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) |

PipeViper
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:14:00 -
[421] - Quote
The Broadsword gets a resistance increase stat for durablitly, so its not like a command ship cannot have the same thing, especially if it fulfills a role, and this even goes for the "fast race". The active tanking bonus is just pretty dumb IMO for the Fleet command when its meant to hand out bonuses in large fleets where it's in extreme danger. |

Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:15:00 -
[422] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Jason Dunham wrote: So for example, some of these command ships have local rep bonuses instead of ehp bonuses. But since they are also buffing local reps, this would make the command ship more independent, and free up a pilot since logistics may not be necessary in all fleet setups now.
Yeah but we have two command ships so why can't we have one buffer tanked and one active tank?
which would make everyone much happier and i cant see all that many people being mad about it.
but.. :ccp:
I normally love fozzies work.. and not just because he is cute.. but this is.. I am disappointed. and i got max LD (yes even mining director and fleet command to 5) and command ship to 5.. so.. it isnt like i just now and then hop into a command ship |

Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
767
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:18:00 -
[423] - 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.
well said sir, well said. Like I said in a previous post: Get your priorities strait, these are COMMAND SHIPS or COMBAT SHIPS? Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |

Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
826
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:18:00 -
[424] - Quote
Does anyone else believe a 50 CPU loss on the Sleipnir to be too much? Especially in light that it's going to want to be fitting more gang links? It's already CPU-strict, and a loss of 50 CPU on a ship that only had 475 to begin with is a tremendous blow to its capabilities. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |

Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:21:00 -
[425] - Quote
there's gotta be a reason for these changes beyond the gameplay. like getting people train the CS skill for months of subs (or something). too much doesn't make sense.
wait, am i supposed to fit a medium ASB to the nighthawk (is that what the rep bonus is for?) Rainf1337 on Twitch |

Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:27:00 -
[426] - Quote
It is accurate that the Asterte is getting a lower recharge rate +15.18 with the stats posting in this thread with the old recharge of +18.75? If this is the case what is your thoughts behind this as it will make running guns, MWD, and links all at the same time -26 GJs? |

Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:28:00 -
[427] - Quote
Mithrawndo 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. QFT While you're at it, can we throw out damage bonuses on blockade runners, freighters, orcas, rorquals, and any other non-dps ship just for the sake of having the option of stepping outside of their intended roles? Buff the battle badger with 5% damage to light missile per level and explosion radius.
and for god sake we need more drones on everything! we just got far too few! almost no ship with utility! Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|

Sir Ladle
Empty Wallets Inc. SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:28:00 -
[428] - Quote
So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining? |

Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:32:00 -
[429] - Quote
Awesome!
CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes
Wait, what ?!  |

Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:35:00 -
[430] - Quote
Sir Ladle wrote:So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?
read more clearly they said that mining links work fine in pos shields for now until they can fix the orca and rorqual |
|

Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:36:00 -
[431] - Quote
Sir Ladle wrote:So, as far as not being able to boost inside of a POS shield, will this also apply to Rorquals and Orcas who's job is to sit there all day and never leave shields? If they can't boost from the shields, won't that just further break mining?
Well, to be fair, now that more of the bonuses are wrapped up into the links themselves you can fly a boosting alpha cane to protect you from those evil gankers. |

Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:36:00 -
[432] - Quote
I don't fly in large fleets, but I do keep reading about them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend I see is that as fleet fights get larger, and alpha becomes more impossible to tank, the tactic of blapping FCs off the field at the outset of any battle gets more popular.
Its easy to understand WHY its being done, but is it good for the game? Seems to me FCs have enough on thier plates just herding the sheep that there should be some kind of dedicated C&C ship for them to fly. One that has insane HPs, excellent EWAR resistance or immunity and long lock range. They also need to be mobile/agil enough to stick with the fleet its flying in, so perhaps multiple flavours of such a ship is required (frig/cruiser/BC/BS/Cap?).
For obvious reasons they'd have to be pretty annemic at anything except FCing (no highs maybe? or one to get on KMs).
While these changes look pretty nice from a small gang/fleet perspective, Its going to be pretty hard to command from a pod if the trend continues as EVE grows. |

Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:38:00 -
[433] - Quote
Ashlar Vellum wrote:Awesome! CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes Wait, what ?! 
Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake |

glepp
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:44:00 -
[434] - Quote
Solution to the whole Nothing Is As Good As The Damnation-problem: 1. Make all CS give bonuses to all links. 2. Set the ships apart by changing other characteristics: Amarr: slow armor bricks Gallente: fast armor [something less sturdy but faster than a brick] Caldari: slow shield bricks Minnie: Fast shield [you get the idea]
Make each race have two options for weapon systems and let Minnie/Gallente have one each without local rep bonuses (shield/armor HP instead, for instance)
Also, my point in mentioning a 20v20 BS fight was that at even such a small level, the local rep boni are useless.
But alas, i fear it's too late for this, since CCP seem to have made up their minds too much. |

Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:45:00 -
[435] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:Awesome! CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes Wait, what ?!  Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake Well, that's not so awesome then. =/
thx for the info Ersahi Kir. |

Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:51:00 -
[436] - Quote
Can people please stop quoting Dvla in full? Seriously, it has been quoted in full 10 times on each page, now it's just wasting peoples time. It's a pain in the ass scrolling through it on my phone. If you like the post that much, with a long post like that can you just put "Dvla's right" and link the post or just quote an excerpts or something and just like the post? As it is you just keep adding walls of the exact same text to every page. My phone and likely other peoples don't like that. Especially because most people are just saying "agreed". A like on his post also implies you agreed. |

Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:53:00 -
[437] - Quote
People quote text worth quoting. Note how I quated everything you said worth saying. |

Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
452
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:54:00 -
[438] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Ashlar Vellum wrote:Awesome! CCP Fozzie wrote:Command Ship model changes Wait, what ?!  Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake :O
so one of the best looking ship becomes a lame bark and the golden chicken will be that something?:(
|

Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:55:00 -
[439] - Quote
Ashlar Vellum wrote:Eos -> myrm Absolution -> harbinger Sleip -> hurricane Nighthawk -> drake Well, that's not so awesome then. =/
thx for the info Ersahi Kir.[/quote]
NP
I'm actually really excited about the Eos change, the myrm is a sexy hull that got cheated out of the navy battlecruiser slot. I'm glad it got another ship, and the creodron skin makes it look awesome.
The other hulls are more of a hodge podge of opinions. The sleip cane looks sexy but some people really like the cyclone hull, so it's a wash. I think the general opinion of the other two are more favorable, but some people really like the chicken absolution and the ferox nighthawk.
As long as the Eos gets changed I'm pretty content with the entire situation. |

Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:02:00 -
[440] - Quote
Im really looking forward to the Black (nighthawk) drake and the blue (myrmidon) Eos. I personaly liked Amarr T2 more when it was gold with red highlights, not red with gold highlights so whatever on the harbinger. and we already have a camo fleet cain so meh on the slep |
|

Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:03:00 -
[441] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:People quote text worth quoting. Note how I quoted everything you said worth saying. Though I liked the post, I don't want to read through it 50 times in one thread, nor have to skip over it consistently on my mobile device. Were I on my computer I wouldn't mind so much, but my phone isn't the greatest. I didn't ask people to stop referencing the post, merely to trim the quotes. but go ahead and be inflammatory, thank you very much. It's not like I enjoy reading these forums and wouldn't mind being able to read something other than the one post. |

Aglais
Liberation Army
308
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:04:00 -
[442] - Quote
So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
Claymore: Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was MPT RoF) 7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire (was link bonus) 5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile explosion velocity (was MPT tracking) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L, 2 turrets (-3), 5 Launchers (+2) Fittings: 1100 PWG (-290), 525 CPU (+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4700(+376) / 3800(-44) / 3400(+37) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 75 / 60 / 40 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 90 / 67.5 / 25 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2625 / 583s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 170 / 0.7(-0.004) / 12500000 / 12.13s (-0.07) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+10) / 75(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+20) / 220 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Ladar (+6) Signature radius: 240 Cargo capacity: 575 (+100)
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10%(+5) bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Heavy Assault and Heavy missile launcher rate of fire 5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 825 PWG (+115), 550 CPU (-5) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5500(+695) / 3200(-163) / 3700(-144) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 80(+10) / 70(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 86.25(+6.88) / 62.5(+9.38) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812(-187.5) / 625s(-41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.65(+0.02) / 14810000(+800000) / 13.35s (+1.15) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km (+20) / 195 / 9(+1) Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric (+5) Signature radius: 285 Cargo capacity: 700
I have bolded things that don't make any sense.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT?
Why did you give the Nighthawk such an awful damage bonus? I mean you have ~6 effective launchers if you're not using kinetic damage! SIX! THAT IS HORRENDOUS! I cannot believe people are thinking that this ship is going to be better for anything. Yeah, it'll be better at failing to kill things than before that's for sure! It'll be better at being the missile command ship nobody chooses because the Claymore seems to outclass it in terms of it's offensive bonuses and slot layout (SERIOUSLY, WHY DOES THE NIGHTHAWK NEED THIS SLOT LAYOUT? CALDARI HAVE LOADS AND LOADS OF MID SLOTS. Minmatar tend to be the ones with this sort of configuration, for the sake of 'flexibility'. They can pull it off due to their stats, the Nighthawk CAN'T!
I thought the T1 battleship rebalancing changes were embarrassing- these have blown what you did to the Raven (and how you kept the Typhoon mostly better than it in most contexts) completely out of the water. I fear for what you plan on doing with Marauders, the Golem especially. Let me guess. You're going to change it's role bonus to +100% kinetic torpedo and cruise missile damage, and ignore all other damage types as you have for the Nighthawk and Cerberus. Then you're going to make it slower and heavier and vomit all over it's ability to fit anything. Because it's "too good at PvE" despite not having a role outside of mission running. |

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1060
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:05:00 -
[443] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:People quote text worth quoting. Note how I quoted everything you said worth saying.
He's problem is not relevant to this thread, maybe he just posted in the wrong thread and should get a link to some PC provider or CCP customer support.
 *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |

ImaGrapeYou Aldent
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:06:00 -
[444] - Quote
So they have a nice new change to the command ships. They took the old requirement to fly them away and added more leadership to them. I have all cruisers 5 and BC 5 and I'm still 50 days from flying any one of them. |

Oddsodz
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:06:00 -
[445] - Quote
Can I just ask, Why does the "Eos" still have a almost wasted bonus to ARMOR repping, I Can understand it on a "Asterte", But why must the "Eos" have it also,. Has it not become clear that this ship will be flew in a fleet. And 9/10 times that fleet with have logi ships with it. It is a waste of a bonus. Please change it to something that is more suited to it's role as a ship that fly's in a fleet. Be it a Rof for guns or a 2nd for drones. A Speed bonus for the hull maybe? Anything but the useless repping bonus that is not going to get used unless in 1v1 honour fights.
Please change that.
Thank you for reading |

Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:08:00 -
[446] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Can people please stop quoting Dvla in full? Seriously, it has been quoted in full 10 times on each page, now it's just wasting peoples time. It's a pain in the ass scrolling through it on my phone. If you like the post that much, with a long post like that can you just put "Dvla's right" and link the post or just quote an excerpts or something and just like the post? As it is you just keep adding walls of the exact same text to every page. My phone and likely other peoples don't like that. Especially because most people are just saying "agreed". A like on his post also implies you agreed. QFT 
also. I hope the survivability issues will be addressed after they become apparent through use and popularity.
*crosses fingers* first pass first pass Rainf1337 on Twitch |

Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:10:00 -
[447] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: I think the general opinion of the other two are more favorable, but some people really like the chicken absolution and the ferox nighthawk. you mean the stretched chicken absolution, squeezed chicken nightawk, fat chicken onyx, stuffed chicken basilisk, and the squashed chicken rook? Rainf1337 on Twitch |

Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Im really looking forward to the Black (nighthawk) drake and the blue (myrmidon) Eos. I personaly liked Amarr T2 more when it was gold with red highlights, not red with gold highlights so whatever on the harbinger. and we already have a camo fleet cain so meh on the slep
I'll agree with the entire slep thing. Honestly I think they need to change the brutor tribe skin theme. The camo makes it look too much like a navy ship, and I'd rather see a neat looking color scheme that the other T2 ships get. Something like a bright hunters orange would look awesome, it would be like an announcement to everyone that "here comes buttsex!"
The white camo theme of the thukkur can stay, because the white has a unique and neato look. |

Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:13:00 -
[449] - Quote
Aglais wrote:So let me get this straight here. The two shield tanking missile command ships go as follows:
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE NIGHTHAWK'S FIFTH LOWSLOT? FOR A REACTOR CONTROL DUE TO LOW PG! Rainf1337 on Twitch |

Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:15:00 -
[450] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote: I think the general opinion of the other two are more favorable, but some people really like the chicken absolution and the ferox nighthawk. you mean the stretched chicken absolution, squeezed chicken nightawk, fat chicken onyx, stuffed chicken basilisk, and the squashed chicken rook?
I thought the onyx was a dinosaur with a briefcase? |
|
|
|
|
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 |