|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
To mare
Advanced Technology
0
   |
Posted - 2011.11.04 13:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
remove the tracking pnalty from void (or the falloff) and they are fine |
To mare
Advanced Technology
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 04:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Imrik86 wrote:
If you buff blaster boats base speed, people will just fit ACs and have a better kite boat than Minmatar itself. Nerfing Gallente agility also doesn't make sense at all, since they require good enough agility to orbit at the very tight range of blasters.
Again, what Gallente lacks is a way to be considerably faster for a brief period of time, just enough to get into blaster range, and be penalized on MWD capacitor usage to force a balance between cap drainage from sprinting vs. cap available to actually shoot the blasters. The MWD bonuses mentioned are a way to achieve this. It's just like the RoF bonus most Minmatar boats get or the capacitor bonuses to Amarr - it's the bonus that gives you an edge when you fly the boat the way it's intended to be flown.
Turning Gallente into Minmatar is not the answer to fix blasters. Also, you don't fix the game by nerfing Minmatar.
do you know you can overload your mwd?
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 11:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bomberlocks wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:As you may have noticed, I have been afk for the last week or so.
I am back at work now and will try to address the concerns that have been expressed while I was away.
As Soundwave and Affinity have explained for me in my absence, the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion has already passed (and had already passed when I went away).
As it turned out, I only had time to do one extra pass on the changes after they hit SISI. These changes (to the changes) were based on your feedback from this thread. There were many other suggestions here that I would love to do, but didn't have enough time to do them properly for this release. In the future, I will make sure that I have more time to make changes based on your feedback. The feedback that you was posted after the cutoff is far from worthless. I've read every single post and written down notes for future reference.
What we have now is a start. After Crucible come out, I will definitely be doing further balancing.
Here are some of the things relating to hybrid ships that we will be looking further into in the coming weeks/months:
* Further tweaking of individual ships.
* Tech II ammo needs a better look at, especially Null-Scorch-Barrage.
* Active tanking vs passive tanking. And by extension, armor tanking vs shield tanking.
* Small and Medium Webifier drones.
* Give tech I hybrid ammo variations for each range, like projectile ammo. Maybe the same for lasers.
* Something to help blaster ships get into range. There are several good suggestions on how to do this; Webifier range bonus, MWD speed bonus, change the armor rig penalty, increase base speed or even a new type of module. We might do some of them, all of them or something completely different.
p.s. I have also updated the OP with the final list of changes. Tallest: May I make one small suggestion: Don't make any hasty changes until the current changes have settled in. There will be a period of transition as the more timid players take to the new ships and fittings and the better, bolder players make inventive and effective fits for them. This will take six months or so. Don't rush it, please.
totally agree there is no point to overbuff a weapon system just because some people want it, the only result is to make those people happy with theyir new op weapon and make all the others cry on forum because the new weapon its OP.
the new changes are enough for a start people will try to use blaster just to test them if they like they will be used more often if in 6 month people still don use them we need another look at it. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 22:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
fking forum eated my post
atm blaster weapon era fine on TQ the main problem is the ships that use them, they are slow and they struggle to get in range especially when fitted with plates and trimark, many of you suggested to remove the speed penalty from armor rigs but that would also boost amarr and some minmatar ships and they dont need a boost.
so my idea is to boost reiforced bulkheads, give the a +45% to ship hull hp remove all the speed/agi penalty from them and just give them a locking RANGE penalty like 7,5% per module because the engeneer have to remove some electronics for extra hull hp (this also prevents megabaits with 7 bulkheads) drop the cpu requirements to 25/30 cpu per module.
what we get in this way?
all the hull tanking ships keep their original speed agility with a decent buffer tank a mega fitted with 1DC+4 bulkheads would have a speed of 1000ms (1500ms in OH) with a 130k EHP tank, 2 slot left for MFS and all the rigs slot free for hybrid rigs 1dmg rig +2 tracking rigs are easy to fit now with reduced fittings for hybrid weapons, of course repairs will be harder and costy but you will save about 40mils on rigs so its a fair tradeoff i think.
in this way you can also keep gal ship fully capable to fit a armor tank if the situation need it like RR fleets but you will have a solid buffer tank for solo/small gang situations.
and if we wanna complete the job it wouldnt be a bad idea to change the 7,5% to armor rep in a + 5% hull hp |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 23:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
active armor tanker will still be able still to tank the way they do now
active tanking is no more viable not because the modules/ships are bad but because everyone prefer to blob than give a fair fight when they might lose the ships.
if you want to bring back active tanking you have to change something in the gameplay to give more reward to solo (or very small gang) before changing modules/ships |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 02:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
i agree with most of the things you say but my point was still to revam hull tanking to give a alternative form of buffer tank that use low slot and add no agility/speed penality to gallente blaster ships wich is what they actually need more.
if you want to revamp active tanking you have my full support but thats not the place |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 08:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
they read this thread and recently they even boosted null wich is totally awesome now
the only thing that is a bit weak on hybrid side are maybe medium rails wich are only used for snipers HACs and the problem there is more on the ships that have to use them than the weapon the eagle is bad and the deimos is not designed for that role |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 08:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:To mare wrote:they read this thread and recently they even boosted null wich is totally awesome now
the only thing that is a bit weak on hybrid side are maybe medium rails wich are only used for snipers HACs and the problem there is more on the ships that have to use them than the weapon the eagle is bad and the deimos is not designed for that role Why is it the the Diemost has to be pidgeon holed like that? Not designed for that role? I agree with you, but I'm sick of that problem with Gallente ships. You have no problem making a Hurricane a close in killer with AC's. You have no problem making a Hurricane a very effective long range killer with Arty. But try that with a Brutix, or a Mrym, or a Ishkur or a Diemost etc etc. Gallente ships and rails need some work so that either option is available. The platforms should be flexible enough to fully support a wide range of fits in my opinion. I don't know, I'm just going to stop trying to be creative to make Gallente work and go winmatar.
no T2 ships are specialized ships and the deimos its not meant to be a sniper in the same way you cant be a sniper with a vagabond or a sacrilege.
this leave gall w/o a sniper hac true |
|
|
| |
|