Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
443
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:01:35 -
[331] - Quote
If you block T3Ds from small FW complexes AFs have a niche again (although a pretty small one). |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
272
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:03:16 -
[332] - Quote
Artificial restriction is artificial.
Cancer will spread to null, especially with the coming new Sov capture mechanics.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1053
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:06:35 -
[333] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:If you block T3Ds from small FW complexes AFs have a niche again (although a pretty small one).
it's better to actually fix the game than make special 'avoid broken counters' areas. that way we could actually see non-interceptor/kite frigates, non-T3/snipeycorm destroyers, non-T3/logistics cruisers, etc. in actual combat. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1267
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:11:17 -
[334] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:If you block T3Ds from small FW complexes AFs have a niche again (although a pretty small one). It's weird because there is a big blur with the interceptor and assault frigate.
I just think there is one too many.
Yaay!!!!
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
273
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:17:05 -
[335] - Quote
Before this is over, if the devs are serious about fixing broken concepts (oh Ishtar nm), I foresee the review of both the Defensive and Propulsion modes, and the percentage increase that they grant.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
61
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:22:59 -
[336] - Quote
I guess this is the place to ask why Svipul has 2x defensive bonuses (to armor and shield resists), and the confessor only has one (armor).
Give the confessor a shield bonus, maybe it can get some use as a mini-zealot, but with beams. Otherwise, no one is gonna fly it. 10mn AB mode was the only saving grace of the ship. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
274
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 14:31:01 -
[337] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:I guess this is the place to ask why Svipul has 2x defensive bonuses (to armor and shield resists), and the confessor only has one (armor).
That is a fairly valid question.
With both ships unfitted and in Defensive mode, Confessor has 4,976, and Svipul 5,658 EHP. Fitting a DC II gives Confessor 7,055 EHP, and 7,475 for the Svipul.
I think the answer may lie in the fact that Confessor's Signature reduction bonus is always being applied in Defensive mode, compared to MWD-use dependent second bonus on the Svipul.
CCP Fozzie?
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
prolix travail
Blue Mountain Trails
26
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:38:06 -
[338] - Quote
The new, new changes look interesting. Could you give us an idea of when they'll go live on the testserver? |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
285
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 15:44:54 -
[339] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:I guess this is the place to ask why Svipul has 2x defensive bonuses (to armor and shield resists), and the confessor only has one (armor).
Give the confessor a shield bonus, maybe it can get some use as a mini-zealot, but with beams. Otherwise, no one is gonna fly it. 10mn AB mode was the only saving grace of the ship.
I've never used 10mn on a confessor, but I will certainly say this ship makes for one hell of an anti-tackle sniper, if you fly it right and don't make mistakes (in approx. 300+ kills I've made 2 mistakes, hence two losses).
So yeah, I'll be flying it. And thanks Foz, looking forward to blapping fools at 100+km away now. I'll be able to do lots with that extra 20km engagement window. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12618
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:02:06 -
[340] - Quote
prolix travail wrote:The new, new changes look interesting. Could you give us an idea of when they'll go live on the testserver?
They'll be in the next SISI update, probably in the next day or so.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
Alexis Nightwish
148
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:15:41 -
[341] - Quote
Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them?
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12620
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 16:41:43 -
[342] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them?
The build cost changes in this pass are pretty significant, I don't think we'll be likely to go further all at once.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1267
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:25:32 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them? The build cost changes in this pass are pretty significant, I don't think we'll be likely to go further all at once.
Adjusting cost isn't the answer.
Frigates (specifically assault frigates, and oddly enough interceptors) need to be reviewed because there is a new Power-creep that happened with the T3 destroyers.
Cost won't balance it out, its more of a fundamental scale of gameplay.
Its pretty well known that Assault Frigates need a pass, but when you make that pass, don't ignore interceptors.
Yaay!!!!
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1053
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:44:15 -
[344] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them? The build cost changes in this pass are pretty significant, I don't think we'll be likely to go further all at once. Adjusting cost isn't the answer. Frigates (specifically assault frigates, and oddly enough interceptors) need to be reviewed because there is a new Power-creep that happened with the T3 destroyers. Cost won't balance it out, its more of a fundamental scale of gameplay. Its pretty well known that Assault Frigates need a pass, but when you make that pass, don't ignore interceptors.
I can't think of any ships that don't need a balance pass |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2741
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 17:56:45 -
[345] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them? The build cost changes in this pass are pretty significant, I don't think we'll be likely to go further all at once. Adjusting cost isn't the answer. Frigates (specifically assault frigates, and oddly enough interceptors) need to be reviewed because there is a new Power-creep that happened with the T3 destroyers. Cost won't balance it out, its more of a fundamental scale of gameplay. Its pretty well known that Assault Frigates need a pass, but when you make that pass, don't ignore interceptors. I can't think of any ships that don't need a balance pass
t1 cruisers
inties
recons
battleships
marauders
black ops
hacs
t1 destroyers
interdictors
heavy interdictors
command ships
You seemed to be stuck so i figured i'd help you with what ships are fine as they are.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
277
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:00:10 -
[346] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them? The build cost changes in this pass are pretty significant, I don't think we'll be likely to go further all at once. Adjusting cost isn't the answer. Frigates (specifically assault frigates, and oddly enough interceptors) need to be reviewed because there is a new Power-creep that happened with the T3 destroyers. Cost won't balance it out, its more of a fundamental scale of gameplay. Its pretty well known that Assault Frigates need a pass, but when you make that pass, don't ignore interceptors. I can't think of any ships that don't need a balance pass t1 cruisers inties recons battleships marauders black ops hacs t1 destroyers interdictors heavy interdictors command ships You seemed to be stuck so i figured i'd help you with what ships are fine as they are.
So pretty much what we started the game with + the first few expansions.
Delete all T3 and capitals - I want to play Eve: The Second Genesis again.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1053
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:25:11 -
[347] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: You seemed to be stuck so i figured i'd help you with what ships are fine as they are.
ok I've been baited.
cruisers are a mixed bag ranging from too good to too bad, please don't fix my vexor, please do fix my rupture combat inties are trash recons are all hitlers, how about more usable gang ewar ships, less anti-solo battleships are a mixed bag, lol tempest lol rokh marauders lol why do they exist, and why do asbs use 0 cap and not have a 1 per ship limit black ops eh idk, no complaints, but the bonuses are a bit funky for some people. hacs the infinite mwd cap thing is silly, and the kiting sig bonus is silly, why does my vagabond have a shield bonus and only 4 mids t1 destroyers lol try bringing one other than a cormorant or linked talwar to any kind of fight with ships other than frigs and cruisers in it interdictors are alright, they're like destroyers but with a load of concessions so they're not totally unusable in combat heavy interdictors, how about letting them receive reps so you don't need like 20 of them to tackle a super command ships, yeah, active tanking is exactly what you want on a fleet command ship. and what's up with the strange damage bonuses to make up for the obvious difference in power between different weapon systems? dual rate of fire bonuses? ok I didn't want to be able to overheat or have any volley damage anyway. |
Alexis Nightwish
149
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:44:41 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Fozzie, have you considered further increasing the build cost to help offset the disparity of power between T3Ds and AFs by increasing the disparity of price between them? The build cost changes in this pass are pretty significant, I don't think we'll be likely to go further all at once. Fair enough. I hope that once all the wrinkles are ironed out, T3Ds will be around 65-75m. Thanks for your responses Fozzie :)
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
63
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 18:53:13 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Confessor:
- New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
- Highslots: 6 (-1)
- Turrets: 4 (-2)
- Powergrid: 62 (-18)
- CPU: 180 (-10)
- Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
- Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
- Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
- Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
- Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)
Svipul:
- New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
- Highslots: 6 (-1)
- Turrets: 4 (-2)
- Powergrid: 59 (-19)
- CPU: 205 (-10)
- Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
- Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
- Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
- Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
- Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)
Material Requirements: +1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.
Ok. Good. Please, tell me, why i should fly wolf or jag instead of svip? Srsly. What is assaults do better then t3d? I forced to fly wolf becuase cost? Nope. 20kk different. Even 30 or 40 kk is nothing. People fly t3d (and certainly they fly svip) becuase of safe pvp. SAFE. Svip forgives many mistakes for nothing. "Oh god, he god me with web and scram. Well better to turn on my 10mn ab and get 1,5 km/s and fly away." 'Oh god, cruiser in range! Well i have 400 shield/s passive tank with 70m sign."
All stats better then any analogue in frig or destr size.
I want to remember CCP their picture: BALANCE
So, tell me witch destr or frig have more dps/tank and even speed then svip. If i thinks correct - assault ships is spec in damage deal. Sooooo....?
|
GROUND XERO
Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem.
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 19:32:41 -
[350] - Quote
Honestly ...once there comes a ship ...ppl are using to brawl... ppl are screaming about the power etc.... after that ppl are beginning to spread their tears.... and ccp is nerfing them to useless **** :-) ... while other mechanics like cloacky nullified even comes for free... all i can say is why don-¦t you give us system cloack or rabbit feets for extra fast running and hiding?
one simple change would balance them in my opinion make it unpossible to fit oversized prop mods and everything is fine.
Have fun cloacky rabbits :-)... and don-¦t forget to fit 4 stabbs!
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1121
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 19:42:23 -
[351] - Quote
perhaps reduce the 50% damage role bonus a little too say 25%? .. versatility over high power levels is meant to be the point afterall, along with resists to T1 default level. and a little less base speed is needed too balance them.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
GROUND XERO
Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem.
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 19:48:22 -
[352] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:perhaps reduce the 50% damage role bonus a little too say 25%? .. versatility over high power levels is meant to be the point afterall, along with resists to T1 default level. and a little less base speed is needed too balance them.
why not just cancel them cause your ideas are making them worse than trashers? ... and these are t3 ships so why tt1 resis???
:_)
|
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
63
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 19:57:36 -
[353] - Quote
GROUND XERO wrote:Harvey James wrote:perhaps reduce the 50% damage role bonus a little too say 25%? .. versatility over high power levels is meant to be the point afterall, along with resists to T1 default level. and a little less base speed is needed too balance them. why not just cancel them cause your ideas are making them worse than trashers? ... and these are t3 ships so why tt1 resis??? :_) Why not just delete assaults from game? We have t3d! Better in all ways! Its a balance! |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
176
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:06:09 -
[354] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: You seemed to be stuck so i figured i'd help you with what ships are fine as they are.
ok I've been baited. cruisers are a mixed bag ranging from too good to too bad, please don't fix my vexor, please do fix my rupture combat inties are trash recons are all hitlers, how about more usable gang ewar ships, less anti-solo battleships are a mixed bag, lol tempest lol rokh marauders lol why do they exist, and why do asbs use 0 cap and not have a 1 per ship limit black ops eh idk, no complaints, but the bonuses are a bit funky for some people. hacs the infinite mwd cap thing is silly, and the kiting sig bonus is silly, why does my vagabond have a shield bonus and only 4 mids t1 destroyers lol try bringing one other than a cormorant or linked talwar to any kind of fight with ships other than frigs and cruisers in it interdictors are alright, they're like destroyers but with a load of concessions so they're not totally unusable in combat heavy interdictors, how about letting them receive reps so you don't need like 20 of them to tackle a super command ships, yeah, active tanking is exactly what you want on a fleet command ship. and what's up with the strange damage bonuses to make up for the obvious difference in power between different weapon systems? dual rate of fire bonuses? ok I didn't want to be able to overheat or have any volley damage anyway.
Infinite mwd HAC cap? Dont think thats really a problem. 1 heavy neut fixes that real quick. Or a couple scram fit inties. The vaga has 4 mids cause it goes 2600ish m/s. If it had more mids it would have a 50k+ EHP tank while going 2600-2800m/s. Better question to ask, why hasnt the muninn been rebalanced.
|
Teh Tripple
Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem.
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:08:55 -
[355] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:Harvey James wrote:perhaps reduce the 50% damage role bonus a little too say 25%? .. versatility over high power levels is meant to be the point afterall, along with resists to T1 default level. and a little less base speed is needed too balance them. why not just cancel them cause your ideas are making them worse than trashers? ... and these are t3 ships so why tt1 resis??? :_) Why not just delete assaults from game? We have t3d! Better in all ways! Its a balance!
Destroyers can already kill AFs with ease so i dont see the issue |
Captain Semper
The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
63
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:13:06 -
[356] - Quote
Teh Tripple wrote:Captain Semper wrote:GROUND XERO wrote:Harvey James wrote:perhaps reduce the 50% damage role bonus a little too say 25%? .. versatility over high power levels is meant to be the point afterall, along with resists to T1 default level. and a little less base speed is needed too balance them. why not just cancel them cause your ideas are making them worse than trashers? ... and these are t3 ships so why tt1 resis??? :_) Why not just delete assaults from game? We have t3d! Better in all ways! Its a balance! Destroyers can already kill AFs with ease so i dont see the issue assaults vs destris. Assaults have much more resists and still high damage with good speed. BUT t3d have even much then assaults have in all ways and all of that at the same time.
I think so - t3d must have less stats in each tactical mode then assaults. If that defence mod - they ehp must be nearly or slitly less then assaults have. Speed? Same. Sharpshoot? Same. But even hull of t3d have much stats then assault. Thats all about. |
Teh Tripple
Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem.
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:26:18 -
[357] - Quote
you cant compare a frig to a destroyer t2 to t3 , honestly all they need to do is put a restriction on the hull so it cant fit 10mn because it makes the ship too unstable and may.... whatever. and maybe add more skill reqs to fly it like t3 cruisers. i don't see why they should be nerfd into the ground because people are crying over them. making poor arguments as to why they should be nerfd in the first place. they are easy to kill 2 med neuts or 2 webs to get dps down and its dead |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
277
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:38:47 -
[358] - Quote
Teh Tripple wrote:2 med neuts or 2 webs to get dps down and its dead
Cool story, only that it has been tried and proven mathematically impossible to do so. -»\_(pâä)_/-»
Even with these second pass changes, they obsolete all of the AFs as a class.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Teh Tripple
Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem.
0
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:42:22 -
[359] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Teh Tripple wrote:2 med neuts or 2 webs to get dps down and its dead Cool story, only that it has been tried and proven mathematically impossible to do so. -»\_(pâä)_/-» Even with these second pass changes, they obsolete all of the AFs as a class.
its a destroyer...... it kills frigs. its not that hard to figure out. and having flown them and killed quite a few of them i know how easy they are to kill. but trying to kill them with a frig is not that smart. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1389
|
Posted - 2015.04.14 20:45:57 -
[360] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:...recons are all hitlers, how about more usable gang ewar ships, less anti-solo... What combination of factors allows something to be effective against a gang of targets without completely negating a solo opponent? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |