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) |
Aglais
Liberation Army
309
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:16:00 -
[451] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: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!
DUMB.
The real fix is to further increase power grid, shift fifth low to a med slot. Problem solved!
'Mandatory' PG mods are UTTER BULLSHIT and SHOULD NOT BE A CONCEPT THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. An RCU is for when you're trying to do a really shifty fit that might not work otherwise. Not trying to just do a basic fit because the ship doesn't have enough PG to fit all of what it's supposed to have in the first place. It's especially egregious on missile ships because they don't even have alternate gun sizes to upgrade/downgrade into! |
Sara Sue
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:17:00 -
[452] - 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 defiantly needs attention before anything else. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:17:00 -
[453] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. You already got quoted by CCP Rise saying the shield boost amount has a small impact at larger scales, and yet you still give these ships whose entire purpose is to grant benefits in larger scales this weaker bonus?
Can we please address this disparity between local rep bonus and resist bonus already? It keeps being put off and it has affected every re-balancing effort except Cruisers and Destroyers. Stop kicking the can and do something about it already. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:26:00 -
[454] - Quote
Aglais, i don't know much and so/but I think the PG limitation is to keep players from fitting something. like an XL ASB or something
oh, wait. i know why. because launchers take less PG, so basically the command ship pilots are making a mistake by trying to use a missile command ship as a command ship.
it would seem the nighthawk will be for high sec mission runners who want to impress their friends and also help the mission gang by fitting a resist link.
****. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Hortoken Wolfbrother
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:26:00 -
[455] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Rise wrote:CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. You already got quoted by CCP Rise saying the shield boost amount has a small impact at larger scales, and yet you still give these ships whose entire purpose is to grant benefits in larger scales this weaker bonus? Can we please address this disparity between local rep bonus and resist bonus already? It keeps being put off and it has affected every re-balancing effort except Cruisers and Destroyers. Stop kicking the can and do something about it already. Exactly. Needs to be repeated. Active bonuses are useless for large fleets. Its fine to put it on one ship from the races, but putting it on both ships is really a dumb decision. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
827
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:31:00 -
[456] - Quote
Draekas Darkwater wrote: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. FCing the battle and flying a command ship are very different things. Just because you're giving boosts to the fleet doesn't mean you get to tell them what to do. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
259
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:38:00 -
[457] - Quote
Want to trade: Nighthawk for a Claymore or Damnation "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:41:00 -
[458] - Quote
yesterday. or: before I heard there would be navy mindlinks Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
180
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:43:00 -
[459] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:yesterday. or: before I heard there would be navy mindlinks
its in the other thread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016 |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:44:00 -
[460] - Quote
my picture? Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:49:00 -
[461] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:my picture?
Lol Rain your such a troll
Anyway I kinda wonder why CCP Fozzie didnt make that last dev post conferming the CS model changes, he puts 3 out in one day and leave one as a suprise? even tho we have a failry good idea what it is. Seams fishy, unless hes trying to wait for art department to give him some shots of them. |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:50:00 -
[462] - Quote
Please get rid of the active tanking and give buffer instead. The active tanks will just make the ship weaker and not able to receive reps. if you give it a buffer, at least there will be a chance that you can get reps and live. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
181
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:52:00 -
[463] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:my picture?
sorry your pic is still hanging over my bed |
Tore Vest
326
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:59:00 -
[464] - Quote
I beleve that any cmd ship in a fleet will be fitted with so mutch tank as possible... While highslot will have links, probelauncher, and one or two gunns for km-whoring.
I cant imagine a cmd ship as a high dps ship... unless in a small gang fleet maby....
Active tank is a waste... and many will try to fit those ships with passive tank.... untill they have been one-vollyed of the field enough times to be seen useless.
Looking forward to try out those new cmd ships tho No troll. |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:11:00 -
[465] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Draekas Darkwater wrote: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. FCing the battle and flying a command ship are very different things. Just because you're giving boosts to the fleet doesn't mean you get to tell them what to do.
Obviously. The whole command ship name is basically a misnomer, they aren't command ships, they're fleet booster ships.
Yet Fozzie still mentioned that they are popular among FCs for thier resiliance. T3s are as well for the same reason. I simply mention that in today's EVE, and the EVE of the future where fleets keep getting larger, perhaps there is need for a real C&C ship to service the real FCs in EVE. Something you can reliably command a large fleet in, without it being a solo pwnmobile or blapped off the field. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:12:00 -
[466] - Quote
the nighthawk's stats look great in EFT if i give it boosts from another nighthawk Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3215
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:17:00 -
[467] - Quote
Command Ships V just became my favourite skill
Eos, my precious new baby <3
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3215
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:22:00 -
[468] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Command Ship model changes
so much awesome
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:23:00 -
[469] - Quote
Draekas Darkwater wrote:Obviously. The whole command ship name is basically a misnomer, they aren't command ships, they're fleet booster ships.
Yet Fozzie still mentioned that they are popular among FCs for thier resiliance. T3s are as well for the same reason. I simply mention that in today's EVE, and the EVE of the future where fleets keep getting larger, perhaps there is need for a real C&C ship to service the real FCs in EVE. Something you can reliably command a large fleet in, without it being a solo pwnmobile or blapped off the field. Actually, the only way for a FC to survive a blob now is a capital ship. Giving more and more hp to comand ship for the sake of them surviving a blob focused fire can only lead to absurd things or this capital comand ship solution. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:24:00 -
[470] - Quote
I give up, I don't know how to fit this nighthawk. it's beautiful, but it's going to be two claymores for me.
two link type bonuses is a nice thought, but what you're suggesting with the layout is one link from two class types and I don't see that being used outside the smallest of roaming gangs.
I'm seeing a beautiful, 135k ehp claymore with two invulns, three LSEs and two MCDFEs. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:31:00 -
[471] - Quote
Rethorical question just for reassurance: Those are just the provisory changes for Odissey 1.1 and related changes to that half-hearted first step to fix everything that's wrong with boosting these days, not the ship rebalance in itself which will properly happen in a later iteration.
c/d? |
Sigras
Conglomo
477
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:34:00 -
[472] - Quote
It occurs to me that you guys are trying to make command ships a bit more fun to fly because sitting in a POS giving boosts isnt really fun.
However it seems you went with a generalized design instead of a specialized design. If it were me, id design a ship that actual fleet commanders want to use.
This would be my FC command ship example
Dedicated Command Ship Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level
Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
If you required boosters to be on grid, this would be the ideal fleet command ship. I would even have considered moving a large portion of the link's effectiveness over to the command ship hull instead of the link specialization skill in order to encourage people using these things in combat instead of aligned out at 200 km
This would be a great ship for the FC to fly allowing him to keep tabs on his fleet from one end of the grid to the other without worrying about disruption; also with 2 resist bonuses and 8 tank slots this thing is going to be around for a while. The trade off being that this ship is about the speed and agility of a battleship. |
Sylana Sif
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:37:00 -
[473] - Quote
I hope my question doesn't get lost in the bulk of replys
So you guys discussed changing the Model of the command ships, i fly Absolution and the Damnation on my main, they are both awesome ships and i LOVE the prophecy hull, can you please either confirm/negate my suspicions so i can have my last few weeks in damnation/absolution before you swap it for harbringers hull if indeed that has become more then just a discussion? |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:38:00 -
[474] - Quote
Sigras: tbh i wouldnt mind something like that. at the moment my damnation only has a civilian gun on it to KM ***** anyway. so it isnt like the dps is all that important to me at least. My job is to give boosts, and be a brick. if they said, no you cant have any guns or drones. i would say ok.. do i get a nice tank? I do.. cool beans I am happy.
ask any of my alliance mates, i rarely even km ***** in my logis prefering to do the job i am there for.. rep!
edit, seriously that word is censured?! *snorts* good thing i never posted with my scanning alt then |
Sigras
Conglomo
477
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:39:00 -
[475] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote: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. the above is only true if you continue along the idiotic line of thinking that you fit both ships the same way. All you did was point out that there is an EM hole that needs to be plugged by a hardener in the NH. I was also going to point out that a single EM hardener on the NH has a much better effect at raising the "average resists" than does a kinetic hardener on the claymore, but it doesnt matter because this argument is moot. Not to mention that the NH has 17% more shields than the claymore but you know, that fact doesnt fit your pre conceived idea, so i guess you chose to exclude it. TL;DR there is more to a ship than its bonuses, perhaps you should check out the other stats. And the claymore doesn't have an extra mid for a shield extender or hardener? Guess that 6% from a PDS in the NH low will account for that huh?.... lets see 2100 * 1.25 * 1.20 *1.20 = 3750 bonus shield for the claymore without even adding in gang bonuses.... Lets also not consider the fact that the NH has to actually burn a mid slot for a dedicated EM hardener that has no benefits other than to EM... Where as a Claymore can use that same slot for an Invul if it so desires because it doesn't have that hole. Lets see, gaining 30% across the board for a slot or 55% for one... The point is that these arguments are all moot; the only thing that matters is the stats of the ships once they are fully fitted. Comparing bonuses in a vacuum is as stupid as it sounds. |
MrDiao
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:43:00 -
[476] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Damnation: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints
What do you mean by "all" Armor hitpoints? Is there something like "shield armor hitpoints" or "structure armor hitpoints"? lol |
Draekas Darkwater
Frank Exchange of Views Accidentally The Whole Thing
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:46:00 -
[477] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Draekas Darkwater wrote:Obviously. The whole command ship name is basically a misnomer, they aren't command ships, they're fleet booster ships.
Yet Fozzie still mentioned that they are popular among FCs for thier resiliance. T3s are as well for the same reason. I simply mention that in today's EVE, and the EVE of the future where fleets keep getting larger, perhaps there is need for a real C&C ship to service the real FCs in EVE. Something you can reliably command a large fleet in, without it being a solo pwnmobile or blapped off the field. Actually, the only way for a FC to survive a blob now is a capital ship. Giving more and more hp to comand ship for the sake of them surviving a blob focused fire can only lead to absurd things or this capital comand ship solution.
Is that a real problem though? T3s and the like are already being fit with greater than battleship EHP to try to survive such fights. As long as the ship can't do much else other than target ships reliably, move with the fleet type/comp that suits it, and is extremely unlikely to die while still supported, isn't there a place in EVE for such a ship for real FCs?
Just throwing ideas out there, but lets say: Cruiser sized hull for basic characteristics (speed/align/sig/ect) ~ million EHP, very high resists 1 High for KM whoring or whatever. 1 or 2 mids only for a prop mod or whatnot. 1 or 2 lows for a DC, local rep, whatever. immunity to ECM and damps 250km locking range high native sensor resolution
Basically a ship that can't do anything much itself, but is a reliable platform for calling the shots from.
|
Rain6637
Team Evil
1617
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:54:00 -
[478] - Quote
it's going to be something like this Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
245
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:29:00 -
[479] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules ,,, This would be a great ship for the FC to fly allowing him to keep tabs on his fleet from one end of the grid to the other without worrying about disruption; also with 2 resist bonuses and 8 tank slots this thing is going to be around for a while. The trade off being that this ship is about the speed and agility of a battleship.
That would give way too much advantage to sentry drone fleets. Having a unjammable/dampable drone assist means the only thing you can do to distrupt the perfectly coordinated assisted sentries is headshot the FC. If you want to do that now you have to commit a supercap to the field which raises the amount your committed to the battle.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Actually, the only way for a FC to survive a blob now is a capital ship. Giving more and more hp to comand ship for the sake of them surviving a blob focused fire can only lead to absurd things or this capital comand ship solution.
The only fleet comp I've seen that could do this is a "sit in a bubble" domi fleet. Every other fleet comp needs to be much more mobile, and a carrier bound FC is going to be far more likely to get caught in a bubble than a battlecruiser bound one.
I'm not saying that no one out there does this, but I've just never seen the possibility outside of a domi fleet. |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:42:00 -
[480] - Quote
Is the tech 3 off grid booster per level or a set amount? I am wondering it this is going to change the meta of off grid boosting or not. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
|
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 |