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) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4520
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:28:00 -
[1501] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:I am at work right now. so unable to do a proper link of eft fit. but i have to say i had a bunch of fun last night in an Astarte on SISI.
this was my first attempt at fitting and i wanted to go big everything.
high: 1 med nuet 1 med nos 5 nuetron blaster II
mid: 10 mwd 10 ab scram medium cap booster (800)
lows: MAAR dcu II 1600 plate II 2 energy adaptive membrain II RCU II
Rigs: 2 pg rigs
drones: 5 ecm 600 5 warrior II
now upon reflection i can allways drop to ions and then can take advantage of the rigs... but it was allot of fun. i killed a deimos then a cane then a curse.
I also used one of those active tanking pills that made the tank really good. the 1600 allows me to reload the MAAR.
i do have to say the nos was allot of help to keep my mods running bettween cap boosters.
It's been patiently explained to me how the new NOS mechanic nerfs them into complete uselessness... especially against same size or smaller targets... regardless of how much cap your ship burns (and certainly on any ship using a Neut or a Cap Booster).
Nice to see practical use proving them wrong. 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. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:34:00 -
[1502] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Fitting what you want on a ship is intended to take creativity and require tradeoffs. In your case I advise checking out meta modules. Switching the LSEs and DC to meta 4 and dropping to two BCUs allows your fit to work without any fitting mods or implants, even with T2 links. Add Genolution CA-1 and CA-2s and a 3% cpu implant it works with 3 BCUs.
Can you please explain why that applies only to T2 hulls while T1 have no issues with fittings? Or it's a some sort of an achievement after months of training? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4520
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 17:47:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Fitting what you want on a ship is intended to take creativity and require tradeoffs. In your case I advise checking out meta modules. Switching the LSEs and DC to meta 4 and dropping to two BCUs allows your fit to work without any fitting mods or implants, even with T2 links. Add Genolution CA-1 and CA-2s and a 3% cpu implant it works with 3 BCUs. Can you please explain why that applies only to T2 hulls while T1 have no issues with fittings? Or it's a some sort of an achievement after months of training? That's to fit 3 links. Fitting two is easier, but if you want to go the full Monty there will be some sacrifices here and there to be made.
Unless you're trying to say that T1 ships can max every aspect of their fit with no sacrifices, including mounting 2 or 3 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. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:18:00 -
[1504] - Quote
I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7395
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:25:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board.
It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
448
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:33:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. Don't forget that for the most part, T2 ships can do something "special" that T1 can't. So, while T1 can do with having more fitting vs T2, it can't ever offer that "something special" that T2 can.
I do have to agree with you, however, regarding some questionable "balancing" choices, like allowing oversized, capless and not limited to 1 for XLASBs but limiting armor tanking to cap-intensive, only same class, limited to 1 per ship on AARs. At the same time, though, there's some value in some limitations. I mean look at how 1600 plates are more or less required on anything cruiser-sized and larger. Since that's the case, why even have 800mm in the game? Along those same lines, who has ever used a 50mm or 100mm plate?
Inherent differences with armor tanking vs shield tanking are good things. They'll be better things when resist bonuses for armor don't outclass active tanking by leaps and bounds.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Valterra Craven
100
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:39:00 -
[1507] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP.
That explains everything then... /threadover.
I thought that icnarnia taught you guys something... namely that pissing off your player base constantly was a sure fire way to lose business...
I don't understand the logic in making player investment in the game less worthwhile. It deifies all common sense.
I'm by no means saying that fitting t2 ships should be easy... what I am saying is that it should be easier than it is when considering all fitting skills to 5...
What exactly is the cost benefit analysis here...? Spending more time and money to get less just doesn't add up.
Edit: At least now I understand WHY you are making the choices you are with this pass since the rest of my questions in the link thread weren't able to. |
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:40:00 -
[1508] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.
Well, I can say that even max skilled pilot cannot fit dual ASB Claymore. Not that I am stuck on particular ship, but I for example love to fly my dualasb sleipnir and engage gangs. In future I won't be able to do so even if I will spend trillions of ISK on fitting mods and implants. I admit that dualasb is kinda crap but that's only thing that keeps me alive against everything else, I would gladly fly dualrep eos or Astarte but unfortunately those ships even with rep bonus and 2x reps running cannot compete with ASB. So this patch is killing one of the best balanced solo ship ever making it yet another part in blob warfare. This is what I will never understand, you are putting 2 ships for each race doing same thing but with different guns. If we are speaking about uniqueness then why you are putting them doing same stuff? You really think anyone actually cares about links putting extra dps on field? I doubt it. Let's take Damnation with it's bonuses. Damn enyo can outdps that ship. What Damnation suppose to do in small gang? Apply it's 300 dps?? or tank them all to death? Why don't u just split them as they were before? They were not amazing but were still better compared to what they will become now. You could leave Caymore as command ship while leaving more combat role to sleipnir, you could do same to every other ship and slightly boosting armor reps for them.
Just to show you what that ship is capable off see this link and tell me if it will be able to do anything like that after you will tweak it? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:42:00 -
[1509] - Quote
@ Fozzie
Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ? 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. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7396
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:48:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@ Fozzie
Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ?
You skipped the bold!
I think that the armor Sleip would be too radical of a change to a fun ship for too little gain. Minmatar always has the Loki for armor boosting, and it's not like anyone is enforcing single race fleets
Same thing with a shield bonused Gallente CS. Even though both races have plenty of interesting options with both types of tanking, they both have a strong primary tanking identity which is what the Command Ship bonuses and stats are reflecting. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:53:00 -
[1511] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:@ Fozzie
Any chance of that armour sleipnir to match the cane hull and the fact there are about a dozen minnie armour ships ? You skipped the bold! I think that the armor Sleip would be too radical of a change to a fun ship for too little gain. Minmatar always has the Loki for armor boosting, and it's not like anyone is enforcing single race fleets Same thing with a shield bonused Gallente CS. Even though both races have plenty of interesting options with both types of tanking, they both have a strong primary tanking identity which is what the Command Ship bonuses and stats are reflecting.
so you were reading them but just ignoring me ... i see you're point but part of minnie character is split tanking on many of there ships and the model change will be strange having an ASB cane.... also loki won't have the tank at fleet level i imagine.. at least put it up for a vote 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
311
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:53:00 -
[1512] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.
The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits.
But that's just my opinion. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7397
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:58:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion.
Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings).
One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:01:00 -
[1514] - Quote
CCP has his ideas and thats its, simple.
I am over all dissapointed of these changes, sad ccp.
Give us back 2 cs roles, one for fast engagments with high dps, decent tank and the possibilty to fit very well with high SP. On the other hand, take the cs role with high resistance tank and gankboni or with some utility-tools like good neuts. By the way that about gang modul fo more damage? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:06:00 -
[1515] - Quote
fozzie
do you not think that all ships should have its own role? and uniqueness? with that in mind why are all the CS basically the same but with different weapon systems none of them have any real individuality bar perhaps the Astarte which is actually quite mobile .. shame vulture is so slow... surely different links combining with different ship roles is more interesting and desirable as a whole? 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. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:10:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion.
I have to admit i can life with that because T2 should be specialized, if i want a flexibel Ship i choose Faction Stuff or T3.
The Problem is i cant see the specialized function as Fleet Booster in Command Ships, because we dont have any ships besides the Damnation because they choose Damage over Durability which is strange and because of the new Navy BCs this role is already taken.
After OGB is removed, Command Ships should be the FIRST and the LAST Ship in a fight, regardless of Gang or Fleet but you cant boosting until the end, you got shot down first, because of Damage AND Booster in combination with average defense you will always the first target because of the insanly high value, regardless of gang or fleet.
This is in my opinion the complete opposite of specialized. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
235
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:34:00 -
[1517] - Quote
The Nighthawk still needs more fitting and the low slot needs to be moved to the midslot for Christs sake.
CCP Fozzie wrote: It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile.
Specialization? You have got to be kidding me, the role bonus and configuration is the specialize, I fail to see how making the fitting gimped compared to Tier 1 is ideal.
You made Command ships to be able to gank, tank, and command, or one or the other. How are supposed to do that if you don't give us the means to do so. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:47:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Cyaron wars wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Cyaron wars wrote:I am not talking about particular case, I am talking about concept that Fozzie is mentioning - Sacrifice something to get another thing. Nearly every T2 ship already has that and will face same issue in future while T1 ships can fit best mods for them. I mean guns, tank mods etc.Dual ASB cyclone has to use less fitting mods like co-processor while dual ASB claymore with T2 hams is impossible to fit even with T2 PG rig and RCU, you just won't have CPU to fit anything else. Also active tanked vagabond with 4 med slots is dumbest thing I ever seen. Also shield ships are able to fit X-large boosters while armor are limited by reps of their class like med for cruiser/BC. Same goes for Dual ASB ships vs single AAR ships. If CCP wants to keep concept of "sacrifice" running, then they should apply it to ALL ships across the board. It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile. Well, I can say that even max skilled pilot cannot fit dual ASB Claymore. Not that I am stuck on particular ship, but I for example love to fly my dualasb sleipnir and engage gangs. In future I won't be able to do so even if I will spend trillions of ISK on fitting mods and implants. I admit that dualasb is kinda crap but that's only thing that keeps me alive against everything else, I would gladly fly dualrep eos or Astarte but unfortunately those ships even with rep bonus and 2x reps running cannot compete with ASB. So this patch is killing one of the best balanced solo ship ever making it yet another part in blob warfare. This is what I will never understand, you are putting 2 ships for each race doing same thing but with different guns. If we are speaking about uniqueness then why you are putting them doing same stuff? You really think anyone actually cares about links putting extra dps on field? I doubt it. Let's take Damnation with it's bonuses. Damn enyo can outdps that ship. What Damnation suppose to do in small gang? Apply it's 300 dps?? or tank them all to death? Why don't u just split them as they were before? They were not amazing but were still better compared to what they will become now. You could leave Caymore as command ship while leaving more combat role to sleipnir, you could do same to every other ship and slightly boosting armor reps for them. Just to show you what that ship is capable off see this link and tell me if it will be able to do anything like that after you will tweak it?
does the duel asb fit on the slip work with 220's or duel 180's?
true an enyo can out dps a damnation but then again how much ehp does that enyo have? is it close to 300k ehp?
astarte is does not shine in duel rep... it fits much better MAAR+1600 tank...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 19:49:00 -
[1519] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion. Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings). One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.
do not worry i still lub yeah! just let me know when the rattlesnake will loose its missile velocity bonus and gain a drone tracking/optimal range bonus...
also why on g-ds green earth does the eos have one less slot but only 250m3 drone bay? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:19:00 -
[1520] - Quote
jeah plesae give eos a bigger dronebay and not these damn tracking bonuses lol absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np. |
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
353
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:23:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:fozzie
do you not think that all ships should have its own role? and uniqueness? with that in mind why are all the CS basically the same but with different weapon systems none of them have any real individuality bar perhaps the Astarte which is actually quite mobile .. shame vulture is so slow... surely different links combining with different ship roles is more interesting and desirable as a whole? Command ships are command ships. They are different just like Logistics, HACs, Dreads, Titans etc. are different across races
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4217
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:49:00 -
[1522] - Quote
I'm opening a petition to inform CCP Fozzies account has been hacked. No way these posts are from the real CCP Fozzie. . |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4217
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:52:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np. Astarte has to be at point blank rage to apply that DPS. What range does the Absolution need to be at in order to apply its DPS? . |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 20:58:00 -
[1524] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm opening a petition to inform CCP Fozzies account has been hacked. No way these posts are from the real CCP Fozzie.
why not? afaik he is on his way back to T.Dot for vaca and to come to the event... so chances are he is loaded on booze and having a good time on the plane home. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1230
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 21:00:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Florian Kuehne wrote:absolutopn damage is also quite awful against the astarte with like 800-900dps np. Astarte has to be at point blank rage to apply that DPS. What range does the Absolution need to be at in order to apply its DPS?
when ever i read point blank range it reminds me of duck hunter back in the day when i would put the gun up to the screen to make sure i did not miss. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 21:04:00 -
[1526] - Quote
even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4217
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 23:39:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Florian Kuehne wrote:even with null m u have more dps than the absolution and this by equal range What is the applied DPS between the two ships outside of scram range? . |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 23:57:00 -
[1528] - Quote
surely that depends on the fits?
Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?
I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
79
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 00:03:00 -
[1529] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:It's actually been part of the original tiericide design from the start of this balance pass that T2 ships should have tighter fittings than T1, since they are built for players with higher SP. We've diluted that quite a bit by giving a HACs and Command Ships tons of fittings (probably too much but we can always go back and adjust later as needed) but I beleive the original intent has a valid basis. One of the things we look at when we design a ship is how "forgiving" it is, in piloting skill required, cost of losing it, difficulty fitting. T2 can be a bit less forgiving as long as the rewards are there for people who overcome the slight challenge of dropping a mod to Meta 3 or 4 once and awhile. The problem with this approach is that you lose any kind of flexibility while fitting because ships are designed to have very tight specific fits. But that's just my opinion. Except that we don't design the fitting values with specific fits in mind (although we do tend to come up with a bunch of example fits internally to make sure we're not too far off the mark with fittings). One of the great things about EVE is that you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with fittings and it can often work. T2 just requires a bit more SP and player experience to understand how to take advantage of it, that's all.
This explains a lot. I think its a little odd though. I would think that T2 should have enough fitting to fit a complete T2 fit without fitting mods. Top tier weapons, a prop mod, and some kind of defense. Or downgraded weapons, a prop mod, and a strong defense. I think in a lot of cases its in that range but often T2 ships seem to be making to many sacrifices even with what I would consider basic fits, but now at least I know why.
I hope CCP comes out with that ring mining moon goo soon, cause the farther this re-balancing goes it seems less and less worth it to put up the extra cost for the benefit of T2 over T1. If it was really only 2x the cost for 25% better that would be fine but in many cases its 10x the cost for 10% better. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 02:30:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:surely that depends on the fits?
Isn't the absolution designed to be a fleet booster, with a great deal more ehp but less need to apply damage, and the astarte an armour skirmish booster with a requirement to move, tank and deal damage where possible?
I don't think you can compare raw numbers in the same situation because these ships are designed for very different roles.
Your confusing the Abso with the Damnation, The Abso like the Slep and Astarte is the DPS ship, but with a cap bonus rather than a range bonus like the other two have. Lasters usualy win out on range but if the laser ship has no range bonus and the others all do than the lasers lose its one advantage. |
|
|
|
|
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 |