| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
The G0dfathers
121
   |
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:28:00 -
[61] - Quote
Edd Nicholls wrote:I think these changes make Gallente have a pretty bad line-up. The Dominix is now clearly inferior to the proposed Armageddon. I never had issues with range or tracking of drones and it will lack drone control range to make much use of the range bonus to sentry drones. The Mega I guess will fill the hole left by the hype as a shield gank ship but I still think there is room for a buffer fit armour ship which the new look mega will not perform as well in. The hype is now pretty much good for nothing in my eyes. It will almost certainly underperform dual ASB Rohks and Mealstroms and offer pretty much no utility in its mids now to compensate. If you are going to persist with making it an active armour ship then at the minimum it needs more PG.
This is not the thread you are looking for  |
Wu Fey
Ghost Headquarters
The Marmite Collective
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:36:00 -
[62] - Quote
Right now the caldari ECM ships are nearly always fit in a way that is contrary to caldari fleet doctrine (armor tanked). This, I imagine, makes balancing very difficult. ECM has been nerfed due to its ability to completely shut down enemy ships, but the ECM platforms have not received any increase in viability or utility. They still tend to be paper-thin, and oft-called primary. Due to the reduction in ECM strength, fitting a half-shield-tank / half-ECM fit is even less viable.
But what do we do? Do we give caldari ECM ships more low slots? What about an armor bonus? These methods only make the ECM ships stray further from the caldari design philosophy. Adding more mids is also problematic, due to the possibility of someone simply filling them all with tanking modules.
Although many may consider it ridiculous, I think the concept of ECM as a high-slot is actually quite sound. In many ways ECM fills a similar function to neuts, which are also high-slots.
I realize that this would require you to take a look at nearly every ship in the game, since ECM would become a new contender for high-slot utility, but I think this opens up some pretty interesting options.
Un-bonused ECM is not very strong, and I doubt having one ECM module on a BC or Cruiser is going to be substantially more powerful than a medium neut. After all, people don't generally fit a single ECM module on armor tanked ships with 4 or more mids. However, it would have greater range than a neut, making it much more appropriate for long range fits. It would also open up some utility to ships that don't have the PG for a medium neut, but have some CPU left over. Often times a small neut is just not that attractive, and only serves as a heat sink. In general high slot utility for combat ships is fairly lacking in variety, and this may help with that.
Where this might become a problem is on frigates, but the large CPU cost of ECM modules probably makes this a non-issue.
With ECM as a high slot module, caldari ECM ships could be balanced very similarly to their Amarr counterparts. The Scorpion could feature a robust shield tank and an ECM strength bonus, making it a viable close range ECM platform, in a similar vein to the new geddon. It would assuredly have to receive some balance changes, specifically to slot layout, but it would be functioning within the intended design, making balancing much more feasible.
The cruiser range of ECM ships will naturally need to rely on speed or utility due to their high targeting priority in any engagement, but they will be able to fit at least some tank. This is similar to the way the curse / pilgrim already function.
In addition, if appropriate, drone bonuses could be granted to some of the above ships. This solution works really well for neut dedicated platforms and, I imagine, it would work well here too for the same reasons.
|
Lubomir Penev
Your demographic
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:42:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
What the fuck does that even means?
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
The G0dfathers
121
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:45:00 -
[64] - Quote
Lubomir Penev wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
What the f uck does that even means?
It means you need to fly a Typhoon. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:52:00 -
[65] - Quote
This may be a stupid qustion, but would it make any sense to switch the percentages to the raven's bonuses?
+10% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire (instead of 5%)
+5% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo Velocity (instead of 10%)
But maybe this becomes too powerful... |
Heribeck Weathers
The Executioners
Capital Punishment.
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 19:59:00 -
[66] - Quote
Raven - I have wanted a 7th mid forever, but giving up who for a small speed boost is silly, like many others have said it already was short on the ehp side (could use an XLshield extended) give it its ehp back and fix girl so they can reach out to walk with decent skills, that way the range bonus on the raven will make it able to hit mid range out of point range with titles like stealth bombers.
Scorp - drop a high for a low and give it + 1 muddled and turret hard point. |
Funky Lazers
shin-ra ltd
236
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:08:00 -
[67] - Quote
Steve Spooner wrote:What about the CNR?
Indeed the Raven has absolutely no place in PVP because it's slower than a snorlax rolling uphills, the damage application is ass and in the face of the Typhoon it's bleh. So it's basically a purely dedicated PVE ship, which I'm fine with because carebears.
If Raven is a crap for PvP it doesn't mean it will rock in PvE.
I'm an old carebear and I have NO idea how this ship fits PvE.
Those bonuses are just a crap for any situation.
Gief me Shield Boost bonus instead of range one or make that range bonus useful while using Torps.
Whatever. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
598
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:13:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lubomir Penev wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
What the f uck does that even means?
Ah, this must be the upcoming fix to cruise missiles - they'll launch torpedos of their own as they approach their target. With this bonus, presumably the torps will match the speed of their cruise launcher for glorious return of Cavalry Raven! |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
359
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:35:00 -
[69] - Quote
I really like how the Raven has received a much needed boost, however some things amaze me to see untouched:
Rokh:
When you have the longest reaching gunnery platform in the game it simply does not matter much with an optimal bonus. Furthermore the lack of any damage bonus makes this ship ridiculous compared with the Naga.
I get why the resist bonus is going to be changed on armor battleships as it will then have about the same resist as a T1 EANM. The armor ships also have much better buffer capabilities with bigger plates than you can get extenders. T1 invuls are 25% and as such I can't see the need to downgrade the Rokh's resist bonus. With only 6 medslots and the need for tracking computers/web to do anything close range range I can hardly see how the Rokh can be overpowered. Perhaps with dual ASB but thats not the ships fault.... And shooting antimatter at 45 or 65km doesn't really matter anyway - But you're making a lot of ammo completely useless and Rokh only performs well in large numbers or niche operations.
Scorpion:
Then you have a fantastic oportunity to make the scorpion interesting without changing it much. ECM has been nerfed hard recently and the scorpion is pretty much useless in any conventional roles - Why not allow the Scorpion 5 or 6 launchers/turrets? It's not like 6 turrets can do a lot of harm as you wil have to mix around with damage mods, tracking enhancers and/or ecm amplifiers? It might give the scorpion a bit of motivation however so it's not entirely bad...
I'd be happy with a proper damage bonus on the Rokh and/or nerfing attack battlecruisers to only carry 7 turrets. Don't nerf the Rokh resist bonus and enable the scorpion to carry 6 launchers or 6 turrets.
|
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:56:00 -
[70] - Quote
+1 vote on keeping Rokh resists the same, not all of us use rails on them, and blaster range is anemic as is, and every point of resist on that helps mitigate that. Indeed, I would like to see a Navy Faction Rokh with more resists on it. The last thing we need is to make battleships more fragile in comparison to other ship classes.
The issue here is not that resists are too good, the issue is that buffer bonuses in conjunction with resist bonuses are too good. This is much like the same way that the old nano setups buff were too good, you once could buff both agility and mass, and this led to ridiculous results. I would suggest making tank extenders give a marginal penalty to resists as part of their effect, as a substitute/compliment for their signal radius/mass penalty.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
|
Jureth22
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
so where are the changes? |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:07:00 -
[72] - Quote
Look at the original post man.
Also, I would recommending raising the cost of all battleships, the current levels of tank are ok, but their power at max skills is a bit out of line with their base costs.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
3333
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:17:00 -
[73] - Quote
When are you going to remove ECM?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
BigCynoBoom
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:51:00 -
[74] - Quote
Dafuq
Where am I going to put my missiles on my rohk ? |
Onslaughtor
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:56:00 -
[75] - Quote
As someone who flies a scorpion on a regular basis (Both Armor and Shields) I feel that it is a bit to weak for its price point. With the buffs your giving to the Armageddon I feel that the Scorp is being left in the cold.
If I were to balance it I would give it more ehp all around shield, armor, hull, and move a high slot to a low.. I would also give it a 2.5% bonus per lvl more to jammer strength and optimal range.
So my modified stats would look something like this
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
17.5% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength
27.5% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range
25% bonus to ECM Burst range
Slot layout: 5(-1)H, 8M, 5(+1)L; 4 turrets , 4 launchers
Fittings: 9000 PWG, 750 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 6900(+259) / 5800(+300) / 6300(+831)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 5500(+187.5) / 1087s / 5.06
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 94 / .116 / 103600000 / 16.66s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km / 110 / 7
Sensor strength: 25(+1) Gravimetric
Signature radius: 480
I feel that these changes would be good for the Scorp and would allow it some of he much need breathing room it needs for its tank and its job.
|
Tilo Rhywald
INVARIANT TENSOR
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:04:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Rokh:
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+10% to large Hybrid Turret optimal range
+4% Shield resistances per level (-1% per level)
Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers
Why 0 launchers instead of the former 4 all of the sudden, or is that a mistake? Not that Neut/Torp-setups were very common except for the random wft-moment or that I even like them, but why remove the hardpoints to negate this option?
The more I think about it the more I dislike the resistance nerf on the Rokh. I've seen many changes in the game, but this is the one that finally really pisses me off, even though it seems so small at first glance. No battleship needs a tank nerf, especially after the proliferation of Attack Battlecruisers that made battleships obsolete in far too many scenarios. If you want to hit fleet PvP please do it in a fashion that doesn't hit small-scale PvP even harder.
Cheers
Tilo R. |
G'monk
Naviar INC.
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Steve Spooner wrote:What about the CNR?
Indeed the Raven has absolutely no place in PVP because it's slower than a snorlax rolling uphills, the damage application is ass and in the face of the Typhoon it's bleh. So it's basically a purely dedicated PVE ship, which I'm fine with because carebears. If Raven is a crap for PvP it doesn't mean it will rock in PvE. I'm an old carebear and I have NO idea how this ship fits PvE. Those bonuses are just a crap for any situation. Gief me Shield Boost bonus instead of range one or make that range bonus useful while using Torps.
The ships are very good for PVE, and though I cant say I know many pvp'rs I know that personally I have little desire to do it. Not everything in hte game is pvp, Just like incursion ship s are not really best for lvl4 pve's neither are the pve fits great for pvp. In Fleet action doesnt mean they cant do a ton of damage, just takes a little time that is all. |
Gaara's sniper
Raging Ducks
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:51:00 -
[78] - Quote
very disappointed with the changes to raven.Unless CCP Rise have some kind of trick up his sleeve regarding torpedoes and cruise missiles , raven remains absolutely worthless.
And again we get a nerf to some awesome ships, just because they are being used in fleet compositions. When will caldari get some love ? |
|
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
271
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:52:00 -
[79] - Quote
Quote:Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers
This is just a typo, the Rokh will keep its launchers. Sorry about that! |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
681
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:54:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers This is just a typo, the Rokh will keep its launchers. Sorry about that!
The scorp shows 110 scan resolution, if this is it's scan res, it has increased from the previous 75mm, so please show that.
Also, i really hope that it wasn't a mistake...because the scorp should definitely have that kind of scanres... |
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
563
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:09:00 -
[81] - Quote
Cavalry Raven? Lower its mass 10% or up its speed/agility further and perhaps that term is applicable.
Also, is it possible to collapse the ECM bonuses (tweak modules slightly to make it work) into one and make room for a TP bonus to go with all the missile spamming of the race .. Minmatar have wanted to get that monkey off their back since forever and are getting explo velo bonuses now so it is defunct on their hulls.? |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
7
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
Rise, if you are actively scanning the thread, word is CCP wants to make ships more fragile to increase isk sink losses, making resists lower on BS's is the wrong way to do this I think. Why not increase the base material costs of all battleship hulls instead?
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:13:00 -
[83] - Quote
Xiaodown wrote:I'll quote what I said in the Reddit thread: Quote:The scorpion is almost worthless at this point. It used to be literally the most OP ship in the game - twice. But now, with the multiple nerfs to ECM, it's inability to speed, sig, or armor tank, and the latest nerf to ECM in the way of skills that can boost your sensor strength, I just don't see why anyone would ever fly it.
It costs 15x blackbird, and two blackbirds would be better. It costs the same as a falcon and, tbh, has a similar train time, but the falcon is better in every conceivable way. It's the only battleship without a bonus to either damage or tank; it is a strictly PVP ship - it's just a solution for a question that no one asks anymore. I really wish something would be done about the scorpion. Since 2008 or so, ECM has been nerfed many times (at least 3 that I remember); it is only marginally effective, and even then only when you fill every mid and low slot for jamming, with maybe holding back two slots for tank. So, basically, it's a ship that's only effective when hero tanked, and yet it's primaried first in almost every fleet I've been in, so what's the point? It's not cost effective, it's not mobile, it's not effective at jamming for more than a couple of cycles before it explodes, it has little to no tank, no PVE role.... Its role needs to be rethought, IMO.
Exactly...
I actually started EVE when my friend told me about ECM and Scorpions. That was in 2008. Sometimes I wonder why I keep on playing. Every ship I enjoyed is ****** over... |
elitatwo
Congregatio
66
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:17:00 -
[84] - Quote
Oh boy, where to start?
A very long time ago, long before there was a Drake and a Tengu, the Raven used to be the OMG-BBQ-PWN-mobile and everybody was crying, oh no, noo, nooooes dat evil bevil Raven is too OMG-OP.
Then came Empyrian Age I and the once proud ship and powerhouse of the Caldari Navy extinct.
Years later someone had the need to nerf torpedos of their range and make them hit even less than they already did with Empyrian Age.
I can tell you tales of Ravens using torpedos as a sniping weapon up to 90km and nobody to oppose them because if they arrived at their weapon range, they were as good as dead anyway.
Pinky, what buff are you talking about?
If you meant nerf, I happily agree with you.
Dear CCP Rise,
please do yourself a favor and use your CCP all V account, fit a Raven and do all level 4 missions and tell me again you need to take "some" ehp away.
After that, do a 1 vs 1 with CCP Fozzie in a Megathron and tell me what you were thinking.
Use the current and your proposed stats in comparison, you may be surprised how bad the Raven will perform.
Unless everything bad that has happened over the years to torpedos and cruise missiles and giving cruise missiles somewhat like 200% more base damage to make them worthwhile, I don't see them viable.
So far I agree to any points people said about the Scorpion.
I made a post years back, that the Scorpion should be made a battleship and not a large ecm boat with no guns, it should be more like a large Rook.
Somebody may even remember that the Scorpion used to be a turret boat.
And a last comment about the signal resolutions on Caldari battleships,
really 83mm on the Rokh?
Doesn't that get "slightly" close to the capital ship compartments?
Maybe you should decrease them even further, so they may never even lock anyone anymore and just sit there? |
Zeko Rena
ENCOM Industries
97
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:18:00 -
[85] - Quote
Why are the Caldari the only race to get one Battleship dedicated to stupid ECM, in my opinion battleships are not a platform to be used for ECM, we have other smaller ships that do it better, just turn it into some form of proper combat ship, like all the other races get.
ECM Battleship, do not want! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
599
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:30:00 -
[86] - Quote
Seriously, it's impossible to give feedback on the Raven when we don't know what's going to happen with torps or cruise. I don't understand why those changes aren't being done at the same time.
As it stands, the torp velocity bonus is not very useful because it only increases the range of torps from ~20 km to ~30 km. This would be great if the Raven was able to kite in that region, but "kite" and "Raven will never be used together", the Raven simply doesn't have the mobility to keep a target in that window and hence make good use of the bonus. Nor, with 20 km base range on torps, is the bonus powerful enough to give a good damage projection advantage over the Typhoon. Now, if you turn round and say you're upping the range of torps by 50-75%, this would change things - but we don't know your plans for torps...
As for cruise, well, the extra range from the missile velocity bonus is not useful at all. The reduced flight time is vaguely useful; the greater ease of hitting fast targets is also only slightly useful - as seen by Drake blobs, whose HMs are able to chase down fast targets despite the lack of a missile velocity bonus. Cruise needs much more help than torps, and may well consist of speed and damage bonuses, but it's impossible to judge the value of a future cruise Raven and give feedback on these changes until we know what's happening with cruise!
The Raven is renowned for being flimsy. Getting an extra medslot is nice; losing base HP at the same time is silly. In a world of ABCs, BS need a very substantially superior tank to make up for the reduced mobility. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
441
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:31:00 -
[87] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Seriously, it's impossible to give feedback on the Raven when we don't know what's going to happen with torps or cruise. I don't understand why those changes aren't being done at the same time. As it stands, the torp velocity bonus is not very useful because it only increases the range of torps from ~20 km to ~30 km. This would be great if the Raven was able to kite in that region, but "kite" and "Raven will never be used together", the Raven simply doesn't have the mobility to keep a target in that window and hence make good use of the bonus. Nor, with 20 km base range on torps, is the bonus powerful enough to give a good damage projection advantage over the Typhoon. Now, if you turn round and say you're upping the range of torps by 50-75%, this would change things - but we don't know your plans for torps... As for cruise, well, the extra range from the missile velocity bonus is not useful at all. The reduced flight time is vaguely useful; the greater ease of hitting fast targets is also only slightly useful - as seen by Drake blobs, whose HMs are able to chase down fast targets despite the lack of a missile velocity bonus. Cruise needs much more help than torps, and may well consist of speed and damage bonuses, but it's impossible to judge the value of a future cruise Raven and give feedback on these changes until we know what's happening with cruise! The Raven is renowned for being flimsy. Getting an extra medslot is nice; losing base HP at the same time is silly. In a world of ABCs, BS need a very substantially superior tank to make up for the reduced mobility.
New raven may be faster than the drake...
Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado.
Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Xiaodown
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:41:00 -
[88] - Quote
Hey, just a thought, what if ECM modules *did* become high-slot?
Scorpion: 2 token launcher hardpoints, 0 turret hardpoints
8 highs
6 mids
4 lows
Fit a rack of ECM on the highs, in the mids you can have MWD, , cap booster, 2x invuln / 1x LSE, Sensor booster. Lows can be a mix of signal amps / signal distortion amps / PDUs / whatever.
Basically, it would be able to attack and tank at the same time, rather than having one rack of slots entirely useless.
That would be sexy. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3913
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:41:00 -
[89] - Quote
I have to agree that the sooner we have a handle on the torp/cruise changes the faster we can give informed opinion on all of the missile boats (of all the races).
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
599
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:45:00 -
[90] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:New raven may be faster than the drake...
Yeah, but the Drake is really slow too! It works despite being a slowarse because of decent weapon systems and solid tank - can we say the same for the Raven?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |