EVE Search - Sticky:[Rubicon 1.1] Drone Shield Regen Speeds

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rubicon 1.1] Drone Shield Regen Speeds

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 492	Posted - 2014.01.17 18:08:00 - [121] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Manfred Sideous wrote: Fozzie suggestion for fighterbombers. Reduce sig radius on them otherwise you are going to have 1 dude running a Isboxer killing 100's of fighterbombers on each pass. Which is dumb since Supercarriers can only carry 1 flight of Fighterbombers. If someone can kill 100s of fighterbombers in a pass after 1.1, that means they can also do it right now. We're not changing total HP in this adjustment, just regen rate of shields. Discussions about hp and sig radius of fighters and fighterbombers are worth having, but this is a change specifically to fix the defect surrounding the shield regen rates and the effect this was having on lighter sources of damage to drones. Can we discuss whether carriers should even have dronebays? They're meant to be logistics ships, I don't get why they get all this extra stuff.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 634	Posted - 2014.01.17 18:18:00 - [122] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Manfred Sideous wrote: Fozzie suggestion for fighterbombers. Reduce sig radius on them otherwise you are going to have 1 dude running a Isboxer killing 100's of fighterbombers on each pass. Which is dumb since Supercarriers can only carry 1 flight of Fighterbombers. If someone can kill 100s of fighterbombers in a pass after 1.1, that means they can also do it right now. We're not changing total HP in this adjustment, just regen rate of shields. Discussions about hp and sig radius of fighters and fighterbombers are worth having, but this is a change specifically to fix the defect surrounding the shield regen rates and the effect this was having on lighter sources of damage to drones. Can we discuss whether carriers should even have dronebays? They're meant to be logistics ships, I don't get why they get all this extra stuff. nm... change their drone bays into fighter bays instead Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 8590	Posted - 2014.01.17 18:46:00 - [123] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Manfred Sideous wrote: Fozzie suggestion for fighterbombers. Reduce sig radius on them otherwise you are going to have 1 dude running a Isboxer killing 100's of fighterbombers on each pass. Which is dumb since Supercarriers can only carry 1 flight of Fighterbombers. If someone can kill 100s of fighterbombers in a pass after 1.1, that means they can also do it right now. We're not changing total HP in this adjustment, just regen rate of shields. Discussions about hp and sig radius of fighters and fighterbombers are worth having, but this is a change specifically to fix the defect surrounding the shield regen rates and the effect this was having on lighter sources of damage to drones. Can we discuss whether carriers should even have dronebays? They're meant to be logistics ships, I don't get why they get all this extra stuff. As worthwhile a discussion this is to have, the thread for this is coming. Most likely by 2015. My EVE Videos
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2126	Posted - 2014.01.17 20:18:00 - [124] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Manfred Sideous wrote: Fozzie suggestion for fighterbombers. Reduce sig radius on them otherwise you are going to have 1 dude running a Isboxer killing 100's of fighterbombers on each pass. Which is dumb since Supercarriers can only carry 1 flight of Fighterbombers. If someone can kill 100s of fighterbombers in a pass after 1.1, that means they can also do it right now. We're not changing total HP in this adjustment, just regen rate of shields. Discussions about hp and sig radius of fighters and fighterbombers are worth having, but this is a change specifically to fix the defect surrounding the shield regen rates and the effect this was having on lighter sources of damage to drones. Can we discuss whether carriers should even have dronebays? They're meant to be logistics ships, I don't get why they get all this extra stuff. As worthwhile a discussion this is to have, the thread for this is coming. Most likely by 2015. I suppose there is nothing stopping a new thread on the discussion in the general F&I area. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 969	Posted - 2014.01.17 21:23:00 - [125] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: 25% ok so with script you get 15% op and 30% falloff That's with 2 mods whereas before you got 25% to each with 1. So in no way can a single mod get you what it did prior range wise. Additionally limiting that reduction in range bonus to 10% rather than 17.5% means giving up any of the tracking bonus.
Lelob ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 168	Posted - 2014.01.17 21:58:00 - [126] - Quote This seems kinda ****** for supercarriers, making it much easier to bomb fb's off the field in big fleet battles. I really do not think this will be a helpful change as far as supers go, as it will just make them more and more useless in the long term tidi fights, which seem to be the norm nowadays. I think at the least you should really consider reducing the sig on fb's to at least make them a bit more sturdy against bombers so that they are not relegated to glorified logistic boats.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 634	Posted - 2014.01.17 22:55:00 - [127] - Quote Tyberius Franklin wrote: Harvey James wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: 25% ok so with script you get 15% op and 30% falloff That's with 2 mods whereas before you got 25% to each with 1. So in no way can a single mod get you what it did prior range wise. Additionally limiting that reduction in range bonus to 10% rather than 17.5% means giving up any of the tracking bonus. if you fit a T2 TC with a range script then you do get 15% optimal and 30% falloff... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Meyr SiN Corp Black Core Alliance 256	Posted - 2014.01.18 05:53:00 - [128] - Quote Why is it that you felt the need to do THESE changes NOW!(tm) instead of waiting for the Drone Mechanics Balance Pass(tm), which is most definitely NOT "Coming Soon!(tm). If it were, you wouldn't feel the need to propose these two specific changes as you have (See what I did there? Logic!). Yet again, there is no one with two brain cells that rub together arguing that drones don't need attention, and a LOT of it. Thus, the question - why these specific changes, right now, when there are so many others you could have made, with far less effort, that would actually help balance ALL drones, not simply nerf Fighters and Fighter Bombers (and before any of you start pointing out that this 'buffed' Light Drones, pull your heads out, and ask if you REALLY want to take me to task for what is now a whopping FOUR DPS TANK?). What you've done here, with your proposed changes, is offered all stick, with zero carrot, under questionable circumstances. You're offering, using your words, all 'downside', with the vague promise that you'll eventually get around to addressing the rest of the rather lengthy list of drone issues at some later point in time, unless it gets bumped by some other catastrophe. Thoughts, comments, anything?
Aineko Macx Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 283	Posted - 2014.01.18 07:02:00 - [129] - Quote Weaselior wrote: and supercarriers were deliberately designed around being able to be defanged (hence the limited FB capacity) so that's working as intended Yes, A supercarrier, not an arbitrarily sized fleet of them with constant and low effort.
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 22	Posted - 2014.01.18 14:11:00 - [130] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Quick announcement to start what will be a busy day. At the moment, all drones have the same shieldRechargeRate stat. All the way from Acolytes to Mantis'. This was not an intended pattern and since the balance effects of fighter bombers sporting battlecruiser level passive tanks (mainly resistance to smartbombs and non-coordinated bombs) are negative we're going ahead and giving each size of drone a different shield recharge time just as we do with ships. Like with ships, the larger drones get better hp/s but the difference will now be much smaller. Light and medium drones are getting buffed, heavies staying the same, sentries through to fighter bombers nerfed. This stat affects the time it takes the shields to regenerate passively from 0 to full. Lower is better. At the moment every drone has a recharge time of 250s, post patch it will be: Light - 125s Medium - 200s Heavy - 250s Sentry - 400s Fighter - 500s Fighter Bomber - 750s This change will be on SISI for your testing shortly. Goon story, bro.

Grarr Dexx Snuff Box 307	Posted - 2014.01.19 03:56:00 - [131] - Quote Xolve wrote: Could probably just delete fighters altogether at this point. Not like anyone would really notice anyway. Grarr Dexx wrote: lol pee el crying about fb nerfs We're collectively writing letters to Internal Affairs about it, so we can be just as mad as you were about that 'Kings of Lowsec' competition you lost. where's ur flag mate
Zz Lazer Astral Sanctuary - 4th Division 0	Posted - 2014.01.19 11:48:00 - [132] - Quote I am old and retired -> can you tell me why training has to take years to effectively play this game? I might be dead before I can fly a super. Looking at EveMon, training time is the most frustrating thing ever, period. Quote: Let us buy skill points - this drone rebalance is just not important to me at all.
Verity Sovereign Sovereign Fleet Tax Shelter 713	Posted - 2014.01.19 12:07:00 - [133] - Quote any plans on fixing amarr scout and heavy drones?
Optimo Sebiestor Intentionally Dense Easily Excited 222	Posted - 2014.01.19 12:59:00 - [134] - Quote Please make Sentries the same as Heavy drones.... 250s..
Meyr SiN Corp Black Core Alliance 274	Posted - 2014.01.20 14:22:00 - [135] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Quick announcement to start what will be a busy day. At the moment, all drones have the same shieldRechargeRate stat. All the way from Acolytes to Mantis'. This was not an intended pattern and since the balance effects of fighter bombers sporting battlecruiser level passive tanks (mainly resistance to smartbombs and non-coordinated bombs) are negative we're going ahead and giving each size of drone a different shield recharge time just as we do with ships. Like with ships, the larger drones get better hp/s but the difference will now be much smaller. Light and medium drones are getting buffed, heavies staying the same, sentries through to fighter bombers nerfed. This stat affects the time it takes the shields to regenerate passively from 0 to full. Lower is better. At the moment every drone has a recharge time of 250s, post patch it will be: Light - 125s Medium - 200s Heavy - 250s Sentry - 400s Fighter - 500s Fighter Bomber - 750s This change will be on SISI for your testing shortly. Current numbers using highest shield capacity examples (note that all other Fighters & Fighter-Bombers will have lower numbers): Dragonfly - 3000 / 250 = 12 DPS passive tank Mantis - 6000 / 250 = 24 DPS passive tank Proposed change will result in: Dragonfly - 3000 / 500 = 6 DPS passive tank Mantis - 6000 / 750 = 8 DPS passive tank Are Fighters and Fighter-Bombers truly so overpowered that you feel it necessary to cut their shield regen rates by 50% and 67%, respectively? Also, who the hell flies a BC relying upon a whopping TWENTY-FOUR DPS passive shield tank? (Your words, not mine, Fozzie). You WERE referring to a fitted-and-flown BC, weren't you? Otherwise, you're going to have to nerf things even further just to reach Drake level (5250 / 1400 = 3.75, or, about the same as your new, super beefy Hobgoblin. YARRR!!!). The REAL questions should be - "Should a Fighter have roughly the same tank as a well-fit frigate? Should a Fighter-Bomber have approximately the same tank as a decent cruiser?" Considering the costs and training time involved in acquiring the ability to properly utilize these drones, the questions and comparisons are sensible. As the only offensive capability fielded by ships costing in the billions, and as units that, themselves, cost what a nicely-fit cruiser does, having that level of passive defense is not inappropriate. Now, if you have further plans in the works to enhance the durability of these units, fine, be it through adjusted stats, an additional skill, or allowing them to benefit from existing skills, fine. Make this change at that time. Otherwise, you're just punishing the users of these drones (a) for no reason than that you can, or (b) because there are those who feel it's just too tough to de-fang Carriers and Supercarriers with, again, YOUR WORDS, "NON-COORDINATED BOMBS." I think we can all reasonably interpret that to mean shoddily-flown and poorly-coordinated and FC'd bombers. I leave it to you to determine which particular null-sec power block I'm inferring that you're sucking up to.
Eric Shang The Bastards The Bastards. 45	Posted - 2014.01.20 17:02:00 - [136] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Just put of curiosity, what are your thoughts on increasing heavy drone optimal range to allow them to engage before 2 Km making them useful beyond point blank range? There's a lot more work we want to do to heavy drones, it's likely that both optimal and MWD speed will be high on the list of stats to look at when we do that pass. Please make light drones mwd faster then 7km. Its for those pesky interceptors with links running. Cant shoot them and drones don't work.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2127	Posted - 2014.01.20 17:19:00 - [137] - Quote Eric Shang wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Just put of curiosity, what are your thoughts on increasing heavy drone optimal range to allow them to engage before 2 Km making them useful beyond point blank range? There's a lot more work we want to do to heavy drones, it's likely that both optimal and MWD speed will be high on the list of stats to look at when we do that pass. Please make light drones mwd faster then 7km. Its for those pesky interceptors with links running. Cant shoot them and drones don't work. Algos and warrior II will do that, if you still need more ther is drone navigation computers and rigs to further increase there speed. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Estella Osoka Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis 275	Posted - 2014.01.20 20:30:00 - [138] - Quote Anyone know what the max shield each drone has? and what are their resists?
Meyr SiN Corp Black Core Alliance 275	Posted - 2014.01.21 13:12:00 - [139] - Quote You can 'Show Info' in the market tab, and get those answers for yourself.
IIshira School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 624	Posted - 2014.01.22 08:04:00 - [140] - Quote Optimo Sebiestor wrote: Please make Sentries the same as Heavy drones.... 250s.. CCP must really hate sentry drones. They're getting a tracking nerf, a range nerf AND a shield nerf??? Come on what's next they run out of ammo after a minute so you have to scoop and redeploy do they can "reload"?

Phoenix Jones Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 401	Posted - 2014.01.22 14:18:00 - [141] - Quote IIshira wrote: Optimo Sebiestor wrote: Please make Sentries the same as Heavy drones.... 250s.. CCP must really hate sentry drones. They're getting a tracking nerf, a range nerf AND a shield nerf??? Come on what's next they run out of ammo after a minute so you have to scoop and redeploy do they can "reload"? They just turned sentry drones into a specific weapon system. It does not use ammo, but its now effected as every other gun is in the game, by added modules, overheating, etc. Now they have to figure out how to overheat drones. Stabbers are totally broken http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2068	Posted - 2014.01.22 14:30:00 - [142] - Quote IIshira wrote: Optimo Sebiestor wrote: Please make Sentries the same as Heavy drones.... 250s.. CCP must really hate sentry drones. They're getting a tracking nerf, a range nerf AND a shield nerf??? Come on what's next they run out of ammo after a minute so you have to scoop and redeploy do they can "reload"? Look at the author of this disaster, then look at his past history of game mechanics he has wrecked. This obliteration of sentries is right in line with everything else he has done. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Icarus Able Revenant Tactical 328	Posted - 2014.01.22 14:54:00 - [143] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: IIshira wrote: Optimo Sebiestor wrote: Please make Sentries the same as Heavy drones.... 250s.. CCP must really hate sentry drones. They're getting a tracking nerf, a range nerf AND a shield nerf??? Come on what's next they run out of ammo after a minute so you have to scoop and redeploy do they can "reload"? Look at the author of this disaster, then look at his past history of game mechanics he has wrecked. This obliteration of sentries is right in line with everything else he has done. Sentry drones are overpowered as ****. The tracking of medium guns with the damage of large guns all that can be put onto some cruiser hulls. Your tears are hilarious. What game mechanics has he "wrecked"? So far it seems hes hit things with the nerfbat that needed to be nerfed.
Notorious Fellon Republic University Minmatar Republic 128	Posted - 2014.01.22 21:16:00 - [144] - Quote The secretly planned buffs to fighters must be HUGE to make up for this change on top of their existing crap stats. I look forward to seeing it.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1161	Posted - 2014.01.23 09:08:00 - [145] - Quote Notorious Fellon wrote: The secretly planned buffs to fighters must be HUGE to make up for this change on top of their existing crap stats. I look forward to seeing it. They will fire rainbows. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 1161	Posted - 2014.01.23 09:10:00 - [146] - Quote Icarus Able wrote: Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: IIshira wrote: Optimo Sebiestor wrote: Please make Sentries the same as Heavy drones.... 250s.. CCP must really hate sentry drones. They're getting a tracking nerf, a range nerf AND a shield nerf??? Come on what's next they run out of ammo after a minute so you have to scoop and redeploy do they can "reload"? Look at the author of this disaster, then look at his past history of game mechanics he has wrecked. This obliteration of sentries is right in line with everything else he has done. Sentry drones are overpowered as ****. The tracking of medium guns with the damage of large guns all that can be put onto some cruiser hulls. Your tears are hilarious. What game mechanics has he "wrecked"? So far it seems hes hit things with the nerfbat that needed to be nerfed. That is a complete exageration. They track way worse than medium guns (unless you are thinking medium arties) . A cuiser orbiting close can avoid 100% of the damage ( I know.. i do it all the time) They track as SHORT RANGE LARGE GUNS, but with long ranges... still high, but not as some people state. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Hasikan Miallok Republic University Minmatar Republic 219	Posted - 2014.01.28 04:33:00 - [147] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Notorious Fellon wrote: The secretly planned buffs to fighters must be HUGE to make up for this change on top of their existing crap stats. I look forward to seeing it. They will fire rainbows. ... and pink unicorns
Vincintius Agrippa F L O O D 29	Posted - 2014.01.29 18:02:00 - [148] - Quote WarFireV wrote: Fighter and Fighter Bombers don't really need anymore nerfing. I hear tell that fighters and bombers cant hit anything smaller than a BC or BS. Why? I was under the impression that they were frig and dessie sized drones respectively. And that because of that theyd have frig and dessie sigs for their guns. It seems pretty stupid that they cant hit cruisers and ****.
Vincintius Agrippa F L O O D 29	Posted - 2014.01.29 18:29:00 - [149] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Quick announcement to start what will be a busy day. At the moment, all drones have the same shieldRechargeRate stat. All the way from Acolytes to Mantis'. This was not an intended pattern and since the balance effects of fighter bombers sporting battlecruiser level passive tanks (mainly resistance to smartbombs and non-coordinated bombs) are negative we're going ahead and giving each size of drone a different shield recharge time just as we do with ships. Like with ships, the larger drones get better hp/s but the difference will now be much smaller. Light and medium drones are getting buffed, heavies staying the same, sentries through to fighter bombers nerfed. This stat affects the time it takes the shields to regenerate passively from 0 to full. Lower is better. At the moment every drone has a recharge time of 250s, post patch it will be: Light - 125s Medium - 200s Heavy - 250s Sentry - 400s Fighter - 500s Fighter Bomber - 750s This change will be on SISI for your testing shortly. Only an unskilled drone user would keep his drones out after their shields were depleted. In the case of light and medium drones I would simply return them to drone bay and redeploy :) Why are sentries being nerfed? They are stationary and have to be used at range. Honestly it seems as though you people are not "balancing", but instead are destroying anything that becomes popular and making everything other alternative to it better. Only to repeat this process again and again.................. Your not going to have an even split of 25% of eve players between the four factions. Some ships look better, some weapons look better.......... Its all about personal taste. P.s Multiple 500 man Nullsec domi/sentry fleets make up 95+% of the domi/sentry kills on killboards.
Hasikan Miallok Republic University Minmatar Republic 237	Posted - 2014.01.30 00:12:00 - [150] - Quote Vincintius Agrippa wrote: [quote=CCP Fozzie] Why are sentries being nerfed? They are stationary and have to be used at range. Honestly it seems as though you people are not "balancing", but instead are destroying anything that becomes popular and making everything other alternative to it better. Only to repeat this process again and again.................. Your not going to have an even split of 25% of eve players between the four factions. Some ships look better, some weapons look better.......... Its all about personal taste. P.s Multiple 500 man Nullsec domi/sentry fleets make up 95+% of the domi/sentry kills on killboards. Actually what happens in games is if something is even a few percent better it will suddenly dominate and nothing else gets used. You can see this clearly in modules where a variant with a fraction more effect or 1 less CPU fitting requirement will be the only one in regular use and everything else gets reprocessed. Unfortunately that popularity often then gets interpreted as "way overpowered" and is followed by a significant nerf. There is however another issue what i like to call the "evil santa" syndrome. CCP can tend to get over excited about new stuff and often hand out new toys that actually are OP. Then next patch they behave like an evil santa coming back after Christmas and replacing all the great toys with broken ones. The problem with this is it can severely effect new players who have put most of their SP into a particular doctrine sometimes setting them back enough to consider quitting.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: 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.