|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:33:37 -
[1] - Quote
This all sounds awesome :D
The blog and keynote mention multiple times projecting your drones hundreds of km away, this implies to me that the 250km lock range limitation is going? Interesting... |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 10:46:52 -
[2] - Quote
DrZoid Berg wrote:Sadly you're going to kill a lot of the usability of a normal carrier by taking away the "normal drones". Carriers are used in large scale fights (which I get that you're trying to promote these with the changes) but there are countless other uses, ratting, home defense, etc. Nothing in the devpost states that the fighter squadrons will have the same stats as current fighters. I'd not worry about Carriers not being able to rat etc yet. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:13:44 -
[3] - Quote
Anth9rax wrote:Am I ever going to be able to Dock my Nyx, what a waste of a character, just sitting in it. Watch the Eve Vegas Keynote... ;)
Re: normal drones on carriers. From a technical perspective I can't see any reason CCP can't allow you to launch a squadron of normal drones rather than fighters? Make them controlled the same way, but miss out on some of the special abilities the new fighters will have.
Fishymonster wrote:You are also removing fighter-bombers from the game, im sure the people that trained fighters up to level 5 just for the ability to use fighter-bombers will greatly appreciate that. Did you even read the blog? Heavy Fighters - Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures.
That sounds like Fighter Bombers to me.... Just with a slightly changed name? (oh noes) |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:34:27 -
[4] - Quote
+1 to not really liking the Force Auxiliary name.
Fishymonster wrote:Quote: Carriers & Super-Carriers will launch up to 5 separate squadrons at a time. We are intending on introducing 3 classes of fighters, these will replace all existing fighters and fighter-bombers.
Unless they neglected to announce that Carriers will only be able to do anti-frigate/anti-fighter only dps and crap ewar. carriers will be able to launch heavy fighters.
Not sure what your point is? Carriers/Supercarriers will be able to launch heavy fighters. Which sound like they're going to be basically exactly what Fighter Bombers are now. I'd imagine the current skills for fighter bombers will be needed for launching the heavy fighters.
If they aren't required, you'll get your SP refunded so you can put into something you want.
I really don't get how people can get so worked up over specifics, when nothing has had concrete stats detailed. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:59:55 -
[5] - Quote
Aesir Terona wrote: Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand.
Maybe you should read the blog before posting rubbish. Triage modules will be fitted to the Force Auxiliary. They will replace the Logistics Carrier.
ITT - people jumping to conclusions and solid proof you can't please everyone. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:02:30 -
[6] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:"New rapid firing anti-sub-capital weapon batteries are specifically designed to fire at sub-capitals. However their damage will be considerably lower than current XL weapon systems (in the 1 to 2k DPS range on a Sieged Dreadnought)"
I assume that these will be replacing the current extra large guns... If so, isn't this is a massive nerf? In what situation would anyone field a dread, worth billions, to kill sub-caps if it only has the fire power of 2-3 battleships?
"NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
|

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
282
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:41:50 -
[7] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Mr Floydy wrote: "NEW" weapons. How on earth do you read that as they're replacing the current weapons?! It's clearly an additional weapon catered towards hitting smaller targets...
You misunderstand. That's what i'm saying... If the current XL weapons are going to be nerfed so that they will be ineffective against sub-caps, then this effectively means their ability to engage subcaps is being replaced with the introduction of these new guns... As Oskolda said, people will probably just take hard hitting battle ships instead. Maybe if they can kick out the damage of 5 or 6 battleships i could get behind it but 2 to 3 seems very low to me.
Well, your post was hardly clear ;) Thanks for clarifying - I don't disagree, I'm all for the anti-subcap weapon having more than 1-2k dps. It doesn't sound at all useful at the moment unless other mechanics are changing. If it was a case of them being able to do that without using Siege it could be a whole different ballgame. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
283
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:01:02 -
[8] - Quote
Monasucks wrote: - Hic's will get obsolete Values your where asking our feedback to: - The remove of eware immunity, I didn't like it in the past but thatGÇÖs too easy. You should need at least 10-20 Falcons to make a titan blind, you should need at least 50 to 100 points to tackle it or a bubble or a hic.
HIC won't be obsolete. The Devblog mentions that Supers will have high warp strength (exactly as your second point says) so that HICs will still have a critical job, it just won't be vital in the same way as before. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
284
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:08:56 -
[9] - Quote
I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying WH pvp won't include capitals yet. We're yet to see stats and actual application from the redone carriers and we don't know how the Force Auxiliary will compare to a triage carrier either.
I'd certainly not think about Escalations right now, CCP have been intending to change the mechanics around escalation waves for some time now. I fully expect it to be shaken up around the same time this all happens. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:31:38 -
[10] - Quote
Seen a few posts worrying about the Capital RR transition between Carriers to Force Auxiliaries... I'm not keen on the turning carriers into FAs during a downtime, but I also don't want to see the game without Capital RR whilst people build them...
CCP - Any chance of a phased overlap? Where the Force Auxiliaries are released but Carriers remain as they are for a week or so to give people a chance to move from one to the other? |
|

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
287
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:15:31 -
[11] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:What will happen to Drone Control Units? The +1 fighter will be worthless with the transition to squadrons. Who knows right now. It might be an extra squadron, it might be extra fighters in a squadron.
I'd really not worry about it right now. It's unlikely to get turned into a bit of cargo and dumped into the cargo of your ship ;) |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
288
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:01:13 -
[12] - Quote
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
|

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:19:37 -
[13] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
As it should be? Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :) I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw!
I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance.
So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up! |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:51:17 -
[14] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.
Seems like a weird work around for the same effect. Ha, I like that. Always realised it could be possible but never thought people would actually do it :p |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 12:02:01 -
[15] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless? LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own. Htfu |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:43:29 -
[16] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Luscius Uta wrote:CCP, would you consider reimbursing CCC rigs on my Archon once they become useless? LOL. Do you whine every time ccp rebalances a ship you own. Htfu Attitudes like yours are killing EVE, they are the exact reason why the game has been turning for the worse in the last year or two. CCP could literally turn EVE into a Pay2Win game and get away with it because 90% of the community will have their fun trolling each other over how much they love or hate the changes, instead of trying to find sensible approach to the problem. On the contrary, it's attitudes like yours that are holding back the game. Are you seriously expecting CCP to start a precedence of reimbursing any assets/time/isk every time they rebalance the game because something that was once useful is now less so?
Do you not think CCP have more important things to be doing than trying to cheer up a poor chap who's going to be out of some isk as there is now a better choice of rigs for his Archon? These changes are going to upset people, that's an absolute given. CCP cannot please everybody with these changes, some people will lose out - that's the nature of the game. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
290
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 14:58:07 -
[17] - Quote
Everyone has. It's part of the game. If this didn't happen it would get really stale like it used to be during the Drakes online period :) |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
293
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 17:29:05 -
[18] - Quote
The idea of capital tackle mods having similar strengths to current officer ones sounds acceptable to me if Supers are going to have 20+. I was worried about it being a lot higher. That said I'm still undecided on this and hope the conversation continues around that.
FT Diomedes wrote:The ewar immunity should remain when in siege/triage/bastion mode. Why? Because it is not overpowered in these modes. The ships are self-tackled. Ewar immunity on Supercarriers was bad because it meant they did not have to commit. Triage Carriers (FAX's) and Dreadnoughts do have to commit. I am all about hurting slowcats and Supercarriers, but I believe this change goes a bit too far. I'd agree with this. |

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
293
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 20:19:12 -
[19] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:*snip* big post of interesting perspective *snip*
Nice post. I hadn't even looked at things from that perspective. Based on what we've see there appears to be little reason to fly a Carrier when you can fly a Super Carrier bar cost. Which we know isn't an issue for some and shouldn't be used as a balancing argument (although it can be to some degree...)
If you compare other classes of ships that have bigger/smaller brothers there are pros and cons. Take Cruisers vs Battleships. Battleships hit harder and tank better, but Cruisers have the agility and can potentially apply the damage better.
When you compare the Carrier to the SuperCarrier, it seems the SC will do everything it's little brother will do, plus have the projected E-War. Yes the Carrier is likely more mobile - but not to a point where it makes a blind bit of difference. Once Citadels appear, being trapped in a Super won't be a issue, you'll just be able to leave it in station - taking away the one downside that has always been apparent with supers.
CCP - What are you plans for making Carriers appealing vs Supercarriers? |
|
|
|