|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6830
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi
For Odyssey 1.1. we're going to be taking a swing at aspects of our warfare link features, as well as rebalancing command ships. We believe that the package of changes we've put together will be a significant step forward for the game, but it's definitely not the end of iteration on these features.
For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.
What we will be changing for 1.1 is: The strength of the bonuses provided by Warfare links The way that skills, ship bonuses and implants affect the strength of warfare bonuses The specific types of bonuses provided by the Information Warfare mindlink and Information Wafare: Sensor Integrity warfare link The method by which mindlink implants can be obtained The fitting requirements of warfare link modules, and their use within starbase forcefields Many aspects of Command Ship balance, including what bonuses they receive to warfare link strength The base rep amount of all armor repairers and most shield boosters I'm going to split our changes into three threads for 1.1 and one for a discussion of graphical model changes that will not be implemented in 1.1. but may come later this year. This thread will cover the changes to warfare link modules, bonuses, and effects, including the changes to mindlinks and strategic cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems.
The other threads are (hyperlinks to come): Command Ship Balancing Local armor and shield rep changes Command Ship model changes
Let's start with some changes to the warfare link modules themselves:
Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield People can still orbit just outside the forcefield I know, but they will at least have to keep an eye on that character so it's an improvement.
Powergrid need of all warfare links modules decreased by 100. This goes alongside the balance changes to command ships, battlecruisers and strategic cruisers. We want to be able to balance a ship's fittings such that fitting choices allow people different tradeoffs for the choice of what to do with their unbonused "utility" highslots. Some may want to leave it empty or go with a small neut, some may want to fit a gang link fore 100 or 110 pwg, some may want to go with a medium neut at 175 pwg. All of those choices provide different benefits and will require different sacrifices.
Quick mention of the changes to Strategic Cruiser Warfare Processor subsystems:
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information
Next we'll cover the changes to the link bonuses themselves. In 1.1 some links will be getting reductions in their maximum possible strength (although none of them are dropping below the maximum levels that were possible before the introduction of Strategic cruisers and Tech Two links). We are also smoothing out the advancement path for gang boosting gameplay, making the base links stronger and reducing the effect of the modifiers on that strength. This will make the training path for gang boosting more of a slope and less of a cliff.
Our changes to the modifiers to warfare link strength are: The four Warfare Specialist skill bonus changed from the current 100% bonus per level (after the first level) to 20% bonus per level. Mindlink bonus reduced from +50% to +25% T3 Warfare processor subsystem bonus changed to 2% per level. Command Ship link bonuses changed to a static 15% bonus. Orcas and Rorquals keep their 3% and 5% bonuses respectively. And below you will find the changes to the base strength of each warfare link, including the maximum available boost (with all skills and the mindlink and maximum ship bonuses) both before and after the patch.
All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to ECM and Target Painters: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Electronic Superiority bonuses to Tracking Disruptors and Sensor Damps: T1: 4% T2: 5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 21.5% Former max bonus: 21%
Information Warfare: Recon Operation: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity: T1: 9.6% T2: 12% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 51.75% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Evasive Maneuvers: T1: 6.4% T2: 8% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 34.5% Former max bonus: 35%
Skirmish Warfare: Interdiction Maneuvers: T1: 7.2% T2: 9% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 38.8% Former max bonus: 53%
Skirmish Warfare: Rapid Deployment: T1: 5.6% T2: 7% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 30.2% Former max bonus: 35%
Mining Foreman: Laser Optimization and Harvester Capacitor T1: 5% T2: 7.5% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 35.2% Former max bonus: 35.2%
Mining Foreman: Field Enhancement T1: 13.6% T2: 17% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 79.7% Former max bonus: 79%
We are also making some changes to the specific bonuses from the Information Warfare Skill, Information Warfare Mindlink and the Information Warfare: Sen... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6838
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:maybe first? e: boom e2: Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield It's previously been suggested that active links cause an increase in a ship's sig radius (thus discouraging the 'AFK in a safespot' approach by making them easier to probe. Has this been considered?
It has been heavily considered and a similar idea (using sensor strength instead of sig radius) was actually a part of one version of this proposal. However we've decided to wait and see how these changes work out before doing something that could potentially make playing ongrid with these ships worse in the name of making offgrid use even worser. (I know it's not a word but it should be.) Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lexar Mundi wrote:Mining links should not be given special treatment...
Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame.
We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Basically loving all of this, except: A link for boosing insta-locking camps? Really not sure if want.
It's just 2% per level with the skill, or a flat 15% instead if you have the mindlink.
We had some discussion about how it affects instalocking camps, and concluded that it's within reasonable levels, especially considering the recent nerf to remote SeBos. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
MainDrain wrote:Obviously there won't be a navy version of the mining links, but will there be an Ore version of the mining links with the same increase in bonus as the Navy links?
The navy links give the same bonus as the normal mindlinks, but they give it to multiple disciplines at once.
We may add an Ore link, if so it will probably give Mining Foreman and Siege Warfare bonuses. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6908
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Are T2 mindlinks going away, or are they just being supplemented with T1 and Navy mindlinks?
By mindlinks I mean the slot 10 implants, not the warfare link modules.
Technically there are no T1 mindlinks, the normal ones are T2. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6920
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Fewell wrote:Do the lowering of effective bonuses you're proposing here put links in a place where you feel comfortable leaving them off grid, or is work continuing to move them on grid?
Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7259
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 13:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ok everyone I'm back, recovered from the tournament and through my urgent mail.
I'm caught up on all the posts in this thread, still have some more to read in the other two then I'll start preparing to post V2 based on your feedback. I posted it to the CSM yesterday and it got a good reception. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ok update time!
Thanks as always to everyone providing constructive feedback. There are several changes we're making to the proposal thanks to issues you brought up. I posted these changes to the CSM yesterday and got positive reception so we're ready to send them to you.
I'm going to go over the changes to the 1.1 proposal, as well as talk a bit about later changes we want to make, that won't be in 1.1 but can potentially come fairly soon. Anything mentioned there is unconnected to the technical project for removing offgrid boosting, so does not need to be connected to that project's timeline.
Changes to the plan for 1.1!
We're moving the link bonuses on the command ships back to the command ships skill and away from a role bonus. They'll be a 3% per level third bonus for that skill. We're switching the bonus provided by the information warfare skill and info mindlink back to lock range. People correctly pointed out that it makes much more sense for a skill and module (sensor integrity link) to provide similar bonuses than it does for two skills in the same category to provide the same bonus. We're reducing the base strength of the Interdiction maneuvers link to 8% for T2 (6.4% for T1). This gives it a maximum strength of 34.5% as opposed to 38.8% in the earlier proposal and 53% on TQ currently. We're dropping the change that would have given all gang link bonuses to capital local reps until we have the testing bandwidth to deal with some interactions with wormhole effects that the CSM correctly pointed out would become a problem. We're changing the LP store offers for the Navy Mindlinks, so that they require 100k LP, 100m isk, one of each of the T2 mindlinks that they combine. (This adds about 150m to their price total)
Near future stuff
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. We're planning to fix the issue where Wing Commanders don't get the fleet level bonuses. There's a few gnarly bits of code to get through before we can tie a bow on this, but the way it works now is stupid and in general we want to reduce the number of stupid systems in our game. We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. Expanding the link bonuses to local capital tanks is something we still want to do, because we want the bonuses and effects to as much as possible behave in a logical and consistent manner. Special cases should only be used when absolutely necessary. This is dependant on us figuring out what we want to do with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet wormholes first. I want to add at least one more link to each of the combat categories, and am currently leaning towards adding one for each that reduces heat damage from overheating modules in their category. Obviously the usual disclaimers apply to future stuff, but the timeline for these kinds of things would ideally be either Winter or earlier.
I'm gonna update the OP, then go post updates into the other threads. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7271
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 15:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!!
I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7275
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb?
It can be used inside a pos field. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7278
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Fozzie, does the navy version of Mindlinks will have also the static bonus (i.e. the shield HP bonus of siege warefare mindlink, etc...) of one or both warafare types?
Yes, for both. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7285
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones.
The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7337
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:31:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7364
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:04:00 -
[15] - Quote
coolzero wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? It can be used inside a pos field. so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield?
Yes, to activate the Siege links you would need to leave the shield. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot?
Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:06:00 -
[17] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's?
There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out.
And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 16:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie, I know it is not quite on topic, but it does relate, will you (eventually) be adding any other ways to get CONCORD LPs or will we be stuck running Incursions for them?
We have no current plans to give CONCORD LP for anything else. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7386
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
With T3s now having that different bonus setup can you confirm are they able to fit more than one link without the need of a command processor?
Thanks vulfen
Not at this time. They will get bonuses to three types of links but will require command processors to activate more than one link at once. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7390
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 09:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
jackaloped wrote:Liam Inkuras wrote:Don't know if this has been suggested yet, but I don't feel like rummaging through 37 pages to find this one post that may or may not exist. Anyways, to prevent boosting T3's from simply orbiting a POS at 500m and nudging back inside when a threat lands on grid, how about making it so you cannot enter a POS force field while you have an active weapons timer? That might defeat the purpose. But anyway has anyone seen a video where one of the formerly unprobable (and now theoretically possible to probe down) t3 was actually probed down? I'm assuming you need to pay about 2 billion for a set of virtue implants. But before I do I would like to see if it will actually work.
Before Odyssey you needed virtues to probe down the hardest possible targets. Now there's also the option of using the new scan strength modules instead. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7390
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 09:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Fozie, given the changes, would you consider dropping the CPU requirement of link mods down to 30 - 32 CPU from their current 55? or add them to the electronics skill group somehow that lessens the cpu these things take?
(30-32 CPU need is comparable to a gun and given that'd you need command processors to fit 6 on a CS to get full benefits from that navy implant it makes since that you'd lower the CPU requirement so that you have at least SOME tank considering CPU mods are going to gimp an armor tank and command processors are going to gimp the shield tank)
We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7393
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 16:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We considered playing with the CPU cost, but I think 55/110 creates a pretty good set of decisions for people fitting command ships. As for the 6 link CS, we aren't really interested in making those fits easier right now.
If you are still around and willing to respond I have one more question. A lot of people in the 1.1 threads have been complaining about fit points on some of these ships (nighthawk and ishtar, etc and yes some of it has been addressed). I think a lot of players are confused on exactly just how you guys intend us to use the ships (in terms of what is fit on them) and to that end I've seen several requests for you guys to post some fits for us. I haven't seen that happen ever really and I'm curious why this is? I think it would go a long way into bridging the apparent communication gap that is evident between the players and devs on the true intended reasoning behind some of these changes. Personally speaking I wish you guys would so a couple fits for each of the ships you balance so that at the bare minimum the players can understand what you are advocating, and maybe perhaps point out holes with hard data? It would be far better than the theory crafting/guessing that is going on now.
So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly.
That being said, I can talk a bit about how I would start fitting the Nighthawk for some different uses right after 1.1 hits.
A HAM version for basic boosting and damage dealing in a small-medium sized gang that includes BCs and at least one Logi (you can swap tackle into the mids depending on what the rest of your gang looks like):
[Nighthawk, HAMs] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
For a bigger focus on boosting and range at the expense of damage, more useful as gang sizes increase a bit: [Nighthawk, HMLs] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency II Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):
Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EE-602 at least. [Nighthawk, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
Thaman Arnuad wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Valterra Craven][quote=CCP Fozzie] This ship isn't the ideal solo boat, but it's still possible to create solo fits that are powerful (the expense will be what holds it back for most people):
Requires Genolution CA-1, CA-2 and a EE-602 at least. [Nighthawk, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II
Warrior II x5
Could you double check that fit please, I'm seeing a lack of PG, perhaps you mean the EG-602. The DPS off this is laughable when compared to the Astarte which is the designed opponent to the NH, and your tank with your ASB going cannot even deal with the raw damage that the Astarte will be dealing in 1v1. To add insult an ASB Astarte can tank full DPS from a NH with no sweat, please give the Caldari a little love.
Yup I meant the EG-. Corrected the post.
And the XLASB Nighthawk tanks 1800 Therm/Kin dps before heat, so you are mistaken about it not being able to tank an Astarte while it has charges. The Astarte has the advantage in a 1v1 between these two ships for sure, but that Nighthawk's projection advantage is very significant in many situations. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
So I'd like to address a bit of the premise of your question. We try to avoid declaring how we "intend" people to use ships. We of course want to ensure that every ship has interesting and effective uses, but in a sandbox like EVE we know that whatever we have in mind will be surpassed by the ingenuity of our players very quickly.
First off, thanks for answering another question, and second for posting fits! But another followup if I may? The goal of balancing things "is the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers"? This would mean that balance takes into account things like the intended use of things given to players. For example, Carrier's used to be able to be "medium" haulers because you could put unpacked indy's in them with their holds full of items. CCP thought this was an undesirable side affect of their intended uses and took that away even though "Eve is a sandbox". (Yes I was personally peeved about it considering jf's were introduced that essentially did the same job but much better and carriers never got their hauling ability back even though freighters can now scoop from space... but I digress) Therefore it would seem that when balancing ships, it would be pretty important to declare how you intend them to be used, because without that declaration balancing would seem rather difficult (ie how do you balance something when you don't have an intended use for it?). I guess my point is that I don't understand your stance on not liking to declare how you intend people to use ships when that is how you balance them. It just seems rather counter intuitive.
To a large extent what we build are tools with many applications, both obvious and nonobvious. Sometimes we need to remove certain overpowered applications of a tool (like with the carrier hauling) but in general the hive mind of players will always come up with far more interesting things than we ever had in mind.
In general we try to make sure that ships are good at some things but we work under the assumption that many of the uses that become popular over the years are going to be things we did not expect and we celebrate that.
I really doubt we're going to make a habit of posting fits for ships we balance, both because as a collective you guys are going to do it better than us and because the uses we have in mind will often be different than the uses you end up having. Another issue is that everything we post will get misconstrued and picked apart with false assumptions like the post above that claimed inaccurately that an Astarte could overwhelm the XLASB Nighthawk's tank. Answering every question that comes up would be a full time job on top of the rest of our work. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7394
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Fozzie
try some for the Vulture
I'm going to make an exception to my usual policy of ignoring any post that has my name in bold at the start.
The Vulture has tons of fitting. To gives two examples of fits that show off exactly how much you can get on it:
Dual XLASB with a CPU rig as the only fitting mod:
[Vulture, Dual XLASB] Internal Force Field Array I Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Warrior II x5
Triple link with the largest guns, two LSEs and no need to use meta mods (if you have PG implants you can even upgrade the cap booster to a medium, or you have the CPU to swap the cap booster for a TC if you're comfortable without it):
[Vulture, 3Link 250] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Efficiency II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7396
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:38:00 -
[27] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:The more I post fits for these the more I realize I have to apologize for giving them too much fitting Personally I think this has more to do with module balance than ship balance... You can fit dual XLASB on the vulture, but you can't fit two links on the astarte with an armor tank?!
You were saying?
You can easily swap the Magstabs for more tank on this one depending on the size of your gang. [Astarte, MAAR + MAR] Armor Explosive Hardener II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Valkyrie II x5
[Astarte, Dual 1600] Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor Explosive Hardener II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Valkyrie II x5
Ok now I'm done posting fits for realzies, no more baiting me out. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7396
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:41:00 -
[28] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: And the XLASB Nighthawk tanks 1800 Therm/Kin dps before heat, so you are mistaken about it not being able to tank an Astarte while it has charges. Also, an XLASB Astarte would need to go without a prop mod to be able to tank the Nighthawk's damage with both EM and Explosive ammo (even without the damage bonus the Nighthawk would be best off using non-Kin ammo in this specific case). An actually well fit armor Astarte has the advantage in a 1v1 between these two ships for sure, but that Nighthawk's projection advantage is very significant in many situations. So, in other words it's ok if the Nighthawk can tank the Astarte, but the Astarte can't tank the Nighthawk, all while the Nighthawk has more range? As for your armor Astarte, what about the neuts you fit to the Nighthawk and the maar susceptibility to cap warfare? So maybe I'll indulge a whine here about you favoring the Nighthawk ~ Anyway, please don't post fits for ships. If Thaman Arnuad or others like him can't figure out how to be creative with fittings and just want to trot out the old Caldari whine of "I can't pvp with these ships", don't set them straight. Now we'll have to deal with Nighthawks fit as you just suggested. It would have been far better instead to have encountered some comedy fit, or just not seen them at all because he would think Nighthawks suck. edit - and yes it's far too easy to fit shield ships as compared to active (or passive for that matter) armor tanking ships.
An actual solo fit armor Astarte would generally beat that XLASB Nighthawk in a real 1v1 given equal pilot skill, but the point is that it wouldn't be as big of a whitewash as some might think and the projection on the Nighthawk is really useful for stuff that isn't command ship 1v1s. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
420
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 19:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
I removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.
3. Ranting is prohibited.
A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. ISD Ezwal Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|