|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9918
   |
Posted - 2014.05.18 09:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Cargo scan immunity should be moved to DSTs from BRs.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9939
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 11:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Cargo scan immunity should be moved to DSTs from BRs. I think you mean the other way around, but yes, that would make these ships perfect. But perhaps it would be too powerful.
No, I just worded it awkwardly.
It's not too powerful because it's a double-edged sword.
Actually I agree that bubble immunity would be a really cool idea on this ship. Slow align and no covops cloak are the two factors that prevent it from being too powerful.
I'd even argue that you could do the bubble immunity in place of the overheat bonus.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9953
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 19:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.
We're definitely going to deal with the issues surrounding deploying and scooping of structures, either by changing the way fleet hangars interact with structures in space or by increasing the cargo holds to 4k so that you can get above 8k with expanders. Once I do a bit more investigation into that first option we'll update you guys with the progress.
Any thoughts on bubble immunity? It would be a nice complement to BR's ability to warp cloaked. You could increase their mass to compensate.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9965
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 21:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far.
We're definitely going to deal with the issues surrounding deploying and scooping of structures, either by changing the way fleet hangars interact with structures in space or by increasing the cargo holds to 4k so that you can get above 8k with expanders. Once I do a bit more investigation into that first option we'll update you guys with the progress. Any thoughts on bubble immunity? It would be a nice complement to BR's ability to warp cloaked. You could increase their mass to compensate. Increasing mass screws over WH's. And bubble immunity is a terrible mechanic.
Increase its inertia modifier then.
And no it isn't if it's applied on a ship with weaknesses to balance it out. Interceptors have next to no tank. T3s lose the potential benefits of the other propulsion subsystems and they get one less low slot.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
9968
|
Posted - 2014.05.18 23:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:This shipclass makes it now possible to launder even battleship sized ships (50k packaged size) from ganked freighters without taking any risks (only the laundering alt in a shuttle goes suspect) and with a far lower investment than an Orca (40k fleet hangar).
Is this intended?
If there's no risk to the DST because of the shuttle alt then there's not really any risk to another freighter doing so.
Nobody's going to set up a counter-gank in the time you have your freighter looting the wreck.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
10007
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Good. That's the simple solution. I don't know why Fozzie is trying to go for the most convoluted thing possible.
Some problems seem to solve themselves.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
10007
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 20:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't even know why he thinks not having that restriction in place is a good idea.
It's like he actually wants people to be using DSTs to turn carriers into even better versions of poor man's JF than they already are. Would you even need the skill to fly the DST in order to use it in that manner?
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
10009
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 04:22:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'm all for a ship line with dedicated SMB but that's really for a separate thread to suggest. DST fit a role of their own and hijacking them to be ship haulers leaves that role unfilled.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 12:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
Gotze wrote:So you are changing your mind ?
No he was just wrong about his own game.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
10018
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 17:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
I can. I've done it many times. I've gotten to the point where I can reliably hit approach, toggle overheat on MWD, activate MWD, and cloak all within two server ticks (which is the same amount of time it takes to hit approach and activate MWD anyway).
But I agree, you should be able to toggle overheat while cloaked.
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|