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) |
Ashlore
Svea Rike Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:59:00 -
[1051] - Quote
So basicly enemy fart and the bonus is gone.. What is the point in having them then?
I think you should listen to mister vee He have som constructive suggestions. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1433
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:02:00 -
[1052] - Quote
It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente the Eos would neat to see it get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I I find this idea far-fetched yet incredibly rational and satisfactory command ships should look like the damnation assault battlecruisers should look like the sleipnir covops command ships should look like 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 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[1054] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time!.... You had got to be kidding. You are actually adding MORE dps to the penultimate brawling CC .. Q: What tactic would work if going up against the Astarte in another CC? A: None. You won't break his tank before he breaks you at ranges in excess of your points but well within his. Only hope is a neuting buddy to alpha his cap and drain him whenever he injects.
I am beginning to think/fear my jokes about Dev Gallente bias might not be jokes after all.
Funny thing: All facets of the Astarte get positive reinforcement while all others have some negatives mixed in, even goes so far as to ADD launchers to Astarte while all other gunboats are partially or completely stripped of theirs.
Bad time in Eve to be flying non-Gallente hulls.
CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. Problem is that "identity" pigeon holes it into the blob with practically no function outside: ****-poor dps with links that can be just as easily be carried by the Absolution which can actually help kill a cruiser if the need arises .. don't expect it to go much higher than that, 10 turrets with no drones to speak of and zero fight control.
1. Halve the bonus to 5% armour per level and bump the damage to 20%/level .. will still be eminently suited as the blob anchor and ten launchers (ie. same as non-kin NH) with no application bonus will ensure it remains a second tier platform. NB: Before you say "but Claymore!!!111" .. it has optional guns (and application bonus) whereas the brick does not, they were ruthlessly eradicated.
-or-
2. Complete do-over and remake it in using the tiericided Prophecy as a template. Fits better anyway as Gallente/Amarr are 1st/2nd drone races and Caldari/Minmatar are 1st/2nd missile spammers.
Long story shorter: The idea was to make the field commands power in their own right, yet Damnation is handidly out damaged even by the palsy Sacrilege .. and no, that is not an invitation to reduce the Sacrilege further!
PS: In case you missed it, the Abso needs more! |
Keif Kroker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:23:00 -
[1055] - Quote
If your not going to make ships tanky enough to be the last ship to be called primary your doing something wrong. These are ships that need to survive in 250 man fleets going against even more people when being repped to be on grid as a fleet command ship. You can't call this balance if the only command ship ends up being the damnation. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
274
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:43:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Problem is that "identity" pigeon holes it into the blob with practically no function outside: ****-poor dps with links that can be just as easily be carried by the Absolution which can actually help kill a cruiser if the need arises .. don't expect it to go much higher than that, 10 turrets with no drones to speak of and zero fight control.
Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:55:00 -
[1057] - 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...
it seems he is to pigheaded to want to drop the useless rep bonus. but i cant quote this enough! seriously fozzie get your bleep out of.. bleep
|
Sieve Girl
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:55:00 -
[1058] - Quote
I have an alt account I was considering using as a fleet booster, it is a rather long training time to ensure we had an edge in fleets, hence using an alt account, but I was going to do it. However, after reading this thread I see no point. I will not bring an expensive ship with expensive implants into a fight, on grid, only to watch it get alphaed by scrub lords assigning T1 sentry drones to another player and giggling like school girls. What is more, I don't want to be forced to fly an expensive ship with a great big target on my forehead and not have any opportunity to participate beyond starting up my links, sitting on the logi anchor or the edge of the grid and taking bets with the other wing commanders on who dies first.
Hence why people use alts parked in a tower, so they can alt tab to their main account and actually participate in the fight. Perhaps Fozzie should observe the fight in 6DVT, the CFC destroyed every hostile command ship on the field, typically alphaed them, and by controlling the moons ensured that there was no safe POS. This is the reality that your changes will bring. Who wants to fly a ship that everyone knows will be the die faster than a interdictor? |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:55:00 -
[1059] - Quote
any chance you would consider giving tier 3 battlecruisers ("glass houses") a shot at having command link bonuses? I think the lack of tank is a good trade-off for having a covops cloak.
4x 100% damage bonused turrets, 1 covops cloak and 2 utility highs, everything else unaltered
because each race has 3 battlecruisers, not just the two you seem to be considering right now.
if you're concerned about an undeniable DPS creep by creating assault battlecruisers, let's face it: Battleships never scaled in terms of DPS vs sig radius anyway. They could use a boost.
I like the dual-"racial" type bonuses to command ships, because it allows full tank/info/skirmish for both full-armor and full-shield gangs. [ 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 |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:59:00 -
[1060] - 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.
In deed, I dont care one bit about DPS. heck remove ALL turret and launchers from the tanky ones for all I care. I only have a civilian laser to get on mails as it is. since every single lowslot is tank on my damnation and mid. well prob, capbooster and.. well one free :) who cares about some damage when my job is to boost and stay alive. make the old field command ships the ganky ones, but for the hate of Michael let those of us that need to stay alive have the tools to do so! what was wrong with having a fleet and one field command ships? why this sudden need for them to be similar? seems so counter intuitive to me.
|
|
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:59:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:I do believe that the two racial battlecruisers need to be split. A command ship, by name, just doesn't seem like it should fit the role you're giving it. One of the two can be made a combat ship, with a bonus to offensive and defensive capabilities over its t1 variant, but the other should remain strictly a fleet ship, and be dubbed a Command ship.
If a Command ship is given prowess over links, then it should be the best at fielding them. It should have high defenses and very little offensive capability, and perhaps even an EW defensive capability which is projected to nearby friendlies. These command ships should move with the fleet and be in close proximity to any fight taking place. In addition, they *should* be a high priority target in a fight (not necessarily highest, but high).
The combat variant should not have any command abilities whatsoever, but instead trade those for its offensive capability. It should have slightly less defensive capabilities than its command ship brethren, yet still have bonuses over its t1 counterpart.
So basically what you're asking, is that command ships be left alone completely, and are fine as is. One that is dedicated to boosting, but sucks at combat, and the other that sucks at boosting but can do combat.
Or instead, we can have our current boosting dedicated ones be brought up to the combat capability of our current combat ones, and vice versa. So that instead of 4 combat command ships and 4 boosting command ships, we can have 8 command ships that are good at both and can choose before undocking if they want to focus on their combat aspect or their boosting aspect. Personally, I like the new system. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:01:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out. Taking off 25% from the bonus equates to losing a single 1600 plate from the 50% hull .. you'll lose in the neighborhood of 60k EHP leaving 210k+.
Do you really think that your survival increases by that much when forced onto grid in the blob to justify it being nothing but a brick in or out of the blob when no other hulls has to suffer that fate? Problem is that even when not bricked it is outperformed by most tiericided cruisers and probably some of the bling frigs and that is neither here nor there .. sacrificing dps when bricking is one thing, but not even having the option/choice is entirely different.
Adjust the mobility and/or sig to approximate the "real" EHP of the current near stationary triple-plated if need be, just don't nerf it to a point where being a giant buffer is all it can do.
PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on. |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:15:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Why is the nighthawk losing a launcher???........... what the hell is that about. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:16:00 -
[1064] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. "that advantage is just its identity, and it's not worth changing a ship over something as superfluous as identity."
I'm just going to laugh, because I refuse to be trolled. this is just comedy, fozzie. [ 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 |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:41:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I considered dropping the armor hp bonus from the Damnation, but in the end I think it's ok for it to have a strong identity, even if that identity makes it more popular than the others for large fleet warfare. "that advantage is just its identity, and it's not worth changing a ship over something as superfluous as identity." I'm just going to laugh, because I refuse to be trolled. this is just comedy, fozzie. maybe you should list all the RP aspects of these ships that are beyond reproach.
I do notic that when given the opertunity to completely mix things up ccp are kinda scared, i know there are allot of die hards of even terible ships, but if they went out on a limb and made something interesting they would make new diehards. Anyway at least they game skirmish links to galente and gave the amarr the lol info links to make galenty that much more apealing. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:48:00 -
[1066] - Quote
depending on how you look at it, this could be interpreted as a mere shuffle of things to give the illusion of "new", due to any number of reasons (lack of manpower/time/ideas) -or- a slight attempt at creating new SP sinks according to player metrics we don't have access to...
basically, create new reasons for people to sub and enjoy it. those types of changes would come slowly--and they're something you would expect a for-profit company to do.
...but the idea of preserving the RP of certain ships is a motivation I have not considered. and those things should be listed along with ship stats in the OP. [ 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 |
Caldess
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:49:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships.
Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable? |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:51:00 -
[1068] - Quote
because this is a troll thread, you didn't know? [ 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 |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:04:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Caldess wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships. Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable?
What you dont have a suden urdge to fly in an all Eos or Damnation fleet, spider tanking and and laughing with glee? because i think thats what ccp hopes happens, giving all comand ships 2 utility highs. I personaly will have a dule newt Eos and brawl, let someone else in fleet fly the linky boat. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
279
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:52:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on.
I flew logistics in the Fountain war. The enemy knows every single one of our FC's, and they would try to headshot them off the field every single battle. Once we started to fly megathron fleets the only ships our FC's would use were brick tanked proteus and brick tanked damnations. These are the ships that have tank to stay on the field when two battleship fleets start pounding each other.
If you think that damnations haven't been tested on grid in massive fleet battles, you haven't been paying attention. |
|
bloodknight2
Talledega Knights PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:14:00 -
[1071] - Quote
What about a module (like triage or siege) for CS that gives them +20% per level to armor (or shield if you are a ***) when activated? This way, if you want a tanky CS for larger fleet, you fit this mod for *extreme* tank. You want your CS for small gang, pve or simply ganking miners in 0.5 because you are *very* spacerish? You fit your CS without this mod.
Of course, once fitted, this mod would make the CS almost does no DPS at all (only for whoring KM). |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1434
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:45:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Caldess wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships. Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable? Yeah, in retrospect it was a bad idea, and I feel bad for it. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:56:00 -
[1073] - Quote
cap chain claymores with local reps and egress port maximizer rig. that was a fun EFT exercise.
don't bother, it was a 500hp rep tank w/ LSB and a 125k EHP buffer.
stable, but crap. [ 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 |
Namamai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
189
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:08:00 -
[1074] - Quote
The NH changes are welcome, but I still think the hull is pretty underwhelming compared to the rest of the CSes, or even compared to the Cerberus.
I think it's worthwhile to do an apples-to-apples comparison with the Claymore: * Both are shield boats with bonuses relevant to active tanking (NH gets resists, Claymore gets boost bonus) * Both are missile users with 5 hardpoints * Both get bonuses to missile application -- NH gets exp radius, Claymore gets exp velocity
The main difference is that the Claymore has much higher base mobility and a sixth mid slot. However, as it turns out, this makes a massive difference.
* The Claymore is significantly faster -- 400m/s faster base, over 700m/s faster if it's using one of its option highs for a bonused Rapid Deployment link. * The Claymore ends up having about the same EHP on a buffer fit -- while the NH has a resist bonus, the Claymore's kin hole is much smaller than the NH's em hole, and it can comfortably fit double T2 LSEs. In the end, it's 110K EHP versus 115K EHP if both are taking a Shield Harmonizing link. * The Claymore has far more fitting room -- 35 less CPU, but 200 more grid. * The Claymore has less missile DPS, but it can take a flight of medium drones instead of lights. It ends up being about a 100dps difference -- 600 versus 700 for a HAM fit. However, the Claymore can apply that DPS better since it has an extra mid slot for a web. (Especially if it opts for an Interdiction link instead of a SHarm.)
Given the choice between 100dps, and 600m/s of mobility plus an extra tackle mod, the choice is pretty obvious for me. And I suspect that the Claymore's link bonuses (Siege+Skirmish) are far more compelling to medium and large gangs than a Nighthawk's.
As it stands, the only time I'd take NH is in very large gangs where buffer is extremely important -- in which case, it has to compete with the Vulture, and you may want to spend your highs on smartbombs/cyno instead of HMLs. |
Rain6638
Team Evil
570
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:15:00 -
[1075] - Quote
please don't make the claymore sound good, or fozzie will touch it [ 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 |
Caldess
The Executives Executive Outcomes
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:56:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Oh yes, lets nerf the only functional command ship for large fleet engagements. In return it can add a few more DPS to the tens of thousands when large fleets clash.
Get out. PS: How do you know that it is the only functional blob link platform when they have generally never seen action so far .. anyone can sit in a POS or at a safe. Even CCP has no clue where the chips may land when/if they get through the Gordian knot they have their resident hacker chewing on.
Its pretty simple how we know it. If you are almost able to headshot a Damnation, what do you think will happen to any other Commandship? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4467
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 05:08:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Caldess wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be kind of neat to see Caldari get an equivalent to the Damnation, it shield recharge rate would need to adjusted accordingly.
For Gallente it would neat to see the Eos get a remote armor repair bonus to range and cap usage. Gallente Battlecruisers : +10% Drone Damage and HP per level +100% Remote Armor Repair Unit range per level Command Ships: +7.5% Heavy Drone Tracking and Microwarp Velocity per level -5% capacitor needs of remote armor repair units per level +3% to the strength of Armored Warfare and Skirmish Warfare links per level
I don't know for minmatar, but it would most likely involve the Claymore as most would rage if the Sleipnir got touched.
This would give Caldari and Amarr solid large fleet command ships, Gallente and Minmatar good small gang command ships. Why would you EVER fit remote repair mods on a command ship? You dont really think that while im FCing in that ship i got time to repair someone and give it the attention it needs to be valuable? I think that soon you will find a sharp reduction in the amount of large fleet FCing done from Command Ships. No matter how this balancing goes, or the eventual fate of off grid boosting, as fleets get larger and larger it will eventually become impossible to survive alpha strikes via tank alone. FC's are going to have to get either sneaky or clever to survive. 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. |
Swiftus Mahyisti
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 06:12:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:tl;dr - step in the right direction, but not enough...
as most have pointed out these changes seem rather... underwhelming, although they are a step in the right direction for sure. damnation seems meh nighthawk seems meh (troll ship apparently?) 5 mid 5 low? and one of the few i've been following (the eos) seems quite meh) you had something going with the sleipnir's old slot count, but instead of carrying the extra slot over you nerf the sleip/claymore slot layout, you need to put that slot back onto all of the CS's and i dont like the current slot layout of the eos, yes its a drone boat so -1 compared to all of the other ships makes sense, but not when you have 4 unbonused guns, just tracking? (lol) the 7.5% tracking to heavy drones is interesting, and unique... i like it, but 250 drone bay? needs much more, especially when you are trying to get people to use heavy drones, a cruiser (ishtar) shouldnt have 125m^3 more than a battlecruiser...
all of the ships seem lacking in overall DPS, they need a bit more, even if you destroy your tank for dps, 905 dps and 617 tank (eos) is quite hilariously.... bad... and this seems to be a general trend... these ships are slow and large... they cant effectively kite against much, so they need to have an actual tank, and a good amount of dps while tanking halfway effectively
give all of the commandships the +1 slot they deserve give the eos more dronebay, and a better 4th bonus something like 7.5% MHT tracking and damage would be much better, and make it worth not having the extra slot the other CS's have or roll the tracking of MHT into the heavy drone tracking (weird yes) and add a +10% armor bonus (still not worth -1 slot tho for being a drone ship)
a 7.5% MHT tracking/damage bonus for its 4th bonus, 6/4/7 eos with 375 dronebay would be much better, and worth using. and because of the split weapon systems, you wouldnt get a silly 1500 dps ganker on roids, with 3 drone damage mods, only 1074dps and 617 tank... heck, the eos is an active tanker, it needs a second cap booster to be effective, a 6/5/7 slot layout might be a bit too much, but maybe not...
most ships that need help with tank should get a midslot for shield tankers or lowslot for armor tankers, excluding the damnation which already has a very nice tank, give it a 5th mid and change its velocity bonus to damage bonus, or give it an extra high and missile turret
but why are you bringing t2 bc's down in slot layout? t1 -> t2 cruisers give you +1 slot t1 -> t2 frigs give you +2 slots... t1 bc -> t2 bc should give you +1 slot, its ridiculous not to...
THIS! +1, outlined everything that is wrong, and gave reasonable replacements for useless bonuses. Please take a hint from this man.
|
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 06:49:00 -
[1079] - Quote
I have a question:
On the damnation, you give a bonus to all kind of missile damage, why you give on the nighthawk just a bonus to kinetic damage?
i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 06:58:00 -
[1080] - Quote
Gustav Mannfred wrote:I have a question:
On the damnation, you give a bonus to all kind of missile damage, why you give on the nighthawk just a bonus to kinetic damage?
It's fairly standard for caldari's missile bonuses to be for kinetic |
|
|
|
|
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 |