|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
54
   |
Posted - 2013.02.19 23:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
I no longer seem to be able to hover over a ship, wreck, or otherwise in space and get the same info I'd get from clicking on it. Is this intentional or a bug? |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 12:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Cyclone sucks.
I couldn't even break the shield tank on an Armor Tanked Harbinger with HAMs.
DPS is ANEMIC at 300 DPS with 5 HAMs and 3 BCU's, its maximum potential... stops at 300 DPS? Seriously? For a battlecruiser?
My Enyo does better numbers.
Tank is already **** since the ASB "nerf", which nothing was done to address, so they're pretty much weak in tank and dps now.
When they did turret DPS at least they were applying solid DPS numbers.
Fix this crap, seriously. Give it the 6th missile slot it SHOULD have.
It has no redeeming value anymore.
300 dps, really? Hmm.
Your missile skills need work. I can crank 420 out of it. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 12:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Epsilon Bathana wrote:Moving multiple items to container in case of insufficient space is broken. Steps to reproduce - Select multiple items - Drag drop them in the inventory to a container which has sufficient space for some, but not all items - Result before patch: numerous items have been moved until the container is full. Message appears indicating space needed to move additional item and the current available space in the container (updated for the items actually moved) - Result after patch: None of items have been moved. Message appears indicating space needed to move additional item and the available space in the container before the operation was performed. Eg Quote:10.00 cargo units would be required to complete this operation. Destination container only has 108.87 units available <--- WRONG
Not completely true. The move operation pre-patch would usually get hung up on something that wouldn't fit and just fail there, regardless of having space left for other items past that point. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 13:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bubbleboylol wrote:[quote=Ghar Atu'ur]Personally, I think what was done to Battle Cruisers is shameful. The Battle from the name was ripped off ...only cruiser is left now.
Simply makes no sense. Battle Cruisers gained mass but lost a lot of EHP and turrets. Makes no sense at all. It seems now that with every Patch more and more ships and modules are nerfed. I personally no longer look forward to new updates because the first thing that comes to my mind is what will be nerfed instead of what new and wonderful items and improvements will be introduced. Update by update, my enjoyment of the game is lessening... I no longer am sure if I will sign up for another year.
The Summer Rebalancing of Ships fills me with dread...
I will agree that Battlecruisers, in EVE, have been out of sync with reality for some time. With the exception of the t3 "Attack" BCs, they are really more like Heavy Cruisers (not to be confused with HACs, which in many cases will whip a BC in solo PVP). The "Attack" Battlecruisers are the only ones that sync properly to the real world term - squishy assault craft capable of doing way more damage than they can take, or that their size suggests they should. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 15:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Reiken VonPain wrote:I do like the Idea of rebalancing the battle cruisers and i don't have any issues with it except one. The drake, why'd ya have to take away a missile hard point? that'll make missioning and PVP harder. I don't think the change from 5% to 10% missile kinetic damage bonus makes up for the DPS of an extra missile launcher. Except that if you actually do the math (as Liang has done previously in this thread) it actually does more damage, so what you think is irrelevant.
Less ammo spent for same/slightly higher dps with good skills. If you're using Kin. If you're not using Kin, you're an idiot, go fly a Cyclone. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Consman Truthseeker wrote:Are we not CAPSULEERS!!!
WE ARE DEVO! |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rhazjin wrote:It a question of is this **** even fun anymore. not really is the answer.
Then... quit *****ing and leave already. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Listain Kurvorra wrote:Bubbleboylol wrote::( you screwed my favorite BC in EVE, thanks guys...... Now all i can use is turrets, idc if you can do faster dps with turrets. Thats why there was other ships, like the DRAKE, the drake is the most ugly ship ever why give it launchers..... Now if i want launchers i have to stair at that ugly ass ship all day while i fly....... Not trying to ***** about everything but jesus.... I like some of the other things but why the FEROX......... I understand making roles etc BUT noooo, ferox was a bad ass if you outfitted it right. agree with this as well.
Wait wait wait. You *intentionally* fitted missile launchers to a ship which doesn't get bonuses to them *after* the Drake was introduced to the game?
Grath Telkin wrote:Ewersmen wrote:Just take a high slot ....just change something else that players dont want ....do what ever you like ccp cause i quit ....yes De'Veldrin
like you said if you dont like it move on.....6 accounts gone .....To many FIGJAMS on these fourms FIGJAMS =f**k im good just ask me .....
all you ccp ass lickers shut up and let people have there say __|__ So Long o /
And thanks for all the fish! |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
ByteMan wrote:How about the ability to set a destination without having to open the map? Should be able to do a search and set desto from the info panel.
People and Places window, type in a chat box and highlight > right click > auto link, assets window (if you already have stuff there)...
Jared Tobin wrote:Cajun Style wrote:
DSTs and Blockade Runners have been so-named for a very, very long time.
That is not true. Though I don't make a habit of screenshot'ing everyday, I found one dated as recently as December 2012 which does not list my Crane nor Bustard in between my Battleship, Exhumer, Force Recon, and Freighter (I always list my ships in alphabetical order of ship class/type). Now the list is completely changed, and in my particular HQ station, I consistantly have the same exact ships (aside from the additions of "gift ships" from CCP). (shrugs)
Ahh. A slightly different issue from what you initially said. The ships in question have always been actively referred to as Industrials, Blockade Runners, Deep Space Transports, etc. However, for reasons arcane and largely not understood by us players, CCP separated Blockade Runners from other Industrial ships in the ship-type database, which effects overview and hangar display/sorting/filtering. |
Syri Taneka
Dopehead Industries
Republic Alliance
59
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 03:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:[edit] Oh yeah, one other thing... 10 points for the first person to spot the place where this paradigm still doesn't work nicely, and 50 points for the first person to guess how we're solving that right now 
Carrier/Super, Bomber/Covops, Fleet/Force Recon, Strategic Cruisers. Anywhere that part of a group can fit a special module, and part can't.
Solution? I suspect that the offending ships are occupying multiple groups. In the case of recons, for example: Both Fleet and Force Recon ships belong to the, "Recon," group, while Fleet Recon ships also belong to some sort of, "Coverts," group.
In the case that a given object can only have one group, then I'd expect some dirty-but-simple ship-by-ship hardcoding. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|