|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
326
   |
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
The reduction in command bonuses is really disappointing. I was thinking you'd be sensible and cut them by 1/2 to 2/3. This is way too much for a ship to give to an entire fleet, the bonuses should be tiny. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
330
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. This is the best part of the thread.
I had to read the OP several times before realising that they aren't even fixing this. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Still no proper command bonus nerf? 35% is still way too much. Try 10%. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship?
Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
What do you mean if? It is needed. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
349
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Why is making your ship harder to probe even a thing? It's really bad. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
349
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 12:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kick Rocks wrote:Durzel wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. You still need Virtues to find the hardest possible targets. I couldn't get a OGB Tengu above 95% in a maxed skills covops with 10% Prospector implant, Sisters launcher & probes, Gravity Capacitor rigs and 2 of the T2 Scan Rangefinding modules. Don't know how many you need now vs pre-Odyssey but the fact you need them at all is imo disproportionate effort compared to that of actually providing the links. This is actually quite depressing. After the patch perhaps the changes to what they will have to fit to have multiple links will also result in them being easier to find? I don't know alot about it but I don't feel like doing solo PVP if I have to deal with OGB.
Link alts will have even more links fitted after the changes. Interdiction maneuvers will be very slightly less powerful, but basically you're still totally screwed. All you can do is scan for T3s, then move on if you find any. The tricky ones don't decloak until you're stuck in though, so there's nothing you can do. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
352
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nighthawk needs 6 mids just like the ferox does. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
352
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:39:00 -
[9] - 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.
It's pretty obvious when they give out the slots and fittings, that they have particular setups in mind that they want you to be able to or not to be able to fit. Saying you can fit it however you want just means you're free to use bad fits. |
|
|
| |
|