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) |
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:03:00 -
[571] - 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.
In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:10:00 -
[572] - 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.
Seriously though with all the boosts to the Armor rep i feel the only thing missing now is a boost to the rep bonus on Gal ships.
Think of it like the drone bonus its allways a hybrid bonus to hp and damage.
why not make the repair amount bonus also include a reduction in cap activation cost? that would really help gal as they are cap heavy ships using mwd reps and hybrids.
thanks
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7158
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:13:00 -
[573] - Quote
Diivil wrote: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.
In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :)
My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:17:00 -
[574] - Quote
Rroff wrote: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.
I don't think converting them into a rig would be a bad thing. As it goes with Command Ships at least, they will now all be able to fit three links out of the box; if you want all three, you already sacrifice a DPS high. If you want more than that, you could sacrifice a rig slot. Same with T3 cruisers and on up; you can fit what you can fit. Any more will require sacrificing your rig slots. Sounds like a good compromise for a game where fitting is supposed to be all about compromise. And in the case of having to use rigs, everyone would have to compromise from the same ship attribute, regardless of ship or tank type. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
ImaGrapeYou Aldent
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:18:00 -
[575] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, you're kind of taking the commandships away from leadership, at least that's how I feel. Might I ask why they take 50 days of leadership to get into? I have battlecruisers for every race 5 and still can't fly them with the support skills for almost very other ship. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1412
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:19:00 -
[576] - Quote
I have to agree that either the rep bonus needs to also be a cap reduction, or armor reps need to have there base cap use reduced. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:20:00 -
[577] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. Only the ones that want to live through the battles. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
403
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:20:00 -
[578] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Diivil wrote: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.
In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :) My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it.
anyone else notice that a different character responded here fozzie posted to Dvla ? 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:23:00 -
[579] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it.
I think that the HP bonus is the big one that needs to be shared to 1 ship of each race. Resistance bonus can be left for caldari and amarr as is more or less "Standard".
The other "issue" I have with the current proposal is the number of slots on these ships. As has been highlighted before in this thread, commands (excluding eos) are all -1 compared to parent t1 and -2 compared to navy variants. +1 slot to each ship, bringing them to total of 20 (including rigs).
I'd also suggest taking a look at cargo sizes on the ships, some of them could really use being matched to their t1 parent hulls.
Anyway, have a good day off.
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:26:00 -
[580] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it.
I love ships with resist bonus.
That's why I train for ships with resist bonuses. So that I can fly ships with resist bonuses.
Thankfully, not all ships in this game are exactly the same, so that sometimes I can fly ships that have bonuses to other things.
Otherwise, you may as well do Tiericide v. 2.0 where you nuke all ships, and release the Generic Ship Lineup. You can also go ahead and get rid of those nasty racial skills, and reduce everyone's clones to manageable cost levels!
Generic Frigate Generic Cruiser Generic Battlecruiser Generic Battleship Generic Carrier Generic Dreadnaught Generic Super Generic Titan
Hull bonuses will be easy:
Role Bonus: +50% Have it Your Way, +50% Get Out of Jail Free
+4% all damage resist per level of Generic X for whatever type of tank you want to fit today
+50% ROF for whatever weapons you slap on at random
+50% damage to whatever weapons you slap on at random
+35% Drone damage, hitpoints, mining yield, and MWD speed.
+7.5% per level of Generic X to armor repair and shield repair amount. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
|
Craystorm
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:26:00 -
[581] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Diivil wrote: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.
In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :) My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. anyone else notice that a different character responded here fozzie posted to Dvla ?
You are not a very bright man.
|
DaSumpf
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:33:00 -
[582] - 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
+1 |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:35:00 -
[583] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie]
The other "issue" I have with the current proposal is the number of slots on these ships. As has been highlighted before in this thread, commands (excluding eos) are all -1 compared to parent t1 and -2 compared to navy variants. +1 slot to each ship, bringing them to total of 20 (including rigs).
Not going to happen, most likely. They stated ages ago that CS were going to be made into 17 module slot ships. The point is to make you have to choose between a full rack of DPS and two links, or a full rack of three links and less DPS. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Totalani
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:36:00 -
[584] - 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.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
404
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:37:00 -
[585] - Quote
Craystorm wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Diivil wrote: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.
In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :) My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. anyone else notice that a different character responded here fozzie posted to Dvla ? You are not a very bright man.
and you are not a very pleasant person is this you're way of telling me that the guy who responded is an alt of the other guy by any chance? 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. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
394
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:38:00 -
[586] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it. Please stop. I know you're all hot for having active bonuses, and certainly they're useful in some situations, but for the most part, resist bonuses provide the same benefit as active repair bonuses IN ADDITION to a whole host of other advantages that apply to buffer and logi tanking as well. How is it that you guys can still try and continue to push for "how great" the active bonuses are when they don't provide a net better benefit than a similar resist bonus and COMPLETELY and UTTERLY lack any benefit to a buffer tank or if a Logi is on field. Fix this aspect first. Then you can sell how great they are.
I don't care if active vs resist provide wholly different benefits when in active, buffer, or logi setups. It's just that active provides a benefit in one of those areas and resist provides benefits to ALL of those areas. Make active better for some situations and resist better for others. But resist better (or the same) for all? No, man, that doesn't cut it. You can sell me all you want that active has a place, but as long as resist benefits every tanking style, it's going to be no sale.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:41:00 -
[587] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:
Not going to happen, most likely. They stated ages ago that CS were going to be made into 17 module slot ships. The point is to make you have to choose between a full rack of DPS and two links, or a full rack of three links and less DPS.
No doubt that an addition high slot removing the choice you speak of would be a bad idea however there are these things called low and mid slots .
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
641
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:43:00 -
[588] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Diivil wrote: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.
In that case it's likely that I am not the person you are thinking of (Vee?) and I can't remember ever discussing with you about anything before :) My mistake then. Rest of my post still stands, I completely agree with you about wing commmand, I agree that command procs are an issue and I don't think the HP or resist bonus is the way to go for all types of command ships, although I can definitely see why people would want it.
I think particularly with each race getting two kinds of links, there is no need to make every command ship resist and buffer bonused. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:47:00 -
[589] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE, could we remove the Hybrid tracking bonus the EOS gets and add another DRONE bonus, The Tracking bonus it gets isn`t going to do much since it is clearly a drone boat and only has 4 turret slots. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:48:00 -
[590] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:
Not going to happen, most likely. They stated ages ago that CS were going to be made into 17 module slot ships. The point is to make you have to choose between a full rack of DPS and two links, or a full rack of three links and less DPS.
No doubt that an addition high slot removing the choice you speak of would be a bad idea however there are these things called low and mid slots .
They just removed a high slot from most/all of them. They're not going to get additional mids or lows, pretty much guaranteed. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
404
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:50:00 -
[591] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE, could we remove the Hybrid tracking bonus the EOS gets and add another DRONE bonus, The Tracking bonus it gets isn`t going to do much since it is clearly a drone boat and only has 4 turret slots.
Indeed the Astarte would benefit from having the tracking bonus instead 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. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:52:00 -
[592] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:or if a Logi is on field.
Just wait until they get around to limiting logi ships to cycling only one repper per target, or otherwise nerf them in order to bring remote reps in line with local. Because this is CCP, and I can really see them doing that before they start removing local rep bonuses. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
497
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:55:00 -
[593] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:
They just removed a high slot from most/all of them.
3 =/= to most or all of them.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[594] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE, could we remove the Hybrid tracking bonus the EOS gets and add another DRONE bonus, The Tracking bonus it gets isn`t going to do much since it is clearly a drone boat and only has 4 turret slots.
i would love to see a bonus to e-war/utility drones. something like 15%-20% bonus to effectivness per level There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Aglais
Liberation Army
315
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[595] - Quote
So are we going to be doing anything about the Nighthawk, or will it be re-released as actually worse than it is now once Odyssey 1.1 hits? Seriously, please reconsider the garbage slot layout and that awful kinetic only damage bonus.
Either that, or alter the Claymore so that it ends up with an explosive only damage bonus, and make it so that the Sleipnir only gets a bonus to the explosive damage in certain ammo types. Damnation, Sacrilege and Vengeance only get bonuses to EM missile damage too. Then you see how much sense something like this makes. (Hint: it's none. It makes no sense. Change it. For the Cerberus too. This isn't 'specialization', this is 'crippling them while trying to make it look like they're good at something'.) |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:59:00 -
[596] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:
They just removed a high slot from most/all of them.
3 =/= to most or all of them.
Still very likely not happening. 17 slots said the man, and so there are. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Oberus MacKenzie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:59:00 -
[597] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sarmatiko wrote: Also glad that Marauders are safe, for now..
/Maniacal Laugh
You stay away from my Kronos you evil man! :P
Great changes. I'm not sure why the Nighthawk's agility got nerfed, but it doesn't really matter since it's only advantage over the Vulture is and will continue to be in running level 5 missions. Definitely excited about these changes, though. I've been looking forward to the day when Command Ships become the true link boats. I'm still in favor of making them need to be on grid to give bonuses (or even have a max range on the bonuses), but I think you're doing the right thing by rolling the changes out slowly. Kudos |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
5507
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:01:00 -
[598] - Quote
So does this maybe mean that the Eos model will change to the Myrmidon hull in the future?
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
986
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:03:00 -
[599] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:So does this maybe mean that the Eos model will change to the Myrmidon hull in the future?
Check this out:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=242316&find=unread
Answer seems to be 'maybe, kinda, if we feel like it and you pester us enough.' Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1621
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:05:00 -
[600] - Quote
nice. the Eos I decided I wouldn't be using, sold for 375m overnight.
taking a look at what my boosters will look like, I'm not miffed about much. only that I wish I could have the nighthawk carry the siege links... with -1 low +1 mid and 1175 PG.
I would appreciate it greatly if someone explained why the Nighthawk drake is set to have such abysmal PG. Rainf1337 on Twitch |
|
|
|
|
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 |