| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Pottsey
   |
Posted - 2005.09.11 08:46:00 -
[91]
I just noticed this in 9th Sep patch. "Skill bonuses will not stack upon themselves. Hotfixed during 9 September downtime."
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Santiak Arkian
|
Posted - 2005.09.13 00:27:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: Aleis
Edited by: Aleis on 11/09/2005 05:52:49
Slowly updateing the first post as i get to the things, basicly have to go back and check everything over again. Any one that has armoured spec, and or information spec please check and see if the buggs have been worked out of those please.
Okidok, did some testing with both duration and cap useage modules for shield and armour.
Armour modules still does not effect Remote Armour Repair modules, this has been tested in a gang with one fitted on both myself and one fitted on a gang-member, no change occured. Seeing as siege modules show no sign of giving any bonus to transporters either.
The bug must be in the Damage Control and Rapid Repair modules, and lies in the fact that they state under description that remote armour reps would recieve a bonus, which therefor must mean, that they are not meant to effect assist-repair modules. :)
|
Remedial
|
Posted - 2005.09.14 11:28:00 -
[93]
http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=skills6ip.jpg
About 3 days left on Squad Command IV, and then 27 or so to Squad Command V. Add to that another 14 days for Cybernetics V, and hopefully by then mindlinks and command processors will be released so we can see what max-statted siege warfare mods will do for a fleet
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 05:13:00 -
[94]
Interesting choice of going with siege warfare, imho they need to do a rebalancing of the bonuses, some stuff like the sensor booster lock range bonus should boost the resolution too. The sensor integrity also looks like its in need of a boost, although there is no real way to test it until the combat log gets fixed and we have some way of logging EW over a large number of tries. TBH for the # of skillpoints im pumping into these, the flagships better be ****ing awesome. Also I personally disagree with your choice of bringing siege warfare specialist to 5, imho it would be better to have all of them at 4(for the doctrine skills that are in the db), but thats just my opinion.
Btw im sure you guys have seen the new mining leadership skills in the db. Do you think we could sell our services in empire by running the modules as part of a gang? To make some isk back on these that is.
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 14:18:00 -
[95]
Also I personally disagree with your choice of bringing siege warfare specialist to 5, imho it would be better to have all of them at 4(for the doctrine skills that are in the db), but thats just my opinion.
I would actualy disagree with you on this point, due to the way taht the bonuses work with multiple people. Since it wonly takes the hiest of them all if you have two-3 people going your less likely to need your skills at all if your at lvl 4 thus your skil points really are useless, but if ou have it at lvl 5 then you will be the one to use your skills making them very useful skill points.
|
Guardian Alpha
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 15:31:00 -
[96]
Quote:
Do you think we could sell our services in empire by running the modules as part of a gang? To make some isk back on these that is.
Yes and No. Offer your services as a mercenary that can offer decent protection against NPC/player pirates with the additional bonus of the mining module.
------------
|
Remedial
|
Posted - 2005.09.15 20:17:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Aleis
I would actualy disagree with you on this point, due to the way taht the bonuses work with multiple people. Since it wonly takes the hiest of them all if you have two-3 people going your less likely to need your skills at all if your at lvl 4 thus your skil points really are useless, but if ou have it at lvl 5 then you will be the one to use your skills making them very useful skill points.
Yeah I think specialization is key too, especially since we can only plug in one mindlink at a time. I'd rather be really good at one specialty like siege or information and give 22.5% bonuses on modules so my fleet can gain the very best benefits in each category.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.17 06:13:00 -
[98]
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was busy with stuff RL. The reason why I said specialization isnt exactly good as that with the command co pro's it opens up alot of cross discipline strategys. Furthermore armored warfare wont help at all in fleet combat, an extra invulnerability field wont help when your taking the fire of 10-15 battleships. Furthermore diversifying with having them all @ lvl 4 will enable flexability in situations with a high degree of specialization. Having that level 5 bonus for armored warfare is only an extra 3% with squadron warfare 5. Or with the mindlink implant an extra 4%(hypothetically). To me at least the flexability is > than specilization.
With Squadron warfare 5
Siege warfare 5 = 10%x1.5 = 15% 15%X1.5(mindlink implant) = 22.5%
Siege warfare 4 = 8%x1.5 = 12% 12%X1.5(mindlink implant) = 18% + Armored warfare 4 = 8%x1.5= 12%
Is 4% extra resistance worth 31 days of training? I think not, especially when that 4% could better be spent boosting BOTH shield and armor resistances in the same amount of time. Kinda catch my drift?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thought. I'd like to hear more on CCPs ideas on the future of leadership skills. Weve been hinted at advanced leadership with possible negative effects. However I'd like to ask if CCP was going to take this in the direction of a second battle "behind the scenes" kinda like ECM with jamming and counter jamming. Ie, I'd start using XXX leadership skill and the opponent on the other side would use XXX skill to counter its effects. Or rather as a supplement to the current battles as they are currently. Both directions have their merit, I'd just like to hear from a dev thats working on these stuff as to what they intend as the future of leadership.
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.09.17 11:34:00 -
[99]
i understand what you mean, but the image i get from Aleis, Remedial and of course yourself aswell, is that we all want to specialise in this tree - as such a spec to lvl V can be discussed, and 3% isn't that big an increase. None the less, when we start to see command ships, which will probably/hopefully have a bonus to each races main 2 GA types, those meager 3% will become larger :)
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 01:54:00 -
[100]
WOOt We've reseived the ISD Seal of Aproval and been stickied to the Module Information thread, good work everyone.
|
Remedial
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 03:18:00 -
[101]
The extra few % aren't just for one module, though. You could run a high-level complex with a bunch of Ravens/Scorps and use all three siege modules for 22.5% more resists, 22.5% better cap efficiency for shield boosts, and 22.5% less duration between boost cycles. Or fly with a group of AFs/Inties and use all three Skirmish modules, etc.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 03:57:00 -
[102]
The only module set that doesnt fit that theory however is information warfare... The modules there give very "application" specific bonuses outside their niche roles. Perhaps it should be relooked at by CCP? However it goes to say that the difficulty in testing these modules also contribues to their lack of usage.
|
Remedial
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 04:20:00 -
[103]
Yeah I really wonder if we're going to see a lot of people go for gang skills. It's a HUUUUUGE timesink - we're talking people with adv. cha IV and adv. will IV and big implants still devoting months and months to these skills (leadership V, cybernetics V, base warfares to V, spec warfares to V, squad command V, wing command to whatever), to say nothing of the skills that T2 BCs will likely take (racial cruiser V, battlecruiser V, spaceship command V).
We gang module leaders will probably be few and far between.
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 05:52:00 -
[104]
ôIt's a HUUUUUGE timesink - we're talking people with adv. cha IV and adv. will IV and big implants still devoting months and months to these skills (leadership V, cybernetics V, base warfares to V, spec warfares to V, squad command V, wing command to whatever), to say nothing of the skills that T2 BCs will likely take (racial cruiser V, battlecruiser V, spaceship command V).ö
ItÆs not that bad as you might have the skills for other reasons. I already have spaceship command V as I need that for my other ships and cybernetics V which I need for my current implants. As for +Charisma implants they are pretty cheap often way under 100 million
That leaves 1 month 17 days for me to max out the two skills at level 5 that are out now. The only question and time sync for me is will wing command be usefull and do Ineed it and battlecruiser V if we need it, which right now we donÆt.
I like the fact we know have something to use high Charisma on.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 06:47:00 -
[105]
I'm just scared of that flagship skill... 400million currently is its price currently in the db.... and wing command 5... better start saving those iskies...
|
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 06:58:00 -
[106]
Well, count me is as a gang-moduleer. It's actually been my aspiration sine I first read of them. Although I guess I shouldn't have minimized my charisma. Argh! Oh well, spilt milk and all.. ;)
It will be a bit harder for me, I'm at 1.4 million skillpoints at the moment.
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 07:02:00 -
[107]
well its a relatively "new" career option. So in this it gives newer players a chance to get ahead and surpass many older players at some things.
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 15:35:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Aleis on 20/09/2005 15:35:58
theres merit to both arguments on the specialization, but honestly the way Eve skilling works you can do both, for the time it takes to train one spec skill up to lvl 5 you can get all the others up to lvl 4, so for reletive pocket change in skill time, do both.
but my argument for specialization goes to not diversification for small tactics needs. but Looking at the modules in more a fleet engagement, where there could be multiple pilots running gang modules, and if one Specialist shows up with armoured warfare to lvl 5 then your lvl 4 skills are completely unneeded.
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 16:14:00 -
[109]
The thing is in fleet engagements, siege and armored warfare are almost 100% useless... if there are 10-15 tempests targeting you, all the shield boosting/resists in the world wont help you. Your going down :P Combined with lag.... its not going to make much of a differece... although once I got out with 4 structure.... w/o the leadership skills i'd have been toast lol.
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 21:08:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Aleis on 20/09/2005 21:11:48
Actually i would disagree true when your called prime you will be going down but add 15% to shield booster rate with specialization and another 15% resist to all module plus better when/if you get the implant and thats nothing to scoff at and even when your going down the extra second or two that it saves one ship save the Fleet a lot of time when they are trying to walk through your ships,
Also don't forget with lag the modules are even better as tehy are passive bonuses that will be in effect the entire time your at hte battle field so theres no lag issues with turnig them on from one target to the next.
And don't forget your Tacklers with them runing evething they can on Tackling and skimping on tank the boosts to them will be life savers in many circumstances. Specialy the boost to sigradius and afterburners.
With 100+ pilots in a fleet engagement even a 1% effectness of the fleet means 1 more person staying alive and another battleship that won't have to be replaced.
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 21:46:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Santiac on 20/09/2005 21:47:33
Granted in a scenario where there are multiple "GA" pilots, the spec to V reasoning is valid, if the two have set their hearts on different niches of course - reckon it's individual taste, personally i'll be digging myself into the deep abyss with these (read: all to V ;))
But speaking of fleet battles, i'm hoping the <race> Doctrine skills would bring a bit of GA offensive modules
For Example:
Gallente Navy Doctrine: Drone range, hybrid cap use, hybrid refire rate
Amarr Navy Doctrine: energy emission modules (neuts, nosses) increased range, energy dmg mod increase, energy RoF increase
Minmatar Navy Doctrine tracking disruptor and sensor dampener range? ;o projectile RoF & tracking,
Caldari Navy Doctrine giving something along the lines of increased ECM range, and some beneficial stats for missiles (travel time increase and decrease in target velocity penalty perhaps?)..
General idea being each of them giving an overall bonus (drones, vamps, disruptors(tracking, sensor), ECM strength), and 2 race specefic bonuses (talking modules for each area of course :))
Thats at least what i hope we'll see some time in the future .. ah well.. back to fiddling with current mods while patiently waiting for command cruisers and wing command ;)
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 22:09:00 -
[112]
Not to forget, you can get your signature radius reduced by warfare links, which should help alot in a fleet engagement.
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
Derron Bel
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 22:10:00 -
[113]
The Devs have implied that the highly advanced leaderships kills will have penalties to some stats for gains to others. I forget where they said it, though...
-==-
Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise!
LooseCannoN> ahh!
LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled! |
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 22:32:00 -
[114]
Might just be the fleets that ive flown in but people rarely fit tanks going into fleet. It just gimps your damage output.... I agree for high level complexing or l4s/future l5 missions they will be very useful, but we will see what the future brings.
On a side note, ccp really should take a look at the information warfare modules and how they affect ECM. all of the modules arent worth using.
Information warfare - sensor integrity
Fix: Upgrade to defend against all types of EW
Rationale: The other "defense modules" siege warfare - shield harmonizing and armored warfare - passive defence. Reduce damage from all 4 types of wpns. Information warfare sensor integrity only prevents ECM and thus should be "upgraded" to defend against the following types of EW: ECM, Tracking disruptors, Sensor Dampening and Target Painting.
Information warfare - recon operation
Fix: Increase both sig resolution and range
Rationale: Locking range is far enough for the most part and the scorp has its hardcoded limit. Most people stack on extra sensor boosters for lock time not extended range. Furthermore the boost that each one gives is outside the damage range of most setups. A boost to locking time would give this module some <3. Downside: would increase sniperfests
Information warfare - electronic superiority
Fix: Increase range/effectiveness(or both) of ECM, target painters, sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors.
Rationale: Currently only affects ECM modules range not strength. The meager range increase isnt noticiable giving only a max 22.5% increase to range. Most scorps/EW ships already have sufficent range and do not need the existing bonus making it redundant.
|
Remedial
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 23:30:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Remedial on 20/09/2005 23:30:42
Sensor integrity should just be the usual maxed-out 22.5 or 33% bonus to "deflecting" any sort of EW. All EW used on your gang has an X% chance of failing outright, before any of the other calculations like "% chance to jam with a mutispectral" are made. Tracking disruptors, target painters, anything with a chance of failure from range or falloff should incur this potential failure when used against an info gang-assist's gang.
Recon operations is a bit wonky because it doesn't seem very useful in many situations. What might be better is a major (3-4% base) bonus to probe duration so that enemy fleets and rogue agents have a much harder time hiding from the gang of the module user, especially if the gang also has a covert-ops in it.
Electronic superiority for me would be a reduction in cap use on all EW, including jammers, scramblers, webbers, disruptors, painters, etc.
I think if the above changes were made, info warfare would be taken much more seriously.
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 17:14:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Aleis on 21/09/2005 17:18:35
Had a good chat with SengH last night about our differences in our opinions on whether or not to Specialize and i can see where he's coming from. Basicly it comes down to either the make up of the group you'll be supportign and your personal preferences in game play.
Personaly i like to choose to do one thing and do that the best that i can so i frequently stress specialization for most things, skill wise and Roleplay to a point. Also being a fairly old Character what i consider to be short skill training times is a little biased.
The arguement that being able to do multiple types of support incase the situation with your current group changes is also a valid point, who cares about shield tanking if your with a Mainly Armour tanking squad today.
I guess the best coprimise would be to choose to types and Focus on those. if you take 2 out of the four at least one of those 6 modules will be beneficial to what ever group your flying with i'd think. and you won't runinto the problem of being what i consider too generalized as to not have skills enough to make a difference.
we both also agreed with that the information warfare set needs a little tweaking, compaired to resistence boosts, and cap effiency of tank the information set is grossly understrengthed, and too specialized, every one tanks one way or another and everyone can benefit from sigradius decrease and AB+MWD speed boost, but reletivly very few ships run EW and need the bonuses given..
|
Santiac
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 19:18:00 -
[117]
While i agree Information Warfare needs a bit more general useability, i think that the main problem lies in the fact that Information Warfare is simply trying to cover a too wide area of statistics and modules.
While skirmish, siege, and armored warfare are all only covering their little niche, Information warfare is trying to cover both the electronic aswell as the "targeting" area of "information" related modules. Instead of seeing these GA modules starting to effect too many modules (sensor dampeners, tracking disruptors and ECM's all in one), i'd rather see a new branch being formed.
Information warfare would then be granting following bonuses:
Decreased Scan Resolution
Increased Sensor dampener/booster/signal amplifier range penalty/bonus
Increased Tracking disruptor/computer/enhancer tracking speed(or range) penalty/bonus
And then the new seperate branch (in lack of more imaginative name, let's call it "Electronic Warfare" for now ;P
covering
Increased Sensor Strength
Increased ECM/ECCM/Backup Arrays strength
Decreased ECM/ECCM cap useage
both of the new branches bonuses are only things i can imagine useful, off the top of my head, and therefor are open to discussion :)
But as i've already mentioned, i'd rather see a 5th branch (not counting mining foreman) allowing for more coverage without overpowering (granting bonuses to a too wide array of modules with a single module).
________________________________________
<insert clever/witty comment here>
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 18:10:00 -
[118]
wooo were slightly growin... from oveurs new blog
- Gang Coordination, 791.
791 gang coordination modules fitted.... I didnt know there were so many out there lol.
|
Aleis
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 13:36:00 -
[119]
Wow much more than i'd have thought as
But i will have ot admit that 4 of those are mine, sitting on my Cyclone for testing purposes.
|
Marcus Agrippa
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 13:30:00 -
[120]
And another 3 are mine ;)
I'm still a bit gutted the Armoured Warfare modules don't affect remote armour repair - that was one of the key things which led me look at the gang-assist career path...
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |