| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
106
   |
Posted - 2013.06.30 17:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
EXIA MIKOSZ wrote:PVE = MARAUDERS
PVP = PIRATE BS
CCP for sure will stay at this Route and they will add/change some Stats/bonuses for these ships
I'll be massively disappointed if they do, making Marauders 'PVE ships' was a terrible piece of game design for a sand-box game...
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
107
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 21:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
Funky Lazers wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:EXIA MIKOSZ wrote:PVE = MARAUDERS
PVP = PIRATE BS
CCP for sure will stay at this Route and they will add/change some Stats/bonuses for these ships
I'll be massively disappointed if they do, making Marauders 'PVE ships' was a terrible piece of game design for a sand-box game... It doesn't matter if this game is a sand-box or a stone-box. This game is about PvE since the majority lives in hi-sec and people are generally don't do null-sec stuff. It was a terrible idea to make most of the ships PvP oriented. At least half of the ships should be the PvE ones. There should be no difference - if the principal role is to shoot stuff in the face, it makes no difference if that is an NPC or a player.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 19:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Make them more M-A-R-A-U-D-E-R ish?
Give them a generalised role bonus towards hacking structures (/Techno-babble ".... need for a Battleship hull and power-grid systems to support the immense mainframes required for concerted projected electronic attacks....."/Techno-babble) possibly even other ships - kind of like a reverse/negative effect warfare link.
Fix the oddities aswell:
like the absurdly low sensor strength, the Vargur powergrid, the defunct tractor bonus, oh did I mentioned the Vargur powergrid?.... 
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 20:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
The Djego wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:Make them more M-A-R-A-U-D-E-R ish?
Give them a generalised role bonus towards hacking structures (/Techno-babble ".... need for a Battleship hull and power-grid systems to support the immense mainframes required for concerted projected electronic attacks....."/Techno-babble) possibly even other ships - kind of like a reverse/negative effect warfare link. I can't imagine a single hacking site where I would want to use a battleship for.  Gabriel Karade wrote:Fix the oddities aswell: like the absurdly low sensor strength, the Vargur powergrid, the defunct tractor bonus, oh did I mentioned the Vargur powergrid?.... The low sensor strength and lock speed are on the hulls to prevent them from being to good in solo pvp, the pg was chosen to not fit auto cannons and 3 heavy neuts(what you could if the ship was designed around fitting a full rack of 1400mm artis). In general requesting a fitting bonus to large weapons similar as on tier 3 BCs would solve the problem. Wasn't referring to hacking sites - I meant a new, actual hacking role of player structures, and possibly something similar against player ships (the 'negative/reverse effect' warfare links)
The bit about "prevent them from being good in solo PvP" is quite redundant these days, has infact really been that way since 2008, you of all people know this.
Edit: Just to be clearer on what I mean by 'reverse' warfare links - think of all the goodness a Command Ship brings to your fleet.... now flip that round into a penalty and apply it to enemy ships/fleet (sort of 'hacking' if you will). I suppose a bit like the negative system-wide penalties in an Incursion, but localised to on-grid radius...
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
109
|
Posted - 2013.07.06 07:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Come on Fozzie, spill the beans, and it had better be good... the Kronos is the sexiest Megathron hull out there, needs more awesomesauce....
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
110
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 17:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
'mini' siege module?
You could go a number of ways with that - akin to 'big brother' Siege module i.e. massive damage and self repair bonus, but completely stationary sitting duck with no remote repair.
or perhaps,
Lesser (but still large) damage bonus, penalties more akin to Heavy Interdictors in 'bubble mode' (so they maintain some mobility, but still no remote repair, massively reduced effect from prop modules, possibly still disallow warping)
Much more GÇÿmarauderGÇÖ like and would have a role where dreads (for example) cannot go.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
115
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 17:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Suspense is killing!...
MOAR INFO!
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Gabriel Karade
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
117
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 13:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Fozzie! you immense teasing so and so...stop blue-balling us!.....
(and for the love of god, don't make the same mistake as 2007....)
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
| |
|