Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 00:23:00 -
[361] - Quote
Kiev Duran wrote:Willl Adama wrote:Kiev Duran wrote: You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.
CHECK THIS OUT!!! I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir. Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit.
I have to congratulate with Will Adama for the excellent taste in music... Ayreon? Way to go! :D |
Willl Adama
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:42:00 -
[362] - Quote
Kiev Duran wrote:Willl Adama wrote:Kiev Duran wrote: You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.
CHECK THIS OUT!!! I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir. Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit.
You should see my more recent videos then! Nothing wrong with active tanking m8. And I'm flying Deimos' and Eagles and such stuff which I'm sure you'll find ******** too! Latest Video:-á-á Kill Will: Volume 4 |
Kiev Duran
Grand Solar Trinity
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 01:57:00 -
[363] - Quote
Willl Adama wrote:Kiev Duran wrote:Willl Adama wrote:Kiev Duran wrote: You show me a pilot that flies a Moa, and I'll show you one that has no grasp of EVE combat.
CHECK THIS OUT!!! I don't believe I've ever seen anyone push a ship's tank that hard before, and I tip my hat to you good sir. Now, imagine what could have been done in a good combat ship. Or how most of those fights would have gone if the opposition brought neuts. Not to diminish the kills you got, but active tanking has a few serious drawbacks that I didn't see any of the guys you were fighting attempt to exploit. You should see my more recent videos then! Nothing wrong with active tanking m8. And I'm flying Deimos' and Eagles and such stuff which I'm sure you'll find ******** too!
I've been thinking; since passive tanking has grown popular enough to become the norm, not many people seem to carry around neuts anymore, at least not in my experience. If this has come to be the case, active tanking may see something of a small comeback in the near future. At it's core combat in EVE is just like combat in any other game: understanding and beating the current meta-game.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh to claim that any and all Moa pilots have a poor grasp of combat. We all know that the SP amount, skill focus, and pilot skill are all far more important than ship choice, but I don't think anyone would argue that the Moa and Deimos aren't weak ships that typically preform below what most people would consider "good." They have weapon systems that preform poorly in comparison to others as well as having statlines a good bit below those seen on other races' ships. |
Shadow Lord77
Shadow Industries I
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 05:21:00 -
[364] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:TALOS So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves. I might have a fix for you... [Silly] 1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.
This is a nice idea. Make it so there's a massive cool-down, 95% of the cap is used. So basically you can jump from 150Km to 0 Km in a few seconds with little cap to spare. Makes it good for cap-less weapon platforms like Minmatar, and Missile ships and for cap-requiring ships like Amarr and Hybrid ships that have a energy logistic ship in the fleet. But then what place do the snipers have like the Rokh in Eve-Online combat? |
oldmanst4r
oldmanst4r's Corporation
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 05:58:00 -
[365] - Quote
In order to be viable the Naga needs a RoF and Explosion Velocity bonus for Torps and Cruises...period.
1. Torps suck without painters/explosion velocity bonuses
2. The Raven sucks for pvp
3. Cruise missles suck for PvP
4. The Rokh sucks for PvP
The only large caldari system that doesn't completely suck worse than rails on a moa is torpedoes with bonuses. So stop making up stupid reasons for nerfing the Naga, like that it might overshadow two ships that suck for pvp anyway. Focus on making the semi-sucky weapons system that is torpedoes, not sucky by giving the naga some decent fragging bonuses. |
Nikollai Tesla
Crytec Enterprises SRS.
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 06:08:00 -
[366] - Quote
For a Battlecruiser with Battleship sized guns you are thinking of making the trade off, of armor for bigger guns. Another possibility is the tradeoff of ammo and time on stations.
You see this in weapon design between fewer high power one shot weapons vs weaker resuable one. Think Arrows vs Spear, or (cannon rounds vs missles/Bombs).
These battlecruisers could be designed with less supply/ammo capabilities as a trade off. You can fit Large/guns and missiles but not enough supplies/ammo for prolonged engagements. In this situation with limited ammo you can't afford to waste shots on smaller ships.
I'd redesign some of the BCs to keep the over sized guns and keeping BC quality armor, while reducing the amount of ammo. This would be a different ethos of battle cruiser design.
a) Fast enough to outrun what it can't fight, and fast enough to catch what it can kill. (more suited to minmatar philosophy) b) Kill what I can't tank, and tank what i can't kill (more suited to the gallente)
IE Role bonus -95% Power grid, -50% cpu, -50% Ammo capacity. They should also have tiny cargo holds, but better armor. |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 06:27:00 -
[367] - Quote
Phantomania wrote:Idea! ROLE- Heavy Destroyer- Tier3 Battlecruiser- Crazy DPS and Glass Tank First decide whether the role of this ship should be long range or short range, whichever will go for all 4 races as all races have a long and short range weapon alternative.- >Long Range gets Uber bonus/s for Weapon Range, thats it! (let them shoot from +/- 150km) >Short Range gets Uber bonus/s for Ship Speed, thats it! (let them go +/- 1500m/s) Heavy Destroyers should NOT be able to effectively hit anything smaller than a standard BC or be able to Solo PvP and must all be penalized to reflect this. They can easily be destroyed by small ships. I'd go as far as saying that they should have standard BC signature but Cruiser size Tank. H/M/L Armor Tank Race Layout- 8/2/6 Shield Tank Race Layout- 8/6/2 Ship Attributes should reflect race weapons, ie: Extra cap for cap munching weapons or extra m/3 for cargohold for those weapons that use bulky ammo! The fact is that most pilots won't have a use for these ships, its a shame but then these Ships would all have to have an 8/6/6 layout and put alot of other ships out of commision. Please don't try to compare these to any other ships, they have a role and are not standard! Thats the only answer I can see without making them just another regular PvP ship, we have enough of them already! Thx
Love how this is being avoided. Do you really think CCP will add a ship that will/can replace others?
Balancing isn't just the ships but also the overall ingame effects! |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 10:02:00 -
[368] - Quote
Phantomania wrote:Phantomania wrote:Idea! ROLE- Heavy Destroyer- Tier3 Battlecruiser- Crazy DPS and Glass Tank First decide whether the role of this ship should be long range or short range, whichever will go for all 4 races as all races have a long and short range weapon alternative.- >Long Range gets Uber bonus/s for Weapon Range, thats it! (let them shoot from +/- 150km) >Short Range gets Uber bonus/s for Ship Speed, thats it! (let them go +/- 1500m/s) Heavy Destroyers should NOT be able to effectively hit anything smaller than a standard BC or be able to Solo PvP and must all be penalized to reflect this. They can easily be destroyed by small ships. I'd go as far as saying that they should have standard BC signature but Cruiser size Tank. H/M/L Armor Tank Race Layout- 8/2/6 Shield Tank Race Layout- 8/6/2 Ship Attributes should reflect race weapons, ie: Extra cap for cap munching weapons or extra m/3 for cargohold for those weapons that use bulky ammo! The fact is that most pilots won't have a use for these ships, its a shame but then these Ships would all have to have an 8/6/6 layout and put alot of other ships out of commision. Please don't try to compare these to any other ships, they have a role and are not standard! Thats the only answer I can see without making them just another regular PvP ship, we have enough of them already! Thx Love how this is being avoided. Do you really think CCP will add a ship that will/can replace others? Balancing isn't just the ships but also the overall ingame effects!
If peeps prefer the look of the new BCs, maybe CCP can swap the tier3 model with the tier2 models! |
Alsyth
Night Warder
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 11:23:00 -
[369] - Quote
Just like 2 mids is fail on any pvp ship, less than 4 low is fail on any dps and speed ship bigger than a cruiser.
3 lows on the rook is really bad and makes it a nightmare to fit, 4 lows on the sleipnir is really bad when you want to nano it (and it's fun to see that the nighthawk has a better slot layout mid/low wise... probably why it has such a gimped fitting though), 3 lows on a dual weapon ship like the Huginn/Lachesis is ridiculous when you want to do some dps...
So, 3 lows on the Naga which, out of all four t3 BCs, is the slowest, and the one that need to be the closest to apply some real dps (Talos is good enough with rails, Tornado and Oracle with scorch and barrage and TC/TE can hit further than Naga) makes it impossible to nano properly while applying some real damage. And if you don't nano it, you get caught. And because it has the biggest sig of the bunch, most BS will easily track it and melt it. And don't even think of tracking disruptor, you can't fit them because of the aweful CPU. |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 11:40:00 -
[370] - Quote
Alsyth wrote:Just like 2 mids is fail on any pvp ship, less than 4 low is fail on any dps and speed ship bigger than a cruiser.
3 lows on the rook is really bad and makes it a nightmare to fit, 4 lows on the sleipnir is really bad when you want to nano it (and it's fun to see that the nighthawk has a better slot layout mid/low wise... probably why it has such a gimped fitting though), 3 lows on a dual weapon ship like the Huginn/Lachesis is ridiculous when you want to do some dps...
So, 3 lows on the Naga which, out of all four t3 BCs, is the slowest, and the one that need to be the closest to apply some real dps (Talos is good enough with rails, Tornado and Oracle with scorch and barrage and TC/TE can hit further than Naga) makes it impossible to nano properly while applying some real damage. And if you don't nano it, you get caught. And because it has the biggest sig of the bunch, most BS will easily track it and melt it. And don't even think of tracking disruptor, you can't fit them because of the aweful CPU.
DPS and Range/Speed can be balanced with bonus's on individual ships giving them equality! |
|
Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 11:47:00 -
[371] - Quote
Fix the Naga please, subpar dps, lacking weapon systems, and the tank leaves much to be desired compared to other tier 3s. |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 12:17:00 -
[372] - Quote
tika te wrote:i have a bit more radical theory (please don't flame, it's just a thought):
i also think that there should be some "distance" between ship classes.. cruisers should be far weaker than a bc and ofc much weaker as a battlehip in terms of their hp, but they also should be MUCH harder to hit with larger sized weapons... a battleship should really have HUGE difficulties hitting a moving cruiser, a cruiser same difficulties hitting a frig ... on the other side..a bs should be able to survive the attack of 1-2 cruisers much longer than just few seconds...a cruiser should withstand the attacks of 2-3 frigs without dying in few eyeblinks..
sitting in a larger ship should mean sth....there should be A FAIR EXCHANGE for the sacrifice of agility and speed... i.e. killing a battleship with just 3-4 frigs shoud be an achievement, not just a "he's tackled and will die soon" standard program..
in my oppinion better scaling between ship classes would greatly improve the eve gameplay..
this perhaps better fits in an another thread: somwhere here on the forums so suggested giving lower tier weapons within a size-class better sig resolution. perhaps thats a first step in increasing diversity...i.e. a dual railgun 250mm having resolution of 300m, a 350mm rail a resolution of 350mm and the 425mm staying at 400m. then fitting lower tier weapons wouldn't just be a consideration when you don't have enough PG/CPU to fit higher tiers...
YES. And they are some easy way to make that.
BC penality Arms radius for tiers 1 and tiers 2. Now they have the same arms radius then all cruiser size. Put a penality for BC like 100%
In this case you will have :
Fregate T1 t2 Arms radius 40 Cruiser T1 t2 t3 Arms radium 125 BC Arms radius 250 (now is 125 same then cruiser). BS arms Radius 400
The BC will have more problem of traking in small ship and also you.
That will be also the damage will be more different if you target are in mwd or afterburner. Because now ...
That will be more interesting.
Minmatar rush ship but you need a high signature when you rush (mwd on). Caldari long range Amarr slowest, but more afterburner low signature Galente Mix between rush or slowest (rush with blaster and slowest with rail gun).
If with the same class of ship you make more dps when the target are the mwd on that will be more interesting than now. Because you can fit you ship with mwd or afterburner they are really not diff+¬rence with dps. |
Miriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 12:39:00 -
[373] - Quote
Naga needs it's exp velocity bonus back(Or you could just boost torp exp velocity, nerf sb exp velocity bonus slightly to comensate, leave it as it is on Golem), no to RoF bonus that'd just be silly OP if you ended up in the right circumstances
If you want it to only have 1 bonus to each(Fix torp exp velocity if that's the case), atleast make the railgun bonus 5% damage x_x and give it back it's 4th low.
|
Keen Fallsword
Billionaires Club C0VEN
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 12:48:00 -
[374] - Quote
Dear CCP
Thank you for giving Us more tourists ships like talos Its great Yacht and will be looking cool in my Hangar Collection of the greatest Fails. Yes ! Some more ships is there already so THANKS !
re-write Hybrids they are unplayable feedback from SiSi is clear - hybrids don't work.
Im hope that you are "new CCP" focused on EVE
Regards
|
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:02:00 -
[375] - Quote
Since the Thread gone a bit off topic during the last page, I like to repost some stuff here:
Oracle
The old concept was better. Don't get me wrong, I love pooping blaster hulls with 1200+ DPS during her endless crusade to get into a range they never reach. However this is simply over the top, for a mobile hull like the Oracle. Hitting anti support at 50km isn't so hard anyway. You not going to prevent this in a big fight, and it is rather moot point outside of this for a fleet ship like the Oracle. Give it back it's range + tracking bonus and make it a notch faster so you end up with a faster Apoc/long range Harbinger instead of a Abaddon that also can control the engagement range(what makes it extreme powerful) and is fairly cap stable in practical game play.
Naga
I'm still waiting for a change. With torps it is nearly useful, however it still lacks the higher velocity bonus to bump up the range a bit so it can compete with other tier 3 BC short range weapon setups(except the Talos) and a explosion velocity bonus to bring it down to 337.5m. You still have damage reduction by speed and sig for most BCs. BC and BS are the most common fleet ships today for DPS. If you want a torp naga on the field it must be able to project solid damage against them(w/o throwing 1-2 painter, a scram and a web on every target you shoot, it isn't this good dps wise to justify this).
The slot and fitting nerf was uncalled for. I'm still looking for a update on the speed penalty for javelin torpedo's.
Tornado
It is over the top with the the best mix of tank and gank mounted on the fastest hull of the tier3(by quite some margin), if you insist to keep the falloff bonus, reduce the turret count or remove a low slot to bring the overall damage down a notch.
Talos
Add a 5. med(and some fitting to use the slot) and buff the tracking bonus to 10% per level to make it a halve way ok rail ship for medium ranges, that can at least compete against beam fittings w/o the damage bonus or puls setups with scorch(it is to far off with the tracking atm and lacks the 5. med for a reasonable tank). |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:14:00 -
[376] - Quote
Wouldn't a heavy destroyer be VERY GOOD at killing things smaller than it'self? I mean, isn't that what destroyers are for?
Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:14:00 -
[377] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Wouldn't a heavy destroyer be VERY GOOD at killing things smaller than it'self? I mean, isn't that what destroyers are for?
Not these ones, "Heavy Destroyer" not "Destroyer"! |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
96
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 14:32:00 -
[378] - Quote
Phantomania wrote:Phantomania wrote:Phantomania wrote:Idea! ROLE- Heavy Destroyer- Tier3 Battlecruiser- Crazy DPS and Glass Tank First decide whether the role of this ship should be long range or short range, whichever will go for all 4 races as all races have a long and short range weapon alternative.- >Long Range gets Uber bonus/s for Weapon Range, thats it! (let them shoot from +/- 150km) >Short Range gets Uber bonus/s for Ship Speed, thats it! (let them go +/- 1500m/s) Heavy Destroyers should NOT be able to effectively hit anything smaller than a standard BC or be able to Solo PvP and must all be penalized to reflect this. They can easily be destroyed by small ships. I'd go as far as saying that they should have standard BC signature but Cruiser size Tank. H/M/L Armor Tank Race Layout- 8/2/6 Shield Tank Race Layout- 8/6/2 Ship Attributes should reflect race weapons, ie: Extra cap for cap munching weapons or extra m/3 for cargohold for those weapons that use bulky ammo! The fact is that most pilots won't have a use for these ships, its a shame but then these Ships would all have to have an 8/6/6 layout and put alot of other ships out of commision. Please don't try to compare these to any other ships, they have a role and are not standard! Thats the only answer I can see without making them just another regular PvP ship, we have enough of them already! Thx Love how this is being avoided. Do you really think CCP will add a ship that will/can replace others? Balancing isn't just the ships but also the overall ingame effects! If peeps prefer the look of the new BCs, maybe CCP can swap the tier3 model with the tier2 models!
I can't speak for everyone else, but I've avoided these posts because I have no idea what you're trying to say. |
Alain Badiou
0utside Context Problem
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 15:26:00 -
[379] - Quote
Reilly Duvolle wrote:The problem with the blasterships are accuratley described as incompatibility between slowish armortanked ships and very short range weapons. And you cant make Gallente faster than Minmatar because they are supposed to be the kings of skirmish warfare.
Now, what you COULD do, is to nerf the falloff gained by tracking enhancers and tracking computers, so that TE/TC gives 15% each to both optimal and falloff (not 15/30% as today).
At the same time introduce smaller webbing drones with better effect than the heavies that exist today. The gallente drone bonus could be applied so that say 5 x medium webbing drones give the same effect as a t1 web (-50%), and also making medium webdrones much less powerful on non-blaster platforms.
This will force minmatar kiters closer, and coupled with extended web ranges make kiting more difficult (should not be impossible but should require a good pilot who are on the ball).
These two changes have been discussed several times (smaller web drones and a nerf to TE/TC's) and I agree with them. IMO the nerf to TE/TC's is long over due. 15% seems reasonable and stacking nerfed like damage mods. That would go a long way to bringing Winmatar back in line (and while I love Gallente, I fly Minmatar). Smaller web drones are interesting - not sure other drones wouldn't almost always be better, but would certainly assist on the approach... |
Miriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:34:00 -
[380] - Quote
If TE's/TC's is being nerfed to 15/15, make sure the Vargur doesn't end up as a Kronos pl0x |
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 21:52:00 -
[381] - Quote
You might want to consider if the torpedo range bonus is good enough on naga as with all relevant skills at 4 the T1 torpedoes do not reach a large control tower without rigs. And with the range rigs your fitting options get even more limited than now. Since the new battlecruisers are supposed to be easily approachable and one of the main uses for torpedoes today is pos bashing this might need another thought. |
gnome chaos
Missions Mining and Mayhem Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 22:53:00 -
[382] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:I can't speak for everyone else, but I've avoided these posts because I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I'd go much, much further and ask Phantomania to stop eating that fleinsopp while posting. |
Keen Fallsword
Billionaires Club C0VEN
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 02:08:00 -
[383] - Quote
I think that Ive read everything in the world about hybrids, lasers , rails, torpedos etc.... LOL - My brain is burning !
Talos got a problem for sure same with Naga Did you wonder why ?
I think that if you want well balanced game Lasers and Projectiles need to be nerfed like someone in this thread wrote. Hybrids are useless coz projectiles and lasers are at their territory too. So whatever devs do it will be impossible to fix hybrids without touching all weapons systems :( So Welcome to the jungle..
They messed in game so much that they broken it.. Why they don't wanted to change anything for so long ? Coz things will be even worst.. Imagine hordes of noobs when CCP announce AC an lasers nerf . Arab Spring was just a picnic with that !
Eve was never good balanced game and wont be the one.. and its even worst when is getting older - GAME ECONOMY - was build right ? Its very complex situation for sure ...
Regards
For me its EOT - Ive reactivated my accounts to Patch. If hybrids and all races not be fixed I quit. Like someone said "Only way that we may help this game is not to play in it, and wait " - "Eve quit day is soon or not! Hope !" |
Zarnak Wulf
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 03:51:00 -
[384] - Quote
I can fly a Tornado and a Torp Naga.
The Naga has considerable fitting issues. It was impossible to create a fit that did not entail using a fitting rig or module. My fit usually ended up looking like a what's what of named modules. I refused to compromise on the 8 x siege II and the two BCU II. My tank was usually less then the Tornado though. While I understand that these ships aren't about tank, the fact that I have a larger sig radius, am slower, have a much limited range, AND have a worse thank the the Tornado was a slap in the face.
The Tornado on the opposite side had way too much fitting. I could slap not one but two LSE II. I never had to settle for named modules - the T2 versions fit easily. In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head. |
Imrik86
Gypsy Kings Wiki Conglomerates
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 05:07:00 -
[385] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:TALOS So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves. I might have a fix for you. Two things need to be done. 1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.
This already exists. It's called "a overheated MWD". Gallente blaster boats just need bonuses to MWD speed, and be penalized on capacitor to force the MWD to be pulsed enough to get into blaster range, while still having enough cap to shoot. They don't need to be faster than Minmatar on average, they just need to be able to quickly dash to the target and face melt upclose.
Problem solved. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
193
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:50:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:TALOSGeneral efficiency: we do realize it suffers from some problems next to the other hulls. Unfortunately, as some of you pointed it, the real issue here comes from blasters, and how they compete against similarly close ranged weapons like autocannons and pulse lasers. Thus, this is little more that can be done by tweaking the hull itself, since the problems mainly come from:
- Damage projection: blasters have issues projecting damage, especially considering Tech2 ammunition like Scorch and Barrage, which greatly empowers pulse lasers and autocannons and leave hybrids far behind for little increased damage to compensate. The issue is also widened because blasters benefit less from tracking enhancers and falloff related bonuses than their Minmatar close weapon counterpart.
- Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion ) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.
- Lack of usefulness in gang/fleet engagements: thus, because of blaster low damage projection and Gallente poor mobility when armor tanked, blaster ships are found lacking in gang warfare, as either your target or yourself are long dead before you can reach it. Besides, having blaster ships moving all around the battlefield to engage its target leads to coordination issues with the rest of the fleet, especially if logistics are implied.
So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves. For instance, let us give you a quick insight of the indirect problems we have to face regarding blaster balancing:
- Do we want to nerf Barrage and Scorch? If yes, by how? Wouldn't that kill their usefulness as a whole? If no, can we add even more falloff to blasters, knowing it may be over-inflating the balance of power again?
- Don't we need to have a look at shield extenders/armor plates as well? If we nerf them, are we confident with possible changes to passive tanking? Can't we make active tanking more useful on PvP setups, so that passive tanking is less used for blaster platforms and more on Amarr platforms, designed to be more static than Gallente? Doesn't that require looking into NOS/Neuts as well? How about Cap boosters? Overheating?
- Can we make Gallente ships faster than Minmatar knowing they also use railguns? Wouldn't that be defeating the original design goals for Minmatar ships?
Turning the Talos into a drone oriented ship: this ship is not supposed to be a drone boat, as it would allow it to hit smaller targets far too easily. We will maybe consider reintroducing its 25m3 dronebay if it is found really underperforming, but this is really unlikely for the moment
Please consider exchanging Projectile and Hybrid stats (in the future) as the fastest ships which can dictate range should be able to hit the hardest and gtfo if needed.
Just my 2 isk on the issue at large. If CCP has a developer in charge of Factional Warfare, please come forward and show yourself.
CCP admiting you don't have a plan for FW would be better then keeping up believing in the FW fairy. |
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris Etherium Cartel
193
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 07:07:00 -
[387] - Quote
In addition you could make tracking comps add a fixed amount to short/long ranged weapons (blasters/hybrids) If CCP has a developer in charge of Factional Warfare, please come forward and show yourself.
CCP admiting you don't have a plan for FW would be better then keeping up believing in the FW fairy. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:09:00 -
[388] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head.
You can fit a 100mn AB on a puls Oracle, ac Tornado and rail Talos, what is overall ok, with the restrictions(less EHP or less range/dps) in other areas in place. The only ship you can't do this is the torp naga, however given that torps are a weapon system that isn't limited by tracking like the turrets, this is a good thing instead of a bad one(look at the 100mn Tengu, Legion, or per QR nano missile ships like the Cerberus or Sacrilege as example how powerful that is). |
darius mclever
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:18:00 -
[389] - Quote
Jill Antaris wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head. You can fit a 100mn AB on a puls Oracle, ac Tornado and rail Talos, what is overall ok, with the restrictions(less EHP or less range/dps) in other areas in place. The only ship you can't do this is the torp naga, however given that torps are a weapon system that isn't limited by tracking like the turrets, this is a good thing instead of a bad one(look at the 100mn Tengu, Legion, or per QR nano missile ships like the Cerberus or Sacrilege as example how powerful that is).
explosion velocity/explosion radius are the tracking of missile users. and torps can be speed tanked much much easier than turrets. you can fly away from them in a straight line and still negate incoming DPS by a mile. so please drop the thought that missiles cant be speed tanked and that the naga shouldnt also be properly to fit as the other tier 3 BCs. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:24:00 -
[390] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Jill Antaris wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:In one setup I had a BS Afterburner fit to the Tornado and a full rack of 650mm II. I did have to use one fitting rig for that but the fact that it fit relatively easily makes me shake my head. You can fit a 100mn AB on a puls Oracle, ac Tornado and rail Talos, what is overall ok, with the restrictions(less EHP or less range/dps) in other areas in place. The only ship you can't do this is the torp naga, however given that torps are a weapon system that isn't limited by tracking like the turrets, this is a good thing instead of a bad one(look at the 100mn Tengu, Legion, or per QR nano missile ships like the Cerberus or Sacrilege as example how powerful that is). explosion velocity/explosion radius are the tracking of missile users. and torps can be speed tanked much much easier than turrets. you can fly away from them in a straight line and still negate incoming DPS by a mile. so please drop the thought that missiles cant be speed tanked and that the naga shouldnt also be properly to fit as the other tier 3 BCs.
The point is that constant high speed of 100mn AB setups also lowers your own chance to hit and makes it basically only a good anti BC/BS tactic, since you will be more or less unable to hit smaller targets given the high transversal you build up to evade incoming damage yourself. Missiles don't have this restrictions, because it doesn't matter how high transversal velocity between aggressor and target is. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |