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) |
Alsyth
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[151] - Quote
General thoughts:
The lack of "on grid only" ganglinks is really, really bad. Without it ganglinks will never be "fixed", out of POS or not.
Active repair bonus still as bad as ever. When will you realize it just prevent those ships from being good in fleet while giving an almost imperceptible bonus only when there is no logi on field? Especially when you have really poor base resistances and not enough slots to compensate (Gallente...). Only thing that saves Claymore/Sleipnir is their base resists which allows to omni-tank, and ASB which are worth it when armor boosters are not, but still, passive bonus would help them for fleets.
Make CSs like HICs, and give them all a passive bonus to resistances as a role bonus.
-Add capacitor like you did for HACs. -Info warfare feels wasted on Amarr, better on damps than on TDs. -No Skirmish on tanky CS (because yes, active bonus -> lack tank in fleets) is annoying.
Ship by ship:
TLDR: Nighthawk really needs a fix. A complete redesign, from slot layout to PG to bonuses. The others are disappointing but not too bad. Stealth nerfs to agility/speed/capacitor are really annoying.
Absolution: 10 effective turrets (or 8) instead of the former 10. No improvement in dps which is sad. It's lacking compared to Legion, Sleipnir, and even Zealot (for the price difference). Fitting is rather good. Tank will be CS-worthy, might even be on par with Legion?
Thoughts: -add a damage application bonus like ALL other CS would be welcome (tracking/optimal?) -a real dronebay, 50mb. It already gains no dps, at least give it that. -boost the cap and drop the turret capacitor use bonus, to add the other (tracking/optimal). Or just do as I said above and put the resists as a role bonus.
Damnation:
7.5 launchers... Bad. Especially given the aweful state HML are in. You promised us all CS will be worthy to be flown as dps ships, this one won't be. No bonus to RLM is really annoying, as usual. HML and HAM are bad atm compared to rapid light. The tank feels really massive, as usual. Will be harder to dual plate though, with the PG nerf.
Thoughts: -add better missile bonuses or drone damage to go with its 50mb dronebay [Khanid do missiles AND drones, cf Curse] -bonus to rapid light too
Nighthawk:
The absolute worst of the bunch. And you really don't want it to get any better it seems.
Still lack PG, won't be able to fit 2 links+5 launchers+LSE+MWD. Claymore has 175 more PG (+20%) for no reason: both are shield missile ships. 10 launchers worth of kinetic (not enough) 6.7 worth of other damage (aweful). Current has same for kinetic, but more elsewhere.
Thoughts: -stops forcing Caldari missile ships into kinetic, give it 10% to all -give it RLM bonus -+100PG, just to be in line with Claymore -fix the slot layout (impossible to omni tank it properly with 5 meds on caldari ships), and impossible to nano either, so the 5 lows are wasted (or used for PG mods because you did not give it enough PG) -the nerf to cap and align time is really annoying, the ship is already so bad... But no, you had to make it the slowest and the less agile of all...
Vulture:
Might actually be mildly interesting. 7.5 turrets is not enough, but really good range, and the locking range to go with it.
Thoughts: -make it blaster worthy too somehow? Shield fleets like blasters too...
Astarte:
10 turrets instead of the former 10.9 turrets, so a dps nerf. Not needed imo. Better dronebay is nice though. Active repair bonus still as bad as ever on that kind of ship, just make it bad for fleet while not helping much for small gang.
Thoughts -replace active bonus by passive bonus (as a role bonus like HICs) -give it back some shield...
Eos:
Turret tracking bonus feels totally out of place and useless. Bonus to heavy drone only is annoying, but might make it more balanced... Still, feels as dumb as giving bonus to blasters and not rails.
Sleipnir:
Was too good, had to nerf it? Had 11.67 turrets, now 11.25, but better alpha... Poor compensation... Nerf to dronebay, why? Nerf to agility (and thus speed with MWD on) is really, really bad. HUGE nerf to CPU (-11%) will make active tanking fits struggle.
-give it the cpu, dronebay, agility back... -passive bonus instead of active ofc.
Claymore:
8.9 effective launchers in all damage type with a full flight of medium, a good slot layout for a missile boat, omni base resist so better actual tank, faster, easier to fit: NO NEED TO FLY NIGHTHAWK EVER. Double ROF is bad for overheat and ammo usage though.
Thoughts: -seems good, looking forward to test it -give it rapid light missiles bonus.......... |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE can you please get as active as you are in his Rebalance Threads ``cough`` cough`` HAC`s HACs are being shepherded by CCP Rise, although we discuss it all constantly and contribute a ton to each other's designs. I am completely in favor of the HAC changes he posted.
Oh I agree I love the changes. I just like to see DEV`s interact witht he players when they create threads. right now you have posts on almost every page of your threads. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:02:00 -
[153] - Quote
And what's with missile brawlers getting more HP than the blaster version Nighthawk - Vulture Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:03:00 -
[154] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:I still think either the Damnation should lose one of its double tank bonuses or the other Command ships should be complimented similarly. Otherwise, the tanking potential on the Damnation is going to be too appealing to use an Astarte or any of the Gallente boats in an armor fleet. I didn't know large fleet fights were Gallente thing. Quote:Similarly, one of the shield CSs should be compensated with a shield hp bonus to give shield fleet FCs an option. Check Vulture. Get this. Maybe--just MAYBE--a Fleet would like to use Armor and Skirmish links. *mind blown*
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links Also, can you show me in these 4 bonuses which one applies to shield hitpoints? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:08:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:I didn't know large fleet fights were Gallente thing..
wat
http://raynor.cl/eve/formRecive.php?id=fDnkNQO STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:09:00 -
[156] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please
Might be because Caldari mostly uses Railguns and not blasters. One could even argue that Railguns and Blasters work on 2 completely different theories and should be separated, but that is for a different thread. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Shigsy
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:14:00 -
[157] - Quote
Am I calculating it wrong or does the new Sleip do 6.8k volley with faction EMP? |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:15:00 -
[158] - Quote
Shigsy wrote:Am I calculating it wrong or does the new Sleip do 6.8k volley with faction EMP?
Get this mang, it also does it with faction fusion and faction phased plasma. STANDING ON THE VERGE OF PROLAPSE |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:17:00 -
[159] - Quote
Happy enough. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
384
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:18:00 -
[160] - Quote
I'd like the see the damnation be put on par with the rest, as is there's no reason to use anything but that for large fleet fights, which doesn't really add flavor, but just negates choice.
Also, why does the EOS still get a bonus to MHT instead of it's drones, which are really the reason to use the ship over the Astarte. As is, its a poor Astarte and a slightly mediocre Myrmidon. Just throw it the Drone bonuses and give it a reason to exist. It won't step on the other drone boats as its used for a different purpose. Keep the bonus to Heavy's if you're worried about the sentry aspect.
Why does Gallente not get a bonus to Information warfare links? Isn't that their racial bonus?
|
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:18:00 -
[161] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also why does the vulture need 2 optimal range bonuses to use blasters? .... its not a sniper come on damage or tracking please
Might be because Caldari mostly uses Railguns and not blasters. One could even argue that Railguns and Blasters work on 2 completely different theories and should be separated, but that is for a different thread. Blasters and Rails are fine. They use the same ammo, and that means they're both Hybrids. The fact that one is extremely close, high tracking and the other is extremely long range, low tracking is as similar as ACs being close, high falloff, low alpha and Arties being long range, high optimal, high alpha. They don't operate under "completely different theories."
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:22:00 -
[162] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus!
Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:22:00 -
[163] - Quote
Jonatan Reed wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:How much of an effect will the decrease in number of turrets/increase in DPS bonuses have on the DPS of command ships like the Sleipnir/Astarte/Abso? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets Can someone explain whatthe hell effective turrets even means? When the hell did this metric even come from?
Its an easy way of comparing different damage bonuses in a simple way that they have always used.
8 turrets with 25% bonus (so lvl 5 on a 5% per level skill) = 10 turrets 6 Turrets with 50% bonus (so level 5 on a 10% per level skill) = 9 turrets
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 -
[164] - Quote
Also curious to know Fozzie .. in the future when OGB is removed what kind of ranges do you have in mind for links? and have you factored that into the CS rebalance? 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. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:23:00 -
[165] - Quote
The only thing I agree with is the damnation booster issue. Yes the flying chicken won't get alpha'd off the field, it won't be doing much of anything damage wise though.
And yea having 100+ships all target you and shoot at once can't be the main focal factor of the ship. The recent megabrawals... Not much was surviving once targeted. Subcaps do blow up in large fleet ops.
These can survive on the field. The changes are good, there's no need to hide the ship in a safe vs using it (it will still happen).
|
Doddy
Dark-Rising
865
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:25:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker.
I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking.
I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:27:00 -
[167] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote: I'd like the see the damnation be put on par with the rest, as is there's no reason to use anything but that for large fleet fights, which doesn't really add flavor, but just negates choice.
Also, why does the EOS still get a bonus to MHT instead of it's drones, which are really the reason to use the ship over the Astarte. As is, its a poor Astarte and a slightly mediocre Myrmidon. Just throw it the Drone bonuses and give it a reason to exist. It won't step on the other drone boats as its used for a different purpose. Keep the bonus to Heavy's if you're worried about the sentry aspect.
Why does Gallente not get a bonus to Information warfare links? Isn't that their racial bonus?
I think the bolded part is actually part of the problem. There's only so many bonuses you can do for drones, and the drone boat space is looking a little crowded. I mean, how many varied bonuses can you give for drone boats? So far we have ships that do drone velocity, drone damage, drone hitpoints, drone tracking and drone optimal, in some combination of thereof. What's more, of the 125 mb/s drone ships, we have damage/hp + velocity/tracking (Nexor) and damage/hp, drone operation range, heavy mwd/tracking and sentry optimal/tracking (Ishtar). So where, then, is there room for an Eos with bonuses that don't completely overlap somewhere in there? Already Nexor and Ishtar's heavy uses overlap (with Ishtar being better at it); now the Eos will largely do the same thing, as well.
I'd almost say give Eos a dual tank bonus so as to not overlap *so* much with the Nexor or Ishtar. But overall, in the drone ship space, it's getting a bit cramped with an uncomfortable bit of overlap. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[168] - Quote
everything looks pretty good but.... The effective turret lost on the Astarte is pretty dumb... |
Lucas Ericsson
Obstergo Bitten.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[169] - Quote
FOZZIE FAN ART
<3 U |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:29:00 -
[170] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Tanking#Passive_tanking |
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:30:00 -
[171] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus! Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part.
Armor doesn't regen, so if you passive tank armor you're done after one fight, win or lose. You have to go back to a friendly station to repair, and that could be far away. If you passive tank shield you can survive in enemy space forever and keep killing until someone finally beats you. |
Elendar
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:31:00 -
[172] - Quote
Not really a fan of the changes from a large fleet perspective.
At present on TQ in armour fleets the damnation is the only viable armour command ship as its the only one with the ehp to be able to survive just getting vollied off the field, skirmish/info links are run on damnations in most armour fleets because claymores/eos are simply too weak. Nothing in this update will change that.
The vulture is again the only shield option but is somewhat weaker than the damnation and more reliant on active, neut-able, modules to get decent ehp than the damnation is (plus you can't slave the shield tank). Vultures tend to get vollied pretty early in most big fleet fights and again no other command ship is even slightly viable for shield fleets.
The vulture should really have a shield ehp bonus in place of one of those optimal range bonuses to give it a better chance of surviving a fleet fight. Its no fun fcing when you know you'll just get blapped of the field as soon as the fight starts because your command ship simply cannot have enough ehp (I run HG slaves and faction hardeners on my damnation so that it has a decent chance of actually living through the first 30 seconds of a big fight). And as anyone who has FC'd knows you really want to be the ship in the fleet command position so you can probe and fleet warp, which pretty much means running a command ship.
Imo the eos and claymore should also get at least a resist bonus in place of the local rep bonus. This would make them more viable for larger fleets while also giving them an effective rep bonus from the additional reps so they are still good for smaller gangs. This also leaves the slep/astarte with the local reps for those that want buffed local reps.
Please think of the FCs!
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:32:00 -
[173] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:
The damnations damage has universally been pathetic. The Eos and Astarte would mow it down to kibble.
Damnation will still be the fleet brick. I'd like to start seeing some Eos/Ast fits now.
If by "mow it down" you mean take 10+ minutes to kill, then yeah I agree with you...
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:35:00 -
[174] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:PinkKnife wrote: I'd like the see the damnation be put on par with the rest, as is there's no reason to use anything but that for large fleet fights, which doesn't really add flavor, but just negates choice.
Also, why does the EOS still get a bonus to MHT instead of it's drones, which are really the reason to use the ship over the Astarte. As is, its a poor Astarte and a slightly mediocre Myrmidon. Just throw it the Drone bonuses and give it a reason to exist. It won't step on the other drone boats as its used for a different purpose. Keep the bonus to Heavy's if you're worried about the sentry aspect.
Why does Gallente not get a bonus to Information warfare links? Isn't that their racial bonus?
I think the bolded part is actually part of the problem. There's only so many bonuses you can do for drones, and the drone boat space is looking a little crowded. I mean, how many varied bonuses can you give for drone boats? So far we have ships that do drone velocity, drone damage, drone hitpoints, drone tracking and drone optimal, in some combination of thereof. What's more, of the 125 mb/s drone ships, we have damage/hp + velocity/tracking (Nexor) and damage/hp, drone operation range, heavy mwd/tracking and sentry optimal/tracking (Ishtar). So where, then, is there room for an Eos with bonuses that don't completely overlap somewhere in there? Already Nexor and Ishtar's heavy uses overlap (with Ishtar being better at it); now the Eos will largely do the same thing, as well. I'd almost say give Eos a dual tank bonus so as to not overlap *so* much with the Nexor or Ishtar. But overall, in the drone ship space, it's getting a bit cramped with an uncomfortable bit of overlap.
Agreed. The 125 bandwidth limit on drones has caused allot of issues with the droneboats balancing wise. Its like everything droneboat got 125 bandwidth and has been a balancing act between 5 heavies vs 5 sentries. Now I like the Eos, I think its potential will be crazy, the tank is still in question as we all compare it to the Damnation.
|
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:36:00 -
[175] - Quote
Maybe the they could all use just a little more dps, |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:37:00 -
[176] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:
The damnations damage has universally been pathetic. The Eos and Astarte would mow it down to kibble.
Damnation will still be the fleet brick. I'd like to start seeing some Eos/Ast fits now.
If by "mow it down" you mean take 10+ minutes to kill, then yeah I agree with you...
Ok killing a damnation is about as fast as chopping down a tree with a Herring.
The damnation wont' be doing much besides just orbiting watching its health bleed. |
ALeKasandra
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:37:00 -
[177] - Quote
Will change carriers? They are also able to be the command ship. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
Elendar wrote:Not really a fan of the changes from a large fleet perspective.
At present on TQ in armour fleets the damnation is the only viable armour command ship as its the only one with the ehp to be able to survive just getting vollied off the field, skirmish/info links are run on damnations in most armour fleets because claymores/eos are simply too weak. Nothing in this update will change that.
The vulture is again the only shield option but is somewhat weaker than the damnation and more reliant on active, neut-able, modules to get decent ehp than the damnation is (plus you can't slave the shield tank). Vultures tend to get vollied pretty early in most big fleet fights and again no other command ship is even slightly viable for shield fleets.
The vulture should really have a shield ehp bonus in place of one of those optimal range bonuses to give it a better chance of surviving a fleet fight. Its no fun fcing when you know you'll just get blapped of the field as soon as the fight starts because your command ship simply cannot have enough ehp (I run HG slaves and faction hardeners on my damnation so that it has a decent chance of actually living through the first 30 seconds of a big fight). And as anyone who has FC'd knows you really want to be the ship in the fleet command position so you can probe and fleet warp, which pretty much means running a command ship.
Imo the eos and claymore should also get at least a resist bonus in place of the local rep bonus. This would make them more viable for larger fleets while also giving them an effective rep bonus from the additional reps so they are still good for smaller gangs. This also leaves the slep/astarte with the local reps for those that want buffed local reps.
Please think of the FCs!
10 v 10 or 20 v 20, EOS will actually contribute.
100+.. yea I can see it geting wtf stomped in seconds vs the minute it would take to pop the Damnation. |
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:40:00 -
[179] - Quote
Elendar wrote:Not really a fan of the changes from a large fleet perspective.
At present on TQ in armour fleets the damnation is the only viable armour command ship as its the only one with the ehp to be able to survive just getting vollied off the field, skirmish/info links are run on damnations in most armour fleets because claymores/eos are simply too weak. Nothing in this update will change that.
To be honest, I think for that context of fight they'd be better off giving carriers the same bonuses as the command ships when it comes to links. Buffing command ships for the occasional 400 vs 400 leaves them unbalanced in other contexts.
Carriers have a bonus to the fitting on gang links, do they not? Why not give them the same leadership-related bonuses. It seems that as they had leadership skills as prerequisites for flying them, the notion existed in some past iteration of CCP and perhaps got lost along the way.
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:40:00 -
[180] - Quote
I am curious about astarte cargo capacity. The brutix has 475 m3 cargo bay while Myrmidon retains 400.
Should not astarte and eos follow the same path? Astarte: 475 m3 Eos: 400 m3
After all astarte needs much more ammunition to store in its cargo hold. |
|
|
|
|
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 |