|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Capqu
Love Squad
131
   |
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 11:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
David Kir wrote:Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff.
if you look at how t2s all started this isn't true, they all (except stealth bombers i think - but they fixed that when they gave them a unique model) had exactly the same bonuses as t1 but with an added t2 bonus and maybe a role bonus because they were improved/specialized versions of the t1 ships, hence why they show up in variations of that t1
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Capqu wrote:David Kir wrote:Capqu wrote:hi, why do some of these t2 ships not have the same base hull bonus as their t1 counterparts?
please fix rise 3/10 see me after class Because they are not straight up improvements of T1 hulls. They are specialized ships. 0,0029834/10, read up some stuff. if you look at how t2s all started this isn't true, they all (except stealth bombers i think - but they fixed that when they gave them a unique model) had exactly the same bonuses as t1 but with an added t2 bonus and maybe a role bonus because they were improved/specialized versions of the t1 ships, hence why they show up in variations of that t1 Forcing the T2 base hull bonuses to be the same as the T1 hulls has never been a hard rule, and it is not something we're going to start enforcing now.
yuck, muh lore
you better give inties some goddamn lockrange to make up for this
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
134
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
looking forward to round 2 rise since you don't seem to get anything right first time around
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
139
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
incorporate t1 changes and redo
tia in advance
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
stop giving hybrids ****** range bonuses
a 10% bonus on a hybrid to optimal is as good as a 5% bonus to optimal on a laser
either do 20% like the tengu or stop doing it, they only get half as much out of it as the other two gun systems
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
142
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Capqu wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
I think the Cerberus is going to be really powerful. It can now do the extremely long range thing with HML as well as added capacity to be an amazing HAM skirmisher. The role bonus means it has a lot of added survivability while it establishes or maintains range for both roles.
the fact that you don't even mention rlml when talking about the cerb shows just how out of touch these changes really are. hmls are garbage, there is no point in using them instead of rapid lights unless you force it by making extremely specific, narrow ship bonuses that only affect one and not the other. that's a pretty big hint of awful design If they thought HMLs were garbage, they'd probably be fixing HMLs, rather than handing out RLML bonuses.
i'm not saying they think they are garbage, they clearly think they're fine because rise thinks they are worth using ever
which they aren't
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
143
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
i'm sorry, it was a crime of passion
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
rise, cerb already has double bonuses on TQ. it's worded like "flight time to assault missiles" but since rapid lights used to be called assault it applies to them. removing lights from the second range bonus would be a nerf
honestly though i think thats okay. if the cerb got double bonuses to rlml that might be a bit too good
the only reason rlmls aren't completely dominating the game atm is there is no really amazing platform for them, if you made one i think that would warp the meta pretty hard. current rlml boats:
tengu
+dps (good bonus)
-speed (awful mwd speed)
-range (no bonus)
caracal
average dps (5% rof, only 5 launchers)
-capacitor (really low)
good range (10% bonus)
scythe fleet
+speed (really fast)
-dps (4 launchers, 10% bonus)
-range (no bonus)
osprey navy
+speed (decently fast)
-dps (4 launchers, 10% bonus)
good range (10% bonus)
if you add cerb in you have
cerb
+range (10% bonus)
+range (second 10% bonus)
+dps (5% kin)
+dps (5% rof)
+dps (6 launchers)
-speed (decent, but a bit slow)
maybe the speed keeps it in check, but it seems a bit strong to me. so i'm happy with you removing the second range bonus from it
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
|
Capqu
Love Squad
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:37:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
hi rise, can you confirm whether or not you intentionally removed light missiles from the 4th bonus on the cerb (assault & heavy missile flight time on TQ - this includes lights)
i don't think the cerby really needs a nerf 
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Capqu
Love Squad
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 11:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
how about giving each race an anti-capital assault cruiser?
for example
Zealot
Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to Energy Turret rate of fire per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to Energy Turret damage per level
Role Bonus:
Can fit one Extra Large Energy Turret, reduced PG need for that weapon by 100% and capacitor use by a further 25%.
this would be cool. give them a sort of "main cannon" that's only really effective against capitals and sometimes battleships
yeah just a stupid suggestion, i know. but i really think you need a role for these hacs, not just making them slightly better (haha jk half of them are worse) t1 cruisers for 5x the price
http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
|
| |
|