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) |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:10:00 -
[541] - Quote
Feedback: (I'm focussing more Gallente stuff because thats what I normally prefer to fly)
i) Not sure I agree with the fundamental change by moving Gallente away from Information etc. People have done a lot of training for maxing a ship like the Eos out only now to be told all their Information warfare spec training is useless for that ship and they now need to train 2 other spec skills. In principle this is wrong without offering people refunded skillpoints to re-spend.
ii) While I love the Eos getting its 125 bandwidth of drones back, I don't like the fact you've taken a slot from the ship for this making the Eos 6-4-6, while the Astarte remains 7-4-6.
The Eos should retain 7 highs (albeit yes with more utility highs than turrets to compensate for potentially more overall DPS) because 125 of drones are great but not worth a whole slot. I realise you're trying to stop it becoming a 'WTFsolopwnmobile' again, but being honest and realistic, I doubt many people would complain about a few odd people going out to solo in a 250m+ command ships. More likely they'd be rubbing their hands.
iii) Have you considered splitting the bonuses within races to be more true to their original design? For Example:
Eos - Infomation and Armour Astarte - Armour and Skirmish
Each race would then have more of a mix of boosting possibilities within the Field and Fleet command ships rather than duplicating the boosting roles within each race
iv) Can you confirm the new Faction Mindlinks will be 25% for 2 boosting types, and the T2 will become 25% for just one? - If so, this seems completely unintuitive and you're making T2 worse than faction. T2 should remain boosting one, but with a higher bonus than the dual boosting faction mindlinks IMHO. Say 50% for one boost still for T2 mindlinks and 25% each for 2 boosts for faction. Or alternatively convert the current existing mindlinks all to T1, and leave room for adding a superior/more focussed (than faction - which will become the new baseline) set of T2 mindlinks in the future.
General feedback:
Just to add, I've been playing 8 years now and command ships (the Eos and Astarte) were the first specialised role of ships I trained up for way back then. I really used to enjoy playing the on-grid command ship boosting role before the T3 off grid made that job redundant, so I am absolutely delighted to see the on-grid balls deep form of command put back on top of the boosting pyramid.
Typically in Eve, more risk garners higher rewards, and an on-grid boosting ship is certainly in more risk, so I'm happy the off-grid T3 sillyness has finally had its day at the peak without being made completely redundant.
Perhaps the next thing you CCP folks will consider is introducing some sort of separate boosting 'pyramid' rather than using the FC / Wing / Squad command positions for the massive scale fights.
It is a bit too easy right now to focus the 'boosting ship' and alpha any on-grid boosts off the field in a big fight. Having some contingency within a boosting pyramid structure taking into account for example in a 250 man fleet the fact you brought 5 Damnations, 3 Eos and 3 Claymores and 2 Vultures to maintain boosts in some pre-ordained command / boosting setup rather than the current mechanics which would require mid-fight those ships would manually need to be shifted within fleet positions as each one dies in order to keep the whole fleets boosts active.
The command structure works great in smaller fleets, but a solution (like the above) for larger fights with a bit more loss mitigation built in would be nice - A working "fleet booster role" that can be dished out multiple times to all those running links would be a start.
Cheers.
|
DeadRow
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
120
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:24:00 -
[542] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:iii) Have you considered splitting the bonuses within races to be more true to their original design? For Example:
Eos - Infomation and Armour Astarte - Armour and Skirmish
Each race would then have more of a mix of boosting possibilities within the Field and Fleet command ships rather than duplicating the boosting roles within each race
This.
Splitting up the bonus between the two ships in each race would be awesome. Otherwise you're just going to use the one with the biggest tank for your booster. Adds a bit of variety to the game in deciding what boosts you want for your fleet and the ship you will need to bring. |
Snakes-On-A-Plane
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:35:00 -
[543] - Quote
I usually like to sit back and wait and see how the changes play out. I don't mind some shuffling around of roles and ship purposes, so long as the common goal is to INCREASE the diversity of the game, and the ships within it.
However,
Much like your original proposed changes for haulers, I feel like you've reduced the diversity of the game here. You finally recognized that you were dumbing down your game in the case of the industrials. I hope you can recognize the same quality in this change.
I'm sure that Field command ships will be more capable in some senses, but the bottom line is that DPS is dropping across the board. I feel like you're really only doing it to attack the prevalence of Sleipner's in the tournament. This isn't about boosts, since field command ships were rarely used for boosting.
Anyway, I have two problems with your changes.
1: There's really no such thing as a field command ship anymore. You have taken it right out of the game. The two ships are now virtually identical in role - with the only real difference being the weapon type. They are both fleet command ships now, aren't they? And if they are, how can you not recognize that you have reduced the diversity of your game?
2: People who originally trained for field command ships did so through the Heavy Assault Cruiser line. You may have taken that requirement out a few months ago, but it doesn't suddenly change the fact that people originally were training for a: DPS Attack ship. Changing the skill requirement and then completely changing the ship is pretty poor form.
Recognizing that your changes were unjust, I think you tried to obfuscate. Instead of just taking the pinnacle of the Assault ship line and wiping it out, INSTEAD you removed the assault skill first, waited a few months, and then turned them all into boosting ships.
Not cool, and very disingenuous.
Stage 1: Promise that if you could fly the ship before, you can fly it afterwards. Stage 2: Change the skill requirements of the ship to be for a different ship. Claim it's won't hurt anyone because of stage 1. Stage 3: Change the ship itself to be a different ship. Point to stage 2 for justification. Ignore the promises made in stage 1.
This is hardly fair.
For a more extreme example, should you have the right to: Change the skill requirement on Archon to be Mining Foreman 5, and 2 months later change the Archon into a fleet mining ship? |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:39:00 -
[544] - Quote
Big like, they should be tough ships like this +1 |
Mark Artreides
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:52:00 -
[545] - 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.
|
John Henri
Asteria Imperative Tribal Band
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:30:00 -
[546] - Quote
Local repping does not work. CCP get that through your head. It can not scale small gang or large. Until you fix that the field command ships are now useless for PvP
Look at the Merm people tried to put three reps on it to be able to tank some kind of DPS That is not an option in this instance. You are trying to fix a symptom not the cause.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:40:00 -
[547] - Quote
Snakes-On-A-Plane wrote:I usually like to sit back and wait and see how the changes play out. I don't mind some shuffling around of roles and ship purposes, so long as the common goal is to INCREASE the diversity of the game, and the ships within it.
However,
Much like your original proposed changes for haulers, I feel like you've reduced the diversity of the game here. You finally recognized that you were dumbing down your game in the case of the industrials. I hope you can recognize the same quality in this change.
I'm sure that Field command ships will be more capable in some senses, but the bottom line is that DPS is dropping across the board. I feel like you're really only doing it to attack the prevalence of Sleipner's in the tournament. This isn't about boosts, since field command ships were rarely used for boosting.
Anyway, I have two problems with your changes.
1: There's really no such thing as a field command ship anymore. You have taken it right out of the game. The two ships are now virtually identical in role - with the only real difference being the weapon type. They are both fleet command ships now, aren't they? And if they are, how can you not recognize that you have reduced the diversity of your game?
2: People who originally trained for field command ships did so through the Heavy Assault Cruiser line. You may have taken that requirement out a few months ago, but it doesn't suddenly change the fact that people originally were training for a: DPS Attack ship. Changing the skill requirement and then completely changing the ship is pretty poor form.
Recognizing that your changes were unjust, I think you tried to obfuscate. Instead of just taking the pinnacle of the Assault ship line and wiping it out, INSTEAD you removed the assault skill first, waited a few months, and then turned them all into boosting ships.
Not cool, and very disingenuous.
Stage 1: Promise that if you could fly the ship before, you can fly it afterwards. Stage 2: Change the skill requirements of the ship to be for a different ship. Claim it's won't hurt anyone because of stage 1. Stage 3: Change the ship itself to be a different ship. Point to stage 2 for justification. Ignore the promises made in stage 1.
This is hardly fair.
For a more extreme example, should you have the right to: Change the skill requirement on Archon to be Mining Foreman 5, and 2 months later change the Archon into a fleet mining ship?
I agree with this.... But CCP will not remove a ship. It would hav been great to roll the field command ships into the hac's "disassemble the ships, rebonus to hac's a little for the ship loss.
It won't happen but its a good thought. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
866
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:43:00 -
[548] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Lilan Kahn wrote:slepnir also taking massive dps nerf Barely. less than one whole turret. That's less than a 4% DPS nerf, with so much more utility. Sleps getting a 100% damage bonus to 5 guns, that = 10 guns worth of damage, thats more than 1.5 turets worth of damage lost.
No its getting two 50% bonuses, that is 11.25 guns. While levels of the same skill add together to form one bonus multiple bonuses affecting the same parameter stack. 5*1.5 = 7.5, 7.5*1.5 = 11.25.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:45:00 -
[549] - Quote
can you please do us a favour?
make the 7.5% armor bonus also include a cap activation reduction too! that would make the bonus actually usefull
thanks There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
sabastyian
Hellfire Cult The East India Co.
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:02:00 -
[550] - Quote
Boltorano wrote:Sushi Nardieu wrote:Command Ships don't feel individualized or focused anymore. They all do similar things even if certain boost types they have are "secondary" to their race. If you, Fozzie, want to make T2 ships truly specialized then just give them a bonus to one link type.. I'd like to see an Eos in space more than once a decade.
What's an eos? I think i've heard of them in passing...but i have never seen one. Are you sure they exist? |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:25:00 -
[551] - Quote
Some great changes.
Like a few others I think the 7.5% per level active rep bonus seems odd and after the mostly very good changes it sticks out even more as being out of place. I could kind of see it useful if people could use the one ship as both a booster and combat ship and do the local tank thing but as you need someone else in fleet for links to work it just seems mostly pointless.
Something like a 7.5% per level sig reduction bonus or something of that nature would be more useful IMO.
The Eos I'd rather see dropping back to 3 turrets and getting an extra 25-50m3 drone bay as compensation or staying with 5 turrets and keeping the extra utility high - the current layout seems so much of a compromise and likely to end up being one of those things thats too much of a halfway house to do anything other than under-perform in either intended configurations. |
Captain Organs
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:32:00 -
[552] - Quote
Love the changes. I'd really like to know why the Absolution cannot field a full rack of weapons. Not that I personally would field HAMs or HMLs (or even those pesky rapid lights), but I can imagine some people would. I simply would throw those wondering ganglinks on and call it a day.
Please for the love of all that is good! Don't change the Absolution model! If we change the Absolution to the Harbinger model we lose all laser chicken. No more laser chickens. That makes me largely sad.
Throw everyone for a loop and change the Damnation into a Harbinger
Or...just don't change any of the models and use the Tier 2 models for a second T2 variant of Battlecruisers. I know I'd want that. |
Kataki Soikutsu
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:49:00 -
[553] - Quote
+1 to making WC receive fleet boosts. That is a very weird bug as boosts are supposed to cascade down the fleet hierarchy.
The changes are interesting but I am not sure they really capture what a command ship is. These should be ships that every FC wants to fly and should be designed with this in mind. Making the Boosting bonus a role bonus is a good step in this direction, but you should go further. In particular separating the hulls into a "large fleet" and "small gang" CS would be the best thing to do as those FCs require very different things.
The large fleet CS should have a brick tank and good electronics systems so the FC can stay on grid under heavy fire and still give commands. The damage bonuses are secondary for this role and there should be a tanking bonus on both the BC & CS skill. Like the Damnation gets both Resists and Armor HP. Outside of large fleet combat these ships should be less desirable due to the poor damage output.
The small gang CS should have good DPS and have more utility highs for links, but should not have anywhere near the tank of the large fleet CS. Think something about the current power level of the Sleipnir but with 3 links. In small gang every ship counts, and having to gimp the DPS by 20% to fit a full compliment of links is a big penalty. In addition you should be looking ahead to when boosting finally becomes On Grid and the affects of forcing ships to gimp themselves to bring a full complement of links.
As an example, consider Incursions. There you are limited in the number of ships you can bring and right now only the Sleipnir is any good for Shield fleets but no where near top tier, with the Nighthawk also being viable but not as good. To run Incursions safely you need 5 links (3 siege & 2 skirmish) which means that you have to have 2 CS on grid. Given the current design 1 will have to be gimped by 20% in damage to fit that third link. In HQs where you have 40 people, this might not be a big deal. But in VG having 2 weaker ships and one of them being gimped just to run Incursions is very steep. Honestly it will increase the barrier to entry both through more demanding fleet compositions and by advanced plays moving up to HQs as VG will be less worth it to do. So please think through what will happen by only giving CSs 2 utility highs when you switch to On Grid boosting.
Another Incursion Aside: Could you do something about Nation Consolidation Networks? Allowing CSs to take both gates instead of just the BS gate would help make them more interesting to do as right now only the T3s are powerful enough to keep up with the BSs on the other side. Also balancing the spawns across sides so that we don't get an easy spawn on one side and a hard one on the other leaving the easy side to sit and wait would be very nice. |
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:53:00 -
[554] - Quote
Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. your not going **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!! like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk.
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:56:00 -
[555] - Quote
Just asking again. What about astarte cargo hold size? Should it not be 475 m3? |
Ong
Born-2-Kill
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:59:00 -
[556] - Quote
Claymore, and I guess Sleipnir now still need a buff to their speed, for ships that are meant to provide boosts to nano fleets their stupidly slow when compared to the ships they will be flying with such as hacs/recons, and massively hinders kyiting, which is half the reason why OGB is so much more preferable.
Speeds of those ships with the claymore boosts:
Claymore: 1974 m/s
Vaga: 3464 m/s
rapier: 2481 m/s
Arazu: 2250 m/s
Cynabal: 3500 m/s
zealot: 2491 m/s
At least take it up to the speed of the recons, 2.5kms ish (or whatever speed these ships will be post nerf)
|
Ziranda Hakuli
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
149
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:01:00 -
[557] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:WTF I trained skirmish warfare link to V for my damnation now I'm getting the rug pulled out under me again? I want/need skirnish for my incursion damnation I been using for Incursion booster Is there a logic disconnect somewhere? Skirmish fits better with Amarr due to the Bhaalgorn bonus I thought and Gallente would do better with the INFO warfare link due to the onie's sensor bonus'. CCP Fozzie tricked by meta gamers mistakenly wrote wrote:
One significant change from the proposal last year is the link bonuses on the Amarr and Gallente ships, which we've swapped thanks to player feedback. Amarr gets armor and info, Gallente gets armor and skirmish which fits them much better.
Kid you just need to suck it up. so many plans. so many changes. so many opinions. and still NOTHING IN CONCRETE till its done. you should have known this. and yeah I know it sucks. and i LIKE it. Gallente gets shat on so many times Amarr can suffer |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:05:00 -
[558] - Quote
Are there any plans to bring boosting to smaller ship levels, such as Frig / Dessy / Cruiser should they ever be made to be on grid? |
Dairokuten Maoh
High Flyers Ex Cinere Scriptor
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:07:00 -
[559] - Quote
Command ship role bonus made command ship 5 pilots boost just as good as command ship 1 pilots. S+Öpü«sëìpü½S¦¦pü»täípüÅpÇüS+Öpü«s+îpü½pééS¦¦pü»täípüù Before me, nobody stands. Behind me, nobody stood.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1397
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:23:00 -
[560] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Nighthawk: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile explosion radius (was explosion velocity)[/b] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOOOOOO just ******* NO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLOSION VELOCITY to counter the god ******* awful useless velocity of the t2 heavy missiles. t2 heavy missiles are so bad, because they cant apply any damage AT ALL, because of the nonexistent explosion velocity.. if you do this they will be EVEN WORSE. which is ******* unfathomable. as is they already do HALF the damage of t1 missiles to anything thats moving.. regardless of what the dps counter says.
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), ----->5 Launchers (-1)<---- NOOOO its a ******* NIGHTHAWK NOT A VULTURE OR CRAPOX you already raped heavy missiles to oblivion, DO NOT REMOVE MISSILE SLOTS. i threw a ******* fit when u removed them from the ferox. now that ship is useless. and so are hybrids on caldari vessles.
EVERY GOD DAMN TIME i get close to something fun ccp you either DESTROY it, or you move it another 3 months away. like you did to my carrier, t2 cruisers, and nighthawk, and missile ferox. your not going to get any more money out of me, **** YOU ALL I QUIT!!!
my plex runs out soon and ill never renew. im so sick of getting totally jewed by you every time i find something fun to use.
its bad enough your raping the command modules too now. i cant freaking take it anymore. words can not even describe how pissed off i am. gahhh **** this game.
PS:who ever decided to do this to command ships needs to be ******* shot.
In an effort to save your life, as you're clearly on the verge of stroking out, allow me to explain damage math.
Six launchers with a 25% damage boost and 25% ROF reduction is equivalent to ten unbonused launchers.
Five launchers with a 50% damage boost and a 25% ROF reduction is equivalent to ten unbonused launchers.
Math. It's awesome.
(Un)fortunately(?) this explanation doesn't really do anything to save the posting privileges you're probably on the verge of losing. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
Rutger Centemus
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:27:00 -
[561] - 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. seconding this |
Azlana
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:28:00 -
[562] - Quote
+1 |
Shadow Leigon
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:30:00 -
[563] - Quote
+1 |
BigSako
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:39:00 -
[564] - 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.
I support his comments |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7155
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:45:00 -
[565] - 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.
Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions.
Wing command bonuses from fleet is something that I 100% want to get fixed, although there are a few complications that mean I can't promise a specific timeline for it yet.
Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Laura Belle
Leverage Industries Wonder Kids
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:47:00 -
[566] - Quote
buy why eos loose a slot and remains with 16 when ALL the other command ships with 17? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7156
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:47:00 -
[567] - Quote
In general guys I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, so expect my posting here to slow down until the tournament weekend ends. I'm taking a vacation day today and will be quite busy tomorrow and Sunday, but am already sketching up some changes in response to your feedback so far.
I really do appreciate the feedback, don't feel like I'm abandoning you when I don't post much this weekend. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:49:00 -
[568] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Command processors are also something that I agree have a lot of problems, not least of which is the big imbalance it created between armor and shield booster ships.
Possible to do something with those and rig slots? as that would have the same impact on both tanking types. Tho a bit messy with T2 hulls due to only having 2 rig slots. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:55:00 -
[569] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:In general guys I'm not quite caught up on the thread yet, so expect my posting here to slow down until the tournament weekend ends. I'm taking a vacation day today and will be quite busy tomorrow and Sunday, but am already sketching up some changes in response to your feedback so far.
I really do appreciate the feedback, don't feel like I'm abandoning you when I don't post much this weekend.
don't worry about that mine are the most important posts anyway :P at least leave us with some thoughts please 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. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2559
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:00:00 -
[570] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Some good points, although I'm curious about why you didn't post them with your main. I think you know that I have plenty of respect for your opinions.
ROFL, DEV-BURN lol
|
|
|
|
|
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 |