Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. The Storm Collective
209
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 06:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
So ships have the ability to fit covops cloaks or otherwise reduce the cpu cost for cloaking devices but fitting an expanded probe launcher is hard (very hard) for many ships because?
How about a rig that let's us reduce the cpu cost of expanded launchers by say 30% and subject to stacking penalties. I still sacrifice a lot of cpu and a high slot on this - the idea is to allow more ships to solo hunt with probes than now without ramming t3 down everyones throats.
inb4 fly in a fleet with covops frigate. fly a t3. fit coprocessor. fit overclocker
all valid points but none that adequately address the issue. LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3224
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 06:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
I would point out that it's highly likely that an expanded probe launcher's high cpu cost is deliberately intended to be prohibitive. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. The Storm Collective
209
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 06:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
By design yes but I will counter that its so prohibitively high that the ships which can fit them and still fight ie t3 are at a huge advantage over other ships not forgetting specialist ships like covops frigates.
Show me one other vessel out there that can fit a probe launcher and still achieve at least 35k tank and 300 dps? LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. The Storm Collective
209
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 06:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
What I would like is a tool to make fitting probe launchers easier. This is not a nerf t3 thread this is a request for a rig that makes life more exciting such that slots are not burnt to fit a module of moderate usefulness LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Xearal
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
898
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Or you could use something like say.. a mobile depot to refit your ship while in space.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1891
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:So ships have the ability to fit covops cloaks or otherwise reduce the cpu cost for cloaking devices but fitting an expanded probe launcher is hard (very hard) for many ships because?
How about a rig that let's us reduce the cpu cost of expanded launchers by say 30% and subject to stacking penalties. I still sacrifice a lot of cpu and a high slot on this - the idea is to allow more ships to solo hunt with probes than now without ramming t3 down everyones throats.
inb4 fly in a fleet with covops frigate. fly a t3. fit coprocessor. fit overclocker
all valid points but none that adequately address the issue. Its because CCP likes to force you to use friends or alts in its "sandbox" game. There really is no reason for it tbh. I know I'd rather be probed down by one ship that could probe and fight me than one that could probe and somewhat fight and another that was set up to gank me but hey... whatever. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
373
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
On a related note, I wish there was a separate Probe and/or launcher type specifically for Wrecks. (to avoid it making players in low/null too vulnerable to tracking through finding the Wrecks they leave behind)
Would give a whole new meaning and depth to the Salvage profession. |
RomeStar
Empire Investments Logistics
406
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 14:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Give all ships built in probe launchers lets level the playing field. Signatured removed, CCP Phantom |
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Doom Generation THE H0NEYBADGER
326
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 15:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:By design yes but I will counter that its so prohibitively high that the ships which can fit them and still fight ie t3 are at a huge advantage over other ships not forgetting specialist ships like covops frigates.
Show me one other vessel out there that can fit a probe launcher and still achieve at least 35k tank and 300 dps?
Uh, considering 35kehp is typically higher than many dedicated combat fit cruisers can achieve, I don't know why you think there should be many options for a solo pwnmobile that also scans.
Also, you can online/offline mods to fit an expanded probe launcher on a ship that will still have respectable combat stats. I have two such cruisers fitted and the non kiting fit gets 29k EHP and 400+ DPS so it's certainly doable with a bit of work.
Edit: actually you should almost certainly be able to do 35k EHP and 300+ DPS with an expanded probe launcher on a vexor or a VNI |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2296
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 16:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:inb4 fly in a fleet with covops frigate. fly a t3. fit coprocessor. fit overclocker
But these options are already good.
I wouldn't mind a rig that reduced cpu cost of a probe launcher by 15/20%. "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. |
|
Serene Repose
Saanen Freight Service
1111
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 16:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
While you're at it, CCP. Take this mole off my arm and put it on my cheek! I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
Serene Repose
Saanen Freight Service
1111
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 16:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
All this 'cause you have a particular ship you want to cloak and the cap won't go stable. What ship is this? You want to specialize a ship specialized for something else... sort of a dual specialty thing...cute. CCP won't go for it....obviously. I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
490
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 17:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
Xearal wrote:Or you could use something like say.. a mobile depot to refit your ship while in space.
Logic and reason in general discussion? This is heresy I tell you. |
Victor Andall
Complexes and Abaddons
283
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 18:05:00 -
[14] - Quote
I fit a Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher on an Imicus using overclocking rigs. I don't understand the issue. I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?
Andall Combat Tournaments - on hiatus. Contact for more information. |
Remiel Pollard
Stirling Iron Society A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals
2707
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 18:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
FFS, this is NOT A SOLO GAME. When are people going to get this through their heads? Sure, solo is possible, and many people do it just fine without needing to probe at all, including myself, but it's going to be difficult to solo by its very nature.
Also, when I do need to probe, I don't even use an alt, I just use my main with a Helios dedicated to probing and reship when I find a target. Sometimes I miss it, sometimes I don't. I don't expect to catch everything and I don't whine if I miss anything. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
Marvin Narville
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
54
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 18:12:00 -
[16] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:So ships have the ability to fit covops cloaks or otherwise reduce the cpu cost for cloaking devices but fitting an expanded probe launcher is hard (very hard) for many ships because?
How about a rig that let's us reduce the cpu cost of expanded launchers by say 30% and subject to stacking penalties. I still sacrifice a lot of cpu and a high slot on this - the idea is to allow more ships to solo hunt with probes than now without ramming t3 down everyones throats.
inb4 fly in a fleet with covops frigate. fly a t3. fit coprocessor. fit overclocker
all valid points but none that adequately address the issue.
But...but then T3s could fit like....TWO expanded launchers :S Thats..TWICE THE OP :S |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
11047
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 19:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Eve is a game of Trade-offs. It is set up deliberately so that you cannot have a jack-of-all-trades ship. Sacrifices must be made, and you need to pick and choose wisely. This will not change. The T3s are the closest thing to Jack-of-all-trades ships you are going to find, and im sure they will soon taste the bitterness of Nerfbat.
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Marsan
Old Farts
214
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 19:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:By design yes but I will counter that its so prohibitively high that the ships which can fit them and still fight ie t3 are at a huge advantage over other ships not forgetting specialist ships like covops frigates.
Show me one other vessel out there that can fit a probe launcher and still achieve at least 35k tank and 300 dps?
Wait you expect a covops to fit the same tank and dps as a T3??? T3's are insanely expensive compared to covops frigate, and cruisers.
Or are you talking cruisers? Cruisers can't match T3 in DPS or tank any way. That said I can fit an expanded launcher on most battle cruisers, and battleships with only modest compromises. You just need to have the advanced weapon upgrade skill at 5 plus a couple of other skills to reduce cpu usage, use the right meta fitting, and maybe fit a coprocessor. Sure I can't fully match a T3 in tank/speed/dps, but it's a fraction the cost of a T3. Not to mention a BC can't ever match a T3 in DPS or tank if both are fit for the same purpose.
I think you are missing the fact that T3 are simply better at everything than any cruiser class ship. The only exceptions are T2 cruisers with regard to their specialized area. It's the way things should be a 1+ billion isk ship should be better than a 60 million isk ship. Which is not to say T3's win every fight, but all things being equal they should win a fight...
Former forum cheerleader CCP, now just a hopeful small portion of the community. |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. The Storm Collective
211
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 20:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Caviar Liberta wrote:Xearal wrote:Or you could use something like say.. a mobile depot to refit your ship while in space.
Logic and reason in general discussion? This is heresy I tell you.
That's still a disproportionately high amount of effort compared to other options. Not to mention that becoming a static entity especially with no cloak is par to suicide. I suppose I could just swap that out too.. were it not for the whole depots are scannable easily issue.. LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
11057
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 21:19:00 -
[20] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:.... high amount of effort ....
This confirms we are all posting in an ::effort:: thread.
Eve is not easy. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
|
Mnemosyne Gloob
Acerbus Vindictum Stealth Wear Inc.
185
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 21:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Show me one other vessel out there that can fit a probe launcher and still achieve at least 35k tank and 300 dps?
[Pilgrim, bla] 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Internal Force Field Array I Shadow Serpentis Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Shadow Serpentis Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Drone Damage Amplifier II
10MN Afterburner II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I, Tracking Speed Disruption Script Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I
Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Hammerhead II x5 Hobgoblin II x5 Warrior II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5
probably not what you wanted but it fulfills your criteria (dps is just a little bit short) |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
493
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 22:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:So ships have the ability to fit covops cloaks or otherwise reduce the cpu cost for cloaking devices but fitting an expanded probe launcher is hard (very hard) for many ships because?
How about a rig that let's us reduce the cpu cost of expanded launchers by say 30% and subject to stacking penalties. I still sacrifice a lot of cpu and a high slot on this - the idea is to allow more ships to solo hunt with probes than now without ramming t3 down everyones throats.
inb4 fly in a fleet with covops frigate. fly a t3. fit coprocessor. fit overclocker
all valid points but none that adequately address the issue. Its because CCP likes to force you to use friends or alts in its "sandbox" game.
This.
Of course the end result is generally more alts. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
4471
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 22:19:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:I would point out that it's highly likely that an expanded probe launcher's high cpu cost is deliberately intended to be prohibitive.
Pretty much that.
But I should point out that having been into exploration since before it got easy, the "high cost" of CPU for fitting an expanded probe launcher NEVER stopped me from equipping one.
Yes it's limiting, but what I found often is that the conditions whereby I'm fitting one is such that I'm not likely going into a combat role anyway.
So per the quote above, it's very likely that it was intended that the cost of fitting a module that lets you hunt other ships may gimp the ship itself and hence there's no "solo hunting pwnmobile" - you have to bring friends. Unfortunate yes for the hunter but that's the way it is.
Notably it's also possible to use cheaper tech 1 expanded launcher and combat probes to find ships in sites that could take better equipment to find as a means of indirectly finding those sites.
Bring back DEEEEP Space! |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1893
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:FFS, this is NOT A SOLO GAME. When are people going to get this through their heads?
Never because it is supposed to be a sandbox game, with both solo, small gang, medium gang, large gang and alliances.
Unless of course you disagree with the idea of EvE being sandbox.
I have up until recently played EvE purely as a solo game since 2003 and I have done extremely well.
I refer you to the text on the original EvE box which I purchased in 2003:
Quote:Join the Community
Lucrative alliances are a devil's bargain away. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and share the glory with no one.
Source
It certainly doesn't say "this is NOT A SOLO GAME." as you imply. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3265
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Oh my goodness, the text on the original sale box? Yep, that confirms it, that totally disproves the realities of the game as it exists today.
Or, could it possibly be that sandbox really means that while you can try whatever you want, you aren't guaranteed to succeed at whatever you try? Nah, can't be that, it's gotta be that every single tiny aspect must be accessible for teh soloh playerz. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Remiel Pollard
Stirling Iron Society A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals
2710
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 06:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:FFS, this is NOT A SOLO GAME. When are people going to get this through their heads?
Never because it is supposed to be a sandbox game, with both solo, small gang, medium gang, large gang and alliances. Unless of course you disagree with the idea of EvE being sandbox. I have up until recently played EvE purely as a solo game since 2003 and I have done extremely well. I refer you to the text on the original EvE box which I purchased in 2003: Quote:Join the Community
Lucrative alliances are a devil's bargain away. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and share the glory with no one.
SourceIt certainly doesn't say "this is NOT A SOLO GAME." as you imply.
Selective quoting might work in the head of the person who's prone to subjective validation, but you left out the part where I said quite a whole lot of other stuff as well, and never said anything about it not being a sandbox. But, the ignorant will do what the ignorant will do, and that is ignore.
I play solo a lot IZ. I never seem to come across the same problems you throw tantrums about on the forums. Funny that, a 2012 toon finding the game easier to handle than a 2003.... You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. The Storm Collective
212
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 07:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
The problem with solo is that they expect to be just as well off as many players. The most truthful statement on the matter I ever seen was inside a wormhole ceo guide stated simply as
players without enough numbers will default to doing the same activities over and over because they lack the powers or capacity to do anything more significant.
looking at this statement carefully we can agree that noone forged a null empire alone because one ship one player simply cannot do it.
in having said that rebalancing the game to allow solo players at least the broad option to fit specialist modules and not fly gimped shitfits afterward is a noble goal. Hence why I only proposed a rig that reduced cpu for one specific kind of module. The ship makes a sacrifice somewhere but a rig is a smaller price to pay over say a lowslot. Also not every vessel has the raw cpu on hand to benefit significantly from coprocessors or overclockers so a straight reduction on the scan launcher is more specific and beneficial LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1893
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:19:00 -
[28] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:The problem with solo is that they expect to be just as well off as many players. The most truthful statement on the matter I ever seen was inside a wormhole ceo guide stated simply as
players without enough numbers will default to doing the same activities over and over because they lack the powers or capacity to do anything more significant.
looking at this statement carefully we can agree that noone forged a null empire alone because one ship one player simply cannot do it.
in having said that rebalancing the game to allow solo players at least the broad option to fit specialist modules and not fly gimped shitfits afterward is a noble goal. Hence why I only proposed a rig that reduced cpu for one specific kind of module. The ship makes a sacrifice somewhere but a rig is a smaller price to pay over say a lowslot. Also not every vessel has the raw cpu on hand to benefit significantly from coprocessors or overclockers so a straight reduction on the scan launcher is more specific and beneficial No soloer I know expects to be just as well off as other players. I doubt you have a direct ESP link to every soloers brain to be able to say that.
As a soloer I expect that 1 vs many is a very difficult task as any reasonable person would. That is the natural order of things and fine by me.
Having said that, the issue which deserves contempt is CCPs push to buff the already naturally superior group so that they're not only 100% more effective x number of pilots but have the additional benefits of non natural bonuses.
Non natural bonuses take the form of magical boosts (soloer in command ship with links vs 2 equal ships is 50% less powerful but the 2 pilots can add links giving them an additional 30% while the soloer gets no boost), repair drones not able to target own ship, pre-nerf ships and modules that only function well in groups (such as the OPs complaint), overpowered cynos and the like).
IMO solo does not need to be artificially nerfed since it's naturally already difficult.
If you're in a gang and you're incapable of killing a soloer than you need to improve.
Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1893
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh my goodness, the text on the original sale box? Yep, that confirms it, that totally disproves the realities of the game as it exists today.
Or, could it possibly be that sandbox really means that while you can try whatever you want, you aren't guaranteed to succeed at whatever you try? Nah, can't be that, it's gotta be that every single tiny aspect must be accessible for teh soloh playerz. Proving the original design goal of the game was to provide both fleet and solo play. Afaik there has not been a statement since that box was released to say solo in EvE is no longer valid gameplay. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3270
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Oh my goodness, the text on the original sale box? Yep, that confirms it, that totally disproves the realities of the game as it exists today.
Or, could it possibly be that sandbox really means that while you can try whatever you want, you aren't guaranteed to succeed at whatever you try? Nah, can't be that, it's gotta be that every single tiny aspect must be accessible for teh soloh playerz. Proving the original design goal of the game was to provide both fleet and solo play. Afaik there has not been a statement since that box was released to say solo in EvE is no longer valid gameplay.
There is both fleet and solo play.
But there are some things that favor one over the other, and vice versa. That's fine. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |