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) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
951
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:38:00 -
[991] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Eos: -300 Shield +500 Armor +300 Hull
I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn't the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonused command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.
You are being ridiculous!
Most people are of the opinion that it makes logical sense to have one CS designed for small fights (active tank high dps brawler/skirmisher) and one ship that is designed for fleet fights (buffer tank field CS).
You recognise the necessity for an armour buffer CS in large fleet fights but instead of doing anything about it, you choose to ignore it and instead, suggest that people waste a bonus on their ship by fitting a buffer tank to an active tanked ship... That's crap game design IMO! Putting work in since 2010. |
Mister Vee
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:40:00 -
[992] - Quote
Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.
Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes becaus
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like
- Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
|
Lixia Saran
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:43:00 -
[993] - Quote
CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:56:00 -
[994] - Quote
All of these ships are large and slow (they're battle cruisers) so they need their tank and gank And they cannot kite, maybe the sleipnir/claymore with links and snakes, but that is all They need the extra slot compared to their t1 versions like all other t2 ships get And give the eos it's slot you unjustly took away
Please stop ignoring the fact they deserve these slots :/ |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:57:00 -
[995] - Quote
Sleipnir still needs more CPU. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:02:00 -
[996] - Quote
Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well?
plz not
in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll...
plz let it be a troll |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:05:00 -
[997] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:plz not
in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll...
plz let it be a troll
If they don't change the eos into a myrm hull I'm going to flip tables and kick puppies.
The rest I don't really care about. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
412
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:06:00 -
[998] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff."
Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:10:00 -
[999] - Quote
When are you going back to all the bad t1 ships that have been left behind? (atron executioner tristan punisher rifter corax ferox etc) And are T2 frigates/destroyers going to get done soon? They're pretty horrible at the moment.
For command ships though, swap the slot layouts on claymore and nighthawk, switch one of the sleipnir's damage bonuses for ROF and drop that ******** turret tracking bonus on the eos for something useful.
|
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:17:00 -
[1000] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll
Blue Myrm = awsome, red harb = awsome, black drake = awsome, also there was a ton of positive suport in that thread.
|
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1097
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:20:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
Space Jesus has talk. You should read this at wake up and 10 times before hitting your bed Fozzie.
What I don't get is your absolute closed idea about Damnation being the only possible choice for commanders because they have enough ehp. You're not offering options but instead force this ship as only possible setup because anything else will simply die, thus not funny to fly thus no one will jump in with a smile knwoing a first or second volley they get the right to watch the rest of the fight on twich tv.
Just say it if you can't because of whatever code but stop pushing the same reasonning over and over when everyone and his grandmother is able to see the mistake in your decision. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Rain6638
Team Evil
568
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:23:00 -
[1002] - Quote
Fozzie.
post a fit for the Nighthawk. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:35:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
Space Jesus has talk. You should read this at wake up and 10 times before hitting your bed Fozzie. What I don't get is your absolute closed idea about Damnation being the only possible choice for commanders because they have enough ehp. You're not offering options but instead force this ship as only possible setup because anything else will simply die, thus not funny to fly thus no one will jump in with a smile knwoing a first or second volley they get the right to watch the rest of the fight on twich tv. Just say it if you can't because of whatever code but stop pushing the same reasonning over and over when everyone and his grandmother is able to see the mistake in your decision.
I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
|
Rain6638
Team Evil
568
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:38:00 -
[1004] - Quote
it seems to me you're trying to get Command Ships and the Command Ships skill to act like separate Assault Battlecruiser and Command Ships skills (and two completely different roles)
You'll have an easier time by separating the two, into Assault Battlecruisers and Command Ships. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
S1dy
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:43:00 -
[1005] - Quote
I really don't get what you did there Fozzie. That were minor tweaks, nothing special and mostly not needed. This patch will be the most frustrating one since Incarna, because you balanced HAC's and Command Ships into ****. I can believe it, really.
Why do you want to nerf the Damnation which is in the whole thread the only ship everyone agrees with as perfect as it is right now. It's tanky enough to achieve it's role in fleets. But you throw 300 Armor HP away. That's unbelievable
And what's with the Vulture you ignored completely? It should be at least comparable to the Damnation.
I don't know why you refuse to change the roles in both ship classes, that makes really no sense. Don't you see the aweful lot demands here in the threads? They have mostly the same topics they critisize.
This changes won't change anything in usage, that's for sure. You made it just worse with the Damnation nerf... Tech 3's for the win despite they will boost less |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:52:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best.
That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4462
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:57:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Quote:Of course we all know, and I know the evidence is there in your logs to support this position, no-one, just no-one ever did or every will fly a command ship with an active tank bonus in any kind of real pvp 'skirmish'. Active tank bonuses are useful in hypothetical 1v1 or 1v2 confrontations. These actually almost never happen other than under contrived circumstances on the test server.
In addition, given that a command ship is only useful in a fleet, it is further rendered useless on a command ship. Either,
your gang will gank a single solo ship - in which case you don't need local reps at all, or
your gang will engage another gang, and their combined firepower will render your local rep bonus completely irrelevant.
While I'm not arguing your general stance, your supposition isn't really accurate.
Command ships are commonly used even in very small gang conflicts (many of them are tough, powerful ships even now), and part of the over reaching goal of this update is that they be a very useful combat ship with our without gang links.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:58:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Fozzie can't make all the command ships a brick like the Damnation. It would 1) destroy the damnation and 2) ... umm.. ok I don't have a 2.
He wants the ships to have roles. The main command ships have 4 roles, Two Large Fleet Doctrine Ships (one armor, one sheild), one small fleet doctrine ship (one armor, one shield).
I get it... I would love to have the EOS be a Brick. Anyway. |
Diivil
Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:02:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard.
This exactly. Fozzie, you are not making on-grid boosting an option and instead you are just making flying boosters more annoying than it already is.
My views:
As long as it is not possible to put wing commanders on grid (so until skirmish boosters have Damnation level of EHP) POS boosting should stay in the game. I understand you want to make bonuses vulnerable and I do agree with that. But until on-grid boosting is a viable option, making running off-grid boosters more annoying isn't going to change anything. Fix on-grid boosting first, then force off-grid boosters out of their POSes.
Skirmish boosting ships absolutely have to have Damnation level of EHP. There seriously is no other way. If they don't, they are not going to ever be used in full fleets. Your current design would leave a fully tanked Claymore to around 150k EHP and the others aren't too far from that. Do you really think a ship which is insanely important but has less EHP than a fleet BS will ever survive when fleet BS die by the dozens if not hundreds in a proper fight.
If command processors were made to be rigs then the only ships that would ever use them would be off-grid t3 boosters. You would be unlikely to drop any tank from your on-grid command ships because they need all the EHP they can get. If they are changed to be rigs then at least I think carriers should have the ability to fit more than 1 link without command processors.
While Vee says off-grid boosting should be removed, personally I think it should stay stay in the game. Simply put it is the easiest solution with no new code being required, no need to invent frigate sized boosters for frigate fleets etc. But considering how you announced that it would be going away something like a year ago and it still hasn't leads me to believe you are not able to do it without a considerable amount of resources spend on it or without having too much stress on the server. Whatever the reason, off-grid boosting seems to be here to stay for at least the next few years. And it is not a bad thing. There are many fleet doctrines, small gang and full fleet sized, that need bonuses but can't bring a command ship on grid with them. As long as bonuses are as overpowered as they are now all fleets will want to have them so off-grid boosting allows us to have better and more interesting fleet concepts overall. Also as I have explained before it allows us to have more mobile fleets because you can sacrifice a few DPS ships to reposition but you can't sacrifice your bonuses.
In longer term I believe we need something in between no bonuses at all and full links. This would mean either nerfing the bonuses even more so that the gap is not as big (and simultaneously rebalancing most ships and weapons in game because everything is balanced based on the fact that people always have bonuses) or putting lesser form of bonuses in between no bonuses and full bonuses. This is because generally right now you will not be fighting in nullsec unless you have bonuses. So I want there to be an option to at least considering of keeping on fighting if you do lose your bonuses. While the warfare skills give some bonuses already it is not enough because it's just "base" stats (raw armor/shield, agility, targeting range) and not what the links actually give (better reps, tackle range, stronger ewar etc.) So what I would like to see to bridge this gap is that a perfect 5s leadership character could give maybe 30% to 50% link bonuses while being in any ship. It would still be worth bringing a dedicated bonus ship but you would not instantly be ****** if it dies.
All fleet command ships need to have enough PG to be able to fit 3 links, full tank (meaning 2 plates) and an MWD without fitting mods. Also preferably a probe launcher on top of that but that is not as important.
Even if you do all of this and manage to get people to use on-grid command ships they of course can do nothing while they are on the grid except run away. They will be fully tank fit which leaves no room to fit guns. No that the guns would do any real damage without DPS mods. Or that they would ever hit anyone when the command ships would be anchoring on the logi anchor and staying as far away from the fight as possible. So what fleet command ships need is not DPS bonuses. If you want to make them fun you will need to give them utility. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1100
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:02:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Shpenat wrote: I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
But that's absolutely not what we're asking for !
As Vee perfectly explained we need A command ship per race able to push Damnation tank, DPS is not the FC/commander problem because there are better ships dedicated or specialized for this, ok to hoar on KM's but no need 800dps CS. Make the second one still tanky but less, less links and eventually take down some of that dps, COMMAND ships should not be solo pownmobiles no matter the number of ships on the gang or solo. For that people should train T3's or take faction ships. Look at the sleipnir and how many people bring for fleets? -none, it's a gang/solo pownmachine CS that not even fits links most times, this is silly. Gallente get two clones of Sleipnir and matar gets one half good tanker slow as a battleship with bulkheads in lows.
Logisitcs can perfectly survive with little tanks, with current large fleets numbers command ships never, if it's not a Damnation or if you don't have 30 logis on the field 10 already exclusively dedicated to the FC (and all other pre locking also) even then with perfect volleys despite so many logis I've seen super tank Vultures get two volleyed off the field (alpha is really stupid for this)
Command ships are specialized boosting ships, why the hell should they do more dps than HACs? -take dps out and give them HP for higher tiers and loose some dps for mobility for second tiers. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
262
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:03:00 -
[1011] - Quote
This entire round of changes feels really sloppy, even more so with today's revisions. STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:04:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Shpenat wrote:I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
The people who are advocating for the huge brick tank boosters are willing to make that trade off. Their concern is staying on the most hostile battlefields while people are trying to headshot them, the DPS they put out is a distant third concern at best. That's why people are asking for 1 heavy tank command ship where the offensive bonuses are unimportant, and 1 heavy assault battlecruiser ship that small-ish gangs can use to have a ganky boosty ship. As it stands now we have 7 HABC and 1 brick tank command ship.
That's a bit tricky. Which one should do which? Lets take astarte and eos (as those are ships I know best).
It seems astarte is better for small fleets while eos for larger. SO in the end there will again be no option for eos to do any significant damage. So skirmish commander who wants to use drones now has no ship to fly. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
952
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:04:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Shpenat wrote: I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
You know that each race has two CS, right?
... Make one ship gank and one tank. Simple! Putting work in since 2010. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:05:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Mister Vee wrote:Ugh, Fozzie, I'm sorry but this is all really stupid. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve exactely, but it's failing hard. Still can't use on-grid boosting
- Wing commanders will not get FC bonuses, which means they cannot survive at all
- Even if they did get FC bonus, only the damnation has enough hp to survive getting volleyed right off the field. Vultures will instadie in large engagements, while claymore hp is just laughable (often less than a regular battleship).
Off-grid boosting just got more annoying- Everyone is using boosters because they are too good to ignore, and because command ships just die, people HAVE to use off-grid boosters. Everyone does it on alts, because obviously it's boring to sit in a pos, but at least you could park it and leave it. Forcing them into safes because you don't fix boosting properly seems unfair to me
- Off-grid boosting is dumb and boring, but it's necessary to level the playing field since everyone is doing it.
What's the point? Why not go all the way? I'm no game designer, but my suggestion would be something like - Fix wing command bug first
- Rebalance field command to skirmish/active tank/dps bonuses, 1 link
- Rebalance fleet command to universally very high ehp, slots for utility instead of dps, 3 -4 links
- Find an alternative for command processors entirely, they're dumb
- Then remove off-grid boosting entirely
- And don't ignore smaller fleets who are too fast for bringing slow command ships with them...
I completely agree with everything posted here.
On grid links simply are not viable against any decent fleet that can co-ordinate alpha, they don't even have to be especially large to alpha vultures let alone claymores if they have high alpha guns (tornadoes for example). |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:08:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff." Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback.
last time i looked about a week after post i had an diffrent impression....
i cant understand why they cant give the cyclone the hurricane hull IF they do the change..... after all ist just a modell and nobody cares about the cyclone model (i suppose) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 -
[1016] - Quote
FOZZIE
Have you considered reducing the sig radius on all these ships to help mitigate some damage alongside adding more EHP??? 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. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Fozzie can't make all the command ships a brick like the Damnation. It would 1) destroy the damnation and 2) ... umm.. ok I don't have a 2.
He wants the ships to have roles. The main command ships have 4 roles, Two Large Fleet Doctrine Ships (one armor, one sheild), one small fleet doctrine ship (one armor, one shield).
I get it... I would love to have the EOS be a Brick. Anyway.
The problem is how the boosts are distributed. For big fleets the 2 boosts you want are your primary tank (shield/armor) and skirmish boosts. The way they originally laid out the boosts it would've been fine with the legion being able to give both armor and skirmish boosts (lol shield doctrines). Unfortunately they decided to switch up the boosts and instead gave the skirmish boost to galente.
If they would undo that change the discontent would switch from "we need better brick tank command ships" to "we need a brick tank shield skirmish booster." It's like CCP knows exactly what people want out of a fleet booster and they keep making decision to spite them. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:09:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Lixia Saran wrote:CCP Fozzie:
so are we getting the hull changes (to the sleipnir, nighthawk, absolution, eos) in 1.1 as well? plz not in his thread he told us he will only change it when theres enough backup in the comunity and imho there wasnt. so i hope this was just a troll... plz let it be a troll lol. There was plenty of feedback in the thread that said "yes, please." The hard core Sleipnir lovers said no, but many of them even said "well, if I have to lose the beloved Sleipnir to get the other hulls, then I guess it'd be a good tradeoff." Maybe you can go back and take a look through the thread and not only pick out the negative comments you agreed with, and you might have a more objective viewpoint of the feedback.
last time i looked about a week after post i had an diffrent impression....
i cant understand why they cant give the cyclone the hurricane hull IF they do the change..... after all ist just a modell (clarification: whats wrong with a hurricane hull shooting missiles) and nobody cares about the cyclone model (i suppose)
[edit] double post mistake plz remove first post |
Durrr
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:15:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Shpenat wrote: I can understand his motives. If he gives every CS the tank of damnation he will have to kill its gank. ANd people will complain again that they do no damage and are thus not good for anything.
He can't give them bot tank and gank because they would be way to overpowered. Imagine a CS doing 1200 dps (like astarta can) while having ovek 250k ehp (damnation). I call that bad balancing.
So if his goal is to give all of those ships good enough dps he needs to reduce the tank.
But that's absolutely not what we're asking for ! As Vee perfectly explained we need A command ship per race able to push Damnation tank, DPS is not the FC/commander problem because there are better ships dedicated or specialized for this, ok to hoar on KM's but no need 800dps CS. Make the second one still tanky but less, less links and eventually take down some of that dps, COMMAND ships should not be solo pownmobiles no matter the number of ships on the gang or solo. For that people should train T3's or take faction ships. Look at the sleipnir and how many people bring for fleets? -none, it's a gang/solo pownmachine CS that not even fits links most times, this is silly. Gallente get two clones of Sleipnir and matar gets one half good tanker slow as a battleship with bulkheads in lows. Logisitcs can perfectly survive with little tanks, with current large fleets numbers command ships never, if it's not a Damnation or if you don't have 30 logis on the field 10 already exclusively dedicated to the FC (and all other pre locking also) even then with perfect volleys despite so many logis I've seen super tank Vultures get two volleyed off the field (alpha is really stupid for this) Command ships are specialized boosting ships, why the hell should they do more dps than HACs? -take dps out and give them HP for higher tiers and loose some dps for mobility for second tiers.
It all depends on what roll CCP wants them to fill. If we want them to fill the HAC/T3 roll, then the current changes are pretty good. If we want them to be true Command ships (if they are indeed intended to be for FCs and what not), their main purpose should be to keep them on field with heavy resists and strong overall tank, a sig radius that's not overly large, and decent mobility. DPS should be a giant afterthought. So it comes down to what we want their roll to be. |
sXyphos
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:15:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Meh i was expecting more dramatic changes like in the HAC thread(babysteps so far ), lots of people had some valid points in the thread but they lack *charisma i think considering the result , keep it going guys, 45 more pages and we get another 75PG on the nighthawk |
|
|
|
|
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 |