EVE Search - Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 .. 66 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Nikollai Tesla Crytec Enterprises SRS. 19	Posted - 2011.12.13 22:42:00 - [1411] - Quote TLDR: Make Jav+Spike Blaster charges, and make Void+Null Railgun Charges So i was looking at a way to fix blasters by fixing the ammo themselves instead of the guns. After looking at the stats for Tech 2 ammos, i came to the conclusion that the easiet fix would be switch the stats of Tech2 railgun ammo and Tech 2 blaster ammo. Here are the stats bellow: Used In \|Ammo \|Optimal\| Falloff\| Tracking\|Damage Railgun\|Void\|0.75\|0.5 \|0.75 \|14 Railgun\|Null\|1.25\|1.25 \|1 \|8 Blaster\|Jav \|0.25\|1 \|1.25 \|15 Blaster\|Spike\|1.8 \|1 \|0.25 \|11 I hate this forum and its sucky formating Currently Jav and Spike modify the range to much for railguns. Making the range too extreme or too short. Using void and Null in railguns would even out, the extremes and make the caldari range bonuses more useful. While Blasters need tracking at close range, and Null is the weakest long range ammo of the short range guns. By using Jav instead of Void, you get tracking you need for super close range, at the cost of optimal which are tiny anyway. While giving you the range you badly need with spike, over Null at the penalty of tracking.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 7385	Posted - 2011.12.14 09:03:00 - [1412] - Quote m0cking bird wrote: As you've stated. Thread is dead and so is the conversation. Enjoy Gallente rail-gun boost. I'll be flying Rail-Deimos/Thorax soon enough. Have other things I want to use alot before then. Like the more important issue of coming up with set-ups and using ships to deal with t2 gang-link boosted battle-cruisers and tier 3 battle-cruisers. I rather point out how bad neg ten is on the forums though. That's my interest on the forums atm. -neg ten are terrible. Leave your that one system alot more and then you can give me advice. You should read your own posts, before making judgement on others on the forum. You stated in the past that no boost was needed, you were wrong. As can be seen by the fact that CCP and many more, knew that a boost was needed. You now say they are fine and no more change is required. Many can see that the boost made, wasn't nearly enough for blasters and maybe even rails. Blasters for sure, haven't had nearly enough change to make them viable. But I see you are stuck in a system of Ad hominem retorts. (see what I did there) As funny as they are, they only point to how weak your argument actually is. So I'll take what you say with a pinch of salt. CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 97	Posted - 2011.12.14 11:55:00 - [1413] - Quote Tbh blasters really are fine - but the ships need an overall balancing fix between minmatar and gallente (make Gallente agile and low mass and keep minmatar fastest but also highest mass with all the junk they got glued on their ships). This would also give nanofibers/overdrives a better role distribution with nanofibers helping minmatar a lot and overdrives being good for gallente ships wanting to chase down minmatar ships over range... Railguns lack more power, but tbh so does beams but the increase should come from better alpha and not more dps. Railguns already have a good dps compared to the other weapon systems. Then ofcourse hybrid ammunition (and energy ammunition) need a look over and I still don't see why minmatar ammunition doesn't do at least 25-50% explosive damage on EMP, phased plasma and all the other types. I don't personally think Null need a boost, however barrage and scorch could do with less range for the damage they provide. Pinky
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic 186	Posted - 2011.12.14 16:15:00 - [1414] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: Tbh blasters really are fine - but the ships need an overall balancing fix between minmatar and gallente (make Gallente agile and low mass and keep minmatar fastest but also highest mass with all the junk they got glued on their ships). This would also give nanofibers/overdrives a better role distribution with nanofibers helping minmatar a lot and overdrives being good for gallente ships wanting to chase down minmatar ships over range... Railguns lack more power, but tbh so does beams but the increase should come from better alpha and not more dps. Railguns already have a good dps compared to the other weapon systems. Then ofcourse hybrid ammunition (and energy ammunition) need a look over and I still don't see why minmatar ammunition doesn't do at least 25-50% explosive damage on EMP, phased plasma and all the other types. I don't personally think Null need a boost, however barrage and scorch could do with less range for the damage they provide. Pinky what if they changed the 5% damage bonus per level to a 7.5% to damage per level... that way you are looking at an increase of 12.5% in overall dps from the ships... one thing that we need to aviod is making hybrids too good... we have all seen atry abbadons and that is just wrong...
Gabriel Karade Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 12	Posted - 2011.12.14 17:44:00 - [1415] - Quote The Djego wrote: m0cking bird wrote: ... The golden age was in 2006, before the hp buff and rigs. Blaster ships where quick and did pack lots of punch. Gangs where a lot smaller, not anybody flown and fitted T2(because it was quite expensive, like 260M Vagas etc.). However even then they where pretty niche, compared to the all out pawn mobiles that the nos\ecm drone ships where. 2006/7 was indeed the golden age, and 'happy time' for me, probably where I racked up most of my kills - Blaster Megathron was loads of fun back then - careful flying and you could sucker in even nano-addicts, showing them the pointy end of an Ion II... Haven't flown one in almost a year now, and haven't properly flown one in almost two. This still makes me a sad panda. On an aesthetics side, they also somewhat lost that 'visceral' nature when everything was updated, including mangling the SFX with those of dual RailgunsGÇª (Eve has sound? why yes, yes it does...) Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
m0cking bird Doomheim 95	Posted - 2011.12.14 18:01:00 - [1416] - Quote Mag's wrote: [quote=m0cking bird] You stated in the past that no boost was needed, you were wrong. As can be seen by the fact that CCP and many more, knew that a boost was needed. You now say they are fine and no more change is required. Many can see that the boost made, wasn't nearly enough for blasters and maybe even rails. Blasters for sure, haven't had nearly enough change to make them viable. But I see you are stuck in a system of Ad hominem retorts. (see what I did there) As funny as they are, they only point to how weak your argument actually is. So I'll take what you say with a pinch of salt. As I've said before ccp removed my response. I have little interest in half things I say. I say whatever and then walk away from it like a BOSS. Anyway, this will be the last time I respond to you because, I've lost interest in the forums again. Also, you're terrible and anything I say could only help you become a better pilot and have a better understanding of gameplay... Like the Minmatar changes that happened in the past. I stated the same. Those who have no ability come on the forums and whine. Minmatar ships were good then and now they're really good. Universal viability in most forms of combat. Like most threads populated by terrible pilots with limited experience and skill. The focus have always been misplaced by bads like yourself. My statements seem self-contradictory when you've only read this thread, but I've stated in the past. I'm aware of the issue most other pilots not willing to spend time or patients needed for Gallente combat (choosing targets carefully). Since I engage and often interact with very good Gallente pilots. Having flown Caldari and Gallente Hyrbrid ships since late 2007. Most experienced Hybrid pilots like myself, have no issues with Gallente ships or Caldari hybrid ships. Many are aware that the concept of close range combat is limiting above frigates and destroyers. There was not much you could do to change this without increasing the range of blaster turrets. Which many did not want. So, I've tried to steer the discussion in the only possible direction CCP would take. Based on my own experience and interactions with pilots better than your whole alliance combined, but also and more importantly. By those who only fly with-in fleets or have little to no pvp experience. The later are the vast majority of pilots. Often fallowing and never leading, so their leaders tell them what is useful with-in a fleet setting. Any-ship not useful within a fleet is then seen as terrible by upwards of 90% of the players in this game. So, accepting most pilots are not willing to put in the time needed to fly blaster ships correctly or accept Gallente combat doctrine (close range damage platform). Why not just randomly argue for a increase in blaster range? I get bored sometimes and need to do things to amuse myself. (Also, anyone who still believes those statics of weapons used and ships flown are very representative of anything other than what the most popular and common fleet doctrines. Can only look @ how the Rokh has made that list (very skewed). Being represented by one entity (Pandemic Legion). Another argument that I've made a very long time ago.) Anyway, back to this negative ten loser. CCP has already agreed with my analysis of the issue. Which is the concept is inferior compared with conventional warfare used by ships useful in large fleets like the Drake and Abaddon. The other is skirmish warfare in-bodied by Minmatar ships and some Caldari ships (Drake, Nighthawk, Caracal, Caracal Navy Issue, Osprey Navy Issue, Tengu, Rook, Cerberus). Since reading CCP's response. I'm confident CCP will not move to change Minmatar ships in a significant way. Which is something I believe might be pushed to excess by many in the community. Also, CCP will not touch scorch because that is Amarr ships 90% stasis webifier. Not to mention I believe scorch should be boosted. Removing all penalties and introducing a reduced capacitor usage bonus instead. Making Amarr as complete in fleet (conventional warfare) engagements as Minmatar are complete in skirmish warfare. Caldari is not as complete, but close enough. Gallente engagement concepts are outmoded, but not broken. It works, but is inferior to other concepts. -proxyyyy
Charles Edisson Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda 28	Posted - 2011.12.14 18:32:00 - [1417] - Quote Rock, Paper, Scissors, Iron Bar, Puddle of mud, Plastic cup, chocolate teapot has too mant combinations/permutations for the little minds at CCP to ballance. It never will be. Game is out of ballance at a fundimental level when the smallest class of non cap ship (Frigate) can have over half the damage of the largest non cap ship (Battle ship). If CCP really want a game in which case all classes of ship are used they need to adjust the ship classes massively so that a BS can only hit a Frig one in one hundred times. (the one should be a kill shot though) and a Frig should do very little damage to a BS. Admit the game mechanics are fundamentily flawed and go back to the drawing board and come up with new calculations to determine ship class ultimate damage, ship class weapon targeting/tracking/potential damage delivery. If a frig cant do any real damage to a BS people will need to take out larger ships. If larger ships cant hit smaller ones all fleets will also need smaller ships. This will necessitate fleets have ships of all classes so newer players are not left out but also that high skill players are also valued. I'd love to know the velocity projectile guns actualy spit out rounds so that damage is instantaneous. Have a feeling the game mechanics are breaking the laws of physics. unless each round has a micro MWD fitted to it that is. If a damage time delay was added to all projectile based weapons Hybrid & Projectile) that might lessen the uberness of projectile weapons, only laser based weapons should have near instant damage.
Hamox The Scope Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2011.12.14 20:29:00 - [1418] - Quote Charles Edisson wrote: If a damage time delay was added to all projectile based weapons Hybrid & Projectile) that might lessen the uberness of projectile weapons, only laser based weapons should have near instant damage. I like this idea. From real physics lasers should go at light speed (means practicaly instant damage for us), then hybrids with about 40 km / second, then projectile with maybe 20 km per second and than missles that are the slowest. I would like this, not becouse of balancing, just becouse it gives me better "feeling" and adds some deeper mechanics to the game.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 7385	Posted - 2011.12.15 17:34:00 - [1419] - Quote m0cking bird wrote: Stuff.... Can I have a TL:DR CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Zachis TBC 23	Posted - 2011.12.15 17:58:00 - [1420] - Quote Charles Edisson wrote: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Iron Bar, Puddle of mud, Plastic cup, chocolate teapot has too mant combinations/permutations for the little minds at CCP to ballance. It never will be. Game is out of ballance at a fundimental level when the smallest class of non cap ship (Frigate) can have over half the damage of the largest non cap ship (Battle ship). If CCP really want a game in which case all classes of ship are used they need to adjust the ship classes massively so that a BS can only hit a Frig one in one hundred times. (the one should be a kill shot though) and a Frig should do very little damage to a BS. Admit the game mechanics are fundamentily flawed and go back to the drawing board and come up with new calculations to determine ship class ultimate damage, ship class weapon targeting/tracking/potential damage delivery. If a frig cant do any real damage to a BS people will need to take out larger ships. If larger ships cant hit smaller ones all fleets will also need smaller ships. This will necessitate fleets have ships of all classes so newer players are not left out but also that high skill players are also valued. I'd love to know the velocity projectile guns actualy spit out rounds so that damage is instantaneous. Have a feeling the game mechanics are breaking the laws of physics. unless each round has a micro MWD fitted to it that is. If a damage time delay was added to all projectile based weapons Hybrid & Projectile) that might lessen the uberness of projectile weapons, only laser based weapons should have near instant damage. If they added in a signature radius component to the damage from turret ammo, similar to the missile damage formula, I think this would go a long way toward solving this issue. Currently, signature radius only applies to the turret tracking formula. Which means, if a BS sized weapon can track a frigate, long range or webbed, that frigate is going to take full damage. This change alone would allow them to more easily balance hybrids and blaster boats without making them too effective against small targets.
Archare SKEET ELITE Sk33t Fl33t 69	Posted - 2011.12.15 19:28:00 - [1421] - Quote Zachis wrote: Charles Edisson wrote: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Iron Bar, Puddle of mud, Plastic cup, chocolate teapot has too mant combinations/permutations for the little minds at CCP to ballance. It never will be. Game is out of ballance at a fundimental level when the smallest class of non cap ship (Frigate) can have over half the damage of the largest non cap ship (Battle ship). If CCP really want a game in which case all classes of ship are used they need to adjust the ship classes massively so that a BS can only hit a Frig one in one hundred times. (the one should be a kill shot though) and a Frig should do very little damage to a BS. Admit the game mechanics are fundamentily flawed and go back to the drawing board and come up with new calculations to determine ship class ultimate damage, ship class weapon targeting/tracking/potential damage delivery. If a frig cant do any real damage to a BS people will need to take out larger ships. If larger ships cant hit smaller ones all fleets will also need smaller ships. This will necessitate fleets have ships of all classes so newer players are not left out but also that high skill players are also valued. I'd love to know the velocity projectile guns actualy spit out rounds so that damage is instantaneous. Have a feeling the game mechanics are breaking the laws of physics. unless each round has a micro MWD fitted to it that is. If a damage time delay was added to all projectile based weapons Hybrid & Projectile) that might lessen the uberness of projectile weapons, only laser based weapons should have near instant damage. If they added in a signature radius component to the damage from turret ammo, similar to the missile damage formula, I think this would go a long way toward solving this issue. Currently, signature radius only applies to the turret tracking formula. Which means, if a BS sized weapon can track a frigate, long range or webbed, that frigate is going to take full damage. This change alone would allow them to more easily balance hybrids and blaster boats without making them too effective against small targets. Signature radius is already a factor in turret damage calculations. The difference between turrets in missiles in this aspect is that sig radius and movement speed work independently of each other in missiles while with turrets they are tied together.
Zachis TBC 23	Posted - 2011.12.15 20:23:00 - [1422] - Quote Turrets calculate a chance to hit as I understand it, where signature radius of your target is factored in and accounted for in the tracking part of the equation. But, the main determinants of your chance to hit are "primarily transversal speed and range to target" (quoted from the Evelopedia Turret Damage) Once you can reliably hit the target, however, the signature radius of your target no longer factors into the equation. It's just quality of hit from there, which depends on some random number generator function as well. One of the reasons a sniping BS can insta-pop frigates at range. Creating a damage radius of ammo vs. signature radius of target comparison in the damage formula would make larger weapons less effective against smaller targets at any range, but not affect their abilities against similar sized targets. Possibly leading to more fleet diversity? Don't know. Yes, this would amount to a change in turret damage mechanics, and I'm not certain this is the correct way forward, just an option. My fear is unless something like this is done, blaster boats will always run up against a wall in terms of balance. Namely that large turrets will be very effective on smaller targets, if the ship using those large turrets can pin smaller targets effectively (ie. speed changes, web changes). I'd like to see fair and even balance across the board, this was just one idea of how to achieve that without making bigger = better in all situations. I do appreciate the input, and perhaps I should throw this into the "ideas" forum for a proper bashing about.
Mekhana Spiritus Draconis 435	Posted - 2011.12.16 03:04:00 - [1423] - Quote Buuump! Anyone planning of getting tickets to the Fanfest and start a commotion about the unfinished Hybrid rebalancing? Me and my friends are planning an OWS style protest in front of CCP's headquarters. We'll be flying all the way from sunny Brazil to Icy Northern Europe to show our discontent. Do girls even wear bikinis there?
Zarak1 Kenpach1 Aperture Harmonics K162 40	Posted - 2011.12.16 06:39:00 - [1424] - Quote do you honestly think anyone will give two ***** about your rabble rousing when there is hookers and blow afoot?
The Djego Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition 24	Posted - 2011.12.16 08:02:00 - [1425] - Quote Zachis wrote: If they added in a signature radius component to the damage from turret ammo, similar to the missile damage formula, I think this would go a long way toward solving this issue. Currently, signature radius only applies to the turret tracking formula. Which means, if a BS sized weapon can track a frigate, long range or webbed, that frigate is going to take full damage. This change alone would allow them to more easily balance hybrids and blaster boats without making them too effective against small targets. No just because you can hit something doesn't mean you can apply full damage to it. Actually this is very rare outside of specific peak dps game play. In a peak dps situations most frigs wouldn't survive under 1 or 2 volleys of any close range BS weapon in eve since you would look at 2-4k hits even after resists. This didn't even happen back in the days with 90% webs, there is no such thing to archive against a target that is ten times harder to track than a BS. Damage scales from 2-150% depending on how good you can hit, archiving 100+% in a BS even against a BC is very hard and requires mwd sig bloom, 4+ the range of a blaster bs and dropping transversal pretty much to zero by manual piloting(a nano pest or oracle can do it today) in solo/small gang pvp. All this combined is basically a 2000% tracking boost and you will never pull something like this off with blasters since the web/scram changes in QR. Back in the days blaster ships actually where the benchmark when it came to this play style since they where a lot more effective at close range against all kind of targets(similar as minmatar hulls today by using dualneuts at close or the range to do it). Lacking this ability is also a big part of why the ships are far less useful for the nearly any scenario where a blaster ship would make sense in the traditional way compared to the alternatives today. A blaster BS is just as unpractical in a bigger fight than a frig(outside of the tackler role), it isn't very effective in catching people, it isn't as good at dealing with the huge majority of his targets in solo/small gang pvp(what means the target will be smaller) as other hulls. Technically getting some dps with a mega on a frig at close range isn't even a problem, since preventing a BS from tackling a frig isn't hard or challenging and in bigger fights, before the blaster BS would be in range you would have already died by getting gutted alive at medium range by acs or lasers or have so many drones, target painters or webs on you that it doesn't matter if you get shoot by blasters, lasers or acs, the result is the same in all cases.
DickbeardThePirate Aliastra Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2011.12.16 09:17:00 - [1426] - Quote Further increase the speed and decrease the inertia of gallente ships by maybe 5 or 10%. Up blaster base damage by like 10-15% more. I think the range and tracking is pretty adequate right now. I mean the gallente shotgun has gone from useless to viable but not nearly preferable to other combat methods, it just needs that little extra push to actually be good.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 97	Posted - 2011.12.16 11:03:00 - [1427] - Quote It would be a huge mistake to increase the damage on blasters and railguns... But we do still need more adjustments on ships, railguns and ammunition.
tEcHnOkRaT Aliastra Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2011.12.16 12:49:00 - [1428] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: It would be a huge mistake to increase the damage on blasters and railguns... But we do still need more adjustments on ships, railguns and ammunition. a huge mistake ? is that people would start thinking about actually using them instead of doing some offline training for the next 4 months and getting projectile turrets and minmatar bs skills to lvl 5, i dont see how it might benefit enyone maybe ccp is happy that they get free money without getting more serverload, but for the playerbase there is less people to fight with or just to blow up and if ur afraid u will see geddon fleets with hybrid guns on them then they are already there but not becouse they are so good but becouse geddon has a very big ehp and to put hybrids on them is just a secondary choise (becouse u only trained for the worst turret system in game- the hybrids)
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team 97	Posted - 2011.12.17 13:25:00 - [1429] - Quote If you need to boost hybrids further you need to do it through the ships supposed to use them... People are already starting to think about using hybrids in all aspects of Eve. It will ofcourse take a long time for the players to adjust skillwise and as such it will be natural to continue see lots of minmatar ships and autocannons for a long time (Minmatar has been I-win for a serious long time) Also I see no value in your argumentation - just lol...
tEcHnOkRaT Aliastra Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2011.12.17 13:37:00 - [1430] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: If you need to boost hybrids further you need to do it through the ships supposed to use them... People are already starting to think about using hybrids in all aspects of Eve. It will ofcourse take a long time for the players to adjust skillwise and as such it will be natural to continue see lots of minmatar ships and autocannons for a long time (Minmatar has been I-win for a serious long time) Also I see no value in your argumentation - just lol... lol or not but we both agree that (hybrids/hybrid using ships) still need some boost and as the devs are already at it they could also take a look at drones/drone ships some caldari and amar ships :)
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.17 22:13:00 - [1431] - Quote 1Drake112715 2Hurricane61620 3Abaddon40951 4Tengu29786 5Tornado22717 6Maelstrom22443 7Armageddon18986 8Scimitar16075 9Tempest15259 10Sabre13866 11Cynabal12945 12Thrasher11957 13Huginn11252 14Vagabond10721 15Rokh10221 16Loki10198 17Rapier9947 18Zealot9833 19Hound9751 20Rifter9454 1Heavy Missile Launcher II45896 2425mm AutoCannon II19316 31400mm Howitzer Artillery II12441 4Mega Pulse Laser II12010 5200mm AutoCannon II10599 6720mm Howitzer Artillery II8857 7220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II8776 8150mm Light AutoCannon II7951 9125mm Gatling AutoCannon II7303 10800mm Repeating Artillery II6860 11Heavy Pulse Laser II6736 12425mm Railgun II3338 13'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher3333 14Heavy Neutron Blaster II3297 15'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I3146 16Light Neutron Blaster II3041 17Focused Medium Pulse Laser II2490 18280mm Howitzer Artillery II2385 19Dual 180mm AutoCannon II2373 20Neutron Blaster Cannon II2345 Well apart from PL's use of the novelty rokh, still no-show for hybrid using ships, and still a complete absence of gallente hybrid ships even allowing for the use of the rokh.
Zarak1 Kenpach1 Aperture Harmonics K162 40	Posted - 2011.12.18 02:42:00 - [1432] - Quote yikes
Archare SKEET ELITE Sk33t Fl33t 69	Posted - 2011.12.18 03:50:00 - [1433] - Quote Hrm... well other than constantly bumping this thread I wondering where CCP wants to go with blasters now. Are they satisfied with their performance as a weapon system? Are they ahem working as intended? On paper before ship bonuses are factored in do they perform within a tolerable difference? There is a lot of fumbling in the dark lately since the changes came live and not very much good information. If some direction or information as far as the status of hybrid weapons, and the platforms that carry them and whether or not anymore changes are coming would be appreciated as it's been 2 weeks since they changes came to TQ and over a month on the test server. TLDR: bump, Some input plz CCP to spur discussion.
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 371	Posted - 2011.12.18 10:28:00 - [1434] - Quote Instead of blanket boosts to hybrids, wouldn't mind ships like the Hyperion get 7.5% damage bonus and a slot layout change, maybe the rokh losing a low, gaining a mid and having its resists bonus changed to damage. Etc. Phobos, Hyperion, Ishtar and talos still need more grid Tier 1 battlecruisers need improved fittings, extra slots. Active tanking bonus needs to be dealt with Myrmidon, Eos, need more drones, improved warfare bonuses. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Dare Devel Perkone Caldari State 14	Posted - 2011.12.18 11:28:00 - [1435] - Quote The effectiveness of the hybrid buff was perfectly clear before the release of Crucible. One could judge it from the pages of dissatisfaction expressed by hybrid user(s) when they were released into singularity. After Crucible release, the stats spoke for itself. Currently no hybrid ships (DPS Class) are in top 20 used, other than the ROKH and 425mm T2 guns, coming in and out of the bottom ten of the top twenty list not so very often. Based on past/present trend when any buff is new, players use it more in the begining to see how the changes benefit them. We see a spike there (example Tornado). But for Hybrids we saw none. Still remaind largely unused. I have mostly used it (currently am using) for PvE. Before crucible I used to fly a blaster ROKH. Now I use a Rail ROKH. My reason for the switch is with a full rack to 425mm T2 guns I do not have to fit a PG rig anymore. Thats the only benefit for me. With javelin, the range/dps sucks with NPCs beyond 30 km. So I have to use Faction AM that generates 650 dps. I recently spend 5 Mill worth of ammo in Angel Extravaganza mission forcing me to switch over to Normal AM and that has brought my DPS to 500. I am tired of running after ranged NPCs using Blaster boat thats why I have shunned it for now because using NULL ammo the DPS really sucks as you need from 8-15 volleys to kill a single NPC BS. We still remain at HYBRIDS ARE STILL FLAT OUT BROKEN. Time will definitely tell whether it takes CCP another 4 years to notice it ?
Julia Connor Austudy The Welfare State 119	Posted - 2011.12.18 19:48:00 - [1436] - Quote Just keep asking and you'll get what you want but please can you stop stating the obvious OVER and OVER and OVER again?
Hamox The Scope Gallente Federation 24	Posted - 2011.12.18 20:44:00 - [1437] - Quote It is a little bit disapointing to have no reply from CCP. Overall CCP communication is not very professional. Remember how this whole thread started? The thread opener was away for 2 weeks and nobody knew, people wondered whats going on... I don't care anymore if they will do more changes or not but I would like to get an answer. Being ignored is not a nice thing and I wonder if this company really deserves to get my money???
The Djego Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition 24	Posted - 2011.12.18 21:47:00 - [1438] - Quote Hamox wrote: It is a little bit disapointing to have no reply from CCP. Overall CCP communication is not very professional. Remember how this whole thread started? The thread opener was away for 2 weeks and nobody knew, people wondered whats going on... We got ignored for month, the first time CCP really started to react, was as CCP Zulu talked about stuff like "I think that blasters will be even better after the patch." in a interview or "live on tape" blog(can't remember, been a while) and unleashed a well deserved **** storm similar to his "our pixels are comparable with 1000 dollar designer jeans" blog. This was during a time you had multiple 20+ site threads on this matter and every pvper stated you right in the face, that the QR changes will nuke blaster ships out of the game. Later we got a response from Nozh, but I rather would erase reading it from my memory, since it was basically the prime example of flawed logic applied to working game concepts that made them useless in the end. Knock yourself out if you like: Link
tEcHnOkRaT Aliastra Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2011.12.18 23:40:00 - [1439] - Quote Hamox wrote: It is a little bit disapointing to have no reply from CCP. Overall CCP communication is not very professional. Remember how this whole thread started? The thread opener was away for 2 weeks and nobody knew, people wondered whats going on... I don't care anymore if they will do more changes or not but I would like to get an answer. Being ignored is not a nice thing and I wonder if this company really deserves to get my money??? becouse in the past every time they made a half backed statetment or theory, they released a wave of nerdrage even calling the ccp oficials stupid :) so now they rather sit back and read ur posts without saying anything until they have a real plan, or they say everything works as intended or do nothing until the flames of rage go down and people adjust there skill training to the new cirkumstances and we all seen how that works out.
tEcHnOkRaT Aliastra Gallente Federation 19	Posted - 2011.12.18 23:46:00 - [1440] - Quote and to be honest the gameplay is already so complex that if u make a change to it, those changes affect alot more then just the intended part. and u would need to study all the implications for months to see the big picture and thats for every single change. ccp dosnt have the manpower for that and like it or not but all the past changes favored the minmatar warfare style some intended but most not

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 .. 66 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.