Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:13:00 -
[391] - Quote
I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1213
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:14:00 -
[392] - Quote
Ohh since the ishtar is an issue
Could we have non ******** Drone rigs?
You know, maybe a straight up drone damage rig?
Or just in general removing the apeshit crazy CPU reduction penalty from them? Because that has the be the dumbest penalty you ever put on rigs. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:14:00 -
[393] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D
Zealot should be nerfed if anything. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1709
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:17:00 -
[394] - Quote
No change in price then, so they stay exactly where they are (the junk drawer) |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:26:00 -
[395] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D Zealot should be nerfed if anything.
Zealot should not be nerfed, it should be used as the baseline for what the DPS projection HAC lineup should look like. The reason that the Zealot is currently used in fleet and small gang, and the others aren't is that the Zealot hits all the right points for a small, "fast" DPS ship that holds up well under reps. The fact that the only widely used HAC doctrine right now *IS NOT* MWD fit should speak volumes with respect to what people want these ships to do.
Two roles: Tank: Sac, Eagle, Deimos, Munin (though with the shield boost bonus, maybe Vagabond) - give a bonus to resistances, HP or TSB Projection: Zealot, Cerberus, Ishtar, Vagabond (or Munin, see above) - give a bonus to weapon range, tracking or mobility |
Kane Fenris
NWP
54
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:30:00 -
[396] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Vaga
The Cynabal isnt *just* the problem with the Vaga, it's that the Cynabal is doing what the Vaga used to be able to do and what everyone wants them to be able to do again. Nerfs to speed, nerfs to tracking enhancers, and buffs to the speed of other ships have edged the Vaga out of it's kiting damage role.
Question: Rather than a shield boost bonus, have you considered a second falloff bonus?
+1 this and mybe a little pg would fix the ship not in the best way (imho) but certainly would make it powerfull (id even take a tracking bonus as second choice over shield boost if pg is enough to fit 425 wo major problems) |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1497
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:31:00 -
[397] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar.
1. If we're supposed to wait until the ships are flown before giving our opinion, then why is anybody posting in this thread?
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4419
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:32:00 -
[398] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus?
Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic. 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. |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:34:00 -
[399] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Take the Cerb's drone bay and make it go away, in return have the 10% kin damage turn into All missile types damage.
Or make it 25m3 please.
15m3 dronebays shouldn't exist.
agreed |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:34:00 -
[400] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus? Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic.
Also bear in mind it's a 50% bonus. The 25% was a typo. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:35:00 -
[401] - Quote
come on RISE we need some answers here :
- like Alekseyev Karrde said have you considered a 75% MWD bonus or at the very least decrease sig radius of all ships to Attack cruiser level? - Eagle do you really think 370dps with Null is acceptable when the Deimos can do double that and about 500m/s more ? -Which leads on to the Deimos you really haven't thought of a better bonus than the mwd bonus? you mustn't have thought very hard a falloff bonus or at least a improved falloff bonus makes much more sense here. Also think a mini tough Talos and the ship suddenly makes sense and with shield buff and more range it might be worth using. - even with these changes do you expect people to pay up-to 200mil all in for these underwhelming ships?
-Cerberus does it need 200km HM's? explosion velocity or even shield boost bonus is better here -Vaga could it at least fit 425's like the cyna please? - Also do you agree that all HACS need more dps? - Also ishtar split bonus is odd either drop the sentry drone bonus to 5% or do something else that doesn't waste a bonus - Also more HP please Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1712
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:38:00 -
[402] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:
2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve.
Not hardly, simply saying something is true without posting any actual facts doesn't actually make it real, and in this case you're wrong.
X Gallentius wrote:3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.
Survivability in a game dominated by group alpha is laughable.
Speed when they are matched or outpaced by t1 cruisers that cost 1/15th of their hull price is laughable
Better EWAR stats when the EWAR game for jamming is a joke of a game of chance meaning that even if your SS was 10 million theres still a chance that a single light EC-300 jams you
I wont even touch the cap comment since its just silly, cap isn't a problem until it is and then you fit an injector and its not again
They already perform well in a gang, that gang is called armor HACs, and thats largely the only role they're used in simply because you dont skirmish in a 150 million isk hull when you can get the same or better results in either a 10 million isk t1 cruiser hull or a 60 million isk ABC hull.
|
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:39:00 -
[403] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying The last tunes to the Sacrilege are perfect. No touching it anymore pls.
Are you serious? The work isn't done yet. The Sacs damage output and tanking ability is still meh compared to other HACs, hell even T1 Cruisers. I'm pretty much ok with it not being a damage dealer but 6 lows would make it useful instead of simply overrated. The Sacs tank NEEDS some serious loving. Atleast that role should be defined instead of turning it into a half assed Jack of all trades. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4419
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:44:00 -
[404] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. Seriously, you view 25% more range (with the same flight time) for your high damage short range weapons system as a useless bonus? Now, I'll agree I'd prefer perhaps a bonus that allowed them to apply that damage better... especially since a range bonus would be of more benefit to a faster hull.... but I don't find that bonus to be useless. Sometimes getting in range with a Sac can be problematic. Also bear in mind it's a 50% bonus. The 25% was a typo. Thanks for the catch, I missed that.
So yeah, even more so.
It also makes me wonder if there will be a Sac HML doctrine arise to rival the old drake doctrines. 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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
312
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:44:00 -
[405] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:come on RISE we need some answers here :
Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'. |
Lucien Cain
Twilight Phoenix Rising Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:47:00 -
[406] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen.
F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last. Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[407] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar. 1. If we're supposed to wait until the ships are flown before giving our opinion, then why is anybody posting in this thread? 2. The cost structure already fits well with the "diminishing returns" philosophy of Eve. 3. The additional benefit of HACs is survivability - which is clearly defined: Better resists. More tank. Lower sig radius when in motion. Better Ewar stats. Better capacitor. These ships will perform extremely well in any gang with logi support.
1) fair enough
2) The cost of these ships is only a bit less than faction bcs. E.g., Navy harb going for about 180mil. Its unclear that these ships will even compete with plain vanilla BCs that cost 1/4 what these ships cost.
3) I don't think they survive better than plain bcs which cost 1/3 the price, or faction bcs for a bit more.
Again I think these changes are pretty good. But for 155-170 million I'm not still not sure they are going to be competitive.
Only comparing them with t1 hulls that are 150 mill cheaper is not really helpful. If you want to compare them to a cheaper hull at least compare them to the navy cruisers that cost about half as much.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1214
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[408] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote:come on RISE we need some answers here :
Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'.
You're a genius at making friends
I lolled.
Also everyone suggesting to remove guns from ships.
There are very few ships where this would be acceptable.. Why? Think how much less cool your ship will look with fewer guns on it. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:48:00 -
[409] - Quote
Cerberus looks really ridiculous to me, it has enough PG now to fit 6 launchers, MWD, and an XLASB with just two ACR I rigs. You can then get 750 DPS with 3 BCU and a damage control in the lows, and then you can decide if you want web and ECCM in your mids or more tank. XLASB and two invulns is an 1800 DPS Kin/Therm tank, great for laughing in the face of any Talos-heavy gang. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
380
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:52:00 -
[410] - Quote
Have to agree on the points with the Sacrilege. It should have -1 high slot to low slot, -1 launcher (4 total) and 10%/level of missile damage. That'd make it a superb tanking platform, keep its damage competitive and provide a utility high.
For everyone else crying out for drones in the Zealot: really the proliferation of drone bays is troubling. I'm not sure why we went from a "drone specialized" race, added a "drone interested" race and now, it seems, every race needs to have some sort of drone bay....which, btw, we all know is just going to be stuffed with EC-300s. Please stop the proliferation of drones for every ship. Not every ship needs a drone bay. I mean, I honestly wonder why ships like the Vigil got a drone at all. Some of these choices for drone bays don't make any sense, tbh. So no, please don't add a drone bay to the Zealot (and perhaps remove them from others). Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
|
darius mclever
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:53:00 -
[411] - Quote
so far so happy. needs testing of course ... but could we really drop that drone bay on the cerb for something else? |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:55:00 -
[412] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen. F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last. Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.
CCP RISE , CCP FOZZIE hope you had your note pads out for that amazing idea! he just did your job for you. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:55:00 -
[413] - Quote
I was going to rant about the proposed changes, but decided instead to politely point out that as proposed, I'm unlikely to fly any of the HACs for any of my Eve activities.
Why? Because quite simply, they offer insufficient incentive to offset the cost of the hull. There are simply too many other cheaper or more effective (or both) alternatives to accomplish the same thing. Give them a specific role and make them excel in that role OR make them general enough for me to effectively be able to perform multiple different functions on the same hull.
(Preferably the specialization. That IS what T2 is supposedly all about, isn't it?) |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:56:00 -
[414] - Quote
Boss McNab wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen. F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last. Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell. CCP RISE , CCP FOZZIE hope you had your note pads out for that amazing idea! he just did your job for you.
+1 |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:57:00 -
[415] - Quote
Lucien Cain wrote:Sarkelias Anophius wrote:CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen. F...ing THIS! Just do that and the discussion concerning the SAC will be over at last. Changing the Role Bonus into+ 25% Missile damage may work wonders aswell.
I wish i could like more than once |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:59:00 -
[416] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Have to agree on the points with the Sacrilege. It should have -1 high slot to low slot, -1 launcher (4 total) and 10%/level of missile damage. That'd make it a superb tanking platform, keep its damage competitive and provide a utility high.
For everyone else crying out for drones in the Zealot: really the proliferation of drone bays is troubling. I'm not sure why we went from a "drone specialized" race, added a "drone interested" race and now, it seems, every race needs to have some sort of drone bay....which, btw, we all know is just going to be stuffed with EC-300s. Please stop the proliferation of drones for every ship. Not every ship needs a drone bay. I mean, I honestly wonder why ships like the Vigil got a drone at all. Some of these choices for drone bays don't make any sense, tbh. So no, please don't add a drone bay to the Zealot (and perhaps remove them from others).
Because the Dev's don't have a clue how to balance without using drones and the CSM are a bunch of fanboy blow hards who refuse to stand up to the Devs. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:59:00 -
[417] - Quote
RISE
Any intention on T2 resist profiles changing to a more omni T2 resist profile? 90% on some and 10% on others is just plain mad
Also any changes on the manufacturing side? a Kaalakiota cerb would be awesome Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
47
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:00:00 -
[418] - Quote
SOO CCP please tell me
What makes the ``SPECIALIZED`` ships that your telling us you made soo ``SPECIALIZED`` we already told you in the first thread to make specialized roles. Why have you not done that.
PLEASE CCP TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW YOU MADE T2 CRUISERS SOOO SPECIALIZED IN THIS BALANCE |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:01:00 -
[419] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen. Good idea if they're not going to give all of them an extra slot. Recharge rate bonus should be wholly absorbed into the capacitor. Its not as if doing that will make it overpowered or something.
Pull a hyperion ccp. do it. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1370
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:02:00 -
[420] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Because the Dev's don't have a clue how to balance without using drones and the CSM are a bunch of fanboy blow hards who refuse to stand up to the Devs.
Funny you should say that, because they came seem to balance drones at all. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |