|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
   |
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Was away for the weekend and iPads are absolute crap as forum whoring tools!
Damnation: What happened to the idea of allowing them to either link or go face-melt-time? It has more EHP than badly fit carriers but less damage than the Sacrilege. Was kind of expecting it to be an upgrade to the drone based Prophecy, leaving Mims/Cald to wield the missile spamming secondary hulls but 'meh'.
- All the other former triple link hulls got a massive damage/application boost but not the brick, why?
Absolution: Again, you want either links or face-melt, so what is with the 2 empty highs it is left with when fitting guns .. doesn't seem like much of a choice scenario to me when you practically force links in there (NOS = useless, Neuts = cap out).
- Move a high to the mid slot. Make the choice a real one and give it far more options in regards to both fighting and linking .. mids make the world go around. ALternatively add the missile slots back or add a gun.
Caldari: No real comment, looks solid enough. Nighthawks will flood the hi-sec mission space and pose a very real threat to tackle elsewhere while Vulture has the potential to be a very nasty secondary dps boat in brawls.
Ass-tart: Looks good, maybe lower sig some as it is far too big for a ship that is presumably meant to armour rush or you could lower the mass to allow for DP fits that will allow active tank to catch up while staying under the guns.
Eos: Finally found an excuse to push it back into OP-land with five heavies, good on you! Don't really see what ship that doesn't rely on heavy neuting will be able to beat these but then I don't really see a reasonable alternative so I'll hop on the "neuts on everything" train.. last person remaining on that particular platform as far as I know 
Minmatar: With ASB's they will forever be broken, 'nuff said. Otherwise respectable tweaks, good to see you deemed missiles worth carrying over from the BC hull for them when you didn't think the Amarr drones were .. one out of two aint bad, not good either though
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to
Good thing you remembered to put that "most" in there, otherwise the Absolution and Eos would come pay you a visit in the dead of night .. but then consistency was never one of CCP's virtues so I reckon leaving 1/4 of the hulls out of a new scheme makes 'CCP SenseGäó'
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 23:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Lasers seem pretty fine imo. You're going to be mainly flying these in a gang, just sit back a little and enjoy the extra damage projection you get over blasters and autocannons.
I wouldn't want the laser bonuses on the Absolution changed unless they were going to give it a role bonus for cap usage... Tracking would be kinda nice to set it aside from the Legion / Zealot mind.
When they added drones to the Proph and all the other weird ****, all the indicators pointed towards homogenization and I pleaded with them to introduce racial role bonuses to at least keep up the illusion of variety.
Obvious/perfect choice for Amarr is a +50% on all cap related internal mods (excl. nos/neut/inject) meaning useless mods (in PvP) like relays and batteries suddenly becomes viable.
Mr Floydy wrote:...Next please.
Them thar be fightin' words!
1. The short reload is a red herring/curse and I actually think a 5s one is better .. first you only ever really use one ammo (you have one guess) extensively and when you do use the short reload to get NMF in there you have a ~25% chance of one gun in a stack not loading preventing the entire stack from firing.
Ammo costs are still the same and it is not as if one saves cargo when injecting is pretty much mandatory now that more and more hulls have lost the cap bonus without being appropriately compensated in raw stats and everyone else are packing neuts.
2. Optimal is incredibly hard to maintain when everything you encounter is faster than you, is spamming TD's and when you have no mids to alleviate much of anything optimal related .. guess one could eat into the tank for some extra oomph, but since the tank is in most cases the saving grace of laser boats ...
3/4. But why is it only Amarr that must suffer that disease? There are numerous ways to balance out more mobility and mids even for laser boats .. mobility/mid deficiency is irrelevant in numbers but crippling to the point of going elsewhere in small gangs/solo.
5. TD's hit laser boats a lot harder as you don't have speed/mids to regain range once the enemy closes with you heating up empty space and you don't have the tracking/fight-control/drones to survive with an enemy close in.
Activation cost of lasers is so much higher than blasters ditto that you will be gunless far sooner and for much longer .. cap reservoirs have almost been normalized with tiericide, Harb (laser cap bonus) vs Brute has a whopping 4% difference and Maller (no laser cap bonus!) vs Thorax has a staggering 3.5% difference.
As you said .. next please 
On topic (AMARR!):
Damnation needs to be able to vastly out-dps the Sacrilege when going balls out (being a brick is not a damn virtue), and a sixth gun or a fourth mid (take it from the highs) needs to added to the Absolution |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time!....
You had got to be kidding. You are actually adding MORE dps to the penultimate brawling CC ..
Q: What tactic would work if going up against the Astarte in another CC?
A: None. You won't break his tank before he breaks you at ranges in excess of your points but well within his. Only hope is a neuting buddy to alpha his cap and drain him whenever he injects.
I am beginning to think/fear my jokes about Dev Gallente bias might not be jokes after all.
Funny thing: All facets of the Astarte get positive reinforcement while all others have some negatives mixed in, even goes so far as to ADD launchers to Astarte while all other gunboats are partially or completely stripped of theirs.
Bad time in Eve to be flying non-Gallente hulls.
CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.
Problem is that "identity" pigeon holes it into the blob with practically no function outside: ****-poor dps with links that can be just as easily be carried by the Absolution which can actually help kill a cruiser if the need arises .. don't expect it to go much higher than that, 10 turrets with no drones to speak of and zero fight control.
1. Halve the bonus to 5% armour per level and bump the damage to 20%/level .. will still be eminently suited as the blob anchor and ten launchers (ie. same as non-kin NH) with no application bonus will ensure it remains a second tier platform.
NB: Before you say "but Claymore!!!111" .. it has optional guns (and application bonus) whereas the brick does not, they were ruthlessly eradicated.
-or-
2. Complete do-over and remake it in using the tiericided Prophecy as a template. Fits better anyway as Gallente/Amarr are 1st/2nd drone races and Caldari/Minmatar are 1st/2nd missile spammers.
Long story shorter: The idea was to make the field commands power in their own right, yet Damnation is handidly out damaged even by the palsy Sacrilege .. and no, that is not an invitation to reduce the Sacrilege further!
PS: In case you missed it, the Abso needs more! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out.
Taking off 25% from the bonus equates to losing a single 1600 plate from the 50% hull .. you'll lose in the neighborhood of 60k EHP leaving 210k+.
Do you really think that your survival increases by that much when forced onto grid in the blob to justify it being nothing but a brick in or out of the blob when no other hulls has to suffer that fate?
Problem is that even when not bricked it is outperformed by most tiericided cruisers and probably some of the bling frigs and that is neither here nor there .. sacrificing dps when bricking is one thing, but not even having the option/choice is entirely different.
Adjust the mobility and/or sig to approximate the "real" EHP of the current near stationary triple-plated if need be, just don't nerf it to a point where being a giant buffer is all it can do.
PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
756
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:...If you think that damnations haven't been tested on grid in massive fleet battles, you haven't been paying attention.
Caldess wrote:...Its pretty simple how we know it. If you are almost able to headshot a Damnation, what do you think will happen to any other Commandship?
And that can only be solved by bricking them?
How about fixing the Target Spectrum thingie and slapping a 4x effect on CC's as a role bonus alongside the 'Can fit links' bonus.
Frees them all up to be gank or tank monsters as originally intended instead of having some being way over the top gank wise and others not even able to support to their own weight.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
762
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:6/5/7 would make it quite interesting and unique without changing the bonuses(which would make it something special and different than any of the other drone boats, so please don't change the bonuses just the slots)
So you want a drone platform to have more slots than its gun counterparts? Deimos, Eos and Astarte are all capable of 1k+ tanks with six lows, want to take a guess what it would be called if it had seven .. give you a hint: rhymes with token.
Proposed Eos (Heavy drone brawler) does less damage than the Astarte but it will positively murderize any size ship where the Astarte will have to get tricky to wreck frigates and some cruisers. And of course you have the whole "free highs + full damage" that is drone platforms so you can go full link and not lose any damage.
If only the Damnation had the fleet + solo + small + medium gang potential of the Eos 
SOL Ranger wrote:Give us proper bonuses on Amarr laser ships, like so:
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret optimal range
(was 10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use)
And then introduce a new skill Controlled Energy Bursts(5x), the skill reduces capacitor use by Energy Turrets by 10% per level, requires Controlled Bursts V.
Please, it is needed.
Oh God, not range .. with Scorch in game it is utterly useless on a ~200k EHP ship .. you have ample time to close distance. Lasers have range, what they need is application, the 7.5% tracking from the Navy Harb would fit a lot better especially considering the only three mids which exclude the use of a web.
Cap can be sorted by upping either size/recharge or doubling the benefit of Controlled Bursts, sure it would help hybrid users as well but since they all have more mids and similar base cap numbers it will be the proverbial drop in a bucket. Good idea to move the cap deficit to skills though, hadn't thought of that.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 00:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:...I wouldnt say that, i fly dule rep SFIs, dule rep + plate prophecys, and Dule Rep Thorax's quite often. their speeds are amazing and they have the magical 4 mids i belive needed to active armor tank, unfortunatly most amarr boats dont have this. Over all I think if amarr got a nice sig decrease across the board it would help out their playstyle much in the same way speed helped Galent in their roll.
Four mids and low sigs are all fine suggestions, but if you really want to help Amarr then have the lasers output warrant the cap drain instead of those silly LED flashlights they get for the cap investment.
Buff lasers to a point where they out-damage the Old Testament God (ie. post patch Gallente! ) by a healthy margin but suck so much cap that injector is needed beyond the 60-90s mark and introduce the high tracking 3rd pulses in M/L sizes .. gives you flavour, usefulness, vulnerability etc. all in one go.
Works for blobs as cap can be outsourced in the form of Guardians, works for solo/small-gang where injectors are often added anyway to run SAAR's/neuts and it even works for PvE where damage = tank so one can throw in more relays and such to get the 5-6min cap needed for most missions/spawns.
The lack of flavour is what gets me the most. Previous racially restricted bonuses are scattered all over the place and ship lines seem to be geared towards offering all options within each race so that one need never cross-train for anything |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 08:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Rowells wrote:in order of best base stats comparing large Blasters, AC, and Lasers (left - best, right - worst): ...
Decent enough spin attempt, but you overvalue reload time and neglected to include fittings, tiericide has made most equal size ships fittings almost the same with variances based on amount of mids and tank type mostly.
Damage modifer: Blasters <22%> Lasers <3%> Auto
Range: (combined optimal/2xfalloff): Autos <8%> Lasers <47%> Blasters
Tracking: Blasters <14%> Autocannons <30%> Lasers
Capacitor Friendly: Autos --- Blasters <316%> Lasers (NB: Even after hull bonus of -50% lasers are worse!)
Fitting ((cpu+grid)/2): Autos <23%> Blasters <10%> Lasers
Reload Time: Irrelevant as laser swap only really changes range and not damage (no uses all the above standard ammos except for beams), so is never actually (ab)used as speeds have been equalized somewhat. Scorch and MF, chosen before a fight in most cases .. but if you must include it then add 3 to Lasers, 2 to Blasters and 1 to Autos.
Blasters = 13
Lasers = 7
Autocannons = 12
See what happen when you twist it ever so slightly and refrain from spreading disinformation (blasters worse on cap than lasers, thats a new one! ). Lasers and Autos have a single point up in the air from range dependent on whether you use 1x or 2x falloff and completely ignore TE's effect, but it does not impact the otherwise very clear picture: Lasers are one adjustment behind the others.
It makes sense given that projectiles had a major revamp, kicking off Winmatar and Blasters recently got a minor revamp/tweak. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rowells wrote:im going to respond to the rest of that in a minute but I'm going to point out that you have 32 (7+12+13 = 32) total points on a system that only has 30 so....
Damn, the lack of the % partition on cap friendliness threw me off.
My tally is:
Blaster: 12
Auto: 11
Laser: 7
Doesn't change the conclusion though
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:This is a commandship thread lets try to keep on topic and not compare weapon systsems and balance here
How on Earth do you propose one goes about balancing the hulls without taking into account the mods they are likely to use? Everything, as in everything (Grid/CPU, Cap, mobility, bonuses et al.) are dictated by the how/what/where/when of fitting and using a ship, it is why CCP tweaks grid downwards to "force" auto fits or removes slots on drone boats.
When the weapon systems are so much out of sync as is the case currently (many moons has passed since last laser change), the balancing (or feedback thereon) of the hulls becomes impossible for us to participate in without factoring in possible future changes to weapons .. I am fairly certain that the Dev crew already has an outline of where they want lasers to be and are using that when they cook the numbers, but we are not privy to it so must make our own (they may not have said outline in which case we (Amarr) are seriously screwed ) |
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:...Edit: you as in you and the others, and if this came off as mean spirited sorry, it is not meant as such
Its a public forum where grown ups get hot-n-bothered about spaceships like pre-teen boys who see what's on TV after mommy and daddy has gone to bed.
We are on page 60+ with Devs probably trying to find shelter (somewhere halfway through) from the deluge of critique that has pelted this thread, CC's are a about as big a deal as it can get as they are being set up to reclaim the link crown and links are going to be joining the melee .. and .. we have been promised that they would all have teeth should the player choose to bare them.
Balance stickies are historically derailed around page 50 when people run out of 100% on topic feedback and just sort of drift away, we know the Devs are monitoring them so they are WMD's in the war to get heard. All my 100% OT was concluded in the first fifteen pages or so, with some good ideas/arguments involved if I dare say so myself
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
763
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 12:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:...Right so the EOS can have 700dps and 170ehp and be an "excellent frontline-ship" but a theoretical 7/7/3 Nighthawk with 650 dps and 150 EHP is "godmode".
Your full of bias.
Damnation doesn't even get 500 paper dps with HAM's and three BCSII's (130k EHP in three slot tank .. hahaha) so quit your complaining!!
Damnation ought to be the base line for the old fleets and Sleipnir the baseline for old fields, thusly:
Damnation, Eos, Vulture, Claymore: Tank first, damage second. Resists/Raw EHP, means that Claymore/Eos will have to give up their repair bonuses .. they should all be capable of 225k+ EHP if they choose to forego damage. When using triple damage mods they should be on par with the other four using one (15-20% difference)
* Considering the link type bonuses I'd suggest having one of each (EHP/Resist) available for both camps.
Absolution, Astarte, Nighthawk, Sleipnir: Damage/Application first, Tank second.
Bonuses to be damage, tracking, range etc. with paper dps somewhere around 8-900 (1k for blasters) if skimping on tank and nimbler/smaller than their fat cousins. If tanked out they should be able equal the other four in relative EHP over a period of one full Ancillary repairers worth, pure buffering should fall short by 25% or more.
Means that Absolution should have 15-20% more damage and/or application, NH about half that (has range advantage), Astarte to lose some damage and Sleipnir 7.5%Rof/7.5%Dmg (one turret more than current proposal = +10%dps) and tanks adjusted as needed.
* Sorry Gallente lovers (includes Dev in charge), but believe it or not: Having 1k+ dps while being able to tank that amount is not good for the game unless same performance is made available to all .. ie. if it is only the one it is broken/OP.
Provides both link camps (Info and Skirmish) comparative options; face-melt close range hull and a longer range/utility blob mobile without making either utterly useless when outside its comfort zone (ie. small gang stuff).
PS: Sorting the Spectrum Breaker (functional IDFF) and giving all CCs a hefty bonus to them would be an ideal role bonus which negates the need to nerf alpha into the ground once links come on grid. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 12:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:I do not understand the whole "2 free high slot" for all CS. Like i said earlier, make one boosting CS and one dps CS.
Ditto.
Could probably get away with just adding a primary weapon mount on the dps varieties and nothing else, they could still do twin links but would have to sacrifice potential damage .. only supplemental change that might be needed would be to roll back the 2nd adjustment to Astarte (the 11 gun vs 10 gun change). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:...balanceing is done around pvp so show me a passive shield tank used in pvp......
You mean the more than common shield/gank fits that were/are so popular as to creep onto ships with just 3 mids (partially replaced by ASB's now)?
PvP tanking is the same as PvE tanking in that it can either be localized (passive/active/buffer) or projected (dps) .. due to cheap bat-phones PvP tanking has been moving towards projected over the years as the kill must be achieved before the phone is picked up ... the passive (assuming you mean regen-tank) PvP tank as such died with the Drake/HML changes.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 11:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Fozzie #917, p.46 wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare.
- Seven days later -
CCP Fozzie #1368, p.69 wrote:...Rather than add more +50% Hp bonuses to the command ships we're starting down the path that will allow us to remove that bonus from the Damnation and get them all into better balance.
What happened during that week to make you see the light?
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:Ohh, balancing means in huge fight like in Fountain fleets will be getting every time a headshot of a FC. I guess this will be a hillarious PVP experience or a fleet without bonus to secure the FC. It's looking to me that CCP is working on the next level how to crash the player accounts.
Take a look around and tell me if you see ships other than the Command Ships that can field links while having considerably more EHP than even the 4x1600 Damnation .. get back to me when you see it (hint: they are bigger)
For massive blobs (offensive ones at least) CC's or even T3's will not be the optimal choice due to the risk of being 'head shotted' as you mention, but there are other options hitherto unexplored due to off-grid functionality.
Off/On/Tangential-to topic: Why not add a CC level link bonus to the activation of the Triage module (think Rorqual deploy bonus)? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 10:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:...A significant downside for the astarte is that - when dualwebbed - you're pretty much screwed. And every afterburning t1 cruiser says ***** *** tracking or screw you range :S
Doesn't that go triple for the Absolution with its less drones, less tracking, less midslots, less tank, less everything really .. except Scorch range?
Absolution is in a bad place if it is to be the dps/vanguard hull, granted the Devs may have laser changes in mind and thus deliberately underbuffing the hull, but if that is the case then we really ought to know.
PS: Scorch has been used to justify sub-par performance of practically all laser hulls since forever which is just plain wrong. If I had the choice between fun competitive ships and a narrow niche (projection only) single ammo type I'd choose the former every day of the week .. (read: Nerf Scorch already so that Amarr can get rid of that damn crutch once and for all). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 17:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
Capt Canada wrote:...That depends on how big a fleet your in, how much logi you have compared to the incoming dps.. Won't matter how much logi you have if the command ship is primary vs a high alpha fleet...
Only one thing will save links from alpha when they come on grid, adopting a pragmatic approach by having enough baskets for ones eggs. Look at the command redundancy built into modern armies, order givers start appearing all the way down at a squad level whereas in Eve we have gotten accustomed to having one big cheese.
Of course that paradigm change that is necessitated by eventual on-grid change will force CCP to cook up a more fluid way of assigning boosters as they should be expected to be near top of primary lists, if only to test tanks and having to manually assign boosters throughout a fight will drive people mad(der).
Another thing that might help on the extreme end of the scale is the Spectrum Breaker, a novel idea when they introed it but it kind of fizzled. Redesign/fix it and add a bonus to its use on CC's, effectively making them immune to pure alpha headshots.
The self same paradigm change is the reason why ALL the CC's should be on roughly equal footing when it comes to damage/application/tanking which is simply not the case with Damnation being the odd one out with even less output than its HAC counterpart but being able to brick itself.
In other words: It is impossible to balance anything to function on the large scale without unbalancing it on all other scales, so paradigms (read: fleet compositions) must be reevaluated and CCP must develop ways/means to ease that shift.
Luckily for CCP the heavy load won't come until links actually are to come on-grid so they have oodles of time to do the napkin dance and sketch out a solution .. but unless we are all willing to go through another CC balance pass when that glorious day arrives the fact that they are coming on-grid should be included in any and all deliberations this time around (all comes down to Dev time as with most things ) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 19:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
bloodknight2 wrote:Alsyth wrote:
Except for armor CS you can fit 1600+2 MAR+cap booster+guns+links (with some meta 4 indeed) and with shield if you want dual XL-ASB no amount of meta4 will save you, you need 6 fitting mods/rigs.
http://i52.tinypic.com/1zwypsg.jpgOne XL-ASB rep for 980Hp VS 640 for a dual MAR A XL-ASB with a shield amplifier will rep for 1330HP (more than 4 MAR). A sleipnir can rep for 1880HP with CS 5 and a shield amplifier (6x more than a MAR)
You are missing his point I think, he is talking about the horribleness of CCP not letting him fit double oversized mods with room to spare for everything else when the armour hulls can fit appropriately sized mods with little to no sacrifices.
He is one of the many people who thinks that the point of tiericide is to buff everything in sight when it is "merely" a great big balance pass which includes module size/fitting discrepancies .. oversizing has been a scourge and I for one am glad it is being addressed although they are too cautious for my taste 
Just wait until T3's get their turn in the wringer and the various 100mn fits are nerfed into extinction .. that is when the real fun starts
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 21:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
Grutpig Cloudwalker wrote:Regarding the EHP issue of command ships especially in massive battles, I would suggest the following...
Server must be keeping track of who/how many are receiving boosts at any given time for it to assign said bonuses .. just add 0.25-0.50% primary EHP buffer (shield/armour) per ship being boosted ... run a survey every five minutes or whichever is prudent to conserve hamster lives.
Basically use the scaling which is responsible for breaking EHP bonuses when applied "raw" to prevent same.
NB: That is contingent on the way boosters are assigned remaining relatively as is, ie. only one per 'level'. |
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 12:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:...I would also suggest making the Eos and Sleipnir armour HP ships aswell.
Problem with that is it will defeat the purpose of the whole exercise, which is to make all viable with or without links, it is the same reason why the Damnation bonus has to go bye-bye.
Reference: Damnation bricks like a champ but has less damage output than the Sacrilege, a ship that has always been sub-par on damage by the way.
Ask yourself this: If Vulture/Eos/Sleipnir were to get the brick bonus, what sacrifices would you be willing to make?
Remove 75m3 of drones from Eos? Drop both damage bonuses on Sleipnir to 5% and remove a turret? .. end result would be what we have now, CC's that are pointless outside of 'Da Blob' and even in the 'Da Blob' their life expectancy would only be marginally increased or they'd be completely ignored as link bonus drop means that the 1M dps a fleet pushes out is indirectly increased by a large amount.
The ability to survive on-grid is solved by EHP increases on paper only, we have had blanket EHP increases in the past and all they did was prolong solo engagement slightly (active tank changes have done far more!) and enlarge gang sizes. We need a non EHP based answer to the question of on-grid survivability, preferably one that does not make small gangs obsolete.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 15:29:00 -
[22] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
Vulture
- trade an optimal range bonus for shield HP
Eos
- trade armour rep for armour HP
Sleipnir
- trade shield boost bonus for armour HP
And where is the sacrifice? Take a long look at the Damnation again and see what the brick bonus costs .. then apply similar hamstringing to the hulls you want the bonus applied, after you are done ask yourself if you would ever fly it outside 'Da Blob'.
Serenity Eon wrote:Why not remove the 10% hitpoint bonus from the damnation (replacing it with a ROF bonus), so it can be PVE viable, then add a 50% hitpoint role bonus to all command ships?
You are both completely missing the point, EHP will not save you on grid almost regardless of the amount. Weekend fleet size has octupled the past five years so that 1000+ is the norm for the shin-digs .. considering that it takes just ~30 alpha boats to knock down 1/4M HP there is just no way in Hell that you will ever have enough EHP for it to matter.
If you should somehow be successful in convincing the Devs that CC's get to retain their combat prowess and have a brick bonus thrown on top, where does that put everything smaller (hull and fleet size)?
How do you propose one goes about fighting a ship with 800+ dps and 250+k EHP in anything other than a similar or bigger ship .. BC and down would essentially be obsolete for small gang/solo work, just when things got interesting after the tiericide passes (ISK has never been an obstacle for min/maxing FoTM monkeys).
Random alternative #XX:
- CC's have zero align time (insta-warp) and links work in warp. Probably not possible to separate agility from warp but it solves the issue, even if it would be as annoying to be a CC pilot as it is babysitting for the nouveau rich.
Very short: EHP is not answer. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.18 16:03:00 -
[23] - Quote
S1dy wrote:You're wrong, in both ways: EHP is an answer. I was with many large fleets in the past and often realized how hard it is to kill a Damnation. But I've seen a lot of Vultures/Nighthawks dying. It's right, there's a critical point by that every ship will fall whether there are logistics and bonuses or not. But this special cases are still very rare.
You are assuming the meta stays the same through one of the most extensive mechanic shake-ups in Eve history. What do you think the FC response will be to +25% everything platforms coming on grid? Want to wager that alpha capability, even just a handful of squads, will be added to every fleet alongside the mandatory logistics, bubblers etc.?
So while 1/4M EHP is enough today when the ship merely has to survive to complete a single warp, it will be hopelessly inadequate when it has to stay with its boosting clients.
S1dy wrote:Though I'm repeating myself, just do a brick tank Command Ship and a second one doing DPS. That would be fair enough.
If we go that route then what is the point of this?
The reason for starting the CC pass was to remove the fleet/field distinction not to deepen it. We should strive towards having something for all ships to do at all levels of play, not create hulls that are either game-breakingly OP or tear-inducingly bad in one situation or another. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
770
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 07:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...However in the long run, adding HP is not the solution to key ships being volleyed off the field. As EVE battles grow in numbers and coordination people are going to find a way to volley just about anything we design, and then we'll be right back where we started. We're not going to get into an escalating design battle against the dps and alpha of player fleets.
Common sense from an Eve Dev, what is the world coming to!
CCP Fozzie wrote:The solution to the problem is to sidestep it by reducing reliance on a few lynchpin ships. The reason that command ships have this problem while other key fleet ships (like logistics, recons or dictors) don't is because people can bring redundant numbers of those other classes. When we get the capability to remove offgrid links our plan is to also replace the way links apply so that losing one key ship won't mean you need to take your ball and go home.
Any ideas as to how to go about it? Assuming you mean a mechanic that will remove the necessity of FC to manually assign boosters every time one drops, watchlist system that is depleted as a fight goes on? Tagging all link ships and letting server determine which is better (based on what links dropped)? .. will it play nice with squads/wings and if not is fleet interface going on the make-over show?
Common sense is awesome, but be careful, once you start down that path there is no going back and you'll start seeing weird and irrational things at every corner
CCP Fozzie wrote:At the same time we are continuing to push more viable gang boosting options into lower brackets of SP and isk requirements....
You teasing with a frig based link platform perchance? If not ... could you?
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out.
Just make sure it is fixed beforehand .. we don't want a situation where a logi wing can immunize a CC just by locking it.
PS: "A few times" .. you are dissing my forum whoring!!111
Would love a Devblog detailing the thought processes going into the on-/offgrid work, it is a change that will have a bigger impact than the introduction of POS back in the day as it affects Eve on all levels. If nothing else, your deranged braintrust (ie. the playerbase) might have ideas as to how to get around specific/general obstacles so abuse it/us.
Cade Windstalker wrote:That's average recharge, look at the recharge rates and total cap for each and then apply skills. You get some pretty major differences. Peak recharge on the Amarr ships with a decently skilled character is going to be worlds better than either of the Minmattar ships, which by comparison have an absolutely anemic capacitor total.
They all have 4.5 per second .. that number is a straight division of cap and recharge so applying skills won't change it much as proportions will remain the same.
Seems like they just took the old number and tweaked numbers on field hulls upwards to have a bigger pool on them regardless of weaponry and bonuses to active tanking .. actually kind of strange. Considering that active tanking is wanted on the smaller scale and tank relevant slots remain static there ought to be significant differences (read: Abso needs much MOAR! and Astarte need a little moar!) to account for weaponry, bonuses and slots available for cap (ie. injector). |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
775
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 15:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Aplier Shivra wrote:Well, sacrilege had a random capacitor bonus as one of it's hull bonuses, and when rebalancing the hacs, Rise felt generous and decided to remove that as a hull bonus and give the sac a real hull bonus, but leave the increased cap regen as a part of sac's base numbers....
He did far more than that .. he removed the Sacrilege 25% bonus and effectively applied it to ALL the hulls, recharge rate changes as follows:
Sacrilege -24%
Zealot - 15% (WTF!)
Deimos -33% (hahahaha)
Ishtar -21%
Cerberus -30%
Eagle -24%
Vagabond -27%
Muninn -24%
So he was indeed generous, enough to give the Sacrilege bonus to everyone without giving anything to the Sacrilege in return
Command recharges are a tad low considering they are expected to run links .. but since they are not on-grid as of yet I am more than willing to let it slide as they will have to get a second, third, fourth pass once that fateful day arrives so there is ample time to sort it.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
775
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 06:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
Yes, the bolded part is where he reiterates that it will in fact be removed .. just not in Odear 1.1. He also basically commits himself himself to a second CC (doubt they'll bother with Damn only) pass when the on-grid change is a bit more tangible.
Or perhaps you think he is malicious/dumb enough to first make it redundant (ie. no necessary) and then leave it in? He, as most Devs, is neither of those .. just misguided at times |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
776
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 16:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Well this was actually my first idea for using highs. However abso, being a laser ship, is not as great with neuts as a pre-nerf hurricane was. This said there are some valid uses for those his slots. What I was actually pointing out, was the fact that while 2 highs are nice, a med slot is just vital to the abso as many have said before me. Just don't get it why it cant have it. ....
As a laser ship it suffers the whiplash of Scorch, adding a 4th mid is a risky proposition balance wise as the stuff one can use an extra mid for is mindboggling.
That is not to say that the call for utility => mid is not called for as it will end up borderline (ie. right side of border) but will increase the relative power manyfold in pretty much all situations. Alternative would be to add a gun slot, invalidating the arbitrary (there, I said it!!!!!) "2 slots for links" rule yet still making it worthwhile outside larger gangs/blobs.
What scares me is that the Dev in charge was a player who prided himself (and rightfully so) on doing everything with anything yet does not seem to understand what the main problem is with lasers ...
To Dev: Add a pure test version (ie. SiSi, only with no promises) of the medium and larger gatlings, if only to see how far that goes ... a thorough laser revision might not even be necessary if proper application options were available. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
780
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 09:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:Well its your opinion. I have another one. Cs dont need an complete stylechange. Just some smaller optimizations.
For now at least that holds true, but what happens when they get through the gordian knot that prevents them from bringing links on-grid?
What we need and what most of us are trying to narrow down is a design that allows CCs to exist in both roamy as well as blobby weather when that fateful day arrives .. they have to provide boosts obviously, they need survivability enough for them to matter in a given fight, they need to have teeth/function enough to take on duties beyond boosting, FC need a way to easily and smoothly transition from link boat to link boat as they will be targeted with a vengeance (not the hull) in some engagements and since they are one of the last tiericide victims their predators must already be available.
Not an easy task to tick all those boxes, but that should be the aim and we are almost there for the most part. We could limit ourselves to small optimizations but we'd be forced to take this discussion as the on-grid day draws nearer - and as the old saying goes: Why put off for tomorrow what you can do today? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
780
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 14:38:00 -
[29] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:..Veshta if you can honestly spell out, with examples, why this was better than the new ships that solve all of these problems and sets us up well Fozzie's concept for on-grid links then by all means do so but I'm just not seeing it. Your argument seems to boil down to "but they changed it!!! T_T" not any specific problem with what they've done beyond that they've done anything at all.
Why would I spend time coming up with arguments to support a cause I have spent the past several years actively trying to defeat?
Granted, most of my energy was directed towards the power links had through the perfect scalability .. the ability to apply full boosts to a full fleet with no drawbacks is insane and one of the reasons why off-grid links became the norm. If one ship can boost as (or more) effectively than multiple ships then only the foolish will opt for multiple which gave rise to the POS'ed 5+ link ships.
I am a proponent of leeching off the locking mechanics, not necessarily as locks but a hard limit (use a watch-list inspired thing perhaps) with a separate attribute like drone control range that determines how far a client can be from booster .. if it was based on locks you'd have damp fests which is as bad for game as off-grid links are (soon -> were).
The CC revisions are long overdue but have been rushed into .. they are inextricably linked to boosts, fleets and all that jazz, and from the "oh yeah, we have been talking .. " replies from Devs on the topic it seems to me that they did not actually sit down and think the whole 'where do we want them in Eve' thing though.
I thought my post, the one you quoted, detailed where I want them .. but for emphasis:
They should all have great tanking potential so they can survive the small/medium gang environment.
They should all have great damage/application potential so they can participate (read: get on mails with style!).
NB: The two above are linked, sacrifice one to bolster the other, but basis for it must be there.
They should all have survivability far above the norm in fleet environments, I for one am happy to see that Devs are willing to look outside the box at for example my (think I was first to suggest it at any rate) idea to use the all but abandoned Spectrum Breaker concept for that thus avoiding the breakage on smaller scales that excessive tanks/EHP would cause.
They will be primaried in some fights, the ones where their power is greatest in relation to the scale (read: medium size (30-50) fights) and current method of assigning boosters is inadequate in a high-attrition scenario.
And finally, they should have hard counters, preferably several among the existing ships .. only thing besides brute force that will take links out is heavy and constant neuting which is nowhere near enough counter-wise considering the power of links even when/if restricted to having max clients and being on-grid .. a link equals a faction fitted added slot to all under its umbrella which is immense.
So no examples of why/how the old is better than what is coming .. but I think the Devs missed the scope of the project as it is not merely CC's and links that will have to change but a whole slew of things related to gangs/fleets/links which is a lot of ground to cover. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 07:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:...Simple question needs to be asked and a solid answer needs to be given; whats it for?
Since all of those numbers and the conclusions hinges on the tank discrepancy twixt NH and Vulture, the question you should be asking is how you are going to nerf (the missile performance) the NH when/if CCP manages to decouple the CC's expected TTL from EHP in blobby weather.
That one point is one that is continually ignored, even after RisingFozzie has stated that a dps/EHP war with the playerbase is something CCP neither wants nor seeks or can win for that matter (read: they want the EHP decoupling).
Nighthawk will be downright godlike if they manage it, one of the best dps application platforms in Eve no longer having to worry about being swamped .. *shudder* |
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
782
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 10:23:00 -
[31] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The presence of rapiers and lokis on field would be a good argument for the utility of laser (or even missile) ships rather than baster ships.
I think they are at least relevant to the discussion.
Except that the web ranges involved eliminate all weapon systems, even HMLs from the equation so it cannot in fact be used to say anything whatsoever about blasters other than you had better have a way of dealing with LR webs regardless of what you are flying.
You are Gallente so damp the bastards or lug around a few rail platforms or ... without the contingency you are facing a hard counter, the only "real" one as far as I am concerned so it would be your damn fault
Seolfor wrote:Regards to the Nighthawk - people have already Rticulated most things wrong with it. TLDR - it doesn't shine at anything, what is its niche?
I just wanted to add, in a PvE role the NHawk is not just blown away by the Tengu (always has, it's T3, it's 2-3x cost, so ok), but for Serp and Gurista it's so far and beyond outclassed by the new Cerberus, it's embarrassing. I've posted this simple point twice, the market realises this and now the NHawk isn't selling for even 190m while the Cerb is approaching 230m sells.
Is anyone even listening?
I'll take your Nighthawk if you take my Damn(ation) pointless brick any day of the week
Also, is the Cerberus still superior when/if all the things being worked on are sorted out, in particular the ability for a link ship to benefit from its own links? Sure it lacks some range, but even post HML nerf you still have plenty for most PvE stuff and the NH application bonus is infinitely better than whatever the Cerberus brings to the table. |
|
|
| |
|