EVE Search - Sticky:[Kronos] Deep Space Transport Rebalance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Kronos] Deep Space Transport Rebalance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Komi Toran Perkone Caldari State 11	Posted - 2014.05.21 03:52:00 - [331] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Despite this, I would very much like to see the mastodon and occater get their speed bonus replaced with agility, and the bustard and impel get missile bonuses with a slot or two swapped for two highs each, and given a total of 4 launchers with bonuses (5% firing rate for impel, 10% kin damage for bustard) to give them the option to fight back a little or be used in defensive exotic pvp situations. An unbonused drone bay on the occator for 20/40 bandwidth and space would be very nice. I don't understand this. Why do we want to give ships bonuses to things that they still wouldn't be good at? Bonuses should play to strengths. And what did the Impel or Bustard ever do to you to make you hate them so? At least with the Mastodon and Occater, they'd get a big boost to m3/hour. Meanwhile you give the Amarr and Gallente an aggression timer so they're stuck on the wrong side of a gate with hostiles running a compromised tank due to worthless highslots.
Sniper Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 120	Posted - 2014.05.21 03:58:00 - [332] - Quote All this talk of cargo inside ships inside ships just takes me a little ot.. We really need a true dedicated ship hauler.. I mean the contract wrap trick to get BS's inside a Freighter is meh.. Orca's can only carry a relatively small amount of ships.. Carriers are in Null.. It would be nice to see a T2 Freighter or Orca that was all, or mostly all Ship Hangar.. Personally I'd lean to T2 Orca, hold just a little larger than a single BS ( BS+Cruiser? BC+2x Cruiser?) and a small fleet hangar and cargo.. Anyway.. I agree on the point of shrinking the DST's to fit back in an Orca for now.. they can always be adjusted up in the future.. OR just let us store stuff in the holds with Cargo.. I never understood why not.. you can't access them in space, and if I can hold the whole SHIP, why can't I hold it's cargo ? If I want to put a hauler inside my Orca for hauling around extra ore, or something, so be it.. just makes for a better Killmail :)
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 10009	Posted - 2014.05.21 04:22:00 - [333] - 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
Odithia Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2014.05.21 06:07:00 - [334] - Quote I'm happy with those changes, I think it will turn the DST into viable hi-sec haulers, or mini freighters. Should be able to break 150k EHP and be sort of immune to bump with 55k m3 I believe we will see quite a lot of them around. They could be renamed something else than "Deep Space" though, this kinda refer to null, after all we already changed the Mothership name to Supercarrier so that wouldn't be a first.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5318	Posted - 2014.05.21 06:18:00 - [335] - Quote Odithia wrote: They could be renamed something else than "Deep Space" though, this kinda refer to null, after all we already changed the Mothership name to Supercarrier so that wouldn't be a first. Armoured Transports? Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Gregor Parud 514	Posted - 2014.05.21 07:03:00 - [336] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Odithia wrote: They could be renamed something else than "Deep Space" though, this kinda refer to null, after all we already changed the Mothership name to Supercarrier so that wouldn't be a first. Armoured Transports? The whole "deep space" thing is based on some romantic/mistaken idea from way back when, since then replaced with (jump)freighters. Armoured Transports as a name makes really good sense as that is what they are.
Dave Stark 5953	Posted - 2014.05.21 07:32:00 - [337] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: So Fozzie, can you please put the size back to the point where you can put a DST in the SMB of the Orca? last night when i was testing; you could still fit a DST in an orca. seems SISI isn't up to date with all of the changes.
Carniflex StarHunt Mordus Angels 210	Posted - 2014.05.21 07:39:00 - [338] - Quote Sniper Smith wrote: It would be nice to see a T2 Freighter or Orca that was all, or mostly all Ship Hangar.. Personally I'd lean to T2 Orca, hold just a little larger than a single BS ( BS+Cruiser? BC+2x Cruiser?) and a small fleet hangar and cargo.. I would put my bet on T2 Orca (if it ever is introduced) a WH oriented "mobile base" kind of thing. Perhaps a cov cloak and extra slot for probe launcher even ... who knows. I kinda doubt that they would go with the same route as JF (by adding jump drive to T2 variant) as it would be overshadowed by both JF and Roqual in most aspects leaving it a rather tiny niche to live in if done that way. Hauling a assembled battleship in a ship that is even less mobile than BS is also rather .. small niche .. to live in in my option. I can kinda understand the desire to move larger number of smaller ships as opposed doing individual trips with these but even that can already be accomplished by courier contracting and hauling with any of the ships capable of taking the assembled size of these. The reason why hi sec ships do not have ship maint bay which can carry combat ships is to avoid criminals ignoring the sec status by hauling their gank catalysts up into the target with Orca, warping to it, grabbing the catalyst and ganking away. Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Arronicus X-Prot Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 981	Posted - 2014.05.21 08:11:00 - [339] - Quote Neutral Jita Hauler wrote: If they didn't take the lazy route with a fleet hanger and instead created a non-restricted 'general goods bay', all of this would have been prevented. So much this. Losing the ability to pack ~3 hulks in my rorq with a bustard now to have a hauler with my hulks for mining convenience >.>

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 10357	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:09:00 - [340] - Quote So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


Dave Stark 5954	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:18:00 - [341] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity. a bustard is 290k. any reason why you're adding another ~100k to it, since you don't need to worry about balance issues? (did you accidentally hit 4 not 3?)
Gotze HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi 0	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:23:00 - [342] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity. So , are you gonna fix it so anything can be in fleet hangar ? Cool so we can have 2 DST inside a carrier.
Rabbit P Nuwa Foundation Fraternity. 10	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:27:00 - [343] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: So there had been a problem that had prevented use of the "ammo only" check for fleet hangars years ago, but it turns out one of our programmers fixed it in 2012 as part of another change and forgot to tell people. So although it's appropriate for the DSTs to be fairly large, we're bringing them back to the ~400k size since we don't need to worry about balance issues around carrier or rorqual cargo capacity. so the assembled volumes of the DSTs increased or not?
BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 785	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:33:00 - [344] - Quote So can you put stuff in them and then put them in a carrier SMA or ??? .
Kyt Thrace Lightspeed Enterprises Fidelas Constans 430	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:37:00 - [345] - Quote BadAssMcKill wrote: So can you put stuff in them and then put them in a carrier SMA or ??? only ammo R.I.P. Vile Rat

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 10357	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:46:00 - [346] - Quote Fleet hangars will follow the same rules as normal cargo when you attempt to place a ship inside of a Ship Maintenance Bay. And the numbers in the OP are currently correct. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Dave Stark 5954	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:47:00 - [347] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: And the numbers in the OP are currently correct. so why do DSTs now take up an extra 100k m3? actually, never mind, i just clocked it. looks at hoarder
Gotze HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi 0	Posted - 2014.05.21 11:49:00 - [348] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: G's Biatch wrote: 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 Can we fill the Fleet Hanger and place these ships in SMA's in cap ships, or will the Ammo only rule still apply? Thanks The ammo only rule does not apply to fleet hangars. So you are changing your mind ?
Lair Osen 93	Posted - 2014.05.21 12:16:00 - [349] - Quote Dammit Fozzie, that was going to be one of the most awesome features in Kronos :(
Anonymous Forumposter State War Academy Caldari State 34	Posted - 2014.05.21 12:23:00 - [350] - Quote Lair Osen wrote: Dammit Fozzie, that was going to be one of the most awesome features in Kronos :( I too was pretty excited about it, but I can understand why even beyond the need to re-code it you're going back to this. But *#@%$ FOZZIE! I wanted a DST can in my Orca

Talcuris Dragon Clan Nulli Secunda 12	Posted - 2014.05.21 12:44:00 - [351] - Quote Has anyone actually looked at the power grid requirements for the MMJD? The shield based transports are already in a pretty bad place power grid wise, a Bustard with 250 grid fitting a 165 pg jump drive leaves pretty much nothing for tank, especially if you want to put in an afterburner as well. MWD is so far out of range it's not even funny. Shield boost bonus is also pretty much a joke when the best you can do is a medium ancillary booster. That's what, a total boost of 2k shield when blowing all charges?
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 10018	Posted - 2014.05.21 12:56:00 - [352] - 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
Retar Aveymone BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 378	Posted - 2014.05.21 13:08:00 - [353] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: Gotze wrote: So you are changing your mind ? No he was just wrong about his own game. I forgive him though, it's an awful lot to keep track of. If I were in CCP and making posts I'd be meticulously fact-checking everything I said so much that I'd never be able to get any actual work done. no: he was correct, it is just now possible to change now because of underlying fixes made in 2012
Capqu Love Squad Pasta Syndicate 536	Posted - 2014.05.21 16:51:00 - [354] - Quote if you could also make it so you could toggle heat while cloaked (eg when gatecloaked) these changes would be a lot better since you can't reliably overheat & burn back to gates for example, as you have to activate the mwd immediately upon decloaking or risk sitting there if you know what i mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 10018	Posted - 2014.05.21 17:02:00 - [355] - 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
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 685	Posted - 2014.05.21 17:20:00 - [356] - Quote Kenneth Feld wrote: Is the MJD affected byt he +2 warp? Meaning, if someone scrams you, but you can warp away due to the point, will that still shut down the MJD because the ship overcomes the scram? Basically does the MJD benefit from the +2 Warp Core Strength or not. IMO it should as the same thing prevents warp, MWD and MJD. Where using a long point only disables the warp core, not the modules anyway? I have honestly never flown a DST so not sure if a scram shuts down the MWD either, but should the +2 warp core strength apply to it as well?? Scram = warp scrambler. It shuts off MWD and MJD. It has -2 warp core strength, or whatever that stat is. By itself, it will not stop a DST from warping. But it will shut off the other stuff. So scram a DST in a bubble, and it's pretty much screwed. A Sabre in nulsec should still be able to solo kill a DST, assuming it has enough ammo. With a flight time of 120 seconds and a reload time fo 60 seconds, by managing its bubbles it can reload before the third bubble probe expires. Only question is can it slow boat back to gate without MWD and possibly webbed before the dictor chews through its tank. This is perhaps a good reason to give DSTs bubble immunity. Or not. Depends on your viewpoint. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Tharin Malkyre Knights of the Ouroboros 29	Posted - 2014.05.21 17:23:00 - [357] - Quote Well, now that the whole 'DST shoebox' is out of the way, back to the overall changes: I like it, for the most part. Crash back to the gate ability, sturdy tanks, gtfo ability, strong warp core, large cargo capacity that can be shared with the fleet. I'm still a bit worried about the fitting abilities for a full tank and the new MMJD. Example: My Mastodon is getting gun turrets, but any 2 medium autocannons (since it's a medium hull) and the MMJD will overload the grid. And that's with no tank mods. Other than that, I'm looking forward to these changes. The velocity bonus per level is fine by me. Slow-boating to a gate or wormhole right now is painful.
Kirluin 31	Posted - 2014.05.21 17:34:00 - [358] - Quote meh. I'd rather see DSTs be immune (or less affected by) webs. The idea being that while cloaky transports get by on speed and stealth, DSTs are more like (American) football running backs: they are designed to take hits, they are not fast but they are hard to slow down, and its up to the attacker to bludgeon it with overwhelming force before it gets out of the bubble (or crashes the gate). no amount of overheated tank will even make a difference once you're webbed/neuted/scrammed etc.
Catherine Laartii State Protectorate Caldari State 186	Posted - 2014.05.21 18:39:00 - [359] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: Catherine Laartii wrote: Despite this, I would very much like to see the mastodon and occater get their speed bonus replaced with agility, and the bustard and impel get missile bonuses with a slot or two swapped for two highs each, and given a total of 4 launchers with bonuses (5% firing rate for impel, 10% kin damage for bustard) to give them the option to fight back a little or be used in defensive exotic pvp situations. An unbonused drone bay on the occator for 20/40 bandwidth and space would be very nice. I don't understand this. Why do we want to give ships bonuses to things that they still wouldn't be good at? Bonuses should play to strengths. And what did the Impel or Bustard ever do to you to make you hate them so? At least with the Mastodon and Occater, they'd get a big boost to m3/hour. Meanwhile you give the Amarr and Gallente an aggression timer so they're stuck on the wrong side of a gate with hostiles running a compromised tank due to worthless highslots. It was a suggestion I made that was relevant to the issue people keep raising about homogenization. Just because you HAVE the option to do something doesn't mean you'd NEED to use it; it simply expands the options they have available to them. If you'd like to JUST haul large amounts of things int the most expedient manner possible with my proposal, just fly the occator or mastodon. If you're in a fleet running supply and you'd like to help your buds out to be able to shoot at things with them, then you would have that option with the bustard and impel's missiles, or any other situation where you're expecting to get in a fight. Also, define "Secure Transport". DSTs are them, and giving them the ability to shoot back is not at all unreasonable.
Komi Toran Perkone Caldari State 11	Posted - 2014.05.21 18:53:00 - [360] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: It was a suggestion I made that was relevant to the issue people keep raising about homogenization. Just because you HAVE the option to do something doesn't mean you'd NEED to use it; it simply expands the options they have available to them. Except you don't have the option of changing useless highslots into useful lows/mids. That's simply not a game mechanic.



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

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.