|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
0
   |
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
I have a concern related to cataclysmic variable system, particularly the highest classes.
By adding a debuff to remote cap transfers any logi from a carrier would require triage. This negates all potential dps from the carrier. You would therefore need a larger group of players than is currently needed to run any given site in C5-6 space as capitals are a vital part in making those sites interesting (ie capital escalations). Large groups will no doubt have the numbers needed to work around this, but I fear that medium sized groups could find this game-breaking. |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Teoshen wrote:As the CEO of a small corp, I have very mixed feelings about these changes.
Some of the changes I see don't look to me to be content friendly. Rolling WHs will be more risky, require more people, and take more time than it currently does, and none of that is good in my opinion.
Sadly, eve is largely a numbers game. Most fleets of 5 are met with at least double that when a fight is actually found. I like WHs because they are an environment where a small corp like mine can be somewhat relevant and effective with the right choices and tactics. Numbers still win, but we at least we don't have to worry about the kind of fleet escalations that are often found in low/null.
Taking away our ability to be effective content creators for our members (and those we engage, btw) is a death sentence for both sides. Not every corp wants to be hundreds or thousands of people. I accept this limits our options as size is the main barrier to entry in Null sec. Please don't make that barrier also apply to WH space.
We are in agreement, my interpretation is also that smaller groups will suffer a lot more from this. |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 08:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
To expand on my original train of though, I do not understand why you feels that cataclysmic variables need this nerf when your numbers for this kind of space are negative. Admittedly not as much as for black holes, but still negative. To me, this means that cataclysmic variables are in need of some kind of buff to make the space more desirable. I don't have any game-fixing ideas when it comes to buffs, but I do have a suggested tweak to maybe address your issues with capital logistics in cataclysmic variables whitout making a logi chain in these systems impossible.
If the current bonuses to remote energy, shield and armour were to exclude capital modules the carrier fleets you want to address would be nerfed, without touching the smaller sizes (i.e cruiser logi and Dominix/Armageddon chains)
Alternatively, make the bonuses mentioned scale to 50% in C6, not 100%. Fleets would still be viable, but not to the supposedly overpowered level.
My main concern is that medium- to small-sized groups will be severely hurt, if not completely crippled, by your suggested changes since PvE will not be doable for some ppl in C5-6. When more logistic cruisers are needed in place of battleships, dps is lowered significantly without gaining a bonus in the new system, thus making the sites impossible to complete by current fleet sizes. |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 12:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, thanks for the feedback so far. Keep it coming.
After chatting with some players as well as discussion with the CSM we're going to expand the Red Giant bomb bonus to increase the effectiveness of Void and Lockbreaker bombs as well.
To clarify, it is intentional that the HP of bombs aren't increased in Red Giants. This means that the bonus allows you to get the same effect with fewer people in bombers, but doesn't allow imbalanced superwaves of bombs.
So what about the cataclysmic variables? When can we expect an answer on that subject? |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 06:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Adarnof wrote:Rroff wrote: As much as I hate to suggest it, it would make more sense to make it a penalty to energy rr range in CVs than amount (given cv generally has a boost to remote assistance amount), bringing tactics back into play to break the energy spider. We've been discussing this as well. Allows smart FCs to strategically bump carriers out of cap range while not eliminating the mechanism entirely.
I like this idea a lot more. The fleets are still viable and smaller groups are not hurt, but the fleets will have a new weakness a smart and prepared enemy can take advantage of. |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.08.09 19:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Don't want to be the nagging one, but here I go.
When can we expect some feedback regarding cataclysmic variables? |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zara Arran wrote:Laura Agathon wrote:Gotta say, I'm a bit disappointed there has not been a dev reply in nigh on a week. I rather have devs developing and improving the game than responding to forums. I am rather content with the increase in dev appearances on the WH subforum lately. Don't get me wrong, getting updates and responses from CCP devs would be nice, but think we have to understand it's not their primary job.
While I agree that it's best that they develop, simply posting a "we're working on this" doesn't take much time. |
|
|
| |
|