Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
47
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 05:24:05 -
[241] - Quote
Osat Bartlett wrote:I guess that "Remote Repair Impedance" that siege and triage have as bonus don't work as planed. I've tested in Sisi. And I've confirmed that siegeDN and triageFAX can receive not only cap transfer(Is it included in remote assistance?),but also remote repair. I wonder if that "Remote Assistance Impedance" don't work too. I can't check right now, but is the impedance 100%? If not, they should be valid targets for those effects and receive a certain percentage of the effects. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
105
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 05:50:41 -
[242] - Quote
Modules: The duration of Triage and Siege feels far too long considering the reduction of hp on capitals, It is pretty much impossible to go in and out of triage as a combat tactic, module cycle time should be reduced. The Emergency hull energizer over a rep or plate doesn't feel worth it, It should use less power grid. Flex hardeners would be more interesting if they gave less resist but where not restricted to one module.
Caps: All capitals powergrid feels too low with all the new modules added, power grid should be increased. The Nidhoggur cpu is too low to fit all slots without a lot of fitting modules. The Nidhoggurs cargo is so small it can only hold 8 navy 3200 cap boosters no enough to full load an asb. Active tank on carriers feels weak just like it does on super caps, Overall base line of capital active tanking modules should be looked at.
Fighters: Heavy attack fighter torpedos do too much alpha, It feels too powerful against active tanked capitals (alpha is also just not a fun mechanic), Reduce alpha of torpedoes and increase fire rate and ammo count, also increase normal dps it feels too low. Space superiority fighters do too much dps against fighters the crazy tackle they have is strong enough they don't also need crazy dps.
Misc: With all the clicking around in space there needs to be a way to lock alignment so you can't accidentally unalign yourself The 3d aiming systems feels pretty clunky not to mention that you can't turn the camera while using it, I suggest replacing the target marker with a probe with arrows and such.
side note: Please add every item in a ship, be it in what ever cargo hold it is, to the saved fitting. Many Thanks.
Quote CCP Fozzie:
... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Osat Bartlett
Tempra Fleet SAMURAI SOUL'd OUT
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 05:56:07 -
[243] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:Osat Bartlett wrote:I guess that "Remote Repair Impedance" that siege and triage have as bonus don't work as planed. I've tested in Sisi. And I've confirmed that siegeDN and triageFAX can receive not only cap transfer(Is it included in remote assistance?),but also remote repair. I wonder if that "Remote Assistance Impedance" don't work too. I can't check right now, but is the impedance 100%? If not, they should be valid targets for those effects and receive a certain percentage of the effects.
The impedance is not 100%, but it written as nearly 100%(99.9999%). So RR being able to hit triageFAX is not strange, but thier repair amount looks like not affected by impedance. |
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 09:08:51 -
[244] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Marranar Amatin wrote:care to explain why it is ok if caps loose the ability to rat? Just because you dont like to do this?
There are many people that like to do so, and invested a lot of skillpoints and isk specifically for ratting in capitals. Taking that away just because you dont care about it, is awful.
Hey I have a great idea, lets reduce titan hp to 1/1/1 with zero resists. I dont have one, so if they are not useable afterwards thats ok.
no because it is far more important to balance how these things work against other players rather than how they work against npcs its far worse to have a ship that is good for ratting but broken in pvp than a ship that is balanced in pvp but cant rat mission and ratting pay out can be adjusted if it has a huge impact trust me i want these things out ratting they are one of the best targets to blops onto but i dont want that at the expense of ballance
Now this sounds better, and is something different than "its ok if they cant rat". Of course its important that any changes due to pve capabilities do not break the pvp balance, I agree with that. But that does not mean that pve capabilities do not matter. Also in this case, any changes in ratting pay out would not help at all to fix the problem that caps cant be used for ratting anymore. It would only help players to get the same income, but thats not the point. In my opinion carrier ratting is at a really great point on tranq. Its a high risk high reward acitvity, where the activity of the pilot has a huge impact on the outcome, and also gives incentive for other players since everyone likes carrier killmails. You have a very slow ship and expensive ship that takes a lot of skilltime, that everyone wants to blow up. The payout is related to how you fly (simply shooting one target after the other as works with every other ship results in mediocre payout). That should not go away, and simply giving rattles the same payout as carriers can make is no help at all, it would just break the economy since you could get huge payout without much risk or investment then.
So what has to be done is 1. check if carriers are really broken in pve (maybe I was very unlucky or did some stupid mistake? maybe higher payouts are possible) 2. see where the problem comes from 3. find a solution that does not break pvp.
Just a general note about damage: I did not check the current dps numbers, but someone said 1.5-2k dps for a carrier earlier. Well thanny on tranq can do ~3.3k. And it was basically never used in pvp. fighter carriers were generally hardly ever used in pvp, so I am not sure how that is going to change if you lower the dps, make fighters more vulnerable, and take the support ability away. Since carriers lost their support abilities, shouldnt they actually do more dps then before?
This gets especially strange if you look at the super damage which seems to be easily 10x carrier with still a good application to subcaps. Just look at the video that was linked earlier https://youtu.be/sgHZfXcl8Vg, most of the damage is from the heavies just one shotting everything with 18k dmg hits and a great range. And this is just counting the anti subcap heavies, the anti cap heavies do probably even more, how many seconds does a carrier survive against a supercarrier with anti capital heavies? I do not really see a reason to bring a carrier right now, except maybe as an anti fighter platform. But "bring as many super carriers as possible" seems to be a viable strategy since they can do everything. They have exceptional damage against capitals, they have exceptional damage against big subcaps, and as a bonus they still can do everything that a normal carrier can do, without sacrificing anything, due to the two squads of light fighters that they can launch additionally (and which get better bonus than a normal carrier). Wasnt one point of the capital rework to remove this n+1 supercap gameplay? |
Sisi Collins
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 13:46:19 -
[245] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:All numbers are still very much in flux, and CCP aren't talking about their plans. We're still in the phase of bug hunting and testing functionality. The time to worry about ratting ticks will be later.
That is scaring me a lot. 1 month to release and we have huge amount of bugs/issues/not implemented features. CCP first want to release in December 2015 Citadels.... now we are in end of March and still almost nothing is working correctly... |
LittleBlackSheep
ISK Unlimited
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 14:48:04 -
[246] - Quote
Can we please have SHARED HOTKEYS with drones for:
- Launch all Fighters - All Fighters Engage Target (Primary Attack) - All Fighters Return to HangarBay
That would make things a lot more intuitive. Controlling them via other Hotkeys/Mousebuttons than drones for their basic functions is very uncomfortable. |
John Sparten1117
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 14:57:13 -
[247] - Quote
I like that new Doomsday but it's almost impossible to target at 90-¦ down. I don't get more than around 80-¦ |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg
169
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 16:12:08 -
[248] - Quote
John Sparten1117 wrote:I like that new Doomsday but it's almost impossible to target at 90-¦ down. I don't get more than around 80-¦ I could not find them in the market. Please give me a tip.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
John Sparten1117
1
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 16:20:12 -
[249] - Quote
Mark O'Helm wrote:John Sparten1117 wrote:I like that new Doomsday but it's almost impossible to target at 90-¦ down. I don't get more than around 80-¦ I could not find them in the market. Please give me a tip. It's the Doomsday HOG or something like that |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg
169
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 16:26:41 -
[250] - Quote
John Sparten1117 wrote:Mark O'Helm wrote:John Sparten1117 wrote:I like that new Doomsday but it's almost impossible to target at 90-¦ down. I don't get more than around 80-¦ I could not find them in the market. Please give me a tip. It's the Doomsday HOG or something like that Thanks. Now i have to get it out of the Station and into my Avatar. Haha. But first i have to sleep. Fly safe, Chief.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
|
Circumstantial Evidence
266
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 22:11:59 -
[251] - Quote
Sisi Collins wrote:Eli Stan wrote:All numbers are still very much in flux, and CCP aren't talking about their plans. We're still in the phase of bug hunting and testing functionality. The time to worry about ratting ticks will be later. That is scaring me a lot. 1 month to release and we have huge amount of bugs/issues/not implemented features. CCP first want to release in December 2015 Citadels.... now we are in end of March and still almost nothing is working correctly... This seems perfectly normal. An amazing number of bugs get fixed during every update cycle, in this period of time after the core features are finally "in." Game balance stuff is often sorted out in weekly patches, after the big update hits.
Crazy KSK wrote:The Nidhoggurs cargo is so small it can only hold 8 navy 3200 cap boosters no enough to full load an asb. Could be improved by adding a dedicated cap booster storage bay.
Crazy KSK wrote:Active tank on carriers feels weak... I think that's by design: active tank may be useful solo or in small groups just like with subcaps, but buffer tanks are preferred in larger fleet ops, especially if logi is available. Check this capital focus group reddit thread for theory-crafting on capital EHP and tanking. |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
74
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 23:25:37 -
[252] - Quote
That being true, active reps have historically been underpowered and should be much better than they are now. Capitals are mostly going to be fighting against other capitals and heavily damaging citadels. They need to have some survivability on the capital battlefield. Reliant on FAX'S yes, but there should still be a viable choice between active reps and buffer tank. Right now that choice does not exist.
I believe when I worked the numbers my cap armor rep ll only did 800dps worth of repair. A lot of BS'S have higher damage than that, so standing up to even a single dread doesn't factor in.
My moros got wtfbbq'd the other day. Even with siege and an ancillary rep, each cycle did barely a sliver of repair and wound up doing nothing to prolong the ships destruction.
Reps should repair a good chunk of damage but at the cost of high cap drain to prevent perma repping. |
Mark O'Helm
Fam. Zimin von Reizgenschwendt - Urlaub vom Krieg
170
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 00:20:20 -
[253] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:An amazing number of bugs get fixed during every update cycle, in this period of time after the core features are finally "in." Game balance stuff is often sorted out in weekly patches, after the big update hits. I have heard at Siemens this is called a "Banana Product". It matures at the Customer.
"Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen.
Aber Frauen wollen keine Frauenversteher.
Weil Frauenversteher wissen, was Frauen wollen." (Ein Single)
"Wirklich coolen Leuten ist es egal, ob sie cool sind." (Einer, dem es egal ist)
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
47
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 00:29:34 -
[254] - Quote
Mark O'Helm wrote:Circumstantial Evidence wrote:An amazing number of bugs get fixed during every update cycle, in this period of time after the core features are finally "in." Game balance stuff is often sorted out in weekly patches, after the big update hits. I have heard at Siemens this is called a "Banana Product". It matures at the Customer. To be fair, it's incredibly hard to balance stuff in a game this big on a test server. There are just so many variations in fleet sizes and compositions, markets, transportation, player behavior, etc. |
Alex Lenin
Providing of the first medical aid SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 00:43:18 -
[255] - Quote
2devs: Is energy transmitter works as planed? I mean cap transfer into triaged FAX without penalty or extraordinary amount of energy ( ~2K activation cost and ~11K capacity bonus when triaged) |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
106
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 02:39:16 -
[256] - Quote
Please increase the maximum lock range for all ships further, long range battleships and dreads especially can shoot even past 500km
Quote CCP Fozzie:
... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
432
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 04:01:43 -
[257] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:Please increase the maximum lock range for all ships further, long range battleships and dreads especially can shoot even past 500km
Only if they extend scrams to 500km too.
|
Jimcy Darthrakei
Serenity Through Isk
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 05:10:52 -
[258] - Quote
anyone else notice that the Satyrs tend to just randomly take off sometimes? i was messin around ratting with a thanny since i couldnt find any other way to test them out (im nowhere near c-6 or whatever it is) after i cleared one site, i hit recall all drones, started to warp to the next site then i noticed my satyr squadron was still stuck in "returning" mode but couldnt see them anywhere. panned out and looked, and they were almost 700km away from the ship.
at this point, warp drive activated. this leads me to the next issue. if for whatever reason, you leave a squadron behind, they get stuck in returning mode. even if you dock up, you can not reload that tube. even logging off and back on, i couldnt reload that tube until after downtime the next day |
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
48
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 05:53:06 -
[259] - Quote
Jimcy Darthrakei wrote:anyone else notice that the Satyrs tend to just randomly take off sometimes? i was messin around ratting with a thanny since i couldnt find any other way to test them out (im nowhere near c-6 or whatever it is) after i cleared one site, i hit recall all drones, started to warp to the next site then i noticed my satyr squadron was still stuck in "returning" mode but couldnt see them anywhere. panned out and looked, and they were almost 700km away from the ship.
at this point, warp drive activated. this leads me to the next issue. if for whatever reason, you leave a squadron behind, they get stuck in returning mode. even if you dock up, you can not reload that tube. even logging off and back on, i couldnt reload that tube until after downtime the next day Interesting. I thought they were supposed to warp after you and be abandonable now. Also, you can type /moveme and choose C-6. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1737
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 07:30:45 -
[260] - Quote
Soleil Fournier wrote:That being true, active reps have historically been underpowered and should be much better than they are now. Capitals are mostly going to be fighting against other capitals and heavily damaging citadels. They need to have some survivability on the capital battlefield. Reliant on FAX'S yes, but there should still be a viable choice between active reps and buffer tank. Right now that choice does not exist.
I believe when I worked the numbers my cap armor rep ll only did 800dps worth of repair (skills might improve that some). But that won't even tank a single dreadnaught.
My moros got wtfbbq'd the other day. Even with siege and an ancillary rep, each cycle did barely a sliver of repair and wound up doing nothing to prolong the ships destruction. That's why buffer is the only choice, active reps are useless.
Reps should repair a good chunk of damage but at the cost of high cap drain to prevent perma repping.
I feel like it is intentional that Dreads active rep better than carriers and carriers buffer better than dreads and i dont find that difference to be a bad thing
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
75
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 08:00:08 -
[261] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: I feel like it is intentional that Dreads active rep better than carriers and carriers buffer better than dreads and i dont find that difference to be a bad thing
My point was that my Moros in siege, with a charged AAR, repped next to nothing. The reps are useless even on a dread. |
Oxide Ammar
238
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 08:07:50 -
[262] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Crazy KSK wrote:Please increase the maximum lock range for all ships further, long range battleships and dreads especially can shoot even past 500km Only if they extend scrams to 500km too.
Your wish is granted, Supers now have ability to equip high slot weapon that can shoot warp disruption bubbles and it has absurd range, you can lol gate camp with fleets in your super carrier at 300+ KM away from the fight.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
139
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 11:50:24 -
[263] - Quote
Those capital modules are nice, but I have a few suggestions:
1. Capital modules fittable on battleships
As all of you know, it is possbile to fit for example 100MN afterburners in cruisers or 10mn afterburners into destroyers, the same also with shield extenders and armor plates(frigates with medium shield extenders or 400mn plates, cruisers with large extenders and 1600mm plates). In this case, you cant fit these capital modules into battleship, either they have restrictions or they use insane amount of pg(many times more than a battleship has). My suggestion is to divide the powergrid use of capital shield extenders, armor plates and afterburners by 10 to make them fittable into battleships. I don't know why cruisers can fit battleship modules and then battleships cant fit capital modules. I also dont believe that a battleship with a capital shield extender (then using 8000 pg instead of 80000) will be that overpowered, because it triples its signature and uses around 50% of its powerpool. The same is the case on cruisers fitting for example 100mn afterburners, they accelerate slowly and use 30-50% of their pg pool. Also you notice that the EHP battlecruisers and Battleships get from 1600mn plates plus implants and eams are almost similar. Armageddon with 2x T2 1600mn plates, 2x eanm 2 and dcu, 3x T2 armor pumps plus HG slave set gets 26k more ehp than a prophency with the same modules and implants fitted. This is probably the reason why battleships are underwhelming in some cases -> they dont have oversized modules other than frigs and cruisers.
So, please make it possibile to fit capital shield extenders, capital armor plates, 1000mn afterburners(obviously change the AB speed bonus on the Nightmare then to 20%), 5000mn microwarpdrives and capital cap batterys into battleships by reducing theyr PG need, but still make sure that they use around 30-50%(4000 to 7000) of the whole PG pool per module, so that they can't really make use of more than one capital module.
2. Algin of capital ships is horrible: I tested out a Naglfar that goes 1200m/s or 1700m/s with heat and noticed that the algineffect of that ship is horrible. Even with 14sec algin time, turns really slow, so that it flys backwards or sidewards with full speed. This is also the reason why they often enter warp back or sideway.
Suggeston: make sure that capital ships turn as fast as battleships, so they rotate faster and no longer warp of fly side or backway. This looks really horrible.
i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
50
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 12:41:16 -
[264] - Quote
Today I got to thinking a bit about the carrier bonuses. With the proposed bonuses there would be basically no reason to train a carrier skill to 5 if using normal carriers. Currently training one of the skills from 4 to 5 gives the ability to control an extra drone in addition to the other bonuses. That means a 7.1-11.1% increase in DPS for most carriers, or an 11.6-15.7% increase in Thanatos fighter DPS. Compare that to the 0-2.5% increase in DPS with the new stats and who's going to train a 14x skill beyond 4 for a bonus like that? I was in the middle of training Gallente Carrier V because it was worthwhile for the extra 12% DPS my fits would get, but that plan had been put on hold because it's not nearly worth spending 17 more days on a 2.27% improvement. It's also a bit unfair to players who have already trained the skills to 5 that 40+ days of training time is becoming so worthless. Obviously there needs to be a balance between training the skill to 5 being worthwhile and 4 or less being viable, but with the current numbers on SiSi 5 is far from worthwhile.
It feels like the changes are being designed around supercarriers while the only concern with normal carriers is that they don't compete with supers at all(like this Reddit comment). If there's concern about normal carriers getting too close to supers with their light fighter bonuses, keep in mind that supers can use heavy fighters, two squadrons of support fighters, burst projectors, and have extra warp core strength, while normal carriers are losing a lot of their current utility in favor of a pure DPS role. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1737
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 14:05:53 -
[265] - Quote
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:It kind of feels like the changes are being designed around supercarriers while the only concern with normal carriers is that they don't compete with supers at all (like this Reddit comment). If there's concern about normal carriers getting too close to supers with their light fighter bonuses, keep in mind that supers can use heavy fighters, two squadrons of support fighters, burst projectors, and have extra warp core strength, while normal carriers are losing a lot of their current utility in favor of a pure DPS role.
Considering titans can't hurt sub caps and supers used to have no abulity to use sib cap drones I don't think it should be an issue if super carriers are only a little or no better at dealing with sub capitals I really hope you take a second look at this ccp. At the moment with Haw as effective as they ate there is very little reason to train carriers do to how much longer the hull and weapons take to train than dreads.
Disadvantage of dreads
Stuck in one place for 5 min
Illusion of shorter range than fighters.
Less application without fleet support
Disadvantage of carriers
DPS can be killed
Significantly longer to reload of not fighting right of the carrier
Monstrously longer training time
Not effective against other capital ships.
Less dps than HAW
Why most of this becomes an issue is carriers can only fight sub caps but atm there is a better option for less sp
Either fighters need to be stronger/faster (to actually give them the range they appear to have) or haw need to have their dps cut 1/3
Or give carriers some heavys this makes them a better options to dreads do to flexibility but dreads become a better option because they can do more dps to either sub cap or capital.
Personally I like they idea of their role being anti sub cap and I think it will lead to better escalation progression but you cant let them be overshadowed by haw just so they don't compete in their specific role woth one of the super carriers roles
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Jen Makanen
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 21:25:00 -
[266] - Quote
I have a few question I'd like to raise here, not sure if they've been asked before but I'll fire away.
1. Will carriers still be able to use normal drones? Or is the graphic in the OP (with the Hel's drone and fighter bays) just a placeholder? Have we had a 100% answer on this yet?
2. Is the new Chimera model likely to come with this update? I'd love to see my new updated Chimera in space!
3. Is there a way in place to repair fighters/squadrons while they're in space? Will RR work on them?
4. From referring to the r/evecapitalfocusgroup sub, is there any advance on the numbers for the generic carriers? Nid's speed bonus on fighters feels a tad underwhelming, personally anyway.
Thanks for taking the time to read and answer these (if anyone does!)
JM. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1739
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 22:01:45 -
[267] - Quote
Jen Makanen wrote:I have a few question I'd like to raise here, not sure if they've been asked before but I'll fire away.
1. [DELETED]
2. Is the new Chimera model likely to come with this update? I'd love to see my new updated Chimera in space!
3. Is there a way in place to repair fighters/squadrons while they're in space? Will RR work on them?
4. From referring to the r/evecapitalfocusgroup sub, is there any advance on the numbers for the generic carriers? Nid's speed bonus on fighters feels a tad underwhelming, personally anyway.
Thanks for taking the time to read and answer these (if anyone does!)
JM.
2 I doubt it
3 they heal on their own seeing add all their hp is in shield
4 that speed bonus is probably the most powerful put pod all the carriers add it gives the nid much needed range and makes the fighters harder to kill
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
77
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 10:07:44 -
[268] - Quote
Good Monday Dev Bros. I've added to and consolidated my feedback from other posts below.
Critical / Showstoppers:
- Jump Range too short. Needs to be 8LY. The Jump Fatigue/range nerf was needed, but 5 LY puts too much burden on being a cap pilot and moving even short distances. And longer distances are a nightmare if your corp/alliance needs to travel far, so many players donGÇÖt even bother. Players should be able to get where they need to go without having to do 800 jumps. 8LY is fair and along with fatigue will guarantee players wonGÇÖt travel across half the map quickly. This should finally put an end to the issues surrounding fatigue and this is the best patch to make the change.
- Inter-Class balance- Not sure the viability of carriers now. FAXGÇÖs/Dreads/Supers will be the priority. Carriers should get additional bonuses to Anti-Fighters to give them a more valued role as a screen against fighters for the rest of the fleet.
- Inter-ship balance GÇô Aeon/Wyvern both out-tank and out-DPS the Nyx due to slot layout and DDUs. The Hel also out DPSGÇÖ Nyx due to DDUs but has slightly less tank. Nyx has traditionally been undisputed damage king, but is in jeopardy of being the unwanted black sheep of the group due to DDUs and better stat choices. Either the Nyx needs additional wings of heavies to compensate, or drone mods like DDU shouldnGÇÖt affect fighters. A -1mid/+1low could also be considered for the Nyx.
- Burst Projectors GÇô TheyGÇÖre promising but need some work. Since someone mentioned a thread coming for modules IGÇÖll provide feedback on these and other modules when those threads get posted
High:
- Fighter special abilities need to auto-repeat. This puts the proper focus on ammo management rather than button mashing.
- Heavies need a range indicator when using the MJD in the radial menu for better usability
- Fighter refuel/rearm time needs to be increased to prevent ability spam when recalled/relaunched.
Medium:
- Fighter tube UI GÇ£jumpsGÇ¥ around when launching fighters. It needs to stay where itGÇÖs placed.
- First tube doesnGÇÖt launch when GÇ£Launch allGÇ¥ button pressed until pressed a 2nd time.
Low:
- Supers need a big size increase. They're smaller than FAXs even.
- Need stats on fitting screen for Damage/DPS/etc for carriers/supers with fighter squads loaded.
- The number of launch tubes and fighter squad slots need to be added to show info panel for supers/carriers as they are listed on XL citadels.
- Masteries need to be updated for supers/carriers
- Damaged squadrons need to auto repair shield once recalled/refueled
- Add an GÇ£unload allGÇ¥ button on the fighter bay UI next to the launch tubes that unloads all fighters.
- Change the icons for fighter types - The ^ and the diamond can blend together due to the small font.
- Change the color for the squadron icons and the radial button that fills in as you add fighters. TheyGÇÖre both white and blend together when squads are loaded.
- Allow us to change the in-space icon color of fighter squads, so we can tell which ones are which. For ex: heavies would be highlighted in red, lights in yellow, supports in blue while in space. Or something similar.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1142
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 14:33:39 -
[269] - Quote
After flying a mothership in a 5 frames per second view for an hour, I can another idea for the fighter-bay.
When you detach the fighter-bay to move it on your UI you should have an option to pin it in place, so you cannot move it anymore without unpinning it first.
That ancillary IWIN gun for titans is OP. If it is working as intended there will be titan online following the Citadel release.
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.
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 21:06:46 -
[270] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Personally I like they idea of their role being anti sub cap and I think it will lead to better escalation progression but you cant let them be overshadowed by haw just so they don't compete in their specific role woth one of the super carriers roles
Carrier as mainly anti sub-caps would be nice, and I really cant see where else they could shine. Big dps against big targets is the role of dreads and supers. Support is done by fax. So killing the smaller stuff is basically all there is left. But they need some some serious dps for that, otherwise there is no point in bringing one. I would really like to know where carriers are supposed to be used... right now I cant see a situation where it wouldnt be better to bring something else. In small fights you probably want to bring fax if any caps are brought at all, and once things escalate there will be dreads and supers, which just overshadow carrier. But there is no stage inbetween where you want to have a carrier.
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Wait I have been wondering are FSU supposed to be stacking penalised because most of the issues go away if that's a bug
I just checked this because I could hardly believe that these modules really have a stacking penalty. There really is a penalty. I hope thats only a bug. The values of each unit are way too low to put a penalty on these. And even worse the speed bonus has to compete with navigation comps, so fitting a few of these means that bonus never applies anyway. Either remove the penalty, or make them specialized modules. One module with 18% hp bonus. One module with 18% rof bonus. etc.
Also I just noticed that skill "advanced drone interfacing" was changed to "fighter hangar management" which gives 5% more fighter hangar space per level. This is really underwhelming. Not only is this much much worse than the old skill (>7% damage increase due to the additional fighter) but just weak overall. And this on a 8x training modifier, those 2 million skillpoints are a huge waste now. Could you make this skill more useful? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |