|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
172
   |
Posted - 2016.06.18 07:59:04 -
[1] - Quote
I think the application changes make sense.
However I think CCP may be forgetting the ability they now have to iterate quickly.
The raw dps reduction is unnessasery, and could have been tried next month if the application changes alone weren't cutting it, which I think they more than will be. A smaller nerf followed by a little bit more, is a better idea than swinging a huge hammer at it on the first pass and then needing to go back and make buffs after people have been pissed off. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
174
|
Posted - 2016.06.19 10:28:26 -
[2] - Quote
On further testing, the raw damage nerf to the secondary attack of light fighters is completely unnecessary.
The application hit does enough to balance out the attack, the raw damage reduction then makes it underpowered.
You have limited charges, and the attack is meant to be used against larger craft.
Why then, does it do less raw dps, than the primary attack.
There is meant to be an interesting choice between stopping to reload or not, currently there isn't.
It feels like a chore simply manually cycling the secondary attack now that it is so weak.
Please restore the raw dps of the attack, and try putting through the (extreme on its own) application change only.
"Powerful secondary attack" no longer describes the ability in its current state.
Would also be very helpful if the secondary attack would simply autorepeat like the primary does. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
174
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 22:23:13 -
[3] - Quote
Increasing the number of charges for the secondary attack just makes the whole using of it more monotonous.
The secondary attack needs to remain high alpha, low number of shots, that is what made it interesting.
All that needed to change was the application.
Slashing the damage per shot, and upping the number of shots, just makes it act like 30% of the primary attack.
It's not interesting, it's not effective even against it's intended battleship targets, it is a chore.
So many good choices and excellent concept work was done making these new carriers.
Don't just trash them barely a month later due to a simple lack of effort and testing.
An alpha-strike of 30-40k on a battleship is perfectly acceptable, pressing that button would actually be fun.
The only problem with it was its ridiculous application on frigs and cruisers, that never needed to be like that. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
179
|
Posted - 2016.06.23 05:09:52 -
[4] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Fyt 284 wrote:I think the fact there has been no dev response to the criticism when the nerf goes live in a week is absolutely appalling. The devs have pretty much never responded unless they see something worth responding to.
They update a thread with changes if they alone decide upon them.
That isn't what feedback is meant to be. There should be dialogue, and rebuttals, a back and forth, with reasons stated for their decision, and reasons stated if they disagree with the community provided feedback. Silence isn't feedback.
You have plenty of people just yelling no, sure, but a lot of peoples willingness to write out long reasoned feedback is diminished by the fact it is not responded to. You would be surprised how much people would prefer to be told "no, here is our reasons for not wanting to do that", rather than nothing. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
191
|
Posted - 2016.07.01 14:20:03 -
[5] - Quote
Carriers are now in a very bad place, almost useless as an entire ship class if they remain like this.
Some major attention and very significant improvements need to be made. |
|
|
| |
|