| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
585
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
FFS active tanking bonuses? Still? Really?
Get a grip guys, Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
589
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scooter McCabe wrote:El Scotch wrote:Dvla wrote:Could we maybe fix the "small" bug of wing commanders not receiving fleet commander's bonuses before we start to try to put the ships on grid? This should be the main priority' before ANY changes to the boosters.
Why is the command processor module still in the game? It serves no other purpose than to be a big **** you to all shield fleets for even considering putting t3 boosters on grid. Armor t3 booster can be tanked, shield one can't. Armor can put on extra links without sacrificing tank, shield can't. By the time this year is done there will not be many, if any, shield doctrines left in 0.0 anyway.
Why don't any of the skirmish boosting ships receive resist bonus per skill level? You clearly do want to put them on the field but what do you think will happen when you have 5 claymores on grid (without FC bonuses because they don't ******* work for wing commanders) with low EHP to begin with? Even if you don't have enough DPS to headshot the FC Damnation at the beginning, it's quite likely that the logistics don't have all of the wing commanders pre-locked (that would take 6 out of 8 max targets for a t1 logi for example) so you can just kill all the wing commanders. I mean just look at the EHP difference between an FC slot damnation (that gets its own bonus) to a wing commander skirmish boosting ship (that doesn't get the FC bonus). What's the difference? 2 or 3 times more EHP. I mean jesus ******* christ what the **** is going on.
Active tank bonuses on command ships? Really? I get that you want to give them some damage role even if I strongly disagree with that (since you know.. They will be using the highslots for links>probe launcher>other utility) but why would you want these ships to do every single thing? These are fleet ships, designed to be flown with fleets and while them being able to be flown solo as well that doesn't mean they need that kind of bonuses for it. That's like putting damage bonuses to logistics ships so that they can shoot something when they are flying solo and do you see that happening?
Why is the Damnation - any other command ship EHP difference not fixed? I get that your goal for the past year has been to get rid of all shield doctrines but isn't it going a bit too far already? And BTW you fix this by giving more EHP to the other command ships, not nerfing the Damnation. Just making this point clear since you clearly need some guidance on the issues with these ships.
The only thing these changes do for a 0.0 pilot is making flying boosters even more annoying than it already is. In serious business fleet all wing commanders will still be t3 boosters but now you have to scan for probes all the time. Yes it makes them vulnerable but it sure as hell is less vulnerable than flying a (relatively) paper thin wing booster on grid. Is that fun? No it ******* isn't. Yes you balanced some stuff and gave them shiny new stats but you clearly are not understanding the big picture here. You want to put fleet boosters on grid and have an effect? Then make them be able to do that, not be the best plex tank or a mission runner. You have absolutely the wrong problems in mind when you designed these ships.
Overall nerfs to effectiveness of links is great though so job well done on that at least. This seems rather relevant, CCP. Would you please comment further? There might be something to this CCP. +1 Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
592
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Alexander the Great wrote:Damnation is still the only CS viable on field in large battles.
What (re)balance are you talking about? It's really just a culture clash between the people who want oversized HACs and people who want ships that don't get blapped off grid in one volley in a fleet fight. I honestly think the old fleet command ships should all be brick tanks, and the old field command ships can be the oversized HACs. I really wouldn't have a problem with this. You are correct, some people view CS as only being used for large fleet engagements and want the huge buffer. Others want them to be a viable alternative for more modest engagements, or even solo work. ... and then there are others (like our friend who posted above) view a little 20vs20 engagement as a fleet battle. There are those who only think a CS is useful if it can stand in the middle of the fleet and absorb everything that's thrown at it, while others would prefer something that stays to the rear of the fight (using it's combat ability to deal primarily with anything slipping back to take it out). People have wildly different expectations and definitions of how the vessels will be used, and that is causing a great deal of confusion. The thing is, we've already got oversized HAC's in Tech 3's. Commandships should excel at being on the field in a similar way to HIC's. Perhaps let the sleipnier and maybe Eos keep active tanking bonuses, otherwise, without some amazing new change to active tanking mechanics... Nope. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
593
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
And...
RE: Changes to active tanking mechanics... Go reactive. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
593
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote: Consider that the Mega post-rebalance saw more use after it was "compensated" with 8 low slots (to much Amarr ruckus.) Now, it is a compelling choice (among other things, certainly) to pick Mega over an Abaddon, because although the Baddon has an innate resist bonus, the Mega can compensate its lack of a bonus by making that new low slot an additional energized adaptive nano membrane. I'm certainly not advocating that all ships saddled with an active bonus are compensated in a similar manner by the addition of low- or midslots. Simply put, something to place the two tanking styles on parity needs to be worked on. And it should be a top priority.
A 7 mid Maelstrom? Where do I sign up?  Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
597
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Give each race a fleet and a skirmish CS - not break races in to skirmish and fleet ffs. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
| |
|