Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:35:00 -
[331] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Is there a link for the command ship model changes, or has that not been announced yet?
Here you all go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8bZ7ThlRY |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:36:00 -
[332] - Quote
Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. CCP clearly want to (eventually) move boosts on grid though. I really can't understand why you would oppose giving them at least a chance to survive being primaried. And as for you comment on everyone flying them in a fleet that's just dumb and you're clearly responding from a position of ignorance concerning null sec warfare and fleet comps. LOL hardly.
What I actually said is that they will be much more common, we'll very likely see fleet doctrines shifting a fair amount in the near future.
Also, I don't oppose bonuses to resistance or buffer amount. However I can also see way to make repair bonuses work within the current meta. I try not to always compare things from the point of view of "but if we do things exactly as we are now, this won't work"... because that is a losing point of view.
Most of your better fleet (and gang composition) doctrines got their start from someone looking at a set of abilities that everyone else thought was "meh" and realized it could be made to work very well indeed. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Domiblob
Viziam Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:36:00 -
[333] - Quote
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. |
Tirion Stargazer
Dutch Squad Novus Dominatum
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:37:00 -
[334] - Quote
I dislike the mixup of field and fleetcom roles,
the fleetcoms could use a little seasoning, but the fleetcoms are getting into an odd direction
|
El Scotch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:39:00 -
[335] - Quote
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?
|
Dominionix
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:39:00 -
[336] - Quote
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.
Not empty quoting. CCP you really need to take this in to account, these ships are designed for FLEET combat, and they are so vulnerable to hostile fleets they will be an absolutely horrible, miserable experience for whoever has to fly them. Whilst I don't like the AFK in a POS boosters, at least that means they can be done with alts rather than ruining the game for 5 people in every fleet. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4431
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:40:00 -
[337] - Quote
Mark Artreides wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. Ranger 1 wrote:You might consider that since CS will be quite effective in a fight with or without links it's pretty doubtful that only your wing commanders will be in them. Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel.
Also your definition of "paper thin tank" is ... interesting to say the least.
However, I will say that fleet boosts really need to affect every member of the fleet... regardless of position or whether you happen to be doing the boosting or not. Are you even the same dude posting? Or are you just posting random answers? At one post you say they will just get popped and in the other you are arguing the paper thin tank on the other fleet command ships. You sir, have no clue what you are talking about. No, YOU have no clue what I'm talking about. Big difference.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
273
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:41:00 -
[338] - Quote
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.
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[339] - Quote
Dat Myrmidon. |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[340] - Quote
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.
HEY MR. GOONIE WHY NOT POST THIS WITH YOUR MAIN TOONIE? |
|
Craystorm
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[341] - Quote
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 is a good post.
As a Pilot who flys a Wing/Fleet Booster Alt regularly: Let us field them with the fleet on grid (fix wing recieving fleet boosts + unfuck the shield tank problems this dude is talking about) or let them boost in peace without constantly alt+tabbing to check for probes.
Tank you :> |
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[342] - Quote
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.
Valid questions, CCP do you have answers? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[343] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:I'm Down wrote:Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.
The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:
A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage
A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.
The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.
Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play. Your math is pretty atrocious. If you have 50% base resist, and your hull ends up with a 20% bonus to resists, your ship will have a total of 50 + (100-50)*.2 total resist, in this case 60% total resist. So if you get hit with 100 base damage with just the 50% resist you take 50 damage. If get hit with 100 base damage with 60% reisit you take 40 damage. It doesn't matter what the base resist is, you will always take 20% less damage. But the effect that has is a 25% boost to survivibility. To illustrate this, take a ship with 500 hp. If you're taking the damage from above with just the base resist it takes 10 seconds to burn through the HP. If you have the extra resist profile it takes 12.5 second, or 25% longer to burn through the same amount of hp. If you don't understand everything I just said you probably shouldn't be attacking the devs for their understanding of the game mechanics. I'm Down wrote: How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.
Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55 Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction
To bring your attrocious math full circle lets look at just this statement. Claymore: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50 = 225 base resists Nighthawk: Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 = 200 base resists The nighthawk with the 20% resist bonus: EM = 0 + (100-0)*.2 = 20 TH = 80 + (100-80)*.2 = 84 Kin = 70 + (100-70)*.2 = 76 Exp = 50 + (100-50)*.2 = 60 240 total resists I have no idea what you're trying to say besides this because whatever math you thought was supporting your argument is bad.
you have fallen into the dev trap and totally missed the point.
The only thing a resist bonus changes is a lvl 0 ship compared to that same ship at lvl 5. It has no cross connection to any other ship unless the have identical resistances.
In the case of the Tech 2 ships, some have hole filled while others further buff strengths. When you already have high base resist, the 20% resist bonus means drastically less than it would with 0 resist.
Numbers don't lie, you just don't understand math at all.
Break it down at it's simplest level using your own numbers
240 is not 20% higher than 225. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
589
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:45:00 -
[344] - 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 |
Daktar Jaxs
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:46:00 -
[345] - Quote
To put this another way: the bloc of players that comprises nearly 10% of your subscribed accounts is more than a bit unhappy about these changes. Would you like to go away and have another think about them. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:46:00 -
[346] - Quote
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.
Got the poke to like this post.
I read it.
And liked it, genuinely.
Fozzie, listen to this guy.
edit: he also raises the issue with all the damn ewar modules in mid slots. Armor rarely, if ever, need to make that choice.
Maybe, move the command modules to a high slot. if you need them. which you don't. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Caneb
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:47:00 -
[347] - Quote
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. Everyone on eve-o look closely, this is what a Good Post looks like. |
William Darkk
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:48:00 -
[348] - Quote
Disappointed with the repair/boost effectiveness bonuses. Those wont save you when you're primary, but a resist bonus has a chance.
It's not like no Min/Gal ships have resist bonuses, the hictors do. |
General Nusense
Not Posting With My Main
70
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:48:00 -
[349] - Quote
LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
|
Shear Terror
Empty Wallets Inc. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
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.
What he said ^^^^^
|
|
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[351] - Quote
Entity wrote:So, Astarte getting a massive damage nerf?
The damage/rof changes do not offset the 29% reduced damage from losing 2 turrets, and adding 2 completely unbonused launchers isn't that particularly appealing.
Addition of drone damage bonus should offset that significantly. |
Kael Attrell
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[352] - Quote
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.
Agreed. While I'm excited about having improved t2 battlecruisers to play with, I'm not so sure about why they're being called command ships. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[353] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.
The resistance bonus system to command ships really doesn't make much sense Let me explain this clearly before people chime in:
A ship with a 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage will receive 50 damage
A ship with 50% natural resistance taking 100 damage with a 20% resistance bonus will have 55% resistance, and therefore take 45 damage.
That means you really only take a 10% reduction in damage. This goes back to bad development where devs think % resistance works in some magical fashion rather than realistically. Hence the nerf to 4% per level recently as a compromise to active boosters. Proof the Devs don't know **** about mechanics
The only time a resist bonus actually matters the way the Devs run numbers is when you start at 0% resist across the board. This hardly ever happens as a matter of base statistics on all ships.
Furthering the problem is Tech 2 resistances. A Tech 2 ship with a 20% resist bonus does not actually receive 20% less damage than a comparable tech 1 ship. Instead, it receives 20% less damage than a comparable ship with the same base resistances. 2 totally different mechanics at play.
How is this bad for Tech 2 balance. Well lets further examine the claymore / nighthawk conundrum I posted about earlier.
Claymore without any bonuses has 220 total resist for an average of 55 Nighthawk with bonuses has a 240 total resist for an average of 60% damage reduction
Lets use really lazy math since it provides easy to work with numbers
100 damage applied on the claymore nets 45 damage 100 damage applied on the nighthawk nets 40 damage.
2 ways of looking at this:
Offensively, I have 12.5% more projected damage versus the claymore.*
Defensively, the nighthawk is receiving 8.9% less damage than the claymore.*
*this is a ratio mechanic that causes 2 different values. It seems weird at first until you realize how the wording plays. One is how much more damage is the claymore taking compared to the NH (ratio of C:NH). The other is how much less damage is the Nighthawk taking compared to the Claymore (ratio of NH:C)
Both ways show that in no way do you approach 20% reduced damage, and certainly not higher than 20% reduced damage. However the Developers will try to convince you that this is not true because in Imagination land, they are allowed to assume all resistances are 0 to start with and there's no such thing as diminished returns in EVE.
Fact is, the gaps that Caldari and Gallente have are far inferior to the more spread, resist gap fills of the Amarr and Matar. When you make 2 similar ships with other drastically severe balance problems like the NH and Claymore, this resist gap really shows how bad the balance is.
So glad our developers can post on here how smart they are about their mechanics and how closely they sit to each other in the office to assure us they know what they're doing. Maybe you should learn core mechanics and fundamentals of the game first.
This is just another in a long line of failures.
Perhaps a better option for T2 ships is to use HP bonuses instead of resist bonuses as they will probably get more bang for the buck. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:49:00 -
[354] - Quote
General Nusense wrote:LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
Oh you. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Calmoto
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:50:00 -
[355] - Quote
resist + armour hp bonus on a damnation where is the vultures shield hp bonus? active boosting on a claymore?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
wtf is going on |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:51:00 -
[356] - Quote
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.
QFT
|
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:51:00 -
[357] - Quote
General Nusense wrote:LOOK AT ALL THE CFC NERDS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO LIKE A POST AND POST IN THIS THREAD. MR.VEE PINGS, CFC THREADNAUGHTS.
Tbh I'd say that any large sov alliance would agree to what Dvla posted, not just CFC. Any other major entities that would like to comment? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[358] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:I'm Down wrote:Let's futher talk about the Resistance gaps in Command ships.
Perhaps a better option for T2 ships is to use HP bonuses instead of resist bonuses as they will probably get more bang for the buck.
It would certainly be better for the Nighthawk to get 10%/ lvl hp bonus. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[359] - Quote
Dograzor 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. Valid questions, CCP do you have answers?
They don't usually answer our questions .. why would they change that here? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Rikard Stark
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:52:00 -
[360] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Rikard Stark wrote:[quote=Ranger 1] Which makes it a bit difficult to assassinate them unless you have inside intel. Confirming no one in null sec has spies Of course they do, but then they are going to get popped regardless of what they are flying... rendering the whole argument moot. However I can also see way to make repair bonuses work within the current meta.
Posting for posterity |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 70 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |