Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
245
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 21:15:00 -
[61] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Irya Boone wrote:can you tell me if you plan to remove gallente from the game or what ?
after nerfing the incursus, after nerfing the dominix , now this ? why don't you just remove gallente ships from the game ?
lol
Heh yea. Apparently this person was not around when Hybrids in general sucked and Gallente ships were so much slower than they are now. |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Brothers of Tangra
369
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:can you tell me if you plan to remove gallente from the game or what ?
after nerfing the incursus, after nerfing the dominix , now this ? why don't you just remove gallente ships from the game ?
LOL.
Apparently the the Dominix and Incursus and all other Gallente ships are under performing, and soon the Celestis will as well. TIL. |
aetherguy881
Malformed Entity C.L.O.N.E.
27
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 22:37:00 -
[63] - Quote
ECM needs fixed before any other ewar is changed. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
343
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:05:00 -
[64] - Quote
2013 Buff Damps Buff Drone Use Nerf HMLs
Despite players saying each of these was a stupid idea
2014 Nerf Drone Use Nerf Damps Buff HMLs?
I think ECM should also be made to jam drone bandwidth only. I jam your bandwidth, and you lose control of drones, but can still do other stuff. You must reconnect to drones before using them again.
ECM taking people completely out of a fight from 80+K Away is pretty lame mechanics. I love my Falcon, but seriously the only reason I fly it is because it is such a tear harvester. |
Abyss Azizora
Vasta Enterprises
77
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 00:31:00 -
[65] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote: and upon activation of ECM mods, the ship should self destruct.
I could live with that change. |
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
73
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 04:29:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. In Rubicon 1.3 we are making a few small tweaks to Damps and the Celestis cruiser, to lay the groundwork for another damp change that we have planned for a later patch.
Damps are a very powerful EWar that have the ability to create some interesting tactical situations and we feel we are getting very close to hitting the mark with their balance, but they are a little more effective at extreme ranges than we think is appropriate.
In 1.3 we'll be reducing the base optimal range of all damps by 16.66% and reducing the damp range bonus on the Celestis to 7.5% per level.
The new optimal range values for dampeners will be: NameOld OptimalNew Optimal Remote Sensor Dampener I3000025000 Remote Sensor Dampener II3600030000 Low Frequency Sensor Suppressor I3450028750 Indirect Scanning Dampening Unit I3300027500 Kapteyn Sensor Array Inhibitor I3150026250 Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I3600030000 'Broker' Remote Sensor Dampener I3600030000 'Executive' Remote Sensor Dampener I3600030000 Shadow Serpentis Remote Sensor Dampener3600030000
Thanks and let us know what you think!
What I presume to be the "other change" would be changing the guaranteed chance of a Damp hitting the target ship regardless of its signal strength or racial type?
This is what is OP about damps: They always land.
As far as the change goes obviously the FUFleets composed of Celestis were OP. However, my Arazu could please be left alone? :)
The problem with nerfs of ECM in general, however is that they really hurt the smallest gangs the most. The blobs can compensate with moar blob. Nerfing small gangs nerfs new players.
|
Dark Rum
Shrubbery Acquisitions Blohm and Voss Shipyards Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 10:43:00 -
[67] - Quote
not a happy celesits pilot. in my little world, the celestis is certainly not a dominant force on a battlefield. the Celestis is most effective against Blackbirds > disrupting Logi > support vs one dangerous ship. on comms, enemy Celestis rarely get a mention. Blackbirds are mentioned often. at best a handful of Celestis in fleet can be an annoyance to enemy logi. 'oh no, they've got a few Celestis, let's take our 15+ Logi and run!!!!' <- this does not happen.
further changes? what does that mean? as previously mentioned, the Celestis is currently an under utilised EWAR system which may well see less use. what can you do about Blobs? they will just blob more? |
Blastcaps Madullier
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
112
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 12:51:00 -
[68] - Quote
as someone else noted else where, I hope your also going to be doing the same to jammers and blackbirds at the same time. TBT sensor damps are fine, worst case they force people in closer or make it take longer for people to lock things, unlike jams which prevent anyone from doing anything, also how about FINALY adding a damp range bonus to arazus and lach? atm they have effective bonus but no range bonus like the celestis does atm, which I belive is one reason people dont bother to fit damps to either of these. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 13:05:00 -
[69] - Quote
i think the falloff needs either more clarity exactly what does it mean for e-war mods? perhaps in the description tab so we all know.
and perhaps what it should mean is that for every % of falloff you lose effectiveness of said e-war. also made clear in description tab. 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. |
Powers Sa
968
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 14:54:00 -
[70] - Quote
Kat Ayclism wrote:GOOD. Nerf them even more. Swing wildly like you do when nerfing caps. cry about it lol |
|
Batelle
HOMELE55
1959
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
Yankunytjatjara wrote:Fozzie, why don't you perform an effectiveness balance pass dropping effectiveness from the mods and raising it on specialized ships to keep them equal.
In this way, ewar specialized ships have the same effect, but the mods on other ships would drop a bit in effectiveness. This would help the frig warfare quite a bit - basically a nerf to the damp condor and other similar monstrosities without affecting specialized damp ships.
Because that would take us full circle to the situation that caused the great script nerf in the first place. Damps being so powerful that everyone used them on everything. Then they got castrated by scripts. It was YEARS before the damp bonus on damp-bonused hulls was increased to compensate. Damps were literally **** for years. Gallente recons became primarily flown as shield tanks just because you had no need for damps. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Hope the new Ewar will affect drones and missiles... And as usual REVAMP ECM!!! :-) |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:02:00 -
[73] - Quote
I think in addition to adding equivilant sig distortion amps, they should do the following to fix each racial ewar class. ECM should get rid of racial jammers and add racial scripts that can be loaded. unscripted functions exactly in the same way multispec currently does.
Sensor damps would have AOE lock speed unscripted, and damp range scripted. This would open up some very interesting game mechanics for fleet warfare, as a say in FW an incoming fleet coming into a fleet with damps would be at a severe disadvantage if they didn't have damps of their own.
Tracking disruption is in a very nice place where it currently is, although I would like to see base unscripted changed to tracking speed, and a new script for disrupting missile flight paths; effect would be the missile arcing or looking in such a way that it would reduce its effective range before attempting to hit the ship.
And finally I have a very interesting proposition for target painters; split them over to caldari's second ewar bonus on t2 ewar boats, like the kitsune and falcon, and add a whole new type of ewar called Remote and Local Signature damping. Concord already has a module like this called an Active Stealth field that reduces the parent ship's sig radius; having this and a remote version would be a VERY interesting thing to add on minmatar ships; sort of the opposite of a target painter. It's more in line with matari lore, and would be more conducive to their tactics of speed tanking. Last note would be their t1 ewar boats; vigil and bellicose respectively, would swap over to having a web range bonus, to again aid in speed tanking and to be in line with the lore. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:18:00 -
[74] - Quote
web range on T1 ships would be too powerful for very little effort .. but it does make sense for caldari too have TP's as a secondary e-war .. just not sure anyone would use it though.... a sig reducing e-war would be intriguing.. 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. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
247
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:26:00 -
[75] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:2013 Buff Damps Buff Drone Use Nerf HMLs
Despite players saying each of these was a stupid idea
2014 Nerf Drone Use Nerf Damps Buff HMLs?
I think ECM should also be made to jam drone bandwidth only. I jam your bandwidth, and you lose control of drones, but can still do other stuff. You must reconnect to drones before using them again.
ECM taking people completely out of a fight from 80+K Away is pretty lame mechanics. I love my Falcon, but seriously the only reason I fly it is because it is such a tear harvester. I think thats the point of these. The buffs last year gave them a little extra power, but CCP is realizing that EWAR from extreme ranges is the real problem. Not the tool itself as much. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:26:00 -
[76] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:web range on T1 ships would be too powerful for very little effort .. but it does make sense for caldari too have TP's as a secondary e-war .. just not sure anyone would use it though.... a sig reducing e-war would be intriguing..
Perhaps the t1 minmatar could get bonuses to remote sig damping? Local damping would be a higher-PG cost module that could help cruisers and BC's a little more. Remote sig damping would be able to assist tackle frigates and speed tankers on field a bit so they're harder to hit; it would be completely in line with minmatar lore for tech and combat tactics. |
Torijace
Aliastra Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:38:00 -
[77] - Quote
I haven't experienced much null fighting with damps so i can't comment on that part of the experience. Damps are counter-able at whatever range they damp. Bombers, cloaky warpins for fleet, assisted sentry fire, fof missiles, drones. However what I see that concerns me more growing trend of CCP stepping in to counter fleets that are effective instead of relying on opposition to counter it. This more trend more than anything else I think is what needs to be nerfed. |
Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
135
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:41:00 -
[78] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Kaerakh wrote:Nerfing an already under used ewar system makes me more likely to continue to under use an already under used system. Arguably one of the best EWar systems. Buggers up Logi more effectively and with more consistency than ECM. Actually has a real fleet comp based around it (**** You Fleet). Is an underused EWar system. Wat?
I've only ever seen it in used once in PVP. I've been around for a long time. I'd consider it under used. |
Catherine Laartii
State Protectorate Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:46:00 -
[79] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Kaerakh wrote:Nerfing an already under used ewar system makes me more likely to continue to under use an already under used system. Arguably one of the best EWar systems. Buggers up Logi more effectively and with more consistency than ECM. Actually has a real fleet comp based around it (**** You Fleet). Is an underused EWar system. Wat? I've only ever seen it in used once in PVP. I've been around for a long time. I'd consider it under used.
It's used EXTREMELY often in factional warfare with gal mil vs cal mil. it's an integral part of midsize to larger cruiser gangs. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2150
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 22:25:00 -
[80] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:KiithSoban wrote:*sigh* ok. Just buff the arazu's armor tank and give it a similar optimal bonus too plz a bit of cap regen would be better imao, or a reduction in damps consumption. they are cap hungry..... and while we are at it, please take a look at T2 remote damps, who will ever use them? i mean: Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor Imeta: 4 base scan res & range reduction: -15.3% optimal: 36 km fallof: 60 km cap consumption: 24 Energy cpu: 28 tf Remote Sensor Dampener IImeta: 5 base scan res & range reduction: -15.3% optimal: 36 km fallof: 60 km cap consumption: 36 Energycpu: 42 tfi'd say apply the proposed -16.66% on all of them but the T2, this way you create a real interest in T2 (or maybe reduce a tad the T2, but give him superior strenght than the meta 4 one)
Strengthening the dampening on RSDs is not a good idea due to the escalating returns you will see when they are used in multiples.
I'm all for T2 damps getting a longer range, however, than meta 4 ones. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=318489 - Proposal for a new type of tech 2 Destroyer If you want to mine in highsec, read www.minerbumping.com. |
|
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge
242
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 00:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
Taleden wrote:Batelle wrote:Taleden wrote:I know everybody likes to pretend that EVE has no PvE content whatsoever, but as long as you're looking at damping and ewar already, would it be so hard to make NPC ewar obey the same stacking penalties and effective ranges as player ewar? Missions against Serpentis, for example, are just a royal tedious pain because they can damp from 80km away, and it only takes 2 or 3 of them to cut your target range to 20km. And that doesn't even make those missions *hard* per se, it just makes them irritating, which has no gameplay value. Not really relevant in this thread, but yes, this. Please. But be careful what you ask for, if they look at npc ewar they will most certainly give them scramblers that actually scramble. Hopefully they'll also reduce webs to 60% strength, and add stacking penalties there too. You know, I wouldn't even mind too much if some (high-level) PvE content involved scramblers. That's a part of the game that people should have to deal with, so as long as they're added in a balanced way (i.e. still possible to survive and solo with proper tank, DPS, and anti-frigate tactics). One of the main reasons I'm arguing for NPC ewar to behave the same as PC ewar (range, stacking, etc) is because it's stupid and confusing (especially for new players) for the same basic game mechanics to work *completely differently* in a PvE vs PvP context. PvE could help players to learn how to deal with and counter various types of ewar, but right now it doesn't, only because the ewar they see in PvE is completely different from what they'll see in PvP.
Exactly, but I also want to be able to use ewar against NPCs. I want to perma-jam a gurista - purely for revenge, of course. I hope a balance pass of the entire ewar concept is coming soon, not SoonGäó. Meh. |
Phaade
The Lonetrek Militia Rapidus Incitus Pactum
148
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 00:53:00 -
[82] - Quote
So something that reduces lock range / speed needs a nerf, but something that doesn't allow you to lock AT ALL does not?
........what?!? |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Brothers of Tangra
373
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 07:14:00 -
[83] - Quote
Phaade wrote:So something that reduces lock range / speed needs a nerf, but something that doesn't allow you to lock AT ALL does not?
........what?!? Something that reduces your lock range so low that in many cases it is akin to not being able to lock at all and simultaneously reduces your locking speed to the point that if you do manage to meander in range you still take ages to lock, and manages to do this with 100% efficiency due to not relying on chance based mechanics and (previously) had longer range than ECM is getting nerfed over the chance based mechanics.
I'm not saying ECM is good where it is, and I'm not saying it shouldn't get changed, but I am saying that damps have potential to be far more consistent and effective game breakers than ECM right now. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10258
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 16:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
Phaade wrote:So something that reduces lock range / speed needs a nerf, but something that doesn't allow you to lock AT ALL does not?
........what?!?
guess which one of the two works 100% of the time Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 16:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Remote Sensor Dampener II 36000 30000 Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I 36000 30000
so why is the T2 range the same as the meta 4?? also unless you are changing it has the same effectiveness??? so whats the point of using the T2 version over the meta 4??? this is the same for many modules aswell any chance of changing them??
any thoughts on making modules role based instead of tiers??? 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. |
Azotox
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 18:09:00 -
[86] - Quote
It would be great if the T2 EWAR modules had at least 1 visible advantage over the meta 4. Either activation cost like the Sensor Booster II, or maybe different duration? Even less CPU usage would be something to consider. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 18:25:00 -
[87] - Quote
nvm 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. |
O2 jayjay
Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem.
9
|
Posted - 2014.03.01 00:27:00 -
[88] - Quote
I still dont see how damps are OP when you have an EWAR boat that completely keep a ship from locking for several sec/permanently. Are you going to nerf ECM? are you going to buff stacking penalties? Are going to nerf everything else? I cannot stand it when yall make changes. why not just leave it alone? what about smart bombs? going to nerf them? Geezz stop touching the game because your making one race better than the other.
-1 to your stupid nerf |
O2 jayjay
Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem.
9
|
Posted - 2014.03.01 00:29:00 -
[89] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Remote Sensor Dampener II 36000 30000 Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I 36000 30000
so why is the T2 range the same as the meta 4?? also unless you are changing it has the same effectiveness??? so whats the point of using the T2 version over the meta 4??? this is the same for many modules aswell any chance of changing them??
any thoughts on making modules role based instead of tiers???
they are too busy nerfing everything |
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
74
|
Posted - 2014.03.01 00:54:00 -
[90] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:I still dont see how damps are OP when you have an EWAR boat that completely keep a ship from locking for several sec/permanently. Are you going to nerf ECM? are you going to buff stacking penalties? Are going to nerf everything else? I cannot stand it when yall make changes. why not just leave it alone? what about smart bombs? going to nerf them? Geezz stop touching the game because your making one race better than the other.
-1 to your stupid nerf
As it ever occurred to you for a second how ECM actually works as compared to sensor dampening?
A sensor dampening module works identically on a Carrier as it does on a Frigate. And it doesn't matter what racial signal type the carrier has, it will land and reduce targeting range/targeting speed 100% of the time. It is a certainty it will work just like it does in EFT.
Given the signal strength of ECM if it is of the right racial type it will jam a Frig nearly always, a Cruiser about 50% of the time, a BC about 35% of the time, a BS about 25% of the time and a carrier about 15% of the time.
If it is of the wrong racial type then you can reduce all of those chances by 75%.
What this means is that if the Falcon pilot has bad luck or doesn't have the right racial ECM equipped then none of his jams land on *anything* regardless of skills or ship and a 10mill isk Cruiser sends his 200m Falcon a killmail.
If the opponent has bad luck then he thinks ECM is OP and he hates it without considering that someone just spent *months* training an additional skill to give his gang an edge. This is training the opponent refuses to do other than cry about it.
I am really sick and tired of butthurt people that had bad luck one day crying about how ECM is OP because they died to someone with more specialized SP in a more expensive ship.
"Crowd Control" is part of multiplayer video games. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |