Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Bobman Smith
Purging Maelstrom SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 03:12:58 -
[511] - Quote
Very awesome addition!! (not sure if that's a proper sentence but I'm sticking to it)
This is good news because it will make command bonus more common and thus reduce the, "You got links, I'm not fighting" that happens in FW.
If I were to suggest a change: Give Amarr lasers and Mimintar their Projectile weapon bonus so you guys don't look too lazy.
QUESTION: Will this Micro Jump work in FW plex's? (Oh plz Oh plz OH PLZ!!!)
On a side note: Good way I think to fix the OP T3 destroyers. Double the cost and remove their added damage bonus or bring it down to 25%. They really don't need to do thaat much DPS when they have their modes to play with and they really are too cheap at about 100M.
Another off topic note: In FW plex's, just like you can't warp within it, you should add that warp stabs don't work. Farmers really do kill FW!! You want LP: You might just have to fight for it! |
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business Schizophrenic Macro Hive
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 11:09:59 -
[512] - Quote
So as of this new toy.
Command links on small ships is an interesting thing and I generally like it.
As of MJFG I have lot of concerns. Unless it has proximity limitations to jump gates and stations similar to smartbombs it will make any solo activity in low/null very frustrating. All transport ships that now rely on stabs to survive in low sec will have problems with this low MJFG activation time: on the edge of warp out time and impossible to run back to gate. Solo PvP and mostly battlecruiser / battleship rely a lot on aggression/weapon timer to separate/flee blobs on gate or stations. Again MJFG will essentially cancel this tactic. But there is no other effective tactic available for solo large ships (apart from not going into 1 vs many fights ofc). Command destroyers will be probably easily accessible and relatively cheap so any unorganized ganks/blobs will be probably able to field, use and replace them without too much effort.
MJFG Idea itself is interesting but I would rather see it on some harder to fly and expensive ships. BlackOps looks like best candidate to me.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2460
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 13:36:30 -
[513] - Quote
Croc Evil wrote: All transport ships that now rely on stabs to survive in low sec will have problems with this low MJFG activation time: on the edge of warp out time and impossible to run back to gate.
If you think 100km sideways is going to break an align to something multiple AU away I've a bridge to sell you*
*provided that the existing mechanic of "ships jumped keep their original velocity and vector" does not change.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
291
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 13:59:27 -
[514] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Croc Evil wrote: All transport ships that now rely on stabs to survive in low sec will have problems with this low MJFG activation time: on the edge of warp out time and impossible to run back to gate.
If you think 100km sideways is going to break an align to something multiple AU away I've a bridge to sell you* *provided that the existing mechanic of "ships jumped keep their original velocity and vector" does not change.
Agreed. What might actually turn out to be a problem to transports is the changes to the warp disruption field generator (focus script). But, that's a discussion for the other thread.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Darth Squeemus
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 22:11:45 -
[515] - Quote
This sounds really cool. I'm excited to see them in action. |
aldhura
Bartledannians
18
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 04:22:32 -
[516] - Quote
Darth Squeemus wrote:This sounds really cool. I'm excited to see them in action.
They on the test server, great fun to play with :)
Bartledannians are recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6150832#post6150832
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2829
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 06:04:54 -
[517] - Quote
aldhura wrote:Darth Squeemus wrote:This sounds really cool. I'm excited to see them in action. They on the test server, great fun to play with :) I'm still having trouble trying to ninja myself onto a blob of people and then micro jump drive them away |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
910
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 06:41:52 -
[518] - Quote
Bobman Smith wrote:On a side note: Good way I think to fix the OP T3 destroyers. Double the cost and remove their added damage bonus or bring it down to 25%..
Here is another sidenote only for you, stop talking about topics you have nothing to contribute to.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1331
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 11:26:02 -
[519] - Quote
Rowells wrote:aldhura wrote:Darth Squeemus wrote:This sounds really cool. I'm excited to see them in action. They on the test server, great fun to play with :) I'm still having trouble trying to ninja myself onto a blob of people and then micro jump drive them away
Those dessis don't have the smallest of signatures, but skirmish links and X-Instinct basically do help with that.
I'd imagine those being awesome together with T3Ds feauturing combat probes. You'll get a precise warp and a small number of scrams, run MJDG and leave behind those that you scram. If your mate is scrammed by a brawler, you drop on top of them and run the generator, you offer that tackling guy the options of keep scramming him and be blinked 100k away together with a sturdy dessi or to switch scram, leaving your friend to bugger off.
From a tendency, I had more fun using a 10mn prop pushing me to around 2km/s and keeping my sig and their targeting speed down, MWD - even bonused - and the linked sigbloom were a tad contraproductive. |
RcTamiya
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
25
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 12:56:38 -
[520] - Quote
RIP Triage + sub-capfleet in w-space. |
|
Strongo
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 13:56:05 -
[521] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Here is a feedback thread for some awesome new ships, Command Destroyers! So here's the basics. We are adding a new line of Tech II destroyers based on the Algos, Dragoon, Corax and Talwar along with a new type of module called the Micro Jump Field Generator, which the new Destroyers will have exclusive access to. I'm going to go through some basic questions here at the top and then give you all the details after. First, why Command Destroyers? We have always wanted to do a line of smaller ships that could provide gang support, but we expected to wait until after a rework of the ganglink mechanics, but here we saw a perfect opportunity to bring you this awesome new module and combining the role with gang support seems ideal. We still want to rework links and think these will slot in perfectly to that rework when it happens, but in the mean time you guys get a few awesome new tools. Second, how exactly does the Micro Jump Field Generator work? This module is exactly like a Micro Jump Drive except that when it fires, it pulls any ships nearby along with it for the jump. There's a lot of specifics to consider here but the big restrictions you need to know are that you cannot use this module in high sec, you can not pull invulnerable targets (ships that have just undocked or just jumped through a gate and are still cloaked), you can not move capitals, and you can not jump into starbase shields. You CAN however do a lot of really crazy thing such as pull bombs that are midair, pull dictor bubbles or chain multiple jumps in a row using several Command Destroyers. As for numbers, we have a base spool up time of 9 seconds, a reactivation delay of 160 seconds, a pull radius of 6km from the ship and a jump distance of 100km. The module requires 5 PG and 31 CPU to fit and requires the same skill as normal MJDs to use. Now, for the ships themselves. We are aiming to have a set of destroyers that are both faster and more resilient than either their Tech I counterparts or Interdictors, but sacrifice offense. This should make the support role, whether with MJFG or links, easier to fill while leaving them vulnerable to abuse in combat. Their weapon systems will be missile or drone based, like their base hulls. Here are the bonuses: MAGUSGallente Destroyer Per Level: 10% Bonus to Drone Damage 4% bonus to armor resists Command Destroyer Per Level: 2% to Armor and Skirmish Warfare link effectiveness 5% reduction in MJFG spool up time Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators Role: Can fit one Warfare Link PONTIFEXAmarr Destroyer per Level: 10% Bonus to Drone Damage 4% bonus to Armor Resistances Command Destroyer per Level: 2% to Armor and Information Warfare link effectiveness 5% reduction in MJFG spool up time Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators Role: Can fit one Warfare Link STORKCaldari Destroyer per Level: 10% to Rocket and Light Missile Damage 4% Bonus to Shield Resistances Command Destroyer per Level: 2% to Siege and Information link effectiveness per level 5% reduction in MJFG spool up time Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators Role: Can fit one Warfare Link BIFROSTMinmatar Destroyer per Level: 10% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile Damage 4% bonus to shield resists Command Destroyer per Level: 2% to Siege and Skirmish Warfare link effectiveness 5% reduction in MJFG spool up time Role: 95% Reduction in Powergrid Requirements for Warfare Links Role: 50% Reduction in MWD Penalty Signature Bloom Role: Can fit Micro Jump Field Generators Role: Can fit one Warfare Link And for their attributes I'm using a google doc this time for better readability: ATTRIBUTESAs always, we look forward to your feedback. With these ships I'm especially interested in any opinions or insights on the powergrid and CPU numbers, as the ships will probably get used a few different ways and I'm not positive we've accounted for all of them. If you have any questions or need clarifications please ask, and don't be surprised if there's a typo here and there that needs fixing :) Thanks !
These things are ment for speed why give them drones? Give them guns instead....going to need to keep moving on the field and leaving behind your drones crap :(... to these with missles makes it easier to hit and go on their targets... |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2112
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 21:03:02 -
[522] - Quote
The Magus slot layout doesn't seem right. If it has t2 resists to armour, it's low slots and armour HP should reflect that. However, It only has 4 low slots and 800 armour HP, whereas the Pontifex gets 5 low slots and 850 armour HP. Unlike the T1 version, making the magus a hull tanker would be inefficient as you would be wasting the T2 resists.
All other command destroyers can dedicate at least 5 slots to tank (in the case of shield ships they can use mids and lows) so the magus is clearly the odd one out.
Give the Magus an extra low or more hitpoints.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
659
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 21:16:30 -
[523] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:The Magus slot layout doesn't seem right. If it has t2 resists to armour, it's low slots and armour HP should reflect that. However, It only has 4 low slots and 800 armour HP, whereas the Pontifex gets 5 low slots and 850 armour HP. Unlike the T1 version, making the magus a hull tanker would be inefficient as you would be wasting the T2 resists.
All other command destroyers can dedicate at least 5 slots to tank (in the case of shield ships they can use mids and lows) so the magus is clearly the odd one out.
Give the Magus an extra low or more hitpoints.
Shield ships are -2 mids for prop/mjd, so that leaves 3 mids on the bifrost for tackle/tank. Which is more like 1 mid for tank if you go scram/web. Or 2 mids for tank if only scram. The stork can have more tank but less dps. Which is a non issue in a fleet role.
Gallente have always had slightly more hull HP that armor. Just their flavor.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2112
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 21:59:53 -
[524] - Quote
Has it been confirmed that the MJFG is a mid slot and not a high? ...I would assume the latter.
Shield ships can use both mid and low slot modules for tank.
My argument stands. I still think the Magus' tank needs looking at.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
660
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 22:42:26 -
[525] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Has it been confirmed that the MJFG is a mid slot and not a high? ...I would assume the latter.
Shield ships can use both mid and low slot modules for tank.
My argument stands. I still think the Magus' tank needs looking at.
The MJFG is a mid slot item. As per current SiSi build.
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should. As in, the stork has 2 lows. So dcu and 400mm plate? Same can be said for the armor boats. They have 4 mids as well. Throw an MSE plus plate on your magus if you think that is a good argument for dismissing shield ships having similar tank.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2112
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 22:53:21 -
[526] - Quote
No silly I'm talking about the DC and the passive shield mods...
Ah thanks, I think it would be better as a high slot but meh... Does the MJFG also bloom your sig?
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1331
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 00:37:40 -
[527] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:The Magus slot layout doesn't seem right. If it has t2 resists to armour, it's low slots and armour HP should reflect that. However, It only has 4 low slots and 800 armour HP, whereas the Pontifex gets 5 low slots and 850 armour HP. Unlike the T1 version, making the magus a hull tanker would be inefficient as you would be wasting the T2 resists.
All other command destroyers can dedicate at least 5 slots to tank (in the case of shield ships they can use mids and lows) so the magus is clearly the odd one out.
Give the Magus an extra low or more hitpoints.
From what testing shows, the Magus is really well suited to use in very small gangs, especially thanks to that 4/4 layout mid and lows. You get a flexible fit with anything from dualscram+MJDG and mwd for kidnappings to a more general 10mn+web/CB+scram+MJDG to survive in something like a c4/c5 gank. The caplife on each of them is splendid, you can run a SAR II on both pontifex and magus almost stable next to a 10mn, or supplement with a CB thanks to that generous cargohold - and remain operational for ages.
The Magus with 10mn+web+scram with a SAR II has for me legitimately brawled down hecates and confessors, I'd be careful dismissing any ship with a 4mid+4low layout. The Pontifex in comparison is a lot weaker in small gang setups, and imo needs RR or other stuff on grid to really shine.
In short: 800 or 850 armor hp is unimportant, you won't notice a difference. 4/4 layout is great for small gang stuff, 3/5 should be better with large gangs, when going from local tanked to 400mm with eanm, dcu and EM/Therm specifics.
Edit: Certain it does bloom your sig, and the bifrost/stork will have ridiculous tank coupled with good mobility when neglecting damage, relying on their solid baseline. |
Bobman Smith
Purging Maelstrom SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 07:25:11 -
[528] - Quote
Been sleeping on this... Why not make these 2 different ships? I can see how these functions can work together but wont it be better if these were divided into 2 different classes making 4 different unique T2 Destroyers? Destroyers can in some ways be like mini Battlecruisers.
I know the Interdictors bigger bro is a Cruisers... but meh, details right? And if the mini (6km) MJFG is a success, why not bring out a new class for the Battlecruisers that has more range? To counter that range, we should probably have a mass cap. The little Destroyer should not potentiality (numbers not tested) be able to move some 30ish odd Battleships but a future Battlecruiser sized ship could.
And to make the Commander Destroyer stand out more on its own, make it so it gets 0% added command boosts to ships not on grid with it, and those that are get the full 3%! Do that with the other command ships too (2% for T3's). I like how you can get off grid boosts, but you should get a good bonus for them being on grid. And with talks of making grid sizes bigger I think it wont be too hard to keep these ships far away from being in harms way. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2112
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 09:40:04 -
[529] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Rek Seven wrote:The Magus slot layout doesn't seem right. If it has t2 resists to armour, it's low slots and armour HP should reflect that. However, It only has 4 low slots and 800 armour HP, whereas the Pontifex gets 5 low slots and 850 armour HP. Unlike the T1 version, making the magus a hull tanker would be inefficient as you would be wasting the T2 resists.
All other command destroyers can dedicate at least 5 slots to tank (in the case of shield ships they can use mids and lows) so the magus is clearly the odd one out.
Give the Magus an extra low or more hitpoints. From what testing shows, the Magus is really well suited to use in very small gangs, especially thanks to that 4/4 layout mid and lows. You get a flexible fit with anything from dualscram+MJDG and mwd for kidnappings to a more general 10mn+web/CB+scram+MJDG to survive in something like a c4/c5 gank. The caplife on each of them is splendid, you can run a SAR II on both pontifex and magus almost stable next to a 10mn, or supplement with a CB thanks to that generous cargohold - and remain operational for ages. The Magus with 10mn+web+scram with a SAR II has for me legitimately brawled down hecates and confessors, I'd be careful dismissing any ship with a 4mid+4low layout. The Pontifex in comparison is a lot weaker in small gang setups, and imo needs RR or other stuff on grid to really shine. In short: 800 or 850 armor hp is unimportant, you won't notice a difference. 4/4 layout is great for small gang stuff, 3/5 should be better with large gangs, when going from local tanked to 400mm with eanm, dcu and EM/Therm specifics. Edit: Certain it does bloom your sig, and the bifrost/stork will have ridiculous tank coupled with good mobility when neglecting damage, relying on their solid baseline.
Ok, that all seems to make scene, so i'll take your word for it that the Magus is ok. Thanks for the reply.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
RcTamiya
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
25
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 11:53:49 -
[530] - Quote
There's only one VERY big concern, all you need is 1 dic, 2-3 Command destroyers and good timing to **** up every single Triage and Blapdreaddoctrin out there
-> Command destroyer 1 cycles his MJDG, Command destroyer 2 starts his cycle ~ 3 seconds after, dic drops a bubble and moves outside of Command destroyer 2's MJDG-Range -> first jump with dic + both CDs + Warpdisruptionprobe -> second jump with both CDs + Warpdisruptionprobe + hostile subcap-fleet, dic stays with caps and bubbles them
-> **** subcaps without their triagesupport ( ~50k out of reprange) and finish off caps after
Counters aint really excisting, scrambchains aint viable in many setups, counterscramb even with isntalock T3s is difficult using this tactic, why not give HIC-bubbles the ability to stop ships inside from beeing dragged through MJDG?! |
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2112
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 13:04:22 -
[531] - Quote
Yeah I'm fairly certain CCP will eventually change it so your can't activate a second MJFG if you are already in an active micro-jump field.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2460
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 14:15:02 -
[532] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Yeah I'm fairly certain CCP will eventually change it so your can't activate a second MJFG if you are already in an active micro-jump field.
Maybe but half these scenarios need things lined up so perfectly they're like launching a basketball from a cannon a few miles away and getting it in first time.
I mean, it's a big enough mission to get 50-100 nerds to press a button at the same time, on the same target half the time. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
881
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 15:35:18 -
[533] - Quote
The MJFG needs to changed so we can use it in hisec. Or at least give a definitive reason why it cannot be used. |
RcTamiya
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
26
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 15:40:20 -
[534] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Yeah I'm fairly certain CCP will eventually change it so your can't activate a second MJFG if you are already in an active micro-jump field. Maybe but half these scenarios need things lined up so perfectly they're like launching a basketball from a cannon a few miles away and getting it in first time. I mean, it's a big enough mission to get 50-100 nerds to press a button at the same time, on the same target half the time.
google "guild wars spike" and you'll see, that getting 3 people absolutely synced up with each other is no problem at all .... i am allready using this tactic as daily practice on sisi, absolutely doable |
Ares Desideratus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
305
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 16:22:12 -
[535] - Quote
Ships in this game have slowly become far too homogenized, and these destroyers are a perfect example of it.
More ships that use links are the last thing we need in this game. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2924
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 02:52:02 -
[536] - Quote
RcTamiya wrote:RIP Triage + sub-capfleet in w-space.
Not really. It's just as useful for saving the triage or dread by blinking off the tacklers surrounding them. And the dictor probes as well. It'll be very useful for defending capitals and extracting them from deep doodoo.
Your Triage will just have to gets its fleet to spread out a bit more. Like, not anchor up on something too much. Maybe try for low-sig high-transversal X-instinct-skirmish linked wake limited subsystem HAM legions. Like, you know, lazerhawks use vs blap dreads.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1963
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 03:02:53 -
[537] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:Ships in this game have slowly become far too homogenized, and these destroyers are a perfect example of it.
More ships that use links are the last thing we need in this game.
Well, then you are in luck, because these ships will suck as link ships (except in shattered WH's). They will be awesome because of the MJDF... not the links.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
nate albush
Major League Infidels Size Really Doesn't Matter
6
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 10:27:49 -
[538] - Quote
Xenontechs wrote:Quote:Gallente Destroyer Per Level: 10% Bonus to Drone Damage
Amarr Destroyer per Level: 10% Bonus to Drone Damage
Caldari Destroyer per Level: 10% to Rocket and Light Missile Damage
Minmatar Destroyer per Level: 10% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile Damage I get that these are the big brothers of other ships with these sort of bonuses, but I'd love to see more weapon types edit: ok with interdictors in mind this may fit actually... there we have everything except drones edit2: and lazors are missing too the reason i think that they put missiles and drones is because the micro jump drive these ships can use can also move their drones and missiles with them as well but if you are shooting your enemy with anything else they wont be hit as all if you know what i mean
|
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
361
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 11:15:43 -
[539] - Quote
Also, how exactly do these sacrifice offense? The Pontifex easily does over 300 DPS with like 60km range on its weapons, that's not really matched by anything. Confessor/Svipul do similar DPS but don't have anywhere near the range, other destroyers can beat the DPS by a little but they have to be like 3km away from the target or closer. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2115
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 20:46:45 -
[540] - Quote
I'm struggling to come up with a good Pontifex fit that isn't left with empty highs and still requires CPU and power rigs. I'm aiming for around 15k ehp, 1 link and a MJFG.
The spool up bonus seems pretty pointless. A MJFG range bonus per level would be much useful.
Overall i'm left feeling that the Pontifex could do with a little more CPU to make sure it can fill both it's specialized roles without sacrificing too much.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |