coming with the faction ship rebalance. (Worm especially needs one)
Worms should be lowly. A kickass Worm is a contradiction in terms (and also unfair to moles). |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
647
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 08:14:00 -
[183] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:What about the Pirate frigates/cruisers rebalance? Should be coming with the faction ship rebalance. (Worm especially needs one) Worms should be lowly. A kickass Worm is a contradiction in terms (and also unfair to moles).
Thats why in the process they rename it to wyrm instead and make it awesome (should be better than a tristan at least which is currently not even nearly the case) |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
258
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 09:46:00 -
[184] - Quote
I just want to reiterate my concern that all the balancing team seem to focus on is improving the tanking ability of ships.
The '"gank" ability of ships hasn't had any real help for years (with the exception of drone damage mods) and really could do with some looking at by the balancing chaps.
Specifically I'd like them to look at Weapon Rigging, removing the stacking penalties, and perhaps changing the Algid rigs to some 10% per level to heat reduction so "overheat gank" can actually last a while longer.
Right now fights are lasting longer and longer and fitting more tank almost always wins out versus fitting more gank in small or solo fights.
'Tier 3' BC were a refreshing additional option to gank, but they appear next on your *presumably* nerf DPS increase tank list, hopefully you won't ruin their unique profile by reducing their gank.
Ta. |
Yankunytjatjara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
46
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 10:51:00 -
[185] - Quote
Concerning iteration, I was wondering if the rifter is considered balanced now. I have a sensation that the minmatar workhorse became quite outdated after the introduction of the slasher.
Obviously, I am biased, as good old CCP Diagoras made clear: http://twitter.com/CCP_Diagoras/status/185397710394900480
Still... Why would anyone choose it over the faster slasher? The only advantage seems to be the possibility to add a rocket launcher... How about replacing the tracking bonus with a RoF bonus, making it a smaller version of the ruppie? tactical overview option for solo/small gangs: Ship Velocity Vectors - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=599319 |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
152
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 11:17:00 -
[186] - Quote
Question for CCP. What is happening with the Gnosis. Is this scheduled for any time soon, or simply a test server ship? |
Callduron
185
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 13:30:00 -
[187] - Quote
Grideris wrote:Question (and forgive me if this has already been asked): Does the Repair Systems skill reduce the cycle time of the AAR like it does for normal armour repair modules?
AAR is exactly like a regular repper in every way except it boosts the reps when loaded and it's a little under regular reps when dry. |
Callduron
185
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 13:35:00 -
[188] - Quote
Yankunytjatjara wrote:Concerning iteration, I was wondering if the rifter is considered balanced now. I have a sensation that the minmatar workhorse became quite outdated after the introduction of the slasher. Obviously, I am biased, as good old CCP Diagoras made clear: http://twitter.com/CCP_Diagoras/status/185397710394900480Still... Why would anyone choose it over the faster slasher? The only advantage seems to be the possibility to add a rocket launcher... How about replacing the tracking bonus with a RoF bonus, making it a smaller version of the ruppie?
Rifter has higher base shields and armour and gets an extra low rather than a mid. Try an AAR Rifter against other people's Slashers next week, it should take them in a straight brawl. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 14:51:00 -
[189] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Suffice to say, my Dominix will probably still be using the ASB simply because I can dish out more Drone Damage Amplifiers with less risk involved in my Active Tanking.
This is the expected outcome for a lot of armour repairing ships that have 4+ mids - they'll continue to shield tank for pve or pvp simply because it's better.
|
Merouk Baas
561
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 15:46:00 -
[190] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:The '"gank" ability of ships hasn't had any real help for years (with the exception of drone damage mods) and really could do with some looking at by the balancing chaps.
Personally, I disagree; a lot of the frigates, destroyers, and cruisers they've rebalanced thus far completely sucked for DPS before and now they do not. They have made a lot of ships usable (with damage, not just tanking). They were in a sorry state before.
What they have NOT done is improve the gank capabilities of the top / most popular ships.
And as far as "tank" improvements, they seem to be limiting the improvements to just the capability to burst-tank for a few cycles and then you're done / dead. Sort of like an oh-**** button. People keep it pressed all the time, which is why they're forcing 1 minute cooldowns, but all in all it does give the ability to react in a fight, a little bit. |
|
Nomistrav
Maverick Conflict Solutions
151
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 17:42:00 -
[191] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Nomistrav wrote:Suffice to say, my Dominix will probably still be using the ASB simply because I can dish out more Drone Damage Amplifiers with less risk involved in my Active Tanking. This is the expected outcome for a lot of armour repairing ships that have 4+ mids - they'll continue to shield tank for pve or pvp simply because it's better.
Just think it's very bizarre how Shield Tanking and Armor Tanking are basically switching roles with Shield Active starting to look more practical than Armor Active tanking. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
290
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 18:12:00 -
[192] - Quote
Fozzie, somewhere in the retribution 1.1 ship rebalancing thread u said there will be a change to some of the battlecruisers ship type ID's (as seen in the overview contact type ID) stating that there will be some new ones. was wondering if you have info on what their type ID's will actually be in order to amend the xml files for all the custom profiles we use in advance.
tyvm m8! |
ElDiabloRojo
Colossus Technologies Project Wildfire
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 21:10:00 -
[193] - Quote
Maybe instead of Combat Battle Cruiser and Attack Battle Cruiser you should rename them to Combat Heavy Cruiser and Attack Heavy Cruiser (or Heavy Attack/Combat Cruiser) |
Aroye
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 22:18:00 -
[194] - Quote
The question is:
"In 1.1 the Drake is trading one launcher for a doubled damage bonus, gaining slightly increased potential damage and lower ammo use at the expense of less damage flexibility."
Doen't that mean the drake will in effect, have the fire power of 12 missle lauchers? The math is (7-1) x 2 = 12 . I don't get how double damage bonus of 6 luanchers would slightly increase the potential damage. Someone please explain this to me. |
Mund Richard
329
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 22:43:00 -
[195] - Quote
Aroye wrote:The question is:
"In 1.1 the Drake is trading one launcher for a doubled damage bonus, gaining slightly increased potential damage and lower ammo use at the expense of less damage flexibility."
Doen't that mean the drake will in effect, have the fire power of 12 missle lauchers? The math is (7-1) x 2 = 12 . I don't get how double damage bonus of 6 luanchers would slightly increase the potential damage. Someone please explain this to me. In this context: 5% per level = single 2*5% per level = double
In other context, just as you showed, it can mean vastly different things. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam A Point In Space
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 00:00:00 -
[196] - Quote
The proposed changes to Armour Plates looks good.
It enables player choice and fitting options ... which a huge 'sheenerism'
|
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1170
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 01:27:00 -
[197] - Quote
Thought I'd stop by and thank you guys for changing the Ferox into awesome. Full rack of Neutrons with no fitting mods makes me happy. I am also looking forward to the revamped Brutix. Keep up the great work, there's so many useful ships now that I never know what to fly on any given night. If you're not already part of a bloc, this is the best guy for CSM8. |
Captain Africa
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 09:21:00 -
[198] - Quote
Howdy !
Firstly CCP Fozzy I want to thank you for all the hard work you guys are doing , it must be a hella of a job trying to satisfy everyone at the same time , this tug of war between Eve Ships and races has been going on for years now.
However ......
Doode , you realize that to fit a ship and get the max out of it takes dedication , time and money....I just get the feeling you are penalizing Vets that can fit ships to the max by removing ship slots...I mean take the cane for example, to have a descent tank , gank and those two neuts , you really have to have a F***k load of sp in the right places.
If a newb gets ganged by a more superior player ...the first thing HE WILLL SHOUT IS , ....its OP! I donGÇÖt want to create the impression IGÇÖm crying bucket loads of tears, cause I am ... but really keep the slots on the ships and just reward players thatGÇÖs willing to put the miles into ships ...to have a **** hot drake or caine.
I mean implement a skill that opens up a slot when trained to lev 5 or something ....or a combination of skills like the race cruiser skill to 5 land maybe elite certificates in core skills.
I think everyone would love to be able to choose a ship they like and say IGÇÖm going to train 6 more months or a year to make this my preferred tool of destruction....and customize the ship according to players abilities...that my friend is something called law of the jungle...you cant go against that lol
It really feels like the ships are losing their individuality and overall appeal and btw so does the races they are all becoming the same. I mean take the shield tanking vs armor tanking...Since I started playing Eve my elders told me :
- never mix your tank ... - shield tanking is good for guerrilla war fare and - armor was better for fleet PVP and PVE...in general.
I like where your taking rebalancing donGÇÖt get me wrong ....but reward players that has been supporting Eve for years now ,that shows dedication toward their trade...cause you know what , NEWBS COME AND GO....VETS are they guys with 4-5 accounts and makes Eve their preferred life style....
|
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
844
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 10:22:00 -
[199] - Quote
Another great SMA post.
(Not) "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Captain Africa
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 10:36:00 -
[200] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote: Another great SMA post.
(Not)
This is my view , not my alliances point of view ....This pattern of SMA hate from you seems to becoming more frequent in the forums ...... Im starting to get the feeling at some point in time SMA smacked your punk ass bum and your still hurting. He he bro ... look when you were still figuring out how to install Eve I already had my OWN alliance in 0.0., so next time you have a problem with my ideas or posts take it up with me and leave SMA out of the mix. I am asking nicely now, ok |
|
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. Casoff
124
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:16:00 -
[201] - Quote
Thanks or the Post Fozzie.
As I mentioned in Battlecruiser Reballence thread, I'm a little worried the Drake will loose it's appeal aside for Blob warfare.
but'we'll see what the future brings.I hope there is a tool, that also shows the how a ship is used.
Anyway, although not always agreeing, thanks for the work you guys doing.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
345
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:47:00 -
[202] - Quote
Great post - It's weird to se you keep pulling the skill change always to "the next patch" though... A shame tier 3 battleruisers will still be around until summer in their existing form but I guess I knew that hehe
Good writing and happy patching when time comes
Pinky |
Mund Richard
330
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:47:00 -
[203] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:As I mentioned in Battlecruiser Reballence thread, I'm a little worried the Drake will loose it's appeal aside for Blob warfare. HAM Drake doesn't look bad even for smallscale imho: 1) it has 6 mids, unlike any other BC for a sturdier tank with full tackle, and your choice if buffer/active, not bonus-forced. 2) on a scram+webbed BC, it will consistently do full damage with the most destructive ammo it has available (Brutix manages more dps gank fit, but only at sub-scram ranges, and with a weaker tank).
I suppose it needs help to catch something first, but then... Dunno, will have to wait and see how it turns out. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
290
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:38:00 -
[204] - Quote
love how some of the changes to modules in the latest release of the Patch Notes have been filed under UNCATEGORISED half way down the page when theyre clearly without a shadow of a doubt changes to modules and therefore should be in the Modules section!
is there something ur changing that we all use that you'd rather we glossed over, thinking that stuff in the uncategorised section is not of interest to most players?
how do you justify lumping the changes to passive resists of ALL active shield and armor hardeners in with typo's and localisation issues?
its reminiscent of the old work ethic CCP used to have that got u guys into soooo much hot water not too long ago! as a customer of yours this feel underhanded and worries me. |
darius mclever
50
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:47:00 -
[205] - Quote
so the patch notes now mention ... blockade runners will also be able to fit covert cynos gen ... could we get a 2nd high slow for all blockade runners in this case? right now only minmatar could really use the covert cyno gen without giving up the cloak. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
152
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:55:00 -
[206] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:love how some of the changes to modules in the latest release of the Patch Notes have been filed under UNCATEGORISED half way down the page when theyre clearly without a shadow of a doubt changes to modules and therefore should be in the Modules section! is there something ur changing that we all use that you'd rather we glossed over, thinking that stuff in the uncategorised section is not of interest to most players? how do you justify lumping the changes to passive resists of ALL active shield and armor hardeners in with typo's and localisation issues? its reminiscent of the old work ethic CCP used to have that got u guys into soooo much hot water not too long ago! as a customer of yours this feel underhanded and worries me.
Because they are the result of an uncategorised bug I imagine. As the bug was the cause of the change. Rather than part of module balancing efforts. |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 13:06:00 -
[207] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Because they are the result of an uncategorised bug I imagine. As the bug was the cause of the change. Rather than part of module balancing efforts. "Bad" design decisions ages ago leading to another decision undervaluing four skills trained up to a month (or longer) now counts as bug? Or I missed something. Anyone who trained them to V just because he has invulns on his PvP fits, sees use from those SP no longer. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4126
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 13:10:00 -
[208] - Quote
Those notes ending up in the Uncategorized section is indeed an automatic response to a flag set on the bug report that got us talking about the issue internally.
It really should go in the Modules section, like you said. So I'll poke the community guys and see if it can get it moved. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
291
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 13:26:00 -
[209] - Quote
thanks Fozzie for poking the right people and Eterne for getting his hands dirty and fixing the patch notes =)
<3 |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
648
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 13:30:00 -
[210] - Quote
Captain Africa wrote:
Doode , you realize that to fit a ship and get the max out of it takes dedication , time and money....I just get the feeling you are penalizing Vets that can fit ships to the max by removing ship slots...I mean take the cane for example, to have a descent tank , gank and those two neuts , you really have to have a F***k load of sp in the right places.
If a newb gets ganged by a more superior player ...the first thing HE WILLL SHOUT IS , ....its OP! I donGÇÖt want to create the impression IGÇÖm crying bucket loads of tears, cause I am ... but really keep the slots on the ships and just reward players thatGÇÖs willing to put the miles into ships ...to have a **** hot drake or caine.
I mean implement a skill that opens up a slot when trained to lev 5 or something ....or a combination of skills like the race cruiser skill to 5 land maybe elite certificates in core skills.
I think everyone would love to be able to choose a ship they like and say IGÇÖm going to train 6 more months or a year to make this my preferred tool of destruction....and customize the ship according to players abilities...that my friend is something called law of the jungle...you cant go against that lol
It really feels like the ships are losing their individuality and overall appeal and btw so does the races they are all becoming the same. I mean take the shield tanking vs armor tanking scenario...Since I started playing Eve my "elders" told me :
Remember effort = reward
dual neut cane was too versatile, as was the drake. Those ships were the most nerfed BCs while the others stayed relatively similar or were buffed. It's not about SP, it's about each ship's PvP value. Also, veteran players have an advantage of skills, while new players can compete by specializing. This is how it should stay, there will never be cases where veteran players can have more slots on their ship than noobs, the gap would be too high for fairness in PvP.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |