| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
   |
Posted - 2006.10.27 12:08:00 -
[1]
Edited by: rgreat on 27/10/2006 12:19:32
After some testing on Sisi i finally can state some conclusions.
1. Passive tanking can give you ~32000hp of armor on Battleship with only 3x1600 plates.
More slots you have - more tank you get.
2. Active tanking is bad for your health. Cause:
a. Capacitor cant hold it long enough.
b. Hardeners have stacking penalty, plates - donĘt.
c. You can't tank high DPS.
d. You must waste extra slots for reppers.
Shield tanking is the same except you dont need shield booster at all.
3. Cruisers and even Battle Cruisers do not have chances to win against battleships.
Difference in hit points became too much of them.
4. Battles clearly became longer, so:
a. Capacitor die before battle ends.
b. Drones die before battle ends.
c. Active modules as EW (with ECM nerf), reps, boosters, e.t.c. became much less useful.
d. Nosses and Neutralisers will kill active tanks and laser/hybrid users.
e. Lasers will die out by themselfs.
As a result brute force setups with Missiles/Projectiles + passive shield (and sometimes armor) tank is much more useful strategy then all others we tried.
T2 Ships:
1. Hit points are near the same as their T1 counterpart and worse the fraction ships.
2. Can fit less rigs then T1 (if i got it right).
3. Have higher capacitor consumption due to usual optimisation for damage output.
So we can tell T2 ships got nerfed.
For example HAC cannot hope to kill a Battleship now, while cost alot more then it.
All in all in my opinion:
1. Battles become longer = plus.
2. Dreads will survive POS fire better.
3 Battles become much more predictable, as brute force approach will be preferred method of warfare = minus
4 Close combat will be the only way to kill a battleship, unless large LAG is present.
5. Battleships and capitals will dominate the war.
But all in all, in my opinion, EVE warfare became much less balanced.
Solutions?
While = +50% hit points bonus can be retained, i recommend to nerf armor plates, shield extenders and other passive tank upgrades.
Increase capacitor capacity by 50-200% and reduce recharge rate by same value (or we will have unbreakable tanks).
Further reduce cap buster charges volume.
Give hit points and shield recharge bonus to drones.
Give t2 ships same 50% HP bonus as got their T1 prototypes.
ThatĘs only my thoughts. Hope you find them interesting.
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 12:08:00 -
[2]
Edited by: rgreat on 27/10/2006 12:16:36
After some testing on Sisi i finally can state some conclusions.
1. Passive tanking can give you ~32000hp of armor on Battleship with only 3x1600 plates.
More slots you have - more tank you get.
2. Active tanking is bad for your health. Cause:
a. Capacitor cant hold it long enough.
b. Hardeners have stacking penalty, plates - donĘt.
c. You can't tank high DPS.
d. You must waste extra slots for reppers.
Shield tanking is the same except you dont need shield booster at all.
3. Cruisers and even Battle Cruisers do not have chances to win against battleships.
Difference in hit points became too much of them.
4. Battles clearly became longer, so:
a. Capacitor die before battle ends.
b. Drones die before battle ends.
c. Active modules as EW (with ECM nerf), reps, boosters, e.t.c. became much less useful.
As a result brute force setups with Missiles/Projectiles + passive shield (and sometimes armor) tank is much more useful strategy then all others we tried.
T2 Ships:
1. Hit points are near the same as their T1 counterpart and worse the fraction ships.
2. Can fit less rigs then T1 (if i got it right).
3. Have higher capacitor consumption due to usual optimisation for damage output.
So we can tell T2 ships got nerfed.
For example HAC cannot hope to kill a Battleship now, while cost alot more then it.
All in all in my opinion:
1. Battles become longer = plus.
2. Dreads will survive POS fire better.
3 Battles become much more predictable, as brute force approach will be preferred method of warfare = minus
4 Close combat will be the only way to kill a battleship, unless large LAG is present.
5. Battleships and capitals will dominate the war.
But all in all, in my opinion, EVE warfare became much less balanced.
Solutions?
While = +50% hit points bonus can be retained, i recommend to nerf armor plates, shield extenders and other passive tank upgrades.
Increase capacitor capacity by 50-200% and reduce recharge rate by same value (or we will have unbreakable tanks).
Further reduce cap buster charges volume.
Give hit points and shield recharge bonus to drones.
Give t2 ships same 50% HP bonus as got their T1 prototypes.
ThatĘs only my thoughts. Hope you find them interesting.
|
Ralus
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 13:18:00 -
[3]
Nice post, constructive and fair.
And I agree ship cap needs to be increased to cope with the increased battle duration, and I also have no problems about lowering the recharge rate so while a ship might have enough cap to hold an active tank for the duration of a battle it will take a long time to be ready to role again, we might start seeing cap transfer ships rolling around the battlefield which would be nice.
Some more points I would add:
1) There now more than anything needs to be some counters or ways to dampen the effects of nos, or all large battles are simply going to become a vamp fest.
2) Logistics and cap transfers are going to become more valuable, we need a way to lock a friendly in such a way that guns and drones won't attack him (simple option of right clike target portrate -> toggle friendly lock anyone? How simple can that be to make)
|
miss sixtty
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 13:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: miss sixtty on 27/10/2006 13:32:38
 Originally by: Ralus
N
1) There now more than anything needs to be some counters or ways to dampen the effects of nos, or all large battles are simply going to become a vamp fest.
2) Logistics and cap transfers are going to become more valuable, we need a way to lock a friendly in such a way that guns and drones won't attack him (simple option of right clike target portrate -> toggle friendly lock anyone? How simple can that be to make)
1. While i have nothing against special module what counter NOS, but i'm strongly against nerfing it. After all, if its such problem for you - use it youself. All races have pretty close abilities to use them.
2. Cap amount... I would increase capacitors on all ship by about 20%. Cap battery modules should be increased by about 35% to compensate they much higher fitting reqs compared to cap rechargers.
|
miss sixtty
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 13:32:00 -
[5]
Edited by: miss sixtty on 27/10/2006 13:32:19
g
|
infraX
Caldari
Corsets and Carebears
Whips and Chains
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 18:39:00 -
[6]
CCP are always talking about increasing combat duration but altering the capacitor on ships by either increasing their size or regen could lead to the situation CCP doesn't want to create; unbreakable 1v1 tanks where it's a stalemate. Increasing hp's and making plates more effective serves to increase the amount of firepower a ship can deal with while not increasing its tankability per se.
|
Razin
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:34:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Razin on 27/10/2006 19:42:02
Originally by: infraX
CCP are always talking about increasing combat duration but altering the capacitor on ships by either increasing their size or regen could lead to the situation CCP doesn't want to create; unbreakable 1v1 tanks where it's a stalemate. Increasing hp's and making plates more effective serves to increase the amount of firepower a ship can deal with while not increasing its tankability per se.
Very good point (however biased towards Minmatar and Caldari).
... |
Blind Man
Caldari
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:36:00 -
[8]
need the cap increase very badly :/
It's great flying Amarr, ain't it? |
DubanFP
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:37:00 -
[9]
yup that's reason number 3 why i think this whole HP boost thing is rediculous.
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:44:00 -
[10]
signed.
|
Nedia
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:48:00 -
[11]
OMG sky is falling!!!
There is an HP increase because there is an DPS increase. you should look the new rigs a bit
|
Cosmo Raata
Federation of Freedom Fighters
EVE Alliance9673
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:48:00 -
[12]
Originally by: rgreat
Edited by: rgreat on 27/10/2006 12:19:32
After some testing on Sisi i finally can state some conclusions.
1. Passive tanking can give you ~32000hp of armor on Battleship with only 3x1600 plates.
More slots you have - more tank you get.
2. Active tanking is bad for your health. Cause:
a. Capacitor cant hold it long enough.
b. Hardeners have stacking penalty, plates - donĘt.
c. You can't tank high DPS.
d. You must waste extra slots for reppers.
Shield tanking is the same except you dont need shield booster at all.
3. Cruisers and even Battle Cruisers do not have chances to win against battleships.
Difference in hit points became too much of them.
4. Battles clearly became longer, so:
a. Capacitor die before battle ends.
b. Drones die before battle ends.
c. Active modules as EW (with ECM nerf), reps, boosters, e.t.c. became much less useful.
d. Nosses and Neutralisers will kill active tanks and laser/hybrid users.
e. Lasers will die out by themselfs.
As a result brute force setups with Missiles/Projectiles + passive shield (and sometimes armor) tank is much more useful strategy then all others we tried.
T2 Ships:
1. Hit points are near the same as their T1 counterpart and worse the fraction ships.
2. Can fit less rigs then T1 (if i got it right).
3. Have higher capacitor consumption due to usual optimisation for damage output.
So we can tell T2 ships got nerfed.
For example HAC cannot hope to kill a Battleship now, while cost alot more then it.
All in all in my opinion:
1. Battles become longer = plus.
2. Dreads will survive POS fire better.
3 Battles become much more predictable, as brute force approach will be preferred method of warfare = minus
4 Close combat will be the only way to kill a battleship, unless large LAG is present.
5. Battleships and capitals will dominate the war.
But all in all, in my opinion, EVE warfare became much less balanced.
Solutions?
While = +50% hit points bonus can be retained, i recommend to nerf armor plates, shield extenders and other passive tank upgrades.
Increase capacitor capacity by 50-200% and reduce recharge rate by same value (or we will have unbreakable tanks).
Further reduce cap buster charges volume.
Give hit points and shield recharge bonus to drones.
Give t2 ships same 50% HP bonus as got their T1 prototypes.
ThatĘs only my thoughts. Hope you find them interesting.
I personally think all of this is good, not bad. Cap might need some tweaking, but not anywhere near 200%
|
Caedicus
Minmatar
Einherjar Rising
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:57:00 -
[13]
I agree with the nerfing of passive tanking. Active tanking should be more effective than passive tanking because you're using capacitor which takes away from other aspects like ECM and energy weps.
I think capictors themselves should not get boost, however. People SHOULD be running out of cap during PVP unless they want a weaker set up with less DPS/tankability. I think extending capictors might increase the possiblity of stalemates, which is something I sure don't want.
On a somewhat similar note. I think Battleships should only get a 25% HP boost if any. Cruisers and frigs were getting popped way to quickly, but BS's never had that problem. They have way too much tank, and thats why everyone wants one.
|
s1n1ster m1n1ster
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 19:58:00 -
[14]
Originally by: rgreat
Edited by: rgreat on 27/10/2006 12:19:32
So we can tell T2 ships got nerfed.
For example HAC cannot hope to kill a Battleship now, while cost alot more then it.
um.... good maybe hac's will actually cost what they are worth and the insurance payout will fall more in line..... one can only hope.
|
Rells
Caldari
Agony Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 20:32:00 -
[15]
Of course you forgot one critical point. Since gate and dock agression timers have not changed, you can count on a ship to be able to kill several lighter ship targets, deagress and jump away. Here is the scene, a BS is attacked by 5 cruisers on a gate, he kills 2, deagresses and then jumps away before the enemy can pierce his tank.
Second of all log out tactics are now king. Get locked by a fleet of smaller ships? Just log off.
|
Jacob Holland
Gallente
FIRMA
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 20:34:00 -
[16]
Originally by: rgreat
All in all in my opinion:
1. Battles become longer = plus.
2. Dreads will survive POS fire better.
3 Battles become much more predictable, as brute force approach will be preferred method of warfare = minus
4 Close combat will be the only way to kill a battleship, unless large LAG is present.
5. Battleships and capitals will dominate the war.
Battles lasting longer is a plus - but only as long as battle doesn't mean sitting dead in the water waiting for a Drake to come and finish you off 
Dreads don't need to survive POS fire better unless POS get better at shooting them, as it is a small tower with a lot of Stront is more useful than a large Deathstar. The Deathstar panics when it sees more than one target and as a result ends up using ammo to no real effect while the small is much quicker to boost up to fuelling levels when it comes out of reinforced.
Predictable isn't actually all bad, cookie cutter set-ups are boring but totally unpredictable combat is anethema to strategic and tactical thinking.
Close combat in this case is very likely to mean Nos. I foresee the price of Baalghorns going up 
I'm not sure about BS and capitals dominating the war (assuming that ATM they don't), yes it will be very difficult for frigate sized vessels to kill BS but with combat lasting longer and close range being preferred tackling becomes more important (if you can't kill a ship with a snipe fleet before it leaves then you need something to hold it in place.
Of course the HP boost may just mean that you see more ships per snipe fleet.
Originally by: cordy
Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 21:02:00 -
[17]
Edited by: rgreat on 27/10/2006 21:05:26
Originally by: Jacob Holland
Close combat in this case is very likely to mean Nos. I foresee the price of Baalghorns going up
I think its more like active tanking will die out and pilots will fit their battleships to fight without cap or with low cap requirements (e.g. only for guns).
Baalghorns... not sure... i see sad future for laser using ammar.
Baalghorns with projectiles maybe... :)
Quote:
I'm not sure about BS and capitals dominating the war (assuming that ATM they don't), yes it will be very difficult for frigate sized vessels to kill BS but with combat lasting longer and close range being preferred tackling becomes more important (if you can't kill a ship with a snipe fleet before it leaves then you need something to hold it in place.
Of course the HP boost may just mean that you see more ships per snipe fleet.
We will need to tackle with large and tanked ships (like Dominix).
Frigs and maybe even cruisers will not live long enough to tackle a battleship.
|
DaemonBarber
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 21:17:00 -
[18]
A 50% increase in cap size with a 50% increase in cap regen time (so the cap/s stays the same before and after the changes) sounds like a good solution. Add to that a 50% increase in the Cap gained from cap batteries and it seems like a good way to balance the HP change with the Cap concerns. Logically, you'd run out of cap at the same point in the fight as you would before the changes.
That's an idea I'd support...
|
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 22:41:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl on 27/10/2006 22:45:31
For ships that depend upon range rather than a tank, for instance the Eagle, more hp means that these ships need either:
(1) all ships to have a speed nerf so that they have time to kill a target (extremely unlikely); or
(2) gain additional dps ie additional turrets etc. (unlikely); or
(3) a dust sheet to cover them in the hangar (probable  )
Currently the balance is fine - the hp increase means that the sniper role is about to be nerf to hell and back. If this is the developers intentions then ships like the Eagle need to have their bonuses change so they can have another role.
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.27 23:52:00 -
[20]
To the OP: all excellent points. I've basically mentioned all of this in various threads, but it's great to see it all in one list.
Some possible solutions to the problems:
Cap: increase all capacitors by 50% reduce recharge time by 25%. Increase all cap batteries' amount by 100% (yes, double it). Would actually make the cap bat worth wasting a mid slot on.
Nosferatus and Neuts: with the above cap buff, IMO they'd be fine. Given the current drain amounts, the increased regen from the new cap stats would nerf Nosferatus a bit.
Passive tanking: it's just waaay too good, esp. w/ shields. increase the recharge time by 75% for all shields, that way when you add in 2/3/4 large extender IIs you don't get some ridiculous HP/sec regen, and without extenders at all, there will be no natural passive tank really.
Active tanking and specifically armor tanking: increase armor rep amounts by 25%. Make it quite a bit superior HP/sec and HP/cap wise when compared to shield tanking. Shield tanking has the great flexibility of being either active or passive with excellent results. It also doesn't reduce the agility/speed of your ship to use a passive tank. Larger ships (BS) can be passively armor tanked with less ill effect than smaller ships. Case and point: Myrmidon w/ 1600 tungsten plate: 170m/sec WITH a 10mn AB II.
Drones: drones just need their armor/shield HP tripled. Period. The lights will still get popped quick, the mediums will take a bit of effort, and popping heavies will be a problem, as it should be. Instead of what we have now where heavies vaporize in two seconds.
As far as HACs not being able to hang with battleships, to this I say: great. IMO larger ships need to be hard to take down by smaller ships. Sure, this may lead to more 'bigger is always better', but as it is now battleships are under constant threat of dying to a handfull of frigs with some EW. IMO HACs shouldn't be able to dominate BS and BC fights with no worry of losing. They're still cruisers. They need to be able to dominate their own class of ship and smaller, but larger ships should be a definite threat instead of something to be toyed with.
T2 ships and the HP increase: right now T1 ships literally have no chance vs. T2 ships. This is why their cost is so high- demand is through the roof. In order to compete you *have* to have a T2 ship, everything else being the same. Narrowing the gap so that T2 ships don't simply walk all over T1s is a good thing. T2 ships have a wide variety of very special abilities that are simply not available to their T1 counterparts. This in itself makes them unique enough to justify the higher prices. But once the margin of performance is narrowed between T1 and T2, you'll see the prices begin to drop, especially when T1 BCs are able to go toe to toe with T2 HACs.
It's a good thing. HACs are the prices they are now because there is no alternative. The new changes will mitigate that rather quickly I'm thinking once players have a choice with respect to where they can spend their money: 275m ISK for an Ishtar, or 45m for a Hurricane that will kick it's ass? Right now players just don't have the option of voting with their wallets because HACs are the only game in town, relatively speaking.
Because I said so...
|
Graill
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 00:04:00 -
[21]
i like the idea of passive tanking that high, however my twin heavy nos active shield tank is very very good, example, mordus 4 without warping.
we will have to see after kali is released if all caps change (i have read the blog on the ideas), maelstrom is running level 4s np right now and tanking fine, twin nos etc, etc, havent tried mordus 4 yet, might spin past a few just to try it.
havent yet tried passive on it. and pvp isnt my style yet, though no reason not to try it on the test server  |
Luric Vizjier
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 00:21:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Luric Vizjier on 28/10/2006 00:21:46
I never liked passive tanking. A ship shouldn't be IWIN over another ship just because it has more hitpoints. +50% was too much, +30% for t1 and +15% for t2 would have been better. And the bonuses to plates and extenders are insane. I know CCP wanted combat to last longer, but this is ludicrous.
-----------------------------------------------
|
Pattern Clarc
The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 00:23:00 -
[23]
the key is to keep the peak regen rate the same (as they are planning on the hpyerion)
500% more cap ~= 1/5 regen rate etc...
also increasing the size of cap batteries by similar factors.
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 00:27:00 -
[24]
Edited by: rgreat on 28/10/2006 00:33:00
Originally by: murder one
It's a good thing. HACs are the prices they are now because there is no alternative. The new changes will mitigate that rather quickly I'm thinking once players have a choice with respect to where they can spend their money: 275m ISK for an Ishtar, or 45m for a Hurricane that will kick it's ass? Right now players just don't have the option of voting with their wallets because HACs are the only game in town, relatively speaking.
If you got into sisi PVP ownage FFA1 before Kali you will see that HAC's there was not a majority, even with price of 100isks per ship.
Thats becouse 1 HAC usually cant kill a battleship.
In fact in RMR 2 T1 Cruisers can kill a HAC (with same skills and fittings). And 3 will surely kill it.
And with Kali changes 1 HAC will be even worse.
Why bother with HACs then, i say? :)
Take BattleShip and OMGWTFPOWN them all...if you can catch someone....
And prices are limited by supply.
As long as we have only 10 BPO per t2 ship - prices will stay high.
Hopefully with new invention and agent changes supply will raise, and price will fall.
The only point why i defending t2 cruisers is - its fun ship to fly compared to battleship, and still have a chance to do something alone or in small gangs.
Personally i dont want to be forced to fly battleships or in meatshield frig/crus T1 blobs.
|
Mortuus
Minmatar
Oblivion's Gate
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 00:42:00 -
[25]
Its all about the passively tanked BC for cheap fun PvP.
ex-Occassus Republica <3 |
ElCoCo
KIA Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 01:03:00 -
[26]
Just one note.
Dreads never had any problem vs POS's. Unless you went up against a "deathstar" with just 2 dreads or something.
The HP upgrade to capital ships was certainly needed, anyone who has actualy flown one knows it.
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 01:18:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Mortuus
Its all about the passively tanked BC for cheap fun PvP.
Right, but cheap PvP is not always equal fun.
Or it is more like: No risk - no fun.
|
Gragnor
Order of the Arrow
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 01:30:00 -
[28]
 The HP changes will greatly increase the sustainability of BS's compared to other classes of non-capital ships, making them the true battlefield firepower of a fleet.
Minnie ships will be altered, the Tempest will, I believe become the a/c boat of choice with its rof and damage bonus and the revised Maelstrom will have a shield hp bonus with a damage bonus (TUX, pretty please +10% Shield hit points and 7.5% damage per level).
Logistics ships will become much more useful as the lengthening of combat gives them more time to do their magic. ECM nerfs mean that scorpion pilots become an essential part of any fleet action.
This means that the chnages to gang organisation and comms are very much needed. Now for a true voice coms system that allows for channel management.
Alpha strike will still be very useful, particularly in dealing with specialised support ships like scorpions.
I can forsee, a squadron of Maelstroms pinging away at a single bs, their shield tanks supported by a Nighoggur, which has four fastlocking and closing inty's with assigned fighters to rip into the blasterboats trying to close with the Maelstroms. Frigates will become the tackler of choice. Battlecruisers will become far more popular than cruisers and provide a screen of short range support to the bs's.
The biggest change will be improved communications, teamwork and logistic support capability needed to sustain combat. If you are just a blob, you will be get PWNed by a well run small bs fleet.
I believe that the use of friggie blobs will decrease as their dps potential compared to the bs tankability changes the balance of this fight. On the other hand, a 10 BC blob will be an awesome sight of deathdealing carnage. Just thinking about my 7 x 220mm autocannons with a great tank makes me happy in ways you do not want to know.
The real change will be in capital ship warfare. I expect to see more Carriers on the front line. With the HP boost, bs's alone will find its very very hard to kill a carrier, so expect to see Dreads get some loving (improving their tracking)as they will be brought into the fleet action to take on a carrier. Personally, what a fight that would be to see a carrier supporting a fleet getting attacked by a Naglfar with capital autocannons in siege mode.
So, I expect longer fights, ECM and other speciality ships will become an essential requirement, carriers will be more on the front line providing gang and logistic support and fleet actions themselves will require much more organisation and leadership.
The friggie blob has been nerfed heavily but in its place will be the 10 bc blob of doom.
And capital ships will be needed to kill capital ships. The dread may get some loving as the carrier will become an essential part of front-line fleet warfare, with its gang mods and ship support capability.
|
chao226
Black Lance
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 14:20:00 -
[29]
i never been much of a fan of tanking in eve sure i use it but i would like to see PvP diffrently fitting plats hadeners and sheild extenders should be all you relly do. idea is to get as much HP as possible on a ship and resitances if possible and thats how long you last. active armor reppers or sheild bosters should be there for after a battle after you win u can rep your ship back to strenghth. active reppers should be so hevey on cap that they qwould cause more dmg than good in a battle situation. just imo repairing aromr in the middle of a battle wouldent happen its something you would do after the fighting over time. HP bost will be a good thing it will get rid of active tanks hpefuly and make battle longer. my only concerd would be for npc'ers if the loss of tanks would make npc'sing a lot moe difficult
|
Argyle Jones
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 16:21:00 -
[30]
You know, I really liked combat the way it was. Fast paced, strategic, energetic. Got my pulse
up every time. Nothing could be worse than for long, drawn out tanking wars. YAWN!!!
CCP had honed the balance of the ships and mods over the years, coming pretty close to perfection.
(Expecting whiner flame after that statement). Now they're tossing in such major changes to combat, it's like we have to start all over again.
Personally I'm abit worried. I have alot of expensive ships in my hangars, that I really like flying
but with all that's going on I'm expecting the value of 'em to drop like nothing we've ever seen.
Why should a t2 ship have less rigs and less HP increase than their t1 counterparts? They'll be equally tougher? Sure, but people are paying 300m for a vagabond these days, they get 25m from the insurance of it. Shouldn't it be a little tougher than a couple of t1 cruisers? Not to mention that
the invention career is gonna deflate all those assets people have been storing up.
Same goes for the faction battleships. You've introduced tier 3 bs's. Now raise the faction battleships above those. They're the rare, hard earned ships that people have been paying billions of
isk for. Don't devaluate that.
50% hitpoints increase? 50% on extenders and plates? Easier access to t2 equipment? Sounds to me like
CCP are catering to the "casual" players that didn't have the resolve to play the game the way it was.
Why don't just introduce a magic healer that'll restore your ship with 10% damage to structure, and a 10 minute reconstruction disease. Welcome to carebear heaven :(
/Argyle Jones
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |