Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |

Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1769
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:37:00 -
[271] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I've tweaked the assembled volume up a bit further, so they are all above 500k and no more than one can be fit in the SMA of a carrier or rorqual. and now none of them fit in an orca.
Good. That would have been a free 50k m3 unscannable cargo bay to the orca. |

Dave Stark
5917
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:40:00 -
[272] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I've tweaked the assembled volume up a bit further, so they are all above 500k and no more than one can be fit in the SMA of a carrier or rorqual. and now none of them fit in an orca. Good. That would have been a free 50k m3 unscannable cargo bay to the orca.
but that's fine in other ships? the orca can already do the whole "unscannable cargo bay" thing anyway; you just use exploration frigates.
not to mention, one of the DST's few uses will be for mining as a way of not having to put your orca on grid while retaining the "mobile secure jetcan with tractor beams" thing. so it would be nice, that a ship used in a mining operation would fit in my industrial command ship. |

Tharin Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:43:00 -
[273] - Quote
As funny as it would be to walk heavy Dominixes into our next C1 POCO bash... are you nuts Fozzie? You're willing to change:
- The entire meta of C1 space
- The ability of Orca's to carry DST's at all
- The ability of any other SMA to carry multiple of the same
In order to give the DST a 50K m3 fleet bay. Why not give it a 10-25K m3 fleet bay, up the size of the general bay to something useful, and NOT do the above things? You're not going to end up with BS's in C1's, and all your other ships can still carry multiple DSTs if they have the need. |

Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:45:00 -
[274] - Quote
As long as they remain useless for nullsec gate travel, so you need that carrier to move them, why not give them jump capability instead? Now it's only role is to make all T1 industrials absolete. |

Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1770
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:47:00 -
[275] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I've tweaked the assembled volume up a bit further, so they are all above 500k and no more than one can be fit in the SMA of a carrier or rorqual. and now none of them fit in an orca. Good. That would have been a free 50k m3 unscannable cargo bay to the orca. but that's fine in other ships? the orca can already do the whole "unscannable cargo bay" thing anyway; you just use exploration frigates. not to mention, one of the DST's few uses will be for mining as a way of not having to put your orca on grid while retaining the "mobile secure jetcan with tractor beams" thing. so it would be nice, that a ship used in a mining operation would fit in my industrial command ship.
At least it wouldn't 50.000 m3. Regardless making them over 500.000 ensures you can't get more than 1 in a capital which is the keypoint. There are other ways to get hidden cargo, but that won't be fixed for ages to come. No reason to add more. |

Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:53:00 -
[276] - Quote
Tharin Malkyre wrote:As funny as it would be to walk heavy Dominixes into our next C1 POCO bash... are you nuts Fozzie? You're willing to change:
- The entire meta of C1 space
- The ability of Orca's to carry DST's at all
- The ability of any other SMA to carry multiple of the same
In order to give the DST a 50K m3 fleet bay. Why not give it a 10-25K m3 fleet bay, up the size of the general bay to something useful, and NOT do the above things? You're not going to end up with BS's in C1's, and all your other ships can still carry multiple DSTs if they have the need. +1
This would also not buff riskless freighter/hauler ganking even more as pointed out here. |

Dave Stark
5922
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 15:59:00 -
[277] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I've tweaked the assembled volume up a bit further, so they are all above 500k and no more than one can be fit in the SMA of a carrier or rorqual. and now none of them fit in an orca. Good. That would have been a free 50k m3 unscannable cargo bay to the orca. but that's fine in other ships? the orca can already do the whole "unscannable cargo bay" thing anyway; you just use exploration frigates. not to mention, one of the DST's few uses will be for mining as a way of not having to put your orca on grid while retaining the "mobile secure jetcan with tractor beams" thing. so it would be nice, that a ship used in a mining operation would fit in my industrial command ship. At least it wouldn't 50.000 m3. Regardless making them over 500.000 ensures you can't get more than 1 in a capital which is the keypoint. There are other ways to get hidden cargo, but that won't be fixed for ages to come. No reason to add more.
then reduce the capacity of capitals, rather than slapping orca pilots in the face.
one of the few worth while uses a DST will have, just took a hit to the viability when you can't use your orca to transport it to your next mining spot. |

Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
415
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:03:00 -
[278] - Quote
this is freaking hilarious, nerf force projection on JFs but then give DSTs the power to be snuggled into a ship maint bay of a carrier, a ship that has an 14.675LY jump radius, more than 3 lightyears further than a JF. |

Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1770
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:09:00 -
[279] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
then reduce the capacity of capitals, rather than slapping orca pilots in the face.
Fozzie is right here in this thread. Go ahead and argue for your case. Good luck, you'll need it. |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
700
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:26:00 -
[280] - Quote
does nerfing capitals even need to be argued? |
|

Sael Va'Tauri
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:31:00 -
[281] - Quote
For the fleet hanger allowing battleships into worm holes, why not just change the DST fleet hanger to 37,500 m3 base, and increase the cargo holds to ~6,000 base? The fleet hanger then tops out at almost 50,000 (46,875m3) at level 5 when actively equipped (not enough for the packaged BS), but when not active and stored in a carrier it doesn't store as much either. Additionally, it can be fit to haul similar or a little more than the current proposed changes if you ignore any tank. |

Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:41:00 -
[282] - Quote
Tharin Malkyre wrote:As funny as it would be to walk heavy Dominixes into our next C1 POCO bash... are you nuts Fozzie? You're willing to change:
- The entire meta of C1 space
- The ability of Orca's to carry DST's at all
- The ability of any other SMA to carry multiple of the same
In order to give the DST a 50K m3 fleet bay. Why not give it a 10-25K m3 fleet bay, up the size of the general bay to something useful, and NOT do the above things? You're not going to end up with BS's in C1's, and all your other ships can still carry multiple DSTs if they have the need.
Requoting because +1.
Also, I dislike the homogenization happening to DST's and BR's.
IMHO, I'ld request more community input on industrial ship rebalancing. It seems to me the strength of the dev's lies chiefly with pvp ships. |

Ron Mexxico
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:48:00 -
[283] - Quote
if i have a DST in my super SMA can i drag/drop mods from the DST fleet hangar to my super fleet hangar? |

Dave Stark
5927
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:48:00 -
[284] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
then reduce the capacity of capitals, rather than slapping orca pilots in the face.
Fozzie is right here in this thread. Go ahead and argue for your case. Good luck, you'll need it.
i honestly don't care one way or another what happens. having DSTs being useful for mining [which is a waste of time as it is] doesn't really matter much, although it was about the only use i could come up with for these ships since there ships superior to the DST in every way already available. |

Jaz Antollare
Deadly Loneliness
100
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:55:00 -
[285] - Quote
I dont really understand the purpose of the overheat effect bonus.... O_o"   |

Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1770
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 16:56:00 -
[286] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
then reduce the capacity of capitals, rather than slapping orca pilots in the face.
Fozzie is right here in this thread. Go ahead and argue for your case. Good luck, you'll need it. i honestly don't care one way or another what happens. having DSTs being useful for mining [which is a waste of time as it is] doesn't really matter much, although it was about the only use i could come up with for these ships since there ships superior to the DST in every way already available.
With the ability to put these in your carrier, DST will be the most used subcap hauler in the game. Period. Blockade runners, t1 haulers and similar will not have remotely close to the same amount of usage if Kronos goes live with the ability to put DSTs in your carrier SMA. It will literally be every 0.0 carrier pilot's must-have. So you don't have to wonder about their uses, it will be (ab)used. It's just a very bastarded way to use it, which is a shame.
But besides this, it will be a great substitution for rorquals and similar when putting up towers. You can carry fuel, stront, tower and some useful hangars all in one go. |

Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:03:00 -
[287] - Quote
Sael Va'Tauri wrote: Bustard: Replace 5% velocity w/ 5% cargo per level. Follows *continues?) the theme set by the Charon, where Caldari bring extra cargo. It won't be a huge bonus as the cargo bay is already small(ish), but that could be reinforced in base stats by increasing the base cargo bay.
Comedy 'replace velocity bonus with small missile launcher damage/rof bonus' option.
Or MMJD charge time bonus though really. |

Dave Stark
5929
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:09:00 -
[288] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
then reduce the capacity of capitals, rather than slapping orca pilots in the face.
Fozzie is right here in this thread. Go ahead and argue for your case. Good luck, you'll need it. i honestly don't care one way or another what happens. having DSTs being useful for mining [which is a waste of time as it is] doesn't really matter much, although it was about the only use i could come up with for these ships since there ships superior to the DST in every way already available. With the ability to put these in your carrier, DST will be the most used subcap hauler in the game. Period. Blockade runners, t1 haulers and similar will not have remotely close to the same amount of usage if Kronos goes live with the ability to put DSTs in your carrier SMA. It will literally be every 0.0 carrier pilot's must-have. So you don't have to wonder about their uses, it will be (ab)used. It's just a very bastarded way to use it, which is a shame. But besides this, it will be a great substitution for rorquals and similar when putting up towers. You can carry fuel, stront, tower and some useful hangars all in one go.
so basically it's going to be a 140m container, rather than an actual ship. does the fact that it's near only use is a giant shoe box mean it's a successful rebalance? or an unsuccessful one? |

Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1771
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:18:00 -
[289] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:
so basically it's going to be a 140m container, rather than an actual ship. does the fact that it's near only use is a giant shoe box mean it's a successful rebalance? or an unsuccessful one?
Probably the latter, but shhh. No reason to ruin the fun. |

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5665
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:20:00 -
[290] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The DST will be more useful than a Miasmos for ore hauling since the Orca pilot can simply drag stuff from all three storage compartments into the DST's fleet hangar. The DST will also serve nicely to replace a Kryos for mineral hauling and Hoarder for ammo hauling because of the built in stab, and the ability to fit an MWD without requiring rigs. I'll focus on finding something to complain about tomorrow. Oh hang on, I found a gripe! They're rather homogenous. I'd prefer clear roles: the Mastodon for "absolutely, positively overnight!" with the Bustard for Ghostbusters style hauling, the Impel for Dirty Harry style armour tank baiting, and the Occator for a combination of capacity & agility. PS: a long time ago there was a courier company in Australia called "Comet". Their motto was " absolutely, positively overnight? Hello Comet!" (and being the '80s they had a cool jingle too). Folks in the USA will recognise the slogan from FedEx ads during the same period. Our advertising folks in the '80s thought they could pull the wool over our eyes and recycle US scripts. These days they just play the whole US ad, complete with corny accents and pronouncing "Z" as "zee". PPS: Ghostbusters: no job too big, no fee too big! Yes, how silly not to pronounce it "Zed", because we all know that Zebra is meant to be pronounced "Zedbra" and Zero is meant to be "Zedro".  To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|

PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
499
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:22:00 -
[291] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Allowing launching and scooping of structures from fleet hangars is something that needs more investigation, so we're increasing the standard cargo holds on all the DSTs so they can easily deploy and scoop structures.
We are also increasing the assembled volumes of the DSTs a bit, to keep the balance surrounding DSTs hauling cargo in ship maintenance bays.
We have discussed the questions surrounding hauling of battleships into C1 wormholes with the CSM and internally, and decided that we are ok with this function at this time. Using a DST to get a battleship into a C1 siege still requires the attackers to have their own starbase set up in the system for disassembly.
Fozzie, rather than opting for this convoluted and weird, unnecessary change to DSTs to give them a roll, why not do the logical, natural thing and simply give them bubble immunity? IT fits with their intended role of being nullsec transportation, and gives them something the Blockade runner can't do. It forces a trade between cloaking and bubble immunity in null.
Rather than trying to balance everything else around this rather stupid concept of adding fleet hangars to transport ships, and allowing Carriers to Xhibit style, have hanger arrays in their hangar arrays. It's an ugly change that lacks any and all finesse and understanding of what the larger meta is going to do with these ships.
Just as nerfing refine to stop railgun mining, this will have easily recognizable meta changes, that don't need to be balanced around.
Leave the ships as you've done, they are good changes, just get rid of the fleet hangar, and add bubble immunity, and they will be flown, an they will have great roles. |

Bronson Hughes
The KAOS Holdings Group
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:38:00 -
[292] - Quote
The fleet hangar is an interesting twist on these haulers. It lets them all have a somewhat large carrying capacity without having to worry as much about balancing low slots filled with cargo expanders. it also opens up some interesting possibilities for fleet ops, mining ops, etc. (Or even a mobile cyno/refueling station. )
The whole overheat/MMJD thing I just can't get behind. As others have said: change the velocity bonus to an agility bonus, and give them bubble immunity instead of the overheat/MMJD bonuses. That would make DSTs far more useful, and would also counterpoint the BRs nicely: one is the slow, tanky, bubble-proof hauler with a larger capacity while the other is the fast, paper-thin, cloaky hauler with a smaller capacity.
PS: Thanks for re-buffing the base cargo to continue allowing for structure anchoring. Please consider doing the same with bubble immunity. |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
448
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 17:59:00 -
[293] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Ammzi wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
then reduce the capacity of capitals, rather than slapping orca pilots in the face.
Fozzie is right here in this thread. Go ahead and argue for your case. Good luck, you'll need it. i honestly don't care one way or another what happens. having DSTs being useful for mining [which is a waste of time as it is] doesn't really matter much, although it was about the only use i could come up with for these ships since there ships superior to the DST in every way already available. With the ability to put these in your carrier, DST will be the most used subcap hauler in the game. Period. Blockade runners, t1 haulers and similar will not have remotely close to the same amount of usage if Kronos goes live with the ability to put DSTs in your carrier SMA. It will literally be every 0.0 carrier pilot's must-have. So you don't have to wonder about their uses, it will be (ab)used. It's just a very bastarded way to use it, which is a shame. But besides this, it will be a great substitution for rorquals and similar when putting up towers. You can carry fuel, stront, tower and some useful hangars all in one go. so basically it's going to be a 140m container, rather than an actual ship. does the fact that it's near only use is a giant shoe box mean it's a successful rebalance? or an unsuccessful one?
It is also going to be great hot drop bait and a very good highsec armored car hauler. I think it will also be handy for some 0.0 uses. I am certainly glad I have Transport Ships IV on several characters.
My next issue is figuring out which racial Industrial V I want as my standard across my accounts, since I currently have that split (e.g. One has Gallente Industrial V, another Caldari, another Minmatar, etc.). This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Lexmana
1065
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:01:00 -
[294] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:CynoNet Two wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Can we get some feedback on the bubble immunity thing for DSTs? Obviously it's a dumb idea for Blockade Runners, but replacing the DST warp core stability bonus with bubble immunity makes a lot of sense and isn't anywhere near as strong as it is on Interceptors / T3 cruisers. Was the idea considered? The idea was considered and rejected as it would make DSTs too difficult to catch in nullsec and (especially) wormhole space and wouldn't provide much interesting gameplay. It would be more interesting if hey had to choose between (onlined) cloak and bubble immunity. When caught in a bubble would you dare offline your cloak? Uncloaked prey is best prey... |

Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans
430
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:03:00 -
[295] - Quote
Ron Mexxico wrote:if i have a DST in my super SMA can i drag/drop mods from the DST fleet hangar to my super fleet hangar?
The abuser & killer of dogs does have a good question, can this be answered? R.I.P. Vile Rat |

Ammzi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1771
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:05:00 -
[296] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:
Leave the ships as you've done, they are good changes, just get rid of the fleet hangar, and add bubble immunity, and they will be flown, an they will have great roles.
Bubble immunity and warp core stabilization + warp core stabs is too powerful. You could mwd + cloak and warp away regardless of 2-3 ceptors pointing you. You'd need a hictor and lots of stuff to decloak it on an inbound gate to ever catch these. They can't be stopped by bubbles, so they are effectively nullified t3 mega haulers. They won't be deep space transporters, they will be blockade runners more efficient at outrunning blockades than the actual blockade runners which have to burn through bubbles and die painfully.
|

iskflakes
915
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:13:00 -
[297] - Quote
Ron Mexxico wrote:if i have a DST in my super SMA can i drag/drop mods from the DST fleet hangar to my super fleet hangar?
+1 I want to see an answer to this.
Also can the fleet hangar be accessed while the ship is unpiloted? So could I jettison a DST filled with fuel to fuel myself up, then scoop it again? - |

Ron Mexxico
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
75
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:13:00 -
[298] - Quote
Ron Mexxico wrote:if i have a DST in my super SMA can i drag/drop mods from the DST fleet hangar to my super fleet hangar? pls respond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7pAGeenufs |

Dave Stark
5936
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:30:00 -
[299] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:It is also going to be great hot drop bait and a very good highsec armored car hauler. I think it will also be handy for some 0.0 uses. I am certainly glad I have Transport Ships IV on several characters.
My next issue is figuring out which racial Industrial V I want as my standard across my accounts, since I currently have that split (e.g. One has Gallente Industrial V, another Caldari, another Minmatar, etc.).
the problem is there are better ships for both high sec armoured car hauling, and for going through hostile space. *shrug* |

Lair Osen
92
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 18:34:00 -
[300] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The ammo only rule does not apply to fleet hangars.
Sisi says otherwise?
Quote:You cannot store a ship that contains cargo other than charges inside a Ship Maintenance Bay.
Please remove cargo from the ship and try again. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |