EVE Search - WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH EVE TUXY TELL ME!!!!!!!! /us

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH EVE TUXY TELL ME!!!!!!!! /us

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Taipan Gedscho Taipan Industries	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:20:00 - [31] Edited by: Taipan Gedscho on 14/11/2006 16:23:20 Originally by: Jim McGregor Anyone can steer and use the pedals of course, thats not what I meant. yeah, now were talking. but still. look at the world. every monkey has a car. now imagine, you let every one of those people try eve. and then imagine how many are going to fail. and before flaming starts: im not saying, we eve players are special or smarter than the next average joe. no way. but im saying: yes, YOU can make eve less complicated, and it IS somewhat complicated now. and i like that. i would have no problem with making it even more complex.
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:47:00 - [32] Edited by: Vincent Almasy on 14/11/2006 16:47:59 Originally by: Hayabusa Fury How the he!! did Caldari get best out of this???!?!?!? The optimal bonus is now useless as all ship have time to close distance now. Especially against the games least mobile ships. Missles slow DPS is even now more obvious that people will have all day to warp off before the missle make their mark. Gallente should come out best as now the time to close distance for blasters and the damage bonus they recieve is even better. Sure they have to eat some damage while they close, but the second half the fight they will out DPS everyone. Speed now make Minmatar better as well. HP boost and effect on race "uberness" is: 1.Gallente 2.Minmatar 3.Caldari 4.Ammar This really is a Caldari nerf if you look at it. I still love the hp increase. Maybe people will live beyong the jump in lag and a real fight will happen. 1. Caldari (Same old Same old, no cap weapons) 2. Minmatar (guns get a bit of a boost i hear aswell as no cap weapons) 3. Gallente (Mega cap user and worse active tank user) 4. Amarr (mega cap user and worse active tank user + sh itty damage from all weapons mostly doing EMP but good agenst Caldari/shield minmatar if their cap lasts) With the shield boosts something also changes, shield relays and rechargers will be more powerful indirectly from increased recharge time and shield cap it will be easier to lower shield recharge more then it is now. Gallente and Amarr spill cap left and right from their weapons and also t2 ammo makes that more appearent and worst of all they use armor and the regen armor plate doesn't regen armor at all so they kinda screws them sideways now doesn't it. Missiles have a travel time if you shoot from far away but have a 100% hit rate if you didn't forget the only limiter is how far your skills and make them go. ECM gets a nerf wounder ful but if you haven't been reasing ECM ships will get a boost and if not their are rigs and lows to upp ECM power so that bit on ECM being worthless is out of there, and the enemy getting close is the least of the things you should give... Them getting close ups the rate of them getting hit if you didn't notice and if they come at you they will take the missile head on.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:53:00 - [33] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Originally by: Jim McGregor The only change is the hitpoint boost. Any consequences of it should be easy for you to figure out. It ruins the balance? Id like to know the big picture as well tbh. The balance before the change was questionable for everyone except caldari and gallente. Now after the change, some minmatar ships become better than the gallente ones in the same class. The Amarr ships will suffer the same problems as gallente with struggling for cap, while minmatar got good and caldari went from good to best (not best for solo though, they never will be). The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor (cap batteries as well). I sent a mail way back about doing this when we did the hp change and we had a discussion and decided not to do it. We've pretty much restarted the whole discussion but now I fear that that the decisions were all based on misunderstanding, people thinking that I wanted to boost the peak charge instead of just more cap, longer recharge time. We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say ****it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. I was also a bit lazy when increasing the shield recharge time on battlecruisers and command ships so I might have accidentally boosted passive shield tanks a bit too much. _______________

Jasai Kameron The Palladium Union	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:57:00 - [34] Edited by: Jasai Kameron on 14/11/2006 16:57:56 Originally by: Tuxford The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor (cap batteries as well). I sent a mail way back about doing this when we did the hp change and we had a discussion and decided not to do it. We've pretty much restarted the whole discussion but now I fear that that the decisions were all based on misunderstanding, people thinking that I wanted to boost the peak charge instead of just more cap, longer recharge time. We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say ****it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. I was also a bit lazy when increasing the shield recharge time on battlecruisers and command ships so I might have accidentally boosted passive shield tanks a bit too much. Thanks, mate. That's very good to hear. Boosting maximum cap to compensate makes sense to me.
Carnye Dubro Caldari Shock and Awe	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:58:00 - [35] Originally by: Jim McGregor By the way, what do you think would happen if I decided to stop playing Eve and not post anymore. Im willing to bet: "Nothing". Thats how important I am. :) I would miss your insight in the forums... even when I don't agree with you...
Tyler Lowe Minmatar DROW Org Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:00:00 - [36] Originally by: Tuxford The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor (cap batteries as well). I sent a mail way back about doing this when we did the hp change and we had a discussion and decided not to do it. We've pretty much restarted the whole discussion but now I fear that that the decisions were all based on misunderstanding, people thinking that I wanted to boost the peak charge instead of just more cap, longer recharge time. We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say ****it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. I was also a bit lazy when increasing the shield recharge time on battlecruisers and command ships so I might have accidentally boosted passive shield tanks a bit too much. While you're looking at cap batteries, may I humbly suggest that given the fitting requirements vs a cap recharger, these modules are a touch underpowered. IMHO, they could use a boost. Also, can we look forward to the tech II variant of the large cap battery and/or XL cap batteries being seeded? J.A.F.O.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Jasai Kameron Thanks, mate. That's very good to hear. Boosting maximum cap to compensate makes sense to me. Its the easiest thing to do to keep the status quo and just make fights longer. The reason for us making the fights longer is something that Oveur talked about at the fanfest in his speech. As for were I'm going with this game then I'm flattered and all but I'm just one of the team tugging at the rope. _______________


Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:03:00 - [38] Originally by: Tyler Lowe Originally by: Tuxford The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor (cap batteries as well). I sent a mail way back about doing this when we did the hp change and we had a discussion and decided not to do it. We've pretty much restarted the whole discussion but now I fear that that the decisions were all based on misunderstanding, people thinking that I wanted to boost the peak charge instead of just more cap, longer recharge time. We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say **it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. I was also a bit lazy when increasing the shield recharge time on battlecruisers and command ships so I might have accidentally boosted passive shield tanks a bit too much. While you're looking at cap batteries, may I humbly suggest that given the fitting requirements vs a cap recharger, these modules are a touch underpowered. IMHO, they could use a boost. Also, can we look forward to the tech II variant of the large cap battery and/or XL cap batteries being seeded? a touch**? Yeah they're just not very good unless you put it on ship that has really really crappy capacitor and then it probably won't have the grid to fit it anyway. _______________

Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:04:00 - [39] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Originally by: Jim McGregor The only change is the hitpoint boost. Any consequences of it should be easy for you to figure out. It ruins the balance? Id like to know the big picture as well tbh. The balance before the change was questionable for everyone except caldari and gallente. Now after the change, some minmatar ships become better than the gallente ones in the same class. The Amarr ships will suffer the same problems as gallente with struggling for cap, while minmatar got good and caldari went from good to best (not best for solo though, they never will be). The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor (cap batteries as well). I sent a mail way back about doing this when we did the hp change and we had a discussion and decided not to do it. We've pretty much restarted the whole discussion but now I fear that that the decisions were all based on misunderstanding, people thinking that I wanted to boost the peak charge instead of just more cap, longer recharge time. We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say ****it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. I was also a bit lazy when increasing the shield recharge time on battlecruisers and command ships so I might have accidentally boosted passive shield tanks a bit too much. Yeah, I think boosting the total cap amount (but keeping recharge rate/sec the same) for all ships is probably a good solution to restore balance back to where it was. Right now we are looking at the non-cap races getting a really big advantage compared to the others, which isnt really fair imo. And I say that a minmatar pilot. As much as I like my own race boosted, winning because the other guy runs out of cap feels... wrong. Its not good for Eve to make it all about the cap when fighting. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Ituralde Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:19:00 - [40] Great, so now the Abbadon may be able to run megapulses and a tank for three minutes instead of one and a half. Remember also that this will boost tankers that don't use cap to fire their weapons. Perhaps this boost should be targeted more towards the Gallente(Armor tanks, microwarpdrives and neutron blasters) and more importantly the Amarr (Lasers, heavy armor tanks, and that MWD you probably can't fit anyways...) else its pointless because the defending tank just gains even more relative sustainability and the cap-hungry weapons still suck the attacker dry. If you do increase total cap, remember to boost cap batteries accordingly - hell they could get something of a boost anyways. Perhaps something of a fitting requirement decrease? Its the sort of module that if made worthwhile might indeed help the Amarr (and the Gallente too I guess) out a good bit. Just my two cents. Fear is the mind-killer.

El Yatta Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolance	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:25:00 - [41] Its great that this is being thought about and is being adressed, but isnt it about time that you finalised stuff like this if you want to release on the 28th? It'd be very good that major balance issues are adressed this week on test, so that the final bug testing can progress withou being people screaming about nos/capweapons and HP. Are other issues people feel strongly about, e.g. tier 3 bs balance also being looked at? I know devs like our feedback but we'd all feel a lot better if an updated patch on the test server with balance adjustments came out. ---\|\|---
Dorah Hawkwing Chosen Path Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:26:00 - [42] Augurer: 14k armor anyone? Mine will have in Kali.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:26:00 - [43] Originally by: Ituralde Perhaps this boost should be targeted more towards the Gallente(Armor tanks, microwarpdrives and neutron blasters) and more importantly the Amarr (Lasers, heavy armor tanks, and that MWD you probably can't fit anyways...) else its pointless I dont agree. Before the hitpoint boost, gallente were doing just fine and being the permanent flavor of the month. Some would even say overpowered. So the last thing we need is to boost those ships even more. For Amarr, well, they did just fine before the EANM II giving people so high resists, so I think a better solution is to tune those a bit. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Siakel	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:28:00 - [44] Originally by: Abbadon Karis Too bad really is one of the few somewhat no carebear pvp games left. Ehhh hopefulyl Vanguard will life up to peoples expectations. chokes You're kidding, right? Vanguard looked good, six months ago. Every announced change to it pushes it more towards easymode, and I lost all interest in the game a long time ago. I mean... it'll have two or three 'PvP servers' with level-restricted, and possibly zone-restricted PvP? Meh, at best. I'm not fond of the way EVE is heading, but I'll probably stick with it anyway.. the only other hope I really have is Darkfall, and I'm not sure when that will come out.
Miri Tirzan Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:38:00 - [45] It is nice to see that Tux is looking at the cap issues, however, I think an across the board cap increase is the wrong way to go. It may be easy to do but there are alot of unintended impacts. Why does cap need increased? It is for the weapon systems. Shield tanking and armor tanking are fairly easy to sustain if your not using your cap for weapon systems. Now is the goal to increase the cap available for tanking or to keep weapon systems operating. If the goal is to increase the time that weapons can fire, then increase the bonus to controlled bursts from 5% to 10%. That way your not making the ships that do not use cap for weapons systems more uber. If you do the across the board cap increase, then those ships that use cap-less weapons will have much more cap to put into tanking. It would be unbalacing to have some ships get a tank boost while other just get enough to keep thier weapons going. In some cases the tank boost will off-set the weapons sustainability and we are right back where we started, out of cap for weapons before the battle is over. As a side note. Amarr has problems with cap and fitting for energy turrets. Can we get the cap use for energy turrets removed and a cap recharge bonus for the ship instead? It would be ok if amarr ships sucked cap like no tomorrow if, and this is a big if, the ships had an hugh bonus to recharge to help them sustain it. 20% recharge bonus per skill level works out to being about the same as a 10% per level cap reduction use of turrets. I tossed that in since Tux actually seems to be reading this thread. svetlana - "whining gets you stuff. that is why humans got to the top of the food chain and all the other animals got nerfed."
Old Geeza The Retirement Home	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:41:00 - [46] I wish people would stop trying to change the EANM modules so they don't give an EM boost - they are very useful on T2 ships when you have patched your resistance hole(s). The problem is that Amarr do far too much EM damage and too little thermal damage. Time for a T2 close-range 75% Thermal 25% EM crystal. While you're at it, give Minmatar those missing T2 EM/Thermal (50/50 please) ammos too. _______________________________________ Sign the petition against jump queues!
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:45:00 - [47] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 14/11/2006 17:53:01 Originally by: Old Geeza I wish people would stop trying to change the EANM modules so they don't give an EM boost - they are very useful on T2 ships when you have patched your resistance hole(s). The problem is that Amarr do far too much EM damage and too little thermal damage. Time for a T2 close-range 75% Thermal 25% EM crystal. While you're at it, give Minmatar those missing T2 EM/Thermal (50/50 please) ammos too. If Amarr gets 75/25 thermal/em, I think its safe to say that minmatar would like it too. All the popular (t1) minmatar ammo have a strong percentage of ONE damage type. And personally, I would like nothing more if projectiles had only one damage type per ammo. But Ive discussed that before in a thread, and most people actually liked the split damage for some reason, even if it makes the dps go down. We have stuff like phased plasma with a strong thermal percentage, but what would be neat would be some more t2 ammo with the same range as Barrage, but with other damage types. Minmatar are supposed to kite the close range blaster ships, and the advantage of picking damage type goes out the window when we come to t2 ammo that has the range that is needed. But thats not what the thread is about, so... --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Wintermoon Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.11.14 17:59:00 - [48] Capacitor capacity boost across the board? Hell yeah, the apoc's bonus just went premium! With better cap batteries too you can make the ultimate capacitor warfare boat (step aside domi darling, amarr's in town).
Kharakan Amarr GREY COUNCIL Breidablik	Posted - 2006.11.14 18:33:00 - [49] Originally by: Wintermoon Capacitor capacity boost across the board? Hell yeah, the apoc's bonus just went premium! With better cap batteries too you can make the ultimate capacitor warfare boat (step aside domi darling, amarr's in town). Hell yus, we're halfway there Originally by: Joshua Foiritain (to Dark Shikari) HAHAHA I KNOW YOUR ACCOUUNT NAME TIME TO DIE this signature space is claimed in the name of eris, haha I got to him first. neeneer
Hayabusa Fury Caldari Wu-Tang Financial Mordus Angels	Posted - 2006.11.14 18:51:00 - [50] Ok to the no cap weapons issue=Caldari If you want to participate in PvP as Caldari and you actually want a kill, you need to use hybrids. Hybrids use cap and get a nerf like all the other races. Missles don't really have a big place in PvP and that is what everyone is in a huff about. PvP!!! And to range and missle: Missles hit at any range yes, but when you use speed to make them miss, they miss at any range too. Every race can dictate the range and speed of the engagement agaist Caldari so you orbiting me at your optimal while using enough speed to lower my missle DPS mean you win against my missle ships. If I use Hybrids then I have the same issues as gallente except without the damage bonus and speed factor. On paper Caldari look really overpowered but in reality they are on par with Gallente and Minmatar. Sorry Ammar Because a slow caldari missle boat can't catch anything, how does it kill anything? If your prey can run when it wants too then that is a useless weapon in a fight. Ravens and Drakes look big and scary and on paper they have great damage potential. But again in game is a different story. It is not the suxor. but it doesn't own either and doesn't need a nerf. ---------------- "I can not recall the number of times my superior intellect has got me knee deep in ****!" --Harely Hayes

Elve Sorrow Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.14 18:55:00 - [51] Originally by: Wintermoon Capacitor capacity boost across the board? Hell yeah, the apoc's bonus just went premium! With better cap batteries too you can make the ultimate capacitor warfare boat (step aside domi darling, amarr's in town). Wouldnt be so sure - itll likely just mean ships like the Apoc will die with cap remaining. Especially if the peak recharge stays the same. And since even an Apoc's peak recharge can only match a single Cap Booster by using 4-6 mods, youll still need a Cap Booster. Ofcourse im pessimistic and convinced Tux is Caldari, so yea. It's great being Amarr, aint it?
FraXy Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.11.14 19:07:00 - [52] Any chance to look over gallente efficiency bonus? The Eos tank and ****ation tank doesn`t even come close to matching and the Eos can`t fit a plate without going either single-rep or 2 hardeners and both alternatives will gimp overall tankability. This is my lazy attempt to make an uber-signature, please go away!
Deathbarrage	Posted - 2006.11.14 19:08:00 - [53] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Originally by: Jim McGregor The only change is the hitpoint boost. Any consequences of it should be easy for you to figure out. It ruins the balance? Id like to know the big picture as well tbh. The balance before the change was questionable for everyone except caldari and gallente. Now after the change, some minmatar ships become better than the gallente ones in the same class. The Amarr ships will suffer the same problems as gallente with struggling for cap, while minmatar got good and caldari went from good to best (not best for solo though, they never will be). The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor (cap batteries as well). I sent a mail way back about doing this when we did the hp change and we had a discussion and decided not to do it. We've pretty much restarted the whole discussion but now I fear that that the decisions were all based on misunderstanding, people thinking that I wanted to boost the peak charge instead of just more cap, longer recharge time. We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say ****it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. I was also a bit lazy when increasing the shield recharge time on battlecruisers and command ships so I might have accidentally boosted passive shield tanks a bit too much. I don't see what this'll do since if you maintain the same amount of cap/sec recharged this doesn't add anything to sustainability which is what'll be required if you'll want fights to last longer?
Deva Blackfire DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.14 19:08:00 - [54] Originally by: Tuxford We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say ****it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges, cap booster shouldn't really end all worries on cap but in reality it just makes nosferatu more powerful, which isn't really what we're going for. For some ships cap charges is ammo (especially for amarr ones with ROF bonus). Saying that its good they run out of cap during combat means that size of torps and other ammo should be changed so those ships actually have the risk of shutting down in middle of fight too. And tbh i prefer to feed enemy nosferatus with my own cap AND use some of it to fire (more cap charges) rather than sit there with dry cap, dont give anything and see how 2-3 drones slowly tear me apart (cap charges running out).
FraXy Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.11.14 19:11:00 - [55] Deathbarrage, i think with increased capacitor and increased recharge fitting one CPR/CR II will boost Cap/sec by a fair bit. This is my lazy attempt to make an uber-signature, please go away!
Deathbarrage	Posted - 2006.11.14 19:18:00 - [56] Originally by: FraXy Deathbarrage, i think with increased capacitor and increased recharge fitting one CPR/CR II will boost Cap/sec by a fair bit. yeah but is this difference significant enough to keep up with the increase in tanking? btw my answer was specifically aimed at ships that use alot of ammo and also use a cap booster for example autopest, which'll lose its tank cuz it'll 1) have to take even more ammo cuz the fight'll last longer 2) you'll have less room for cap boosters due to point 1 while you'll need more cuz the fight will be longer and once you're out of your scarce amount of cap boosters you'll be just as vulnerable as before kali, only sooner but that's just me i guess ^^
Radioactive Babe	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:03:00 - [57] Originally by: FraXy Any chance to look over gallente efficiency bonus? The Eos tank and ****ation tank doesn`t even come close to matching and the Eos can`t fit a plate without going either single-rep or 2 hardeners and both alternatives will gimp overall tankability. Eos gets faster cap recharge time, and with shield stats like this: 3000 with 0, 60, 85, 60 as opposed to 2625 with 0, 90, 70, 20 on the d amnation you could nearly shield tank also more drone space and decent command ship bonuses (5% damage and 7.5% armour repair amount per level) as opposed to 10% less cap use for medium turrets and 5% armour resists (which makes NO difference when ship is active tanked) Basically you want higher resists to make your much better ship a solopwnmobile On topic: dont give more cap to caldari missle boats or minnie ships, they would remain overpowered as they would tank longer so the gallente and amarr ships will still run out of cap.
Siakel	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:03:00 - [58] Originally by: Miri Tirzan It is nice to see that Tux is looking at the cap issues, however, I think an across the board cap increase is the wrong way to go. It may be easy to do but there are alot of unintended impacts. Why does cap need increased? It is for the weapon systems. Shield tanking and armor tanking are fairly easy to sustain if your not using your cap for weapon systems. Now is the goal to increase the cap available for tanking or to keep weapon systems operating. If the goal is to increase the time that weapons can fire, then increase the bonus to controlled bursts from 5% to 10%. That way your not making the ships that do not use cap for weapons systems more uber. If you do the across the board cap increase, then those ships that use cap-less weapons will have much more cap to put into tanking. It would be unbalacing to have some ships get a tank boost while other just get enough to keep thier weapons going. In some cases the tank boost will off-set the weapons sustainability and we are right back where we started, out of cap for weapons before the battle is over. As a side note. Amarr has problems with cap and fitting for energy turrets. Can we get the cap use for energy turrets removed and a cap recharge bonus for the ship instead? It would be ok if amarr ships sucked cap like no tomorrow if, and this is a big if, the ships had an hugh bonus to recharge to help them sustain it. 20% recharge bonus per skill level works out to being about the same as a 10% per level cap reduction use of turrets. I tossed that in since Tux actually seems to be reading this thread. I agree here. Giving all that extra cap keeps cap-intensive ships like Blasterboats and Laserships more in line with how they are now, but it gives a lot of extra cap to the ships that don't use cap on their weapons. By the way, a 20% recharge/level bonus would mean infinite cap at level 5, so it's not really an option, and even if they changed it to just give stupidly fast recharge, all it would lead to would be an increase in Hybrid/Projectile setups with quadruple reps or something similarly silly.
Siakel	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:08:00 - [59] Originally by: FraXy Deathbarrage, i think with increased capacitor and increased recharge fitting one CPR/CR II will boost Cap/sec by a fair bit. Not really. Current: 100 cap/100 recharge. 1 cap/sec. With Recharger II: 100cap/80 recharge. 1.25 cap/sec After +50%: 150 cap/150 recharge. 1 cap/sec. With Recharger II: 150 cap/120 recharge. 1.25 cap/sec. Which is why Amarr's 'extra cap' of 50-200, with increased recharge time to make up for it on most ships, isn't the advantage so many seem to think it is.
Mikelio Raijan Sulithus	Posted - 2006.11.14 20:35:00 - [60] Originally by: Tuxford The only real problem I see with hitpoint change is the cap issue. Easy fix is really, boost the total capacity of all ships and the recharge time maintaining the same peak cap/sec but giving you more total capacitor We're also looking into volume of cap charges. Normally I would say **it its fine that people could potentially run out of charges Sorry to take snippets from your post but I need to talk from the perspective of someone who almost exclusivly uses blaster boats.. The cap problem niggling at myself and other cap ***s I know would not be fixed by a general cap ammount increase, (without an increase in cap/s in close range ships) ill put it to you this way, fit a duel repper electron setup... activate both reppers and the MWD for a couple of cycles, then turn off the mwd and activate all the guns (+ a nos on your target). It utterly rapes your cap, infact the only thing keeping the ship going is the sheer cap/s from the injects, so once you run out of injects its not just a disadvantge, its a matter of seconds before your guns force you to totally cap out, so adding +50% hp and the possibility of more jam cycles against you (which can effectivly reset the fight from the enemies perspective) is a huge blow! I know you didn't factor the rather essential injector into the megas cpu tweak and your statement on the devchat about being happy about ships running out of cap charges during a fight does worry me that you havn't played with ACpests and B-trhons much, please do, they are amazingly fun solo fighting machines... enjoy them.. dont kill them! Please, please at minimum decrease the size of cap charges and then work from there, the logisics of having to 'refuel' after every decent fight is brutal enough, let alone loosing a fight in your suicide boat under ideal conditions. (I'm not even going to go into the rather odd changes to gallente close range ammo and the fears that people will still be using the chance based ecm on many, many ships here) I'm sorry if it sounds rather aggressive but your doing so many changes at once, there is so little time to test them and so little communication on the forums about them. (still no word on the warp to 0km??!!!!) ..that was alot of text from me.. I think I need to lie down now.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.