Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1237
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:02:00 -
[181] - Quote
Ohh yea make link activation give you a weapons timer and a sig bloom. Preferably a npc log off timer too. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
614
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:03:00 -
[182] - Quote
Dunk Dinkle wrote:The changes look good. Please consider the following:
- Allow Battlecruisers to fit two Gang Links without a Command Processor
- Allow T3 cruisers to fit no more than two Gang Links.
This would encourage wider use of Gang Links outside of cloaked T3s, which has become the norm, and provide BCs as a better stepping stone to flying Command Ships. Thanks!
No. |
darius mclever
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:03:00 -
[183] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:I think there should be a little more to differentiate the strategic cruisers from one another. Loki specializes in Skirmish so make the Skirmish boost 3% and the other two leave at 2% and specialize the others as well, Tengu - Siege, etc.
Also, not sure if the current breakdown of the three different bonuses applied to T3s makes much sense. It will require very particular circumstances to choose anything over the Loki. I think if we add a little more incentive like the example I suggested above with the 3% specialization you would see more uses of other ships besides Loki.
+1 |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1034
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:11:00 -
[184] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: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.
Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs:
Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses
Making links much cheaper.
Power grid for links reduced
t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues.
Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps.
I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future.
Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:17:00 -
[185] - Quote
Cearain wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: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. Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs: Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses Making links much cheaper. Power grid for links reduced t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues. Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps. I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future. Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight.
You realise t3s went from 5 percent per level to 2 percent per level but across 3 races now?
You realise that if they didn't have a t3 they'd have a falcon - they won't just unsub their character. But then you'd be here whining about falcons again.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1238
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:24:00 -
[186] - Quote
Quote:T2 point range: 24 km (unheated) With current Loki links: 36.7 km With current Claymore links: 35.6 km With new Loki links: 33 km With new Claymore links: 33.3 km
I stole this from failheap.
Is this true?
Because if this is true then that is massively ******* ****. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Sable Blitzmann
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
67
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:27:00 -
[187] - Quote
Which LP stores will these new Navy Mindlinks be introduced into? Will they be available in all of them? Is there any criteria? Will the FW store get them in a discount (if they get them at all?) |
Keith Planck
League of Extraordinary Equines
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:29:00 -
[188] - Quote
Although I do believe off-grid boosters need a nerf. (Free fleetwide caldari navy invulns are OP).
Dropping the boosts by ~9% seems to be a bit overkill for a first balance? |
Red Woodson
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:29:00 -
[189] - Quote
I'm not going to complain much about the changes. Would like to ask some questions, though.
Why was it decided that increased lock range was undesirable on the info warfare skill? Will the leadership skill itself continue to give a bonus to scan resolution? If yes, why have you chosen to have 2 basic leadership skills that both give the same bonus?
Will the resist increasing warfare links continue to be stack nerfed with other resists? I assume yes, but best to ask to be sure.
When/If you solve the hurdles to get links on grid, will this also apply to titan hull bonuses? If so, have you considered the use cases for the rag bonus vs when it would be reasonable to bring it on grid?
When/if you solve the hurdles to get links on grid, will you consider adding the ability to fit links to smaller hulls to allow frig/dessie gangs or nano gangs to bring links along?
Being to lazy to run the numbers myself, how much of a change to triage carriers/sieged dreads is this considering both the resist lost, and the rep gained from links/module changes?
Have you considered adjusting the fitting requirements of command coprocessors?
Have you considered adding a low slot version of the command coprocessor to help balance between shield and armor? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2403
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:30:00 -
[190] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Cearain wrote:
I had to read the OP several times before realising that they aren't even fixing this.
Yeah in allot of ways ccp is actually buffing ogbs: Adding new navy links which give 2 bonuses Making links much cheaper. Power grid for links reduced t3s now provide 3 groups of bonues. Adding bonus with scan res to boost gate camps. I can see why those who exploi...use ogbs view this as "fair." They get to use this **** mechanic for the forseeable future. Update on ending ogbs= Still no end in sight.
You realise t3s went from 5 percent per level to 2 percent per level but across 3 races now?
You realise that if they didn't have a t3 they'd have a falcon - they won't just unsub their character. But then you'd be here whining about falcons again. [/quote]
You realize the increased the "base" strength of Warfare Links so many of the links provide the same boosts even with the CS's 3% per level?
You realize that at 2% per level, t3's will still provide those boosts at 95.65% of "max effectiveness"?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2403
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:33:00 -
[191] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:Although I do believe off-grid boosters need a nerf. (Free fleetwide caldari navy invulns are OP).
Dropping the boosts by <10% seems to be a bit overkill underwhelming for a first balance?
We demand a much larger nerf to OGBers!!!
Fixed your post for you... |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:34:00 -
[192] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Quote:T2 point range: 24 km (unheated) With current Loki links: 36.7 km With current Claymore links: 35.6 km With new Loki links: 33 km With new Claymore links: 33.3 km I stole this from failheap. Is this true? Because if this is true then that is massively ******* ****.
Old Loki 24+53%= 36.72 New Claymore 24+38.8%=33.31
Loki will not be 33 it will be like 32?
|
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[193] - Quote
This beautifully hits ganglinks right where it counts. While I am an avid user of them, I still find these changes will not completely wreck my ability to use them when available.
The POS shield boosting nerf was exceptional, and exactly what was needed.
Taking down the armor and siege links while keeping most links (except skirmish) in their current place is intuitive, if a little saddening.
I still approve these changes. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[194] - Quote
Will faction warfare stores be getting access to the Mind Links? |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:38:00 -
[195] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You realize the increased the "base" strength of Warfare Links so many of the links provide the same boosts even with the CS's 3% per level?
This is plain wrong. Re-read the thread. Tank bonuses took a drastic hit. Skirmish took a large hit. The only increased ones for some bizarre reason is a couple of Info links and mining links
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You realize that at 2% per level, t3's will still provide those boosts at 95.65% of "max effectiveness"?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
2 percent per level is 10 percent, 5 percent per level is 25 percent. that's 15 percent difference.
For your second point, it depends on the size of the gang, if the gang is over 10, maybe, but then you should be able to have your own counter prober. Really easy to probe people out now. Absurdly easy. and booster t3s are still defenseless. Easy kills. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1239
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:41:00 -
[196] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Quote:T2 point range: 24 km (unheated) With current Loki links: 36.7 km With current Claymore links: 35.6 km With new Loki links: 33 km With new Claymore links: 33.3 km I stole this from failheap. Is this true? Because if this is true then that is massively ******* ****. Old Loki 24+53%= 36.72 New Claymore 24+38.8%=33.31 Loki will not be 33 it will be like 32?
thats still so ****... sigh.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:Quote:All defensive (Siege and Armored) links: T1: 4.8% T2: 6% Max bonus per link with all modifiers: 25.9% Former max bonus: 35% This is outrageous. It will hurt small gangs so much. With this T2 small gangs won't stand a chance against T1 blobs. Roll it back ASAP pls. Also mining links out of POS shields! Two comments: All those who think you can't compete without gang links are spoiled little brats. The "blob" can just as easily bring gang links as you can, and generally they are more likely to have them. Also, people were out soloing and partaking in asymetric warfare long before gang links became so ubiquitously used. You just need to learn to employ tactics, learn how to engage, and do so without having stupidly potent enhancements to your ship. As for the "move mining links out of POS shields" too. This would be alright, as long as the rorqual can cloak while sieged. Put it on grid, 200 km's off the mining operation, so it can cloak up the moment a hostile enters system! Obviously you don't understand how eve works, or you do but your actual small gang experience is close to 0. Not all fleets in EVE are kiting and sniping fleets. In eve u can fight both at range and brawling, you know? If fighting at range you need skirmish links, if brawling you might need defense bonuses. If brawling outnumbered you100% need or huge amount of logis or those defense bonuses. So if our most often 10-20 T2 or T3 man fleet go out in a roam, we will ofc avoid 30-60 T2-T3 fleets. But we will go at T1 or mixed T1-T2 fleets with those numbers. Because those defense bonuses mean much more for us than for T1 hulls. Numbers (blobs) these days are just OP. But specialized fleets (T2,T3) or higher tier ships like BS on BC and lower, with the addition of bonuses gives you a chance to fight against blobs even tough their fleets having the bonuses also. Our 20 man fleet being able to fight against 40-50 man fleets will drop to 30-40. And because of that we ll need to bring + 1 T2 logi to our fleet than we used to and it still might not be enough. We could compare killboards, show off our epeens, and the like, but I don't think that's necessary. I have a lot of small gang and solo experience, and am familiar with "how eve works". When taking on "larger numbers", force multiplication becomes extremely important: Logistics improve your ability to tank the enemy dps; EWAR reduces their effective DPS, increases your own, or removes ships from the fight; and boosters give significant boosts to your ship attributes to further reduce their dps, improve your own repping abilities, and give you some serious tactical advantages. The truth is, a booster is far more potent than that +1 log, or +1 falcon. The bonuses it gives to everyone in fleet are simply way over the top, and are quite often pragmatically uncounterable! Add to that, your opponent is more likely to "discount' the extra benefits they give you, so the risk adverse PvPBears are more likely to engage as they think they have the upper hand. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that fleet boosters are in a balanced position. This is especially prevalent in FW space, where OGB'ing is so ubiquitious people think proper soloing involves a dps ship + a loki alt + a tengu/legion alt. At the small gang (<7) and solo level it becomes very difficult to compete without bringing your own boosts, because a single boosting ship essentially adds the equivalent of 10 free rigs (4x hardener rigs, 3x speed rigs, 4x rep rigs, and partridge in a pear tree), to every ship in the fleet. That is why it is boosts need nerfed, as you can't possibly justify that level of boosting without pissing the face of game balance! A falcon, a Logi, or even a +1 dps on grid is counterable, attackable, and vulnerable. And while those are fare less subtle force multipliers (or additions), especially since real threats are likely to be primaried, they are very much within the scope of game balance. OGBers are NOT!!!!!
Well same things applies to the blob. People bring bonuses to fight against blobbing, because if u go solo u ll get always more guys chasing you. And again links can be available to everyone while blob can't.
Also OGBers got nerfed in POS boosting and T3's bonus amount. Now if u want to boost properly you ll need to bring a command ship. And there should not be any nerf. Because command ships can be countered or by neuting them or by killing them. Command ships should give bonuses as T3 do now. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Stalking Mantis
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
Thank You you actually got my old corp members to log on for the first time in months. Tired of chasing boosted condors around.
We did not train two years of SP to sit around all day and chase loki boosted condors in fw. |
paritybit
Repo.
251
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:50:00 -
[199] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Nothing would make me comfortable with optimal gameplay for some characters during a battle being for them to sit at a safespot.
I am disappointed I cannot like this more than once. We need a "mega-like".
|
Anariasis
Boris Johnson's Love Children
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:51:00 -
[200] - Quote
Those are not loki boosted, they are Ragnarok boosted. And that will be gone :) Or your boosting titan that's outside the POS FF will be gone ;) |
|
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:53:00 -
[201] - Quote
I like the direction the changes are going in, and I appreciate you taking the time and effort to make small changes, and see how they affect gameplay before rolling out the big changes.
There's always going to be some friction with changes in gameplay, but we'll adjust. I like the way you are focusing on player choices, and weighing fits, boosts, etc. depending on what you need at the moment. I like that, because eve shouldn't be like WOW, where there's a "perfect" setup for different scenarios. It's the different approaches to problems that make this game great, and I like that you guys are trying to make every ship, every boost, and every module have a reason to be picked depending on the pilot's inclination and skill.
Keep up the good work. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
195
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:54:00 -
[202] - Quote
The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these. |
Dunk Dinkle
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:58:00 -
[203] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.
Great points.
I hope they get addressed. |
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:00:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
what if any trade offs will be given for the lack of reasonable ability to compress ore away from the pos? this has to be considered, especially for ice mining with its super long compression times start the POS revamp NOW--make it happen |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:00:00 -
[205] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.
Thats just pure 100% bullshit. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2404
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:02:00 -
[206] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: You realize the increased the "base" strength of Warfare Links so many of the links provide the same boosts even with the CS's 3% per level?
This is plain wrong. Re-read the thread. Tank bonuses took a drastic hit. Skirmish took a large hit. The only increased ones for some bizarre reason is a couple of Info links and mining links
Don't be dense: Using a command ship, with a 3% boost per level, the following links have basically the same value: Electronic Superiority, Recon Operation, Sensor Integrity, Evasive Maneuvers, Field Enhancement, Laser Optimization, and Harvester Capacitor. The base strength of the above warfare links were increased to make them effective on non-bonused BC hulls, too. Did you somehow miss that info?
Yes, the Amror and Shield Tanking, as well as the Skirmish Speed and Tackle Range were nerfed.... and rightly so!!! You realize that any of the 6 boosting siege warfare ships give every member in fleet almost the equivalent rep power of a full crystal implant set AND a standard blue pill? And you think that isn't enough? Really????
Dez Affinity wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
You realize that at 2% per level, t3's will still provide those boosts at 95.65% of "max effectiveness"?
And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi can be countered much more easily than your safed up boosting alt? And you realize that that +1 Falcon or Logi provides a much, much less force boost than the fleet than that OGB?
2 percent per level is 10 percent, 5 percent per level is 25 percent. that's 15 percent difference. For your second point, it depends on the size of the gang, if the gang is over 10, maybe, but then you should be able to have your own counter prober. Really easy to probe people out now. Absurdly easy. and booster t3s are still defenseless. Easy kills.
Let me explain what I meant, so we are on the same page. A loki provides a 2% boost to mindlinks per level At level 5, this is a 10% modifier = 1.1. A CS provides a static 15% boost to mindlinks. This is a 15% modifier = 1.15
So, using the same skills, same implants, links in the Loki will be 1.1 / 1.15 = 95.65% as effective as a Command ship. That is NOT a 15% difference, that is a 4.35% difference.
Since, the max boosts (provided by a CS) of say, Evasive Manuevers is STILL going to be 35% effective, the T3 will conitue to provide this boost at 95.65% of "max effectiveness". This is no where near your 15% difference!!!
(Technically, since it's max effectiveness is being reduced from 35 to 34.5 (98.57%), we could calculate the before vs after effectiveness at 98.57 * 95.65 = 94.28 % effectiveness. )
As for my second point... I can put my booster in a gated plex, and any attempt to warp to it will land you far from my boosting ship. I could station/gate/POS hug with it. I could have it at a deep safe, so my opponents don't even know it's providing links. For 1v1 + falcon, the falcon is very potent, but so is OGBers. As the numbers increase, the falcon becomes much less potent, but the benefits from the booster keep adding more EHP to your gang, more total rep power, and/or more overall benefits.
|
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:02:00 -
[207] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these.
Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way. |
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:07:00 -
[208] - Quote
Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2405
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 -
[209] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos.
You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff!
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
197
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:12:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these. Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way.
When you consider it takes 60-80 days to just train for an 4 very specific implants, it's in no way comparable to other ships or abilities. It should have a lvl 4 requirement on the warfare spec of choice. LvL 5 is so highly preventative for most pilots, and all it does is reduce the intended desires of flying command ships.
Every FC in game knows how miserable it is to find a few pilots to run command ship links, and the 2 reasons stated above are exactly why. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |