Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:48:56 -
[211] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that?
idk, it's just what I remember hearing back in the day. maybe it's wrong. equally it wouldn't make sense for ccp to add a special extra money thing for people who like using overpowered ships.
but it's not like wormholes are short on broken game mechanics. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
457
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:49:29 -
[212] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Because they don't like something that makes more isk than incursions. At least that is the best I can come up with.
But to be fair the isk you can pump out of them is kinda crazy. 600M per site in blue loot alone.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Eodp Ellecon
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:50:04 -
[213] - Quote
Reading dev post brings up a UI space allocation concern as we approach an overload of information and deployment windows. These need to be small enough that people don't HAVE to use multiple screens just to play EVE.
Also the tactical overlay bubble 'use of range visibility' is Already crippling the visual field with it's whiteness. This gets worse the more there is on grid. You get enough interdiction bubbles going on top of this and all you can see is an abstract painting of black and white. The Relic/Data site UI is another example of being bigger than needed obscuring views.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:50:14 -
[214] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting. He was referring to your bit about frigate targeting times.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:51:46 -
[215] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Baki Yuku
Boob Heads The-Culture
41
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:55:46 -
[216] - Quote
Querns wrote:Baki Yuku wrote:"We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
Big fat no to that from me. Why? Because FAX machines will be the new combat triage and for them to have any chance of surriving on a battlefield instead of just being expensive throwaways they need the ability to refit. 30 Seconds being locked out from refitting due to weapon timer from repairing your fleet is planty enough. To refit you'll have to stop repping for 30 sec and be able to surrive 30sec in your current fit. (If what was said about weapons timer being reduced to 30sec is true).
We can fix this counter-intuitive mechanic by making siege/triage apply a 5 minute weapons timer (or one equal to whatever siege/triage length is.)
So having a brain knowing what to do, how to do it and when to do it. Is now counter-intuitive wow eve really is becoming WoW. |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
300
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:56:47 -
[217] - Quote
Querns wrote:Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. Uhm... that's exactly what they did. The only place you can find them is when doing cap escalations. They don't appear in any other site.
|
Nuhrp
Short Bus Holding Short Bus Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:57:17 -
[218] - Quote
Requests from W/H perspective.
It seems like the changes you created for the dread create a battlefield that is more in-line with what you imagined. However, these do not apply very well in w/h ratting. The risks in w/h's atm are well balanced with the rewards. Any mistake in attention, fitting, lag, etc... results in the loss of several billion. Also, the isk making is high per hour but limited to the anoms a system has - thus allowing people time to go kill in K space. Please consider the following:
1 - W/h effects to be considered specifically for capital guns damage and tracking just like you do on wolf-rayat for small guns. This also forces attackers to commit their own dreads to a field in a w/h.
2 - The DPS suggested in K space for a sieged dread against a sub-capital is too low. It needs to be proportional to the value of the ship.
3 - The tank suggested in K space is not known due to the added mods. It needs to be proportional to the value of the ship. Specially for Titans.
4 - Consider that perhaps the reason it is difficult to balance all this is because you are missing a line of ships. Carriers - Super carriers but dread - not Super Dread. No the Titan is not it; something in the 20B range.
5 - Disagree with the statement that ref-fitting under fire is bad for the game because it makes it hard for the designer to balance. Everyone that flies capitals says it enhances gameplay, requires skill, brings more mods into the field, and can be countered by the enemy changing as well. So what if life is harder for the developer to balance? Get a helmet, life is not easy.
6 - Keep the time balance of w/h people the same. So that they have time to come out and play with the nice people. If you balance it equally to null, then they will have to rat and completely live in there all the time. Maintain the risks high and rewards high with a lower time bound to allow for null content.
Rest in my opinion is good. |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
457
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:57:20 -
[219] - Quote
Querns wrote:Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once. A standard carrier or dread fit is out of the box able to more or less, if we ignore the neuts.
When things have gone a bit sideways (refitted), our hero dreads have been cap stable perma reapping. Its not that much damage. It is the neuts that get you. And all cap pilots know that cap is life.
AKA the scientist.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:57:59 -
[220] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it.
At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment?
Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically. |
|
Lelira Cirim
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
248
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:00:10 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective... Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention?
I guess it works.
Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.
So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow.
Force Aux = FAUX
Force Aux Pilot = FAP
Do not actively tank my patience.
|
Mai Ling Ravencroft
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:00:44 -
[222] - Quote
Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting. He was referring to your bit about frigate targeting times.
Actually the blog doesn't comment either way about if squadrons auto engage an area or require you to manually engage them. They only comment about them being able to be moved using the new interface. Thus my concern. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2188
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:01:02 -
[223] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Querns wrote:Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. Uhm... that's exactly what they did. The only place you can find them is when doing cap escalations. They don't appear in any other site. They appear in nearly all C6 sites.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2188
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:03:08 -
[224] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Querns wrote:Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once. A standard carrier or dread fit is out of the box able to more or less, if we ignore the neuts. When things have gone a bit sideways (refitted), our hero dreads have been cap stable perma reapping. Its not that much damage. It is the neuts that get you. And all cap pilots know that cap is life. Well, obviously, we know that now. CCP may have thought differently in 2009.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:05:18 -
[225] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. capitals were never meant to be able to do pve And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it. At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment? Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically.
it's a battleship with a teleporter. how can you not move them? I really expected to see ccp getting rid of 10s warps and cloaking on capitals in these changes, but you guys got off easy, but somehow you're still complaining. |
Baki Yuku
Boob Heads The-Culture
41
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:06:53 -
[226] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged.
So is CCP willing to either allow squadrons to auto aggress NPCs or will CCP be adding anoms which are more in line with capital class ships. I would honestly love to see both happen, but at least one of these options need to be allowed for capital pilots. Capital level anoms btw would be a really nice feature, as they would give dread, super and Titan pilots, something to do when not on the once in a blue moon fleets they are actually usable for.
While I understand the changes, and am not opposed to them, it does leave a hole in a major area of the game. capitals were never meant to be able to do pve And yet they do, anoms are not gated to easily prevent this. Cap escolations in WHs don't hinder this, they actually enhance it. At the end of the day, what good are capitals for most pilots? We can't move them to get decent fights cause of fatigue and reduced jump ranges. We can't slow boat across the galaxy, as they are slow as hell. So maybe once or twice a month there is a use for caps in PvP, what makes that worth the investment? Having a use for Caps in PvE, gives them a daily usefulness. This in turn creates a desire for more to be used and thus more to be found and killed. It is a win for all aspects of the game, so saying they aren't meant for PvE, seems to have no real standing, either historically or practically.
Carriers no longer able to use drones is a income nerf for nullsec from 90-100m/h down to 45mil/h what that represents is the downgrade from carrier to ishtar/VNI. Not sure about you but thats a pretty steap income nerf when you concider that nullsec income is already subpar. And it certainly won't help roaming killing ratting ishtars and VNI's gets old after 10 or so. A carrier in an anomaly at least presents the chance of getting a fight out of it. Pretty sure people will now say but you can use Mauraders or faction battleships instead sure you can but you're still making less isk/h then a carrier for almost the same cost of a carrier. With not even a fraction of the chance of surivial if you get yourself tackled so ya they wont see increased usage. |
Darius Caliente
The Pinecone Squad Angeli Mortis
112
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:07:10 -
[227] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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?
I'm looking at this from the perspective of a wormholer and it seems as though there will be no use for dreads outside of pos bashing and instead, I'll be forced to fly a carrier if I want to fly caps in a fight. No, the new XL anti-subcap guns will be a second type of capital gun. The existing XL guns will still be around, but will be focused on anti-cap/structure damage application only.
Have you considered how bad these numbers are in terms of DPS? You're saying that with specially designed sub-capital guns a dreadnought will do less DPS in siege than a vindicator. What's the point of them? |
Judas Lonestar
Stryker Industries
126
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:09:25 -
[228] - Quote
Needs more DPS for the subcap guns. 1-2k is pretty bad to be honest. You can routinely get that with pirate hulls, and the lower end of that spectrum can be done without much/any sacrifice to tank. Even more embarrassingly for the Cap pilot, that can very nearly be tanked by a well fit active tank ship. Hardly the "Hammer of God" dreads should be positioned as unless that 1-2k DPS comes with a horrifyingly large alpha.
I'd like to see that upped significantly, somewhere in the range of 25% of the big gun damage...ie....If you hit 10k then make the subcap guns be around 2.5k. 15k cap DPS down to 3.7k subcap. |
Junot Nevone
Devlon Industries Phoebe Freeport Republic
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:09:25 -
[229] - Quote
What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2190
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:10:20 -
[230] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote: Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.
I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post.
"Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Oskolda Eriker
Beyond The Last Horizon Dark Pride Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:12:56 -
[231] - Quote
Judas Lonestar wrote:Needs more DPS for the subcap guns. 1-2k is pretty bad to be honest. You can routinely get that with pirate hulls, and the lower end of that spectrum can be done without much/any sacrifice to tank. Even more embarrassingly for the Cap pilot, that can very nearly be tanked by a well fit active tank ship. Hardly the "Hammer of God" dreads should be positioned as unless that 1-2k DPS comes with a horrifyingly large alpha.
I'd like to see that upped significantly, somewhere in the range of 25% of the big gun damage...ie....If you hit 10k then make the subcap guns be around 2.5k. 15k cap DPS down to 3.7k subcap. they cannot do lower dps without siege! then 3 cannons from one bs noone turret break that rule. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids
359
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:15:23 -
[232] - Quote
I like the ability for sub capitals and capitals to do more things to each other, but I do not like capitals being able to fit smart bombs. The only reason they do is to GTFO instead of a means to stay and engage the enemy. Capitals should still desire to have sub capitals with them as support. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids
360
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:17:16 -
[233] - Quote
Querns wrote:Lelira Cirim wrote: Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.
I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post. "Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do. I'm always looking up the origins of words and sayings. Unnecessary etymology? I don't think so. Please, carry on. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids
360
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:18:24 -
[234] - Quote
Junot Nevone wrote:What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming. To acquire the new capital components, you reprocess Rorquals. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1154
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:18:48 -
[235] - Quote
yeah what's the point in range and tank, these things are useless. let's all fly void blasters, 6k range is super practical for a fleet battle. |
Drammie Askold
Phoibe Enterprises
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:19:05 -
[236] - Quote
Although as I've yet to fly a capital I can't make any specific comments, this all sounds very interesting |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
300
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:26:14 -
[237] - Quote
Querns wrote:They appear in nearly all C6 sites. Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space. Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:27:21 -
[238] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:The old N+1 meta of bringing bigger blogs to be more effective... Phantom, is this some kind of meta-commentary subtext on the internal struggle of dev teams to win our love and attention? I guess it works. Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary. So Imma leave this here, and you can reap what you sow. Force Aux = FAUX Force Aux Pilot = FAP :) +1 internets for this |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2193
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:29:41 -
[239] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Querns wrote:They appear in nearly all C6 sites. Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space. Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then? They weren't meant to be run with capitals in them, no. Or, it was meant to be discouraged. I wasn't even playing Eve in 2009, so I can speculate at best.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Mr Coulson
S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:34:24 -
[240] - Quote
Im not a Cap pilot yet, but of many things mentioned ..I have only one or two suggestion for CCP.
The hot swapping of mods in repping carriers during combat (or anyone with a combat timer) Please reconsider that one,
1. What of the guys who carry multiple fits while traveling? if they get ambushed they are stuck with a travel fit and unable to refit to a PvP fit (IE;, using a mobile depot or friendly fleet hanger). Otherwise u have to sit and tank damage (so not to get that combat timer) until u can swap mods. and That ain't gonna happen.
2. I agree that swapping is very frustrating but its a mechanic and people learned to use it. On the other hand - I agree that it is too huge of a force multiplier... so why not just make hot swapping SLOWER? Especially if the mods are overheated (it takes time to do it in real life so why not make it so u get one quick swap (see above why that's important) after that it takes longer and longer to actually swap and online the new modules? This solves your bigger Niche issue while allowing others to still use it.
But the blog started off with this:
"Remote-Repairing Carrier & Super-Carrier fleets will be a thing of the past. The N+1 nature of these tactics encourages enormous blobs and currently the best counter is to bring an even bigger group of your own capitals. The more carriers and super-carriers you bring, the more your entire fleet can tank. Under the Citadel expansionGÇÖs capital changes, the bar to killing capitals is limited to what a single Force Auxiliary in Triage can tank. If you can kill that, eventually you can kill the entire capital fleet..."
Isn't that the same logic for bringing more carriers that is used now?, just bring N+1 Force Auxiliary's? or did i miss that u can only have one in a fleet. I know i seems like an insurmountable problem, but N+1 always wins.. truly wished there was a way to fix that. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |