| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
51
   |
Posted - 2014.08.01 14:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rab See wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Lin Fatale wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Personally I find it a bit of an anomaly that a cruiser can field 5x 25mb drones.
What I find even more of an anomaly is that ships like the Ishtar can field 375mb of drones in the bay. I also find it a bit of an anomaly that turret ships have ammunition in their cargo to reload or change dmg/range type. they should live with what they have in the guns when they undock I guess you'd be happy if my stabber can fit a full rack of 1400mm then also? And make sure that when they fit those 'pre ammo'd guns, that its everlasting ammo made from fairy dust. No reloads to boot.
might make lasers used a little more.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
54
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 01:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:That garde damage is maxxed out. I know for a fact that the numbers on hybrids are low, I have little experience with the others as I have only recently trained the other two turret systems.
It is my bad on the omni enhancers, I have not put a drone ship in space for nearly a year. That just leaves out implants and boosters, which are available to all other primary weapon systems.
care to post a pic proving the damage is low on the hybrids. As eft and game agree with the numbers posted above with a maxed skilled no implants on a 5% dmg/lv ship .
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
54
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:
gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.
Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH. So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH. Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier). You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them. I'm not against bonuses sentry have to PVE - every one have to make some isk, the more isk flows in , the more you can spend on ships. But in PVP sentry drones are just out of league now. What is worst, the more of them you have - this is more and more visible. yes, bonuses do indeed improve the stats of weapons.
It takes bonuses to make every other group of weapons useable. sentry drones are solid on there own then bonuses are applied |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
57
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 14:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Harvey James wrote:its been about a week since he posted here .. like whats going on man.. probably nothign .THey will not change anythign esle for hyperion. Now they have a hsort release cycle. Very little chance to implement player opinions on same scheduleed release. If anythign on the next mini release he might make a new thread with new things. Implementing feature in a different way will probably be really hard based on player opinion with a short release cycle but you can come back to it the next one or something close. Data base change affecting ship balance should not need major rework time and should not need a different cycle for each iteration of a proposal.
They will take a release cycle for each change so that it looks like more content in each release |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
58
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 20:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
unslaught wrote:i think removing the optimal range bonus for sentries will do the job very well, and maybe even lower base optimal for gardes and curators/bouncers, wardens are fine imo. lowering the ishtar speed is pretty silly tbh.
Also people seem to forget that sentries have 1 of the largest disadvantages ingame. they can't move!! throw some bombs or a sb bs in between and it's game over fast.
Just drop another set you know cause you carry more than one set. Now if you reduce it to be only able to carry a set and a half or something than it becomes a penalty |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
64
|
Posted - 2014.08.28 17:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Kyuuseishu wrote:So you finally found the one person out of god knows how many pages who agrees with your philosophy of the game, despite the miriad of players who have disagreed with your sentiment. So basically someone as narrow minded and ignorant as yourself.
Both PvE and PVP are susceptible to the same level of balance issues, but chances are they coincide. Make a ship too powerful in PVP, this affects the PVE balance, hence why the Ishtar was seen as the defacto ship for pirate sites. Sure the discussion isn't warranted in PVP oriented ships, but when a ship class is generally used in a PVE environment aswell as PVP, it needs to be ensured they are still useful in that respect. Since we are on the subject of HAC's, where the Ishtar and a few others are used in PVE, then it is an aspect which needs to be considered.
Also, as some others already reiterated, without the PVE element of this game, it would be an empty shell, a shadow of what could have been. two pages. No, PVE is not at the same acceptable level of balance. Go back to other rebalancing threads and see how many times people argued about PVE balance. The only exception to this is the marauder thread, but even then it had a much larger portion of PVP discussion on a ship that probably 90% of those people weren't going to use (not that that matters really). Regardless of how ships are balanced in a PVP aspect, someone will always find a way to either adapt it or move on to a different ship, considering there is no pure PVE ship, not even the marauder. PVE will survive and thrive regardless of ship changes, but the ships are all dependant on having purpose in combat or else we will never see them outside of a station. And no, eve would not be an empty shell. There would be a smaller community if it was gone, but never empty.
depending on how one defines PVE but it would be an empty shell as there would be no ships to pvp in (mining, ratting, missions, exploration are all PVE)
not saying that pve should be a major point in re-balancing just that the game revolves around some form of pve currently to supply pvp. |
| |
|