Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
241
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 08:52:00 -
[61] - Quote
People go "OMG" it has BS sized guns!!
Which means fuckall without context. The main advantage of BS guns is range. Commandships or T3's can achieve "battleship" dps (or tank) with medium guns with the right bonuses. The problem with the Talos is that 1, rails suck and will continue to suck even with the current iteration of changes - blasters don't really provide the type of range needed to distinguish it's self from medium turrets in any context. Which was why the web and drones kinda helped.
I also question the cruiser stats... CCP, have you even begun to look into how and why t1 cruisers are (not) flown? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Sadayiel
Inner Conflict
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 08:56:00 -
[62] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:People go "OMG" it has BS sized guns!!
Which means fuckall without context. The main advantage of BS guns is range. Commandships or T3's can achieve "battleship" dps (or tank) with medium guns with the right bonuses. The problem with the Talos is that 1, rails suck and will continue to suck even with the current iteration of changes - blasters don't really provide the type of range needed to distinguish it's self from medium turrets in any context. Which was why the web and drones kinda helped.
I also question the cruiser stats... CCP, have you even begun to look into how and why t1 cruisers are (not) flown?
Pattern seriously calm yourself down and just keep checking the changes.
If CCP should release ships as they was originaly deployed in SiSi this game should be broken years ago. Hell i even remember when the first versions of the hyperion came with a 2k extra shield and half the regen than a common raven back in the day. |

DeadDuck
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 08:59:00 -
[63] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:So according to the latest SISI data dump, all the tier 3 BATTLE CRUISERS lost some speed, HP and had some of their bonuses turned down... Most notable of all was the Talos... Losing it's web bonus AND drones... Either CCP Tallest is preparing one hell of a hybrids boost iteration or gallente specced pilots are in for a long cold hard winter... 
FFS leave CCP alone and do their job. You know that according with the 1st stats the Caldari BC had one more slot then all the other BC's ? You think that was balanced? Quit whining, seat back and relax...  |

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:04:00 -
[64] - Quote
Haha, so with the latest build:
Naga loses hybrid tracking bonus and the torp explosion velocity bonus, leaving it with just hybrid optimal and missile velocity. Oracle loses laser optimal and tracking, gains cap use and damage. Talos loses the web bonus, gains tracking. Tornado's bonuses are unchanged.
So the Talos become worthless and the Naga more worthless. While clearly the best ship, the Tornado, is unchanged. Oh, they even cut the Talos's speed!
Sure, we could ignore these numbers as work in progress. But I ignored the projectile changes when they were being tested, as I thought they were clearly overpowered and would never make it into the game like that... oh. |

Naran Eto
Kut-n-Run
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:05:00 -
[65] - Quote
They're doing the standard testing thing, start with high numbers and tweak them lower, it's not a fiasco it's basic common sense tweaking. |

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:07:00 -
[66] - Quote
These changes are good. How can anyone deny that? Unless, of course, they long for something dirt-cheap and overpowered. 90% web - lolwhat?
Speed of those is still way too good, though. I hope further steps will follow. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |

Cunane Jeran
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:12:00 -
[67] - Quote
It may of lost the web, but think about it, tracking bonus, easier to fit 425mm rails, and speed.
Personally I like the idea of a nimble rail platform with a 35km optimal using Antimatter, could lead to some interesting uses.
Don't get me wrong, I did want the mini vindicator. But lets wait till the ships hit Sisi before we start screaming over it, stats are always subject to change.
*Edit* Javelin (all sizes): Removed cap penalty Javelin, Gleam and Quake (all sizes): Removed tracking speed penalty, added 25% tracking speed bonus
Forgot about that, with t2 guns, even more rail tracking XD |

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
I disagree that the Tier 3s are anti-capital ships.
They can certainly be used in that role but their very paper-thinness means that, IMO, there are better options.
Their most effective role is actually as a stepping stone to BS for newer players (or poorer players), allowing a pilot to develop BS weapon skills without having to simultaneously develop BS skills. The Provi-blob used to be famous for its heavy reliance on BCs for example, severely hurt in many engagements by its lack of true fleet BS. While they would still be at a disadvantage with some of those pilots in Fleet BS style Tier 3s their pilots would at least have been able to learn as they went.
Similarly younger players often find great difficulty graduating from the Drake in particular to the larger PvE ships and, as support for another, tanky, pilot, the Tier 3s allow them to learn the limitations of the larger weapon systems.
On Topic however I am dissappointed in the loss of the web bonus on the Talos, the Drone bay is not a huge concern in comparison.
|

luZk
Jaegerkorpset
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
Onictus wrote:luZk wrote:Tbh web bonus AND bs sized guns sounds a little overpowered to me. We dont want a bc that makes all the other obsolete now do we? That that tank it would get whompped one on one against a Mrym.
We dont know yet, but i kinda hope you're right. |

Onictus
Legendary Knights Vorpal's Edge
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 09:40:00 -
[70] - Quote
luZk wrote:Onictus wrote:luZk wrote:Tbh web bonus AND bs sized guns sounds a little overpowered to me. We dont want a bc that makes all the other obsolete now do we? That that tank it would get whompped one on one against a Mrym. We dont know yet, but i kinda hope you're right.
Look at that hull stats, its like a diemost with worse resists......and Ironically with this pass LESS tank than the Tornado that can hit from out past 50km with ease (less shield /same armor)
Sans dones Sans web bonus.
Pretty sure I could beat myself in a Talos (assuming no neut) with a Comet and I KNOW I could do with with an assault frigate.
Because now you have to go into scram range, with no tank, and no way to definitively in anything down without using two webs or just shield tanking and trying to melt the thing you scram.
Even cutting a gun and tossing on a neut is kinda meh, because you still be easy picking for fleet ceptors and anything with a scram.
Or use rails...with the added aggravation of **** poor tacking, not enough slots to give it good tracking and being WORSE at that roll than a Tornado.
Basically the ship went from pretty cool to meh...
Brutix will do the job better cheaper.
|
|

baltec1
174
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:01:00 -
[71] - Quote
Onictus wrote:luZk wrote:Onictus wrote:luZk wrote:Tbh web bonus AND bs sized guns sounds a little overpowered to me. We dont want a bc that makes all the other obsolete now do we? That that tank it would get whompped one on one against a Mrym. We dont know yet, but i kinda hope you're right. Look at that hull stats, its like a diemost with worse resists......and Ironically with this pass LESS tank than the Tornado that can hit from out past 50km with ease (less shield /same armor) Sans dones Sans web bonus. Pretty sure I could beat myself in a Talos (assuming no neut) with a Comet and I KNOW I could do with with an assault frigate. Because now you have to go into scram range, with no tank, and no way to definitively in anything down without using two webs or just shield tanking and trying to melt the thing you scram. Even cutting a gun and tossing on a neut is kinda meh, because you still be easy picking for fleet ceptors and anything with a scram. Or use rails...with the added aggravation of **** poor tacking, not enough slots to give it good tracking and being WORSE at that roll than a Tornado. Basically the ship went from pretty cool to meh... Brutix will do the job better cheaper.
Stop trying to theory craft the talos as a solopwnmobile and you will start to get better results. |

schurem
Anarchy Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:17:00 -
[72] - Quote
goddamn. they dont make 'em llike that no more :( .... You can't take the skies from me. |

Nyla Skin
Pew Pew Corp Behold.
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:32:00 -
[73] - Quote
I like what I read about changes. web bonus -> tracking bonus makes sense to me, as these new battlecruisers would work better as sniper than closerange platform. And BS sniper guns in an agile BC platform sounds pretty good. This might actually become an useful gallente ship. |

Cailais
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
89
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:35:00 -
[74] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:People go "OMG" it has BS sized guns!!
Which means fuckall without context. The main advantage of BS guns is range. Commandships or T3's can achieve "battleship" dps (or tank) with medium guns with the right bonuses. The problem with the Talos is that 1, rails suck and will continue to suck even with the current iteration of changes - blasters don't really provide the type of range needed to distinguish it's self from medium turrets in any context. Which was why the web and drones kinda helped.
I also question the cruiser stats... CCP, have you even begun to look into how and why t1 cruisers are (not) flown?
Sure. And how much does a T3 with BS DPS actually cost?
There's your 'context'.
C.
|

Onictus
Legendary Knights Vorpal's Edge
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:39:00 -
[75] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Stop trying to theory craft the talos as a solopwnmobile and you will start to get better results.
I never did, I rarely fly blasters solo above the frigate class, mainly for all of the reasons I listed above.
425s Rails are going to be pretty crappy because the optimal on 425s is something like what 48km? Bases tracking is 0.009! x2.5 damage modifier. So plus 45% tracking for the "boost" and hull bonus and you have a whopping 0.013 tracking before pilot skills, I'll tell you from experience that you won't be able to hit a nano-drake at 35km that has ANY transversal going
To get ANY real damage out of it you have to basically forget any tank (remember Tornado has more tank) fit a SeBo and two TC's if you can get away with it plus MWD, three magstabs and suitecase in the lows.
....so great, you have accomplished a Vexor with a hell of a long range. Talk about drake bait.
Fit blasters and you have largely the same issue, you have to tank and you have to armor tank, because now you need MWD scram a TC because changing scripts is a HELL of a lot faster than changing ammo and a cap booster unless I miss my guess.
Oh yeah, and 1600mm plate, EANM and suite case are mandatory, so a pair of mag-stabs and you are done....all for less DPS than nano-cane as well as less tank.
I guess swarming caps is one thing, but you can use a BS for that without being a one trick pony. |
|

CCP Navigator
C C P C C P Alliance
372

|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:41:00 -
[76] - Quote
This is why we would encourage people totake information from data dumps with a pinch of salt. The four battlecruisers are not even ready to pilot on singularity just yet and may go through several more revisions while they are still in development.
CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now  CCP Navigator - Lead Community Representative |
|

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
241
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:47:00 -
[77] - Quote
Take this thread as an example of our enthusiasm - and worry when expansions come and go without pages of OMGWTF.
But still, many of us have been burnt by too many "player testing" periods to take this one lying down. So expect vigorous debate. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Vachir Khan
TriSeq Defence Group
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:48:00 -
[78] - Quote
People who are bawwing just aren't realistic, all they do is "waaah we want new stuff and it has to be OP!!!", Seriously. Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude. |

Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
62
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 10:51:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote:CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now  The word "final" there is worrying . I hope Ytterbium will be looking at all the EFT (well, pyfa) warrioring going on among the players. |

Kietay Ayari
Monopoly Money Operations
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:15:00 -
[80] - Quote
I know its just random things they are testing out and nothing is final. But seeing the Naga with -1 low slot is scary D: Ferox #1 |
|

Chunicha
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:26:00 -
[81] - Quote
I like ice cream. |

Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote:This is why we would encourage people totake information from data dumps with a pinch of salt. The four battlecruisers are not even ready to pilot on singularity just yet and may go through several more revisions while they are still in development. CCP Ytterbium is in the process of writing a blog which will be published when the ships are final. Obviously, you are free to speculate on what may happen but realize that any changes are fluid. These ships may go through several more rounds of changes so please try and be patient for now 
even with a pinch of salt, it still sucks to see a ship that looks awesom on paper, to suddenly look bad on that same paper. these bc's need to be good at soemthing and they looked like they were going to be. now they look like they will be another thing that gathers dust in peoples hangers after the initial oh look i got a new bc effect has worn off. unless your a high sec ganker looking for faster locking speed over your bs CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|

luZk
Jaegerkorpset
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:36:00 -
[83] - Quote
Okay how about this idea. Lets turn it around.
After many years of stuggle and factions seeing their own weapons turned against them they all invent a ship that counters just that.
Minmatar builds the bc that has a bonus against webbing. Amarr invents a bc that has a bonus against neuts and nos. Caldari builds a bc that has a bonus against ecm. Gallente builds a bc that has a bonus against sensor damps.
Would that work? |

Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
426
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:36:00 -
[84] - Quote
LEAVE....PATTERN....ALOOOOONE!!!!!
Seriously, y'all just jelly that your awesomesauce spaceship design isn't going to be flying around on Tranq this winter. Did you forget whose idea the Tornado was?
If I designed a spaceship, and it was going to be in EvE, I'd be on pins and needles about how it was going to turn out to. Thats how creativity works. So stop trashing on Pattern for being a "backseat programmer", show a little respect, and allow some healthy debate to take place.
The only mistake was maybe starting a whole new thread for this, but since nothing official is released yet, there really isn't an official place to discuss this. There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying, "I know this isn't official, but here's what I think of what I see so far." |

Onictus
Legendary Knights Vorpal's Edge
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
luZk wrote:Okay how about this idea. Lets turn it around.
After many years of stuggle and factions seeing their own weapons turned against them they all invent a ship that counters just that.
Minmatar builds the bc that has a bonus against webbing. Amarr invents a bc that has a bonus against neuts and nos. Caldari builds a bc that has a bonus against ecm. Gallente builds a bc that has a bonus against sensor damps.
Would that work?
Damps? Really?
I don't recall the last time I was sensor damped.
Webbed, nueted, NOS'd and jammed sure. |

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:44:00 -
[86] - Quote
The Talos having it's web bonus removed makes sense, since it was overpowered for gate-camping, and just about useless in fleets. The tracking bonus is.. well, I'd have liked a range or damage bonus better, but I guess that would have been OP. |

luZk
Jaegerkorpset
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 11:44:00 -
[87] - Quote
Onictus wrote:luZk wrote:Okay how about this idea. Lets turn it around.
After many years of stuggle and factions seeing their own weapons turned against them they all invent a ship that counters just that.
Minmatar builds the bc that has a bonus against webbing. Amarr invents a bc that has a bonus against neuts and nos. Caldari builds a bc that has a bonus against ecm. Gallente builds a bc that has a bonus against sensor damps.
Would that work? Damps? Really? I don't recall the last time I was sensor damped. Webbed, nueted, NOS'd and jammed sure.
Drone damage then?
|

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
244
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 12:01:00 -
[88] - Quote
@hans
Not too worried about the Tornado or the Oracle as the weapons systems are compatible with what I think is the concept of the ship class. Talos and to an increasing extent, Naga are in bad shape. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|

CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1

|
Posted - 2011.11.02 13:37:00 -
[89] - Quote
Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this.
Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release.
On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers.
The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:
- Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
- Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
- Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
- Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
- Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant
In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only.
For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).
However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted.
Because indeed, we would like you to realize the initial data that was spread around was just that, initial data, and that it is supposed and expected to change at any time during the development process.
Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time.
Hope that helps a bit. |
|

Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp BricK sQuAD.
130
|
Posted - 2011.11.02 13:43:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey people, since this will go on Sisi soon and thus a Dev Blog may not be necessary, figured you would appreciate some comments on this. Creating new ships is not a simple task and is almost never done right on the first attempt, as we need several iterations to outline, play and tweak with capabilities until we find a middle-ground we feel comfortable to release. On this particular instance, the first pass that was spread around was particularly off the chart and needed to be brought down to more realistic numbers. The role of the tier 3 battlecruisers is to bring battleship range and damage into mobile, small gangs by wielding large weapon systems, which translates into the following design points:
- Supposed to be good as a damage platform against larger ship hulls (read battleships, capitals targets) while being difficult to hit themselves by those ships due to decreased signature radius and increased mobility
- Better aimed for small, fast gang support than battleships due to their increased mobility
- Provide a learning bridge between battlecruisers and battleships, while being themselves a little cheaper than battleships
- Due to their large sized weaponry, supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against smaller hulls, especially at point blank range
- Have significantly less standing power than battleships, or even other battlecruiser tiers, thus less proficient in static engagements, where their mobility is less relevant
In case of the Talos, the initial web strength bonus was unfortunately contradictory with the previous goals, because when combined with its dronebay and blasters, it gave this ship the unique capability to dispatch smaller ship hulls significantly more easily than it should have been able to. It also lead to other issues, like acting as a cheap, effective tackle, put it in a dangerous spot to compete with Serpentis faction ships, or limiting this ship weapon systems to blasters only. For being EVE players ourselves we know the concept of pinning anything in web range to a dead halt with 90% webs before melting faces down with 8 Neutron Blaster Cannons II to be incredibly fun (had a lot of joy with tier 3 battlecruiser first stats myself during the internal play tests ).However, as designers, we cannot in good conscience release a ship whose bonuses obviously go against the role goals it is supposed to follow. We understand that in this case it unfortunately created a lot of disappointment, but sadly these things are bound to happen when taking first pass data as granted. Because indeed, we would like you to realize the initial data that was spread around was just that, initial data, and that it is supposed and expected to change at any time during the development process. Tl;dr: if it's not on TQ, please don't take it as final. Even when it's on TQ, remember it's susceptible to change with time. Hope that helps a bit.
so teh stats in the current data dump are the ones that are going live on TQ? CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |