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) |
Alexander McKeon
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:14:00 -
[511] - Quote
This will actually be a rather nice change for PvE; it will now be very feasible to bring a Nighthawk along to provide defensive gang links without sacrificing DPS overly much. For pve gangs of four to ten T3s out killing red crosses, the extra resists will come in very handy; getting alpha'd down to 1/3 shields is never a fun feeling. |
Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:15:00 -
[512] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote: Okay a first one thing about the Astarte:
Did no one stop and think about the effects of changing the damage bonus to ROF on the Astarte? So now our high ROF hybrids, high cap using hybrids, high cap using warfare links, and wait for it......******* ridiculous amount of cap used for local reps....seriously go **** yourself CCP. Quit making Gallente ships suck. To angry about this to be polite.
It has 2 less turrets, so the new Astarte should use slightly less cap shooting guns than the old Astarte. Which isn't to say that its got plenty of spare cap or anything, just that its not changing much.
|
Torei Dutalis
The Golden Scorpion Crew Brigands of New Eden
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:24:00 -
[513] - Quote
I'm a fan of most of the changes, mostly what I expected, with the exception of the Astarte. I know this iteration of the ship seems to have the "this isn't changing" stamp, but was the dps of the Astarte really that game breaking that it warranted being the only command ship to receive such a serious dps nerf? |
Troezar
V I R I I Ineluctable.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:24:00 -
[514] - Quote
If I was designing these from scratch they'd have massive tanks and weapons designed to support a fleet taking down frigates. This avoids the op tank and gank. If be happy to supply links, stay alive and pick off some of the small stuff. That said I don't have a vested interest in the status quo ;-) |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:37:00 -
[515] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Rain6637 wrote:what's the final difference between 2% T3 boosts and 3% CS boosts? I didn't completely understand that one. An approximately 4% difference in effectiveness at skill level 5 and a ~13% effectiveness difference at skill level 1 thanks to the change from per level to role bonus on Command Ships. But if the only purpose is to put it somewhere safe and boost, you'll take the cheaper one that boosts better, so the command ship. This next patch they're nerfing the T3 from 25% at level 5 to 10% bonus at level 5. Edit: to expand on this, I mean that in many cases where you're somewhere you control the field and can leave an OGB somewhere safe it's likely you'll use the CS because it's cheaper and provides better boost in addition to not requiring fantastic fitting skills and not gimping hard on the fit. The T3 however, despite providing less boosts will not be substantially worse and will have the option of being cloaky nullified. It will also be able to boost up to 3 different types of links. thanks. i ask because i can't seem to get EFT or Pyfa to manually reflect the upcoming changes. I'll probably go ahead and make myself exactly that--cloaky nullified versions. the initial perception is "omg 30% worse" but when the highest percentages are in the modules now... I wonder if being hardheaded about hating on T3 is something I should stop. thanks again.
Also, I've noticed that in your fits for command ships such as this, you haven't actually be designating boosts. Notice in the bottom right hand corner of the window, you have Fleet, Wing and Squad Commander options? If you right click those and designate the current fit you are using as a squad booster, it will indicate the effectiveness of the fit in a fleet more effectively as the boosts will be applied.
Also: I think this is actually somewhere where I might consider T3's balanced against their T2 counterparts, though the CS's might need a small increase to the bonus to links. Regardless though I am impressed to say that it's nice to see the T2 being specialized and more powerful at what it does than the T3, but the T3 has its own niche as a versatile ship. The T2 is nice when you have downright control of the field, but the T3 is nice in hostile areas or on roams where you might need the ability to sneak in relatively safely. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
213
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:42:00 -
[516] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:I'm a fan of most of the changes, mostly what I expected, with the exception of the Astarte. I know this iteration of the ship seems to have the "this isn't changing" stamp, but was the dps of the Astarte really that game breaking that it warranted being the only command ship to receive such a serious dps nerf? It didn't get that much of a DPS nerf, if you ask me. The new Astarte will be dealing 91.7% as much turret DPS while being substantially easier to fit for a gank/tank fit assuming you don't bother with links. If you do want to put links on there it's somewhat harder to fit, but at least you're buffing the fleet.
I will agree that an 8.3% DPS nerf is surprisingly substantial, but it was traded off for 2 utility highs, bonused links, more armour and structure HP, easier fitting in the same sort of gank/spank configuration, a larger cap pool, higher racial resists, less mass, better electronics, and a larger drone bay. |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
193
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:49:00 -
[517] - Quote
Torei Dutalis wrote:I'm a fan of most of the changes, mostly what I expected, with the exception of the Astarte. I know this iteration of the ship seems to have the "this isn't changing" stamp, but was the dps of the Astarte really that game breaking that it warranted being the only command ship to receive such a serious dps nerf?
*Serious DPS Nerf* The Current Astarte Does ~10% more turret DPS than the new Astarte.
In return you're getting; Better resistances from going up from Field to Fleet CS resistances. Significantly better fittings; You're losing 100 grid but you need to fit 2 less guns. Even if you were fitting Electrons on the Astarte that is an improvement of +165.6 GRID over the current astarte for 5x AWUV Electrons vs 7x, With Neutrons you gain 336.6 grid, more than enough to fit 2x Heavy Assault Launchers if you're upset about the DPS loss. 2 Utility highslots, and with the above change you've got more than enough fittings to be able to fit medium neut/small nos, a medium smartbomb + small nos/neut, links, or missile launchers. Or whatever other effective combination you like. The Warfare Link Bonus Slightly Better Mobility An additionally flight of 25m3 of drones meaning you can have a flight of Warriors/EC-300s in addition to 5x medium drones, giving you more options. Significantly better Sensor Strength and Lock Range, making it better versus electronic warfare. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1619
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:51:00 -
[518] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:[quote=Rain6637]Also, I've noticed that in your fits for command ships such as this, you haven't actually be designating boosts. Notice in the bottom right hand corner of the window, you have Fleet, Wing and Squad Commander options? If you right click those and designate the current fit you are using as a squad booster, it will indicate the effectiveness of the fit in a fleet more effectively as the boosts will be applied. Also: I think this is actually somewhere where I might consider T3's balanced against their T2 counterparts, though the CS's might need a small increase to the bonus to links. Regardless though I am impressed to say that it's nice to see the T2 being specialized and more powerful at what it does than the T3, but the T3 has its own niche as a versatile ship. The T2 is nice when you have downright control of the field, but the T3 is nice in hostile areas or on roams where you might need the ability to sneak in relatively safely. Edit: Also, I have no idea where to find a new version of EFT. Someone might put one up soon, but until then I've been using spreadsheets to convert current fits to 1.1. Most of mine are still compatible, and are recieving nice upgrades in just about everything. wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts
*wing commanders Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
214
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:08:00 -
[519] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts
*wing commanders
Ah, that makes sense.
But for anything other than Wing Commanders, they will recieve their own boosts, so it's also important to compare them with boosts in my opinion.
Also, that seems like a bug to me. So who knows. Maybe it'll be changed in the future.
But it makes sense that you would try to compare them on their own merits. That's fair enough. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:09:00 -
[520] - Quote
Astarte and NH are downright Disappointing.
These were the 2 worst "pewpew" Command Ships and they'll remain the 2 worst ones after this iteration, please think this through. |
|
NeoShocker
Interstellar eXodus The Retirement Club
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:17:00 -
[521] - Quote
Well, as a pilot that loves commandships, with CS V, max leadership skills (including mining ones). Took a good look. I'm struggling to find out the difference between a field and fleet commandship type because both have same amount of fleet bonuses.
Stat wise on all of them commandships looks ok. I will take a good look on it tomorrow or sometime later. The biggest thing is... I just don't agree on the bonuses.
Rather than flat 15% on BOTH races, I rather have maybe 20% for primary faction, 15% secondary to make a difference. For example on vulture (my favorite CS)
From:
Quote:Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links
To:
Quote:Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 20% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and 15% Information Warfare links
Hell, might as well go 15% bonus to siege, and 10% for information warfare if extra 5% bonus is too much.
And that is fleet command ship. What about field? I don't know. Only real difference between the fleet and field is damage and weapon systems. Adding the fleet bonuses lessen the diversity and i don't really like it. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:17:00 -
[522] - Quote
I like adjustments for CS, more or less. Not very comfortable with some DPS nerf though. But to be fair I would split those hulls into two different classes. I would leave claymore for example as a command ship and change role of Sleipnir making it Heavy Assault Battlecruiser or something like that. It will have a long training curve as it is now and price of it is already high enough. So we will have same thing as with thorax/maller/moa/rupture hull. To be honest I think making a Sleipnir as a links boat is waste of that ship. Right now it those type of command ships are only competitive T2 hulls, will be shame to screw them. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1620
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:20:00 -
[523] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Rain6637 wrote: wanting to evaluate them on their own, and leadership spots don't receive boosts
*wing commanders
Ah, that makes sense. But for anything other than Wing Commanders, they will recieve their own boosts, so it's also important to compare them with boosts in my opinion. Also, that seems like a bug to me. So who knows. Maybe it'll be changed in the future. But it makes sense that you would try to compare them on their own merits. That's fair enough.
I see what you're getting at.
here's the nano strictly links claymore with siege links 185k ehp
with its own skirmish links 1599 m/s, 233 m sig hah wow. 6.84 speed/sig, 5.449 km agility arc
with its own skirmish links and vulture siege boosts. ****ing sick.
Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Mithrawndo
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:23:00 -
[524] - Quote
On further thought, it seems CCP is trying to make small gangs happy and big fleets happy. We have 2 ships for each race, lets utilize them like this:
Make one a brick, no damage bonuses, passive resists, long range targeting, high sensors, no drone bay type ship. 4 races means you can have armor and skirmish, or armor and information, and vice versa with shield. This is a ship to be FC'ed from, it deals next to no damage so it won't become a plex/ratting ship, you can even make it anti-rat friendly so that rats won't shoot it like you did with the special edition exploring ship.
The second ship for each race will be damage bonuses, an active tank, mid range targeting, high sensor strength, can have a drone bay. This ship can still be utilized in an armor skirmish or armor information, and vice vesa with shield, depending on the role needed.
The thing with command ships is, regardless of what kind it is, what it is NOT is a more powerful HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER. No where does the name imply it is an assault ship. It is a COMMAND ship, and should be utilized as such. It's entire reason for existing is to remain on field, give fleet bonuses, and to be COMMANDED from. FC's are known people. They're your anchors, they're infamous, they're famous, they aren't that hard to find if you know who you are fighting and/or have done any recon on your enemy. |
blackpatch
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:25:00 -
[525] - Quote
Dvla wrote:...
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?
...
Great post overall, wanted to highlight this part. Local reps are useful for gimmicks, bait, and PVE and that's about it. They just don't scale and they never will. They're not quite a wasted slot for combat ships, but they're darn close.
I'd love to see CCP phase out local rep hull bonuses in favor of meaningful armor bonuses that scale, like %resist or %HP. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:30:00 -
[526] - Quote
-2 invulns for +1 LSE +1 Pithum C-type invuln from high sec 4/10 site (do they still drop there, if so this is it) Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:43:00 -
[527] - Quote
The Eos looks crap to me. What's the point in giving it turret tracking bonuses and no damage bonus? It only has 4 gun slots which will probably be used for something else, like neuts.
Give the Eos a bonus to armour hit points instead of that stupid rep bonus and get rid of the turret tracking and give it more drone bonuses. |
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:46:00 -
[528] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Astarte: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 10%(+5) bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness Command Ships skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire (was damage) 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-2), 2 launchers (+2) Fittings: 1350 PWG (-100), 440 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3400(-444) / 4800(+476) / 5000(+195) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60(+10) / 85(+7.5) / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5(+8.13) / 83.75(+8.13) / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+187.5) / 667s(+41.7) / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.7(+0.03) / 12300000 (-950000) / 11.94s (-0.34) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+20) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+5) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
Eos: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage) Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking and microwarp velocity (was drone bay bonus) 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking (was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 4 turrets (-1) Fittings: 1200 PWG (-225), 425 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3600(-244) / 4600(+276) / 5200(+395) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 60 / 85 / 50 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 67.5 / 83.75 / 10 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2812 / 625s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13000000(-250000) / 12.69s (-0.24) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 (+50) / 250 (+100) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+10) / 200 / 8(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric (+4) Signature radius: 300 Cargo capacity: 400
Okay a first one thing about the Astarte: Did no one stop and think about the effects of changing the damage bonus to ROF on the Astarte? So now our high ROF hybrids, high cap using hybrids, high cap using warfare links, and wait for it......******* ridiculous amount of cap used for local reps....seriously go **** yourself CCP. Quit making Gallente ships suck. To angry about this to be polite. And now about the Eos:: If you're going to force the Eos to just use heavy drones due to the bonuses, why do we continue to make it so we can pop drones with a couple smart bombs? If you're fielding a CS, there's a high chance you're engaging BS. So again, why are Gallente stuck with ships that can have all of their DPS taken out in 15 secs? Bump that drone HP bonus up!
For the cap you now have 5 turrets instead of 7, so with a 5% rof bonus, that is 6.6667 turrets in terms of cap comsumption. better than before.
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:51:00 -
[529] - Quote
^ The drone hit point bonus should be replaced with drone resistance. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
97
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:17:00 -
[530] - Quote
Most of the changes look good. However, I believe the nighthawk changes could use a review.
First, as was pointed out by another poster, it doesn't look like the nighthawk is going to have enough grid for links. Please increase the grid further.
Second, it shouldn't be the kinetic damage bonus being increased, IMO. Straightjacketing the NH into kinetic damage with a doubled kinetic bonus removes a good chunk of the reason for using missiles in the first place. That would be okay if the nighthawk's DPS was completely over the top, but it isn't. Please consider the following: set the kinetic damage bonus back to 5%. Change the RoF bonus to a universal damage bonus (increased to compensate for the DPS differences between RoF bonuses and damage bonuses), then add the 5% increase to the new universal damage bonus. This will maintain the kinetic bonus while not totally gimping the ship if it tries to use other damage types. It will also reduce the server stress and ridiculous ammo usage that would be caused by increasing the RoF bonus.
Third, please consider removing a lowslot and replacing it with a midslot. With its 0% (base) EM resist and 50% (base) explosive resist, the nighthawk will need to run both an EM hardener and an invulnerability field to achieve the resists necessary to be survivable (the sleipnir can get away with only one hardener due to a better base resistance profile). Add in a prop mod and a warp disruptor, and you now have one slot left for the rest of your tank or any additional ewar (webs, target painters). As such, I don't see the nighthawk being viable in PvP in its current suggested format.
Hopefully these changes make the nighthawk useful in PvP without making it overpowered. |
|
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
27
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:14:00 -
[531] - Quote
Can't help but think 6 lows and no resist bonus on both Astarte and Eos is abit lame. argument that someone gave for them being used in smaller gangs doesn't really make that much sense imo, and it's not like a resist bonus is alot worse than rep bonus for your own tank either. the EHP these 2 ships get is just too low to not be alphaed in a decent size fleet :S
Also, Tracking bonus with no other turret bonus on Eos is abit cheese. I can sort of see why it didn't get another drone related bonus but pretty much ANY other bonus would be better. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
657
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:38:00 -
[532] - Quote
Doed wrote:Can't help but think 6 lows and no resist bonus on both Astarte and Eos is abit lame. argument that someone gave for them being used in smaller gangs doesn't really make that much sense imo, and it's not like a resist bonus is alot worse than rep bonus for your own tank either. the EHP these 2 ships get is just too low to not be alphaed in a decent size fleet :S
Also, Tracking bonus with no other turret bonus on Eos is abit cheese. I can sort of see why it didn't get another drone related bonus but pretty much ANY other bonus would be better.
1 set should be for fleet boosting, so hp and res bonus 1 set should be for small gang, so dps and active tanking
I really don't get why they have done anything else tbh,
plus make wing boosters get there own boosts, fix that OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Ellendras Silver
No Self Esteem ShAdOw PoLiTiCs
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:41:00 -
[533] - Quote
i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do |
Anja Suorsa
Pyre Falcon Defence Cadre XV-01A Pyre Falcon Defence Combine
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:56:00 -
[534] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote: Nighthawk -> drake
Do not want |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
134
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:18:00 -
[535] - Quote
Command ships just doubled in price. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
936
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:53:00 -
[536] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do
Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links?
Putting work in since 2010. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:00:00 -
[537] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links?
since the upcomming patch where all of this changes
The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016
and I disagree that the Cs should get 3 bonuses. T3s are meant to be general use and t2 specialized. so it makes sence t3 gets a wider but lesser bonus. |
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:10:00 -
[538] - Quote
One thing I've always wondered... why are the armour-related bonuses labelled as 'Armoured Warfare', but shield-related bonuses are 'Siege Warfare'?
Also, are titan fleet bonuses being touched in this patch (or in the near future)? |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
518
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:16:00 -
[539] - Quote
Nice changes. But imo the nighthawk could use a buff in DPS. A tiny buff from the hull, and a rebalance of heavy missiles now that medium turrets are rebalanced too, damit !
I also note the increase in shield resistances, of a fair amount, but leaving the EM hole. That's interesting :) G££ <= Me |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
936
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:19:00 -
[540] - Quote
Lady Naween wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:i realy think that command ships should also get bonus on 3 types of links just as the T3 ships do Since when do T3 get a bonus to 3 types of links? since the upcomming patch where all of this changes The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3426016and I disagree that the Cs should get 3 bonuses. T3s are meant to be general use and t2 specialized. so it makes sence t3 gets a wider but lesser bonus.
Ah, so he was talking about future changes... And yes, i agree with you that CS should only have a powerful boost to 2 links where as T3 should have a weaker boost to 3. Putting work in since 2010. |
|
|
|
|
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 |