| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
   |
Posted - 2013.04.18 07:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
A lot of tech 1 ships have role bonuses to enable them to perform their roles reasonably well. But these role bonuses are specific to modules they also have skill bonuses for. I propose that tech 1 ships (which are supposed to be flexible) have more generic role bonuses to allow them to explore more options within their basic role.
Some examples:
- Logistics frigates and cruisers have range bonuses to their specific logistic module, but instead they could have a range bonus to all logistic modules - at least both remote armor repair and shield transfer, but maybe even remote sensor booster, tracking link, and remote ECCM.
- Attack battlecruisers have a 95% reduction to powergrid and 50% reduction to CPU costs of the large turrets they have skill bonuses for. But why not enable them to fit all types of large turret?
- Attack destroyers have 50% range bonus to the weapon they have skill bonuses for. Why not all small weapons?
Reasons to do this include but are not limited to: increasing tech 1 flexibility, allowing for more types of viable off-the-wall setups, and giggling at funny killmails
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 07:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
In before I am accused of asking for tech 1 ships to be given universal skill bonuses.
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Felsusguy
Archimedes RD Company
87
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 08:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
I wouldn't mind this... to an extent. Having bonuses to all racial variants is a little over the top, though.
Honestly, though, I think Tech I ships do need more bonuses. At least as many as Tech II ships, but not all focused on the same thing, because Tech II ships are supposed to be specialized whereas Tech I is the supposed standard and Tech III is generalized.
How droll. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
Late Night Alliance
2249
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 09:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:In before I am accused of asking for tech 1 ships to be given universal skill bonuses.
You pretty much shot your own thread down by saying this.
Why have racial distinctions at all?
Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1326
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 09:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
I always favour the idea of T1 sub systems that replace one or both of the ship's skill bonuses. So you can vary the ship's performance somewhat, fitting to your style and intended function.
It would also add some ISK drain on blueprints and research fees, more minerals bound into items, more trade and a entry level item for T1 production.
Mining Overhaul
Nothing changed since 2008. |
Velicitia
Nex Exercitus
1389
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 10:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
- Logistics frigates and cruisers have range bonuses to their specific logistic module, but instead they could have a range bonus to all logistic modules - at least both remote armor repair and shield transfer, but maybe even remote sensor booster, tracking link, and remote ECCM.
- Attack battlecruisers have a 95% reduction to powergrid and 50% reduction to CPU costs of the large turrets they have skill bonuses for. But why not enable them to fit all types of large turret?
- Attack destroyers have 50% range bonus to the weapon they have skill bonuses for. Why not all small weapons?
Logi cruisers have bonuses that compliment their racial "style". Granted some (a lot) of that has been lost with the tiericide -- that's the trouble with doing something like this 10 years in. The guys who came up with the original ship design are (probably) long gone, and the new guys don't know a damn thing about the racial "flavor" , or know it and ignore it in the endeavor to "balance" things across all races (e.g. turning the 'geddon into a better drone boat than the Domi).
The goal of balancing should really be "rock/paper/scissors/falcon" ... and not making everyone the same.
Attack BC ... because they're designed by the individual races, and why would the Gallente build in bonuses to Amarr weapons (or alternatively, have the "technology" to do so).
Dessies - same reason as the BC.
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Malcanis for CSM8 |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
901
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 10:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
So you want everyone to fly Minmatar hulls, shield tank, blaster ships?
Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
134
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
It's called balance for the later 2 suggestions, as for the first bonuses to utility links would be ok, but not to both shield and armor RRs |
StoneCold
Somali Coast Guard Authority
124
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
How about just picking a white ball with 3 empty bonus-slots?
You can choose the wished bonus from an drop-down menu.
Oh, and it-¦s ofc a very well timed as they are about to start t1 cruiser rebalancing. OH WAIT
For Hire
Psychotic Monk for CSM |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force
Caldari State Capturing
247
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
I would like to see a ship hull, tech 2 variant or an added bonus to current logistic ships. That provide a boost to tracking links, sensor boosting and other factors. Even if it is just a range bonus. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
1098
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sean Parisi wrote:I would like to see a ship hull, tech 2 variant or an added bonus to current logistic ships. That provide a boost to tracking links, sensor boosting and other factors. Even if it is just a range bonus.
Scimi and Onerios get tracking link bonuses already you know... |
Velicitia
Nex Exercitus
1389
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So you want everyone to fly Minmatar hulls, shield tank, blaster ships?
I never said that. However, I would prefer that Rise and Fozzie stick more to the racial "flavor" that's been around forever.
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Malcanis for CSM8 |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
901
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So you want everyone to fly Minmatar hulls, shield tank, blaster ships? I never said that. However, I would prefer that Rise and Fozzie stick more to the racial "flavor" that's been around forever.
TBH I never read you post. 
More commenting about the thread in general.
Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Donedy
Snuff Box
Urine Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
"CCP Please make only one ship, and only one type of modules for each slot of this ship, then i will be happy." |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:The goal of balancing should really be "rock/paper/scissors/falcon" ... and not making everyone the same.
Attack BC ... because they're designed by the individual races, and why would the Gallente build in bonuses to Amarr weapons (or alternatively, have the "technology" to do so).
Dessies - same reason as the BC. I think of the attack battlecruisers less as having an unGodly ability to link huge weapons to a tiny power grid, and more as having an already integrated power grid specifically designed to handle large weapons. If an oracle can fit autocannons, it should be able to fit large autocannons. It doesn't mean everyone will fly around in an autocannon-fit oracle (though I wouldn't be too surprised), but it does mean that when Randomus Maximus decides that turret A isn't good enough for purpose 1, he can mount turret B instead. Though it will be unbonused, it will still serve the purposes he specifically needs it to. That's the whole idea behind being able to fit all of the generic modules to your ship, and these ships have been designed to fit large turrets.
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So you want everyone to fly Minmatar hulls, shield tank, blaster ships? You can already put blasters on a shield-tanked Minmatar hull. Why isn't everybody doing it?
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
Point Blank Alliance
749
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Part of the thing that defines racial hulls is their weapon systems. Further, ships that can be fit in too many ways are a bad thing. Your knowledge of an opponent's ship is limited to which hull they're flying. If the hull itself becomes meaningless then it impedes peoples' abilities to make intelligent plans and tactical decisions. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
2041
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 17:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:In before I am accused of asking for tech 1 ships to be given universal skill bonuses. You pretty much shot your own thread down by saying this. Why have racial distinctions at all?
^^^ Pretty much this... the "limited" application of ewar bonuses to racial ewar, of RR bonuses to specific tank types, the weapon bonuses to specific weapon platforms... are all aimed at making the races individualized, distinct, and unique.
Your suggestion really comes across as homogenizing EvE ships, which frankly, is not what the game needs. Different is good, and we don't want everything to be equal.... just moderately balanced.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 23:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Attack battlecruisers have a 95% reduction to powergrid and 50% reduction to CPU costs of the large turrets they have skill bonuses for. But why not enable them to fit all types of large turret?
I'll bite....why exactly would you trade in massive bonuses to damage and tracking on talos to run projectiles or lasers? To get damage or tracking in any amount you'd be gyro'd, te'd and tc'd the hell out. The minimal tank you have is now lower than glass cannon levels. A glass cannon that is still less dps than your racial gun.
You are looking at role bonuses, that means ship bonuses stay the same. It be these ship bonuses that actually matter. In the above tracking and damage are ship bonuses.
Also recheck your Role bonus for attack dessies....they are not universal chief. What good does a drone MWD speed ROLE bonus do to that massive drone bay capacity of a corax? |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
406
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 00:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
That is why every race have a T1 Variant of each group of ship... So if you want the Armour bonus you take one race, if you want the shield you take the other.
Oh, you want to have it on only one race so you don't need to train for the others....
sorry mate... I think that you have to train for the other race...
Or you can fly a SOCT racial battle-cruiser... ( That ship is a mess i.m.o.). Try it on Singularity.
Please read these!
> New POS system
> New SOV system |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 02:09:00 -
[20] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:I'll bite....why exactly would you trade in massive bonuses to damage and tracking on talos to run projectiles or lasers? To get damage or tracking in any amount you'd be gyro'd, te'd and tc'd the hell out. The minimal tank you have is now lower than glass cannon levels. A glass cannon that is still less dps than your racial gun. Sometimes using a weapon that doesn't cost capacitor or that has great tracking at mid-range is more important. If it's so not-overpowered, why are you so vehemently opposed to it?
Zan Shiro wrote:You are looking at role bonuses, that means ship bonuses stay the same. It be these ship bonuses that actually matter. In the above tracking and damage are ship bonuses. Your point?
Zan Shiro wrote:Also recheck your Role bonus for attack dessies....they are not universal chief. What good does a drone MWD speed ROLE bonus do to that massive drone bay capacity of a corax? Attack destroyers, NOT combat destroyers. I'm talking about Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst, and Thrasher.
All anyone has yet said in opposition to my idea can be summed up as follows:
1.) it adds too many options, therefore it is overpowered
2.) it adds only options that will never get used, therefore it is underpowered
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 03:10:00 -
[21] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:I'll bite....why exactly would you trade in massive bonuses to damage and tracking on talos to run projectiles or lasers? To get damage or tracking in any amount you'd be gyro'd, te'd and tc'd the hell out. The minimal tank you have is now lower than glass cannon levels. A glass cannon that is still less dps than your racial gun. Sometimes using a weapon that doesn't cost capacitor or that has great tracking at mid-range is more important. If it's so not-overpowered, why are you so vehemently opposed to it? Zan Shiro wrote:You are looking at role bonuses, that means ship bonuses stay the same. It be these ship bonuses that actually matter. In the above tracking and damage are ship bonuses. Your point? Zan Shiro wrote:Also recheck your Role bonus for attack dessies....they are not universal chief. What good does a drone MWD speed ROLE bonus do to that massive drone bay capacity of a corax? Attack destroyers, NOT combat destroyers. I'm talking about Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst, and Thrasher. All anyone has yet said in opposition to my idea can be summed up as follows: 1.) it adds too many options, therefore it is overpowered 2.) it adds only options that will never get used, therefore it is underpowered
you would seriously drop 25% damage on your tier 3 bc's for better cap? thats the point about role and ship bonus. Your tier 3's would only fit the guns....is the ship that gives the damage bonus and range or whatever the bonus is, not the role.
And lets look at coercer, corm, cata and trasher (I misread, my bad). YOu may have noticed of the 4, trasher has the smallest cap capactiy. This was not on accident. Its not a cap based weapon based ship. Smaller power needs, smaller gas tank. So on a base fit of guns, tackle and prop mod all 4 races are on somewhat equal terms. At least more so than if trasher had a gas tank of 700....then it be zooming around muuuuch longer with no cap issues.
You Idea introduces a slight balancing issue. take projectiles with this range bonus, put on coercer and it has a gas tank of base 700 to burn a mwd to its hearts content not having to feed lasers. Or play with active tank with the extra fuel. Even with no SHIP bonus to guns I see the op here. It be a permaun kiter setup right. Low dps but as I know from flhing jags, death by a 1000 papers cuts while slow will kill a target (jag not exactly a dps monster, hence the 1000 paper cuts bit lol). Trasher is 550. And in point of fact gets nothing from this. throws on lasers with the 550, cap issues it will have.
You idea to have any chance of credibility is going to have to adjust this to maintain this cap capacity balance CCP programmed in. Hybrid or laser users go projectiles the cap on said boats has to be nerfed. And in the case of say trasher, if it goes lasers has to be capacity boosted.
CCP can't even find a "perfect" balance for dessies in thier current state. I cannot imagine the fun of ccp trying to balance under your scheme. The masses say nerf trasher. CCP replies back:
Ok, which one? Ac or arty, beam or pulse, blaster or rail? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 00:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
You still haven't explained why my suggestion--which is to provide a role bonus allowing all large turrets to be fit to attack battlecruisers, and giving small weapons of all types a range bonus on attack destroyers--is a bad idea. You are merely trying to appeal to majority, a logical fallacy.
My post isn't about whether or not cross-fitting these ships is a good idea, it is about whether or not cross-fitting should be allowed. Please keep the posts on topic--very few of you have thus far.
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 00:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:tech 1 ships (which are supposed to be flexible)
Who told you that? O.o |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 01:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
It homogenizes eve further which is widely regarded as a bad thing, awhy would a gallente ship need to fir arty when it's entire purpose is based around said guns, is it not logical that it would be setup solely to reduce the fitting requirements for hybrids because of the vast differences in it's and other weapon systems methods of fire. Same goes for destroyers, would a more specialized energy system (which I see as the way the coercer gets a role bonus to range) affect how far projectile weapons shoot? While your justification is why not the evermore present question of why do it at all looms over it, which you haven't answered. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 01:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:I'll bite....why exactly would you trade in massive bonuses to damage and tracking on talos to run projectiles or lasers? To get damage or tracking in any amount you'd be gyro'd, te'd and tc'd the hell out. The minimal tank you have is now lower than glass cannon levels. A glass cannon that is still less dps than your racial gun. Sometimes using a weapon that doesn't cost capacitor or that has great tracking at mid-range is more important. If it's so not-overpowered, why are you so vehemently opposed to it? Zan Shiro wrote:You are looking at role bonuses, that means ship bonuses stay the same. It be these ship bonuses that actually matter. In the above tracking and damage are ship bonuses. Your point? Zan Shiro wrote:Also recheck your Role bonus for attack dessies....they are not universal chief. What good does a drone MWD speed ROLE bonus do to that massive drone bay capacity of a corax? Attack destroyers, NOT combat destroyers. I'm talking about Coercer, Cormorant, Catalyst, and Thrasher. All anyone has yet said in opposition to my idea can be summed up as follows: 1.) it adds too many options, therefore it is overpowered 2.) it adds only options that will never get used, therefore it is underpowered
Show me where on the description of any destroyer it specifically classes them as a combat destroyer. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 01:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:While your justification is why not the evermore present question of why do it at all looms over it, which you haven't answered. Simple. Having more options is generally a good thing, provided these options are not overpowered. Trying to streamline every ship into a specific set of weaponry just takes more choices away from the players. If allowing an oracle to fit 1400mm artillery is a bad thing, then CCP might as well disallow ALL cross-weapon possibilities, and allow Oracles to fit ONLY large lasers, while hurricanes will be limited to medium projectile weapons, and blackbirds shall be unable to fit any weaponry besides ECM jammers.
I'm not good with words, I'll be the first one to admit that. So here's a little exercise for everyone who thinks I've lost my marbles: explain to me why it is okay for a Hurricane to fit a rapid light missile launcher, for a Scorpion to fit a medium smartbomb, why it is okay for a Tengu to fit a 100mn afterburner. Because whatever you say to that will be my defense of my idea here.
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
139
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 02:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
Despite being t1, ABCs are specialized ships, meant to carry the weapons that that race's bses use, it is a role bonus or in other words what fitting the ship should be built around. The only limit to what weapons a Abc can carry
Not finished |
DataRunner Attor
Independent Confederacy of Worlds
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 04:31:00 -
[28] - Quote
Thing about T1 is that they ARE flexible, Here how it goes, T1 are flexible under their hull TYPE, for example
An E-war T1 is flexable in such a way that it allows it to fit damage instead of E-waring it up. T1 is more flexible when com paired to it T2 counter part.
A T2 is less flexable cause it falls into a certain role, and breaking this role is....extremely difficult without it being gimped to hell and back. This is also one of the reason I suspect why T2 has less rig slots as well.
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
440
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 04:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Yes, you are correct--which is the basis for this post. I believe that some tech 1 ships are not as flexible as they should be.
Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
DataRunner Attor
Independent Confederacy of Worlds
131
|
Posted - 2013.04.20 04:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Yes, you are correct--which is the basis for this post. I believe that some tech 1 ships are not as flexible as they should be.
Which I can fully understand, there are things there I agree are not flexible enough but there are reasons for that. It hard enough to balance under the current system. Just think for a second how hard it would balance under a system that allows bonuses for ALL damage types and so on. This gives hulls a reason to exist. Your system can and will most likely destroy a great number of the current hulls. We do want diversity as well.
GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |