| 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 - donÆt.
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.
ThatÆs 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 - donÆt.
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.
ThatÆs 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 - donÆt.
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.
ThatÆs 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
|
MECTO
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 16:33:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Argyle Jones
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
well /sighed mostly.
it is a stage where balance between pvp and pve is BROKEN.
ice has moved..
in future patchs/addons its ccp must choose what to do: make game a challenge or lead it to casual side. 
most times/in mmo history ever1 choosed second. Reason is simple - profit. 
It's Great Being Carebear in Kali - aint it?
Originally by: Tuxford
In this picture you might think that Gallente totally pwn. Well they're alright
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 16:39:00 -
[32]
HACs will be fine, they should be outclassed by battlecruisers and battleships. T2 shouldnt be automaticly better then everything else on all counts.
|
Argyle Jones
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 16:48:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker
HACs will be fine, they should be outclassed by battlecruisers and battleships. T2 shouldnt be automaticly better then everything else on all counts.
Indeed, your argument is flawless. Let me guess: "Because you said so?".
|
Anasur
|
Posted - 2006.10.28 20:58:00 -
[34]
Murder One -
Your shield and armor tank changes hugely favor armor tankers, rediculously so. Passive tanking only works well on very specialized setups, the passive regen on my BS is something like 6 shield per second, not even enough to notice. If anything shield extenders need to be buffed for BS usage, or an X-Large varient added. Right now an armor plate gives almost twice the hp as a shield extender.
If they don't do something about that, shield tanking in pvp will be a thing of the past as 25000hp armor tankers will obliterate anything relying on shields. Run the numbers if you don't believe me, lol.
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 00:53:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Anasur
If they don't do something about that, shield tanking in pvp will be a thing of the past as 25000hp armor tankers will obliterate anything relying on shields. Run the numbers if you don't believe me, lol.
3x1600 plates on Dominix give me 32000hp without slave set.
And i still have 4 low slots to fit hardeners.
I tanked carrier fire for 10 min, then i left.
|
Drutort
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.29 07:26:00 -
[36]
the cap on regular ships could be tweaked a little bit... BUT logistics ships should come into play for specialized setups were ships would run out of there own cap and need aid from other ships...
carriers really need boosted cap amount and reduced cap recharge? OR the capital remotes need major cap reduction...
they could nerf plates and expanders in giving the negative side effects though... that will be fair enough, people will go for either there regular active fit or coupe with the negative effects of plates/expanders
|
Maverick McDougel
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:19:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Mortuus
Its all about the passively tanked BC for cheap fun PvP.
this is so true. a passive tank ferox even t1 fitted makes a nice cheap pvp ship.
support BattleClinic buy gtc's from BattleClinic |
Laythun
Undercover Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 10:29:00 -
[38]
Please lower the cap usage on amarr weapons  , i know all about the 'no ammo' arguement, but please let me shoot my weapons for more that 2mins
Undercover Brothers
It's great being Amarr, aint it?Ö |
Zoxia
Gallente
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 12:41:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Zoxia on 30/10/2006 12:43:07
I think its great they have made it so you need others to help in battle. I think there are a few skills to help with cap also that some people do not have trained fully.
Maybe change your set ups alittle to help cap and not soo much weapons weapons weapons. looks like the game will have alot more things to think about now other than fit kill fit kill.
also just think kali 2 is right around the corner :) fun when games change dramatically as it makes every one have to rethink and replan and learn things all over again :D
I think some of you are just tooo comfortable with your older set ups ;) think outside the bottle!! all together now ..... oooooohhhhmmmmm
|
Philip Sterling
GALAXIAN
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 14:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Mortuus
Its all about the passively tanked BC for cheap fun PvP.
I've already set aside the isk to buy the bpos for the corp. I think the Drake is gonna be my new mistress. they'll be cheap, insurable, and damn mean.
|
Xerpex
Revelation Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 14:44:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Xerpex on 30/10/2006 14:44:41
I haven't read the thread, so sorry if I'm repeating something, but I don't think that reps are as nerfed as you think. Since the battles tend to be longer, reps, overall, tend to give more hp's than plates, since they will running for longer. i.e.:
(using rmr stats, because im lazy, and the actual numbers dont really matter, just the idea I'm trying to put through)
1 med rep gived about 33hp/s.
800mm plate gives 1680hp's
A 800mm plate is worth 1680/33 = 50.9 secs of repping. Therefore, on short fights (<50 secs) a plate is better, while in longer fights (>50 secs, like it's gonna be in kali) a rep is going to be more useful.
So my point is, longer fights technically nerf plates... That's why they are getting a boost too in kali, and thats why I wouldn't be so sure about the ZOMG ACTIVE TANKS SUCK mentality.
|
Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 14:55:00 -
[42]
Originally by: MECTO
Originally by: Argyle Jones
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
well /sighed mostly.
it is a stage where balance between pvp and pve is BROKEN.
ice has moved..
in future patchs/addons its ccp must choose what to do: make game a challenge or lead it to casual side.
most times/in mmo history ever1 choosed second. Reason is simple - profit.
Disagreed.Sure amny of the ships/modules prices will change /drop, but what does it have with carebearing??
So maybe vgabonds will get much cheaper, what does it have to do with carebearing?
With long battles fianlly you will have time to think and maybe use logistics cruisers and other tactics, not just f1-f8 fast and focus fire,only viable tactic.
-
A knight in space,war veteran,Grey Council military officer.
Grey Council webpage
|
Centurin
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 14:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Earthan
So maybe vgabonds will get much cheaper...
Cheaper? They'll be even more expensive because they'll be even more pwnmobiles than they are now.
-----------------------------------------------
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" - Optimus Prime |
Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 15:01:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Centurin
Originally by: Earthan
So maybe vgabonds will get much cheaper...
Cheaper? They'll be even more expensive because they'll be even more pwnmobiles than they are now.
Really the orginal poster said they will drop in prices...
dont know about specific blalances but imho the direction is great , i cant wait for these changes.
-
A knight in space,war veteran,Grey Council military officer.
Grey Council webpage
|
Atrial Quartz
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 15:19:00 -
[45]
Would it make more sence to make only capitol class ships effective aginst each other? Because it seems to me that people are looking at ship classes entirely the wrong way.
the Bigger = Better mentallity isn't a good one for a game like this. Where the opertunity for so much more varied play is. The problem is the game isnt strictly a PVP experience. the same ships used for pvp are used for farming and ratting and so on.
it would be simple to say battleships are realy only effective aginst other battleships and above. Making each step up or down the size ladder penalize your effectiveness to it. A battlecruiser is a middle ground and should be effective aginst both classes and destroyer and so on. While a frigate alone cant hope of destroying a battleship or a cruiser has almost no chance at putting much more than a few dents in the armor their smaller class should give some advantages to avoiding being hit.
If you specialize in a smaller class of ship you shouldent be utterly useless aginst someone who did the 3 month evemon race to battleships and t2 guns. Is this what kali is tring to do? have more of a seperation of combat so that a fleet action dosent turn into everyone just alpha striking the same target over and over. If something is fundamentaly broken little "bandaid" style fixes arent going to solve it.
|
Commander Thrawn
Tarnak inc.
Eternal Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 15:19:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Commander Thrawn on 30/10/2006 15:19:12
hybrids and laser really need to drop cap usage, im gonna have to buy a freaking raven and train ACs for me amarr ships. 
|
Cygnet Lythanea
Ninjitsu Heavy Industries
Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.10.30 22:59:00 -
[47]
Well, as a long time passive tanker... I personally like this.. but...
I do think that having multiple armor plates should be nerfed, like back when they gave you a speed reduction. This way, yes, BS could have ungodly HP... but you could get away (bar being webbed). Also, I do think that some of thes don't nessicarilly need more cap, but rather a higher rate of cap regen. I've had some pretty cap intensive setups, and almost all of them maxed out a little over 15 cap per second. Now, with cap rigs, this may change, but... Amarr ships will be bleeding cap all through battles. Hit with a NOS? Fugedaboutit. That's all she wrote.
She's hunting you, pirate scum...
|
Atrial Quartz
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.31 01:16:00 -
[48]
Everyone calls NOS the "I-Win" button of pvp now days. Is this really true? from my experience with it you have to be at pretty close range to nos someone, and that normaly puts you in the range of all other nasty weapons that can mess a ship up like Smart bombs for instance. Close range missles and so on. Lasers are a weapon that never runs out of amunition so the capisitor cost was their ballencing act.
Not shure why hybrids take such a hit though (other than the realism factor that railguns and any kind of partical excelerator/mass driver takes a buttload of power) Arty, Lasers and Missles can be loaded to do EM dammage as far as ive found rails and blasters can not. I am not seeing the ballance here could someone clarify?
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.31 03:39:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Xerpex
A 800mm plate is worth 1680/33 = 50.9 secs of repping. Therefore, on short fights (<50 secs) a plate is better, while in longer fights (>50 secs, like it's gonna be in kali) a rep is going to be more useful.
Two words: "NO CAP".
Most of us can't use med repper for 50+ sec with other devices engaged...
Also... it is not 1680. 1682 is current t2 plate.
Kali version get 50% boost = 2523hp, also with skills 2523*1.25 = 3153hp
thats equal 3153/33 = 95 seconds.
Your cap will die much earlier.
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.31 03:42:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Atrial Quartz
Everyone calls NOS the "I-Win" button of pvp now days. Is this really true?
Not is not I-Win buttin.
Its I-WIN vs smaller ships button... ;)
|
rgreat
Gallente
OEG
|
Posted - 2006.10.31 03:58:00 -
[51]
Edited by: rgreat on 31/10/2006 04:13:52
Originally by: Cygnet Lythanea
Well, as a long time passive tanker... I personally like this.. but...
I do think that having multiple armor plates should be nerfed, like back when they gave you a speed reduction.
That way missile/med-long range guns/Shield users will not be affected, while blaster/autocannon/and other armor users who need fast approach will be.
Quote:
This way, yes, BS could have ungodly HP... but you could get away (bar being webbed).
Battleships usually cant get away by using speed anyway.
They can only warp/jump away.
Quote:
Also, I do think that some of thes don't nessicarilly need more cap, but rather a higher rate of cap regen.
That will bring crazy cap recharge rates and unbreakable tanks with the usage of good cap recharge modules.
Especially on capitals.
Good capacitor size bonus with penalty on capacitor recharge rate will cure most of the problems imho.
There will be longer, but time limited active tanks.
If i'm not missing something in the picture.
Quote:
I've had some pretty cap intensive setups, and almost all of them maxed out a little over 15 cap per second.
Typical BlasterThron setup uses around 150+ cap per second.
Armar battleships with lasers uses around the same.
Maybe you fly passive shield tanked caldary?:)
Quote:
Now, with cap rigs, this may change, but... Amarr ships will be bleeding cap all through battles. Hit with a NOS? Fugedaboutit. That's all she wrote.
Agree. Armarr with lasers will die out.
|
Earthan
Gallente
GREY COUNCIL
|
Posted - 2006.10.31 08:03:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Rells
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.
yep good point i was thinkiong to about it, it will become a problem.
-
A knight in space,war veteran,Grey Council military officer.
Grey Council webpage
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |