| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD
Tactical Supremacy
19
   |
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:54:20 -
[271] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:
1. no refund.
2. rorqual will get a huge buff to be on grid.
1) that's CCPlease for u
2) Yes buff is insta die cuz can't leave in siege mode. Or. Insta die whole fleet since now you can't move for duration of the panic button and neither can ur buddies. yay welps. Oh the huge buff, meaning
-43.88% maximum cycle bonus? And complete removal of mining yield bonus? Yeeee haw, great bonus. Remind me what existing max cycle bonus time is?
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:58:07 -
[272] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:Rowells wrote:Yep. Completely new bonus. A creative one, no doubt, but I still believe that by itself it doesn't really do nearly as much as the other two. I worry that it will become one of those boosts that doesn't really get used because its impact is so small. In a big enough mining fleet, the cost in crystals alone could make this module pay for itself really quickly. I'm actually thinking that this is a very strong bonus.
Maybe so. But in comparison to the benefit the other links provide, it's very low. |
Vic Vorlon
Aideron Robotics
58
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:58:58 -
[273] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Vic Vorlon wrote:This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!
Idea: ram the enemy boost ship, if you can't kill it, to get it out of position.
To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it. That's a surprisingly reasonable outlook for the Comments thread of a Dev Blog. 
I'm a pretty chill guy :) I prefer to trust that CCP know what they're doing and wait to see how the game feels BEFORE grabbing my pitchfork and rabble-rabbling my way to the castle (where I expect to be ignored anyway). I know they sometimes make mistakes, but if I freaked out with every big change I'd take years off my life.
That said, I'm a line member of a smallish lowsec FW corp. I dabble in lots of different parts of the game (including mining now and then) and I don't min-max the hell out of any given portion. If bits of it change, I adjust my fits and try it out, or try something else. My enjoyment doesn't depend on playing one part of the game really, really "well".
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:59:24 -
[274] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Rowells wrote:Regardless, I'm no math whiz but the potential buff to tank looks absolutely terrifying There's also the question of how they interact on ships like the ANI, which already has a raw bonus to Armor HP.
Oh boy I'm getting a chubby thinking of new damnation/t3 fits too. |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:02:53 -
[275] - Quote
Sassura wrote:
CCP please try to work on the 'one size fits all' approach if that is possible because that doesn't seem like it works well for many people who currently use 'links'.
also this nails it
+1 |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:04:38 -
[276] - Quote
Are there any plans or discussions to involve some more diverse fitting modifications for links? We've got the modules, ships, and skills, but nothing to try and make trade offs for things like range, duration, or power. |
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
417
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:05:12 -
[277] - Quote
Took some time and thought about this one for a bit...
First off I am 100% in full agreement that all ships (yes mining ones too) should have to be on grid or in a belt to provide boosts. I do also like the simplicity of the new system - not having to worry about hierarchy in a fleet and whether or not the boost is working or not is a good change.
I also like the idea of having the boosts use ammo/fuel - just a note CCP - if this can be done please apply this to cloaks - you want everyone to stop afk boosting then stop afk cloaking by making them use ammo/fuel.
I think that the only issues I am having are with the mining changes. There is one direct change - being in a belt - and as I said above we need to get over that and move on.
However the range that the boosts are provided is I think a major issue. Here's why:
Current gameplay - boosts are provided system wide - many new corps/starter corps and CASMA provide newbros with boosts and advice by providing an often free service of boosting their mining. When doing this you often have large sized fleets where having everyone in one belt would simply be daft....players often spread out over several belts in a system. This new system will prohibit that. I started EvE many moons ago, and it was groups like CASMA that kept me playing and interested and eventually hooked up with some friends who took me to the stars in null. I think the range change on the mining boost may end the days of some of these awesome starter entities that imho have kept more people than some other things I have seen in the game. I still support that the booster should have to be on grid/in a belt/anom but i think the mining boost should apply system wide or perhaps within x AU vs km ranges. I am not sure how you can do this maybe tie the mining booster to have to be within x kilometers from a asteroid/anom belt beacon of some sort so they are not off in some safe doing what they do now.
2nd there is a subtle nerf here by the elimination of the passive boosts. Currently no mining fleet has a t3 or command ship included to provided armor/shield boosts we get that from the years of skilling up that the fleet booster did. Again as I said above i do like the simplicity of the change - but will there be an adjustment/balancing of mining ships to offset the loss of this? Mining barges are already weak (proc/skiff class excepted) your now removing 1000s of ehp from them with this change - this may drive even more people to use one class of ship - defeating your goal of having some balance within the class.
Thats it for now, as I said changes overall are reasonable, and we all just need to take a big breath, put our big space panties on and say okay on grid its happening, we have been warned for years.
Cheers
~R~ |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
1257
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:07:00 -
[278] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say: Team Five 0 wrote:However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected. Does that mean... Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances ... are made useless by fitting hardeners? Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints ... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders? Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors ... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo? ETA: as an example, the maxmum benefit shown on the chart for 'Shield Harmonizing' is a 22% (ish) bonus. The bonus from a single Adaptive Invuln is expressed as a -30% vulnerability. Can you please explain how those two will mesh, and whether 3 Adaptives will put the Command Bonus far enough into diminishing returns as to be negligible?
there aren't any stacking penalties on hp increases at the moment, even though there really should be |
Don Trust
Bucket of Blood
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:07:31 -
[279] - Quote
So my main is halfway through training for boosts with the current system. Do I stop now? Hurry up and get it fully trained (skill inject). I'm not sure what I should do at this point (I still have more to read, so this may have already been covered).
Any suggestions?
Don o7 |
Smertyukovitch
Caladari CareBear Corporation
11
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:07:37 -
[280] - Quote
After receiving some mental help from my friends and reading through this thread i'm now ready to provide a more detailed feedback.
1. This is a huge kick in a sensitive area for all miners. Assuming Rorq will be unable to move while Industrial Core is active it makes 3bn ship just a sitting duck with a very marginal profit. Having atleast as many boosting ships and toons as the number of belts your community wants to mine doesn't help either.
2. Home defence in 0.0. Usually attacking fleets are larger than defending due the schedule on one side and lack of there of on another. This change will degrade that part of the game.
3. FW. It is as it is, who's got the bigger numbers wins, pretty much the same goes for larger fleet fights. Those communities will be able to spare someone to this new role.
4. Incursions. In some cases this change can even help by increasing EHP of each fleet member, though on a larger scale this is a decrease in fleet DPS.
5. War-dec. As it is there might be an issue with neutral alts boosting fleets. This needs to be looked at.
Overrall i think there are some massive issues with the whole idea.
A. Too small base area of effect, especially for mining and cap fleet engagements.
B. Another case of taking away something that ship already had and offering it as a module. Yes, i'm talking about titans.
C. Not refunding SP after taking away passive skill bonus seems wrong. Although in 6 years i had so much of that on all my toons i could probably make another supercap pilot out of that ammount of SP. I'm well over my rage on that point.
D. People owning boosting toons usually don't just go AFK. They have stuff to do, forcing more activity on them will result in abandoning one thing or another. My guess is that they'll abandon more boring thing to do and "smatbombing" fleet members once in a minute or two is an obvious choice.
I agree, existing system is not great, but there are player communities build upon it. Ruining them somehow seems not a good idea.
On the last note, i want to mention all that "cry me a river" motive in this thread. From my gaming experience that aproach to other people's feelings and thoughts leads only to one thing: your dreams will also get wrecked someday and what you'll get is the same "i love your tears". |
|
|
Nicemeries
23
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:09:22 -
[281] - Quote
In before battle Rorqs hit the invul timer! Jump Rorqs now!  |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:13:59 -
[282] - Quote
Regan Rotineque wrote:Took some time and thought about this one for a bit...
...
I also like the idea of having the boosts use ammo/fuel - just a note CCP - if this can be done please apply this to cloaks - you want everyone to stop afk boosting then stop afk cloaking by making them use ammo/fuel.
...
yes mate, another strong point that is a must have change
+1 |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2651
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:14:03 -
[283] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say: Team Five 0 wrote:However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected. Does that mean... Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances ... are made useless by fitting hardeners? Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints ... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders? Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors ... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo? ETA: as an example, the maxmum benefit shown on the chart for 'Shield Harmonizing' is a 22% (ish) bonus. The bonus from a single Adaptive Invuln is expressed as a -30% vulnerability. Can you please explain how those two will mesh, and whether 3 Adaptives will put the Command Bonus far enough into diminishing returns as to be negligible?
Yes, this is exactly how it works.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2651
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:15:44 -
[284] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Querns wrote:Arrendis wrote:Oh, hey, just a crazy thought, but when you say: Team Five 0 wrote:However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected. Does that mean... Armor Energizing - Increases all armor resistances Shield Harmonizing - Increases all shield resistances ... are made useless by fitting hardeners? Armor Reinforcement - Increases armor hitpoints Shield Extension - Increases shield hitpoints ... are worthless if you've got plates/extenders? Sensor Optimization - Increases targeting range and scan resolution Electronic Hardening - Increases Sensor Strength and resistances to Sensor Dampeners and Weapon Disruptors ... are both gimped by fitting a Sebo? For the armor and shield buffer ones, it's unlikely. Shield extenders and armor plates add absolute values of additional tank buffer and is not subject to diminishing returns. The +buffer links would multiply the effectiveness of each extender/plate. For the other ones, they will be stacking penalized with other hardeners or sensor boosters, since they offer a percentage-based modifier. Regardless, I'm no math whiz but the potential buff to tank looks absolutely terrifying
It's the same as it is now, just at applied differently.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
570
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:04 -
[285] - Quote
Ancy Denaries wrote:Drago Shouna wrote:
I was about to buy a Rorq, man I'm so glad I didn't now. Once again Fozzie, Seagull and team 5o screw over a whole part of the game to provide targets....
How many mining fleets can you see in null having one on grid? No chance of it without a combat fleet backup, so they might get used in corp ops.
There's no chance of me putting a Rorq, Orca or much of anything else on grid that doesn't stand a chance of warping away when a red fleet hits the system.
So we better get used to no boost mining I suppose.
Cheers Fozzie ..i..
Glorious tears. Adapt or die.
Finished trolling yet idiot? BTW, it just saved me 2.2 bil plus fittings :)
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Mercenary Coalition
3088
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:10 -
[286] - Quote
Don Trust wrote:So my main is halfway through training for boosts with the current system. Do I stop now? Hurry up and get it fully trained (skill inject). I'm not sure what I should do at this point (I still have more to read, so this may have already been covered).
Any suggestions?
Don o7
If your pilot isn't trained for normal combat ships + fittings you are going to be in a tight spot (ex: specialized off grid boosters). However if your character is capable of flying any of the ships that can fit a link, and fly them with enough skill to take some gunfire, you should be fine.
That being said, you have to determine if being a boosting pilot is something you want to do in a fleet. The same exact considerations for other roles (logistics, tackle, dps, etc.)
Depending on where "half-way" means for you, you are in a good position to also determine what is going to be worth the train(FC V for example) and spec your skills as far as you think you need to go.
Personally, I'm only ripping out skills on my OGB character and keeping the relevant mining links (thankfully he was used as both). I will also continue to finish off infowar skills on the main. Not too sure about FC V yet though. May not be worth it.
Depending on your isk pile/income and your current sp level, injecting is up to you. I'm at 95mil sp so I don't plan on injecting anything ever really :(. |
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
200
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:16:49 -
[287] - Quote
There's a few important details missing.
- Will the bursting ship receive the same benefits? It would appear not.
- Will the bursts use similar rules to remote reps as far as inheriting and gaining flags is concerned? If not, why not?
- You liken the module to a smartbomb, will they be restricted in the same way regarding activation near gates and stations?
- Will there be an overlap between cycle time and reload time to allow for buff juggling? If the aim is to encourage active gameplay, this should be a possibility. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Stain Confederation
714
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:25:48 -
[288] - Quote
Will all these bonuses apply to capital ships?
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
404
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:28:39 -
[289] - Quote
it is absolutely mind boggling how seagull allows this kind of work done by folks who have zero knowledge about industry.
prepare for epic market disruptions in November. |
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
187
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:40:06 -
[290] - Quote
One question only:
what defined the decision to make the "ammo" for the burst module to be crafted from ice products? why not PI or regular minerals?
|
|
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
2929
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:44:22 -
[291] - Quote
Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Damocles Orindus
Shadow State
Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:50:23 -
[292] - Quote
When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE.
While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log.
This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. 
This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
575
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 19:53:20 -
[293] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful.
From the dev blog:
"Unlike Command Bursts, Effect Generators impact ALL ships within their defined area (friend or foe)." |
Ristari
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:00:27 -
[294] - Quote
Getting boosts on grid is a good thing, but do we really need to have 3 separate (and very SP intensive) skills for increasing burst radius? 5,376,000 SP in this alone, which would be just about 3 times the amount you put into range support skills for EW.
Considering the skills changed from giving you the ability to boost larger groups to a range increase that even small scale boosters will want, I'd say do away with the fleet command skill, and just have its benefits applied to the remaining two skills. |
Regan Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
419
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:00:59 -
[295] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
omg...i liked a goon post
what is the world coming to ..... |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
590
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:01:22 -
[296] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
The Rorqual still receives better boosts outside of its siege mode than does the Orca.
Fit a Higgs rig to the Rorqual, drop it in a belt, and align out at 75% speed. You'll be outpaced by a snail, so you'll be able to stay in range of your mining fleet, and because you're aligned and most certainly not AFK, you can warp out just as soon as a hostile shows up in your system or intel channels.
I don't get all this "the Rorqual is dead" and "nullsec mining is dead" nonsense.
It's Risk vs. Reward: If you want the best reward, you need to put up the most risks, and just like pretty much everything else in EVE, the risk goes up significantly faster than the reward (which goes along with the absolute best mining buffs require you to lock yourself down for five minutes).
The only reason nullsec mining would die is if the putzes refuse to change their methods and refuse to look beyond their noses.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
406
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:01:29 -
[297] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:Zappity wrote:Will the Titan Effect Generators affect everybody in range or just your fleet? If it is everyone (like wormhole effects) then it could be pretty powerful. From the dev blog: "Unlike Command Bursts, Effect Generators impact ALL ships within their defined area (friend or foe)."
so that means you're boosting everyone?? or shall i say... errrrrrrybody near you will get impacted by boost rings?
im simply amazed at the thought process this took and how incredibly their blogs makes things even more confusing to even understand.. no wonder they wait forever to release a dev blog these days. it hurts my head to think what the fawk are they saying? |
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
431
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:01:32 -
[298] - Quote
Damocles Orindus wrote:When CCP removed boosting Command ships from within POS shields, they specifically left Orca/Rorqual mining boosts out of that change due to the outcry and the expected population fleeing from EVE. While it's important to get rid of off grid "Combat" boosting for reasons of bringing more players onto the battlefield for which they want, for some reason we now think the same issue faced during the last tweek to boosts is no longer going to massively impact the mining/industrial community in game and cause many industrialists to throw up their hands and log. This change seems more motivated by a small gang, ganker type developer that will now have a capital kill available in every mining anom they warp to. The supposed "olive branch" is that the Rorqual will have a "slow death" button that means not everything will die immediately as the fleet is bubbled and the Rorqual dies... then the fleet dies. What a big bonus. This change to Mining Boost dynamics has no positive benefit to Nullsec industry and was likely not put forth by anyone with serious industrial experience but instead someone who wanted shinier kill mails while miner ganking.
It's mechanical. Keeping in current OGB for mining means that all the code for OGB and their relation to fleets/wings/squads has to stay in AND those corresponding skills must maintain their current use as well as the corresponding modules. That makes no sense from a game design and coding perspective.
The positive effect depends on your perspective. You may not view it as positive that your invulnerable bonuses are coming to an end, but the overall game health could certainly be positively impacted by 1) content creation resulting from boosting ships being on grid. 2) competitive advantages from groups that refuse to use on grid boots vs. other groups that do. You do not have to give kill mails by simply not risking your ships but then you also lose the advantage those boosts provide. Contrast this with the current environment where basically everyone has mining boosts offering no gameplay distinction at all and tell me what the true value is there?
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:02:16 -
[299] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Looks really good, with one extremely glaring exception.
What was the justification for reducing Command Ships from three Links to two, other than forcing gangs to bring multiples?
Or was this just a typo?
Yeah, that is the main thing I'm kinda "eh" about... that means that all command ships will have 2 links by default and with 1 "command processor" rig 3 links and with 2 "command processor" rigs 4 links... and... command burst modules, I mean, not links. heh.
Though people will probably still call them links, really. or maybe "bursts".
Anyway... that means all command ships will be limited to 4 of the modules in their highslots no matter if they're 7 or 6 high slot ships... (really feel like a limit of 5 would be better than 4... 3 by default + 1 per each rig = 5 total max)... But it's very hard to react to this fully without knowing how the 8 command ships themselves will be changed and rebalanced (blog #3 will have more details on this, sounds like). I hope they have some major buffs to tank and damage/application to make up for the reduced amount of boosting each one can do + the whole needing to be on grid almost all the time part.
Though I DO look forward to no midslots taken up by command processors and no lowslots taken up by CPU modules bit that seems to be coming as well... the fitting costs for the new modules better either be low to begin with, or all (subcap) ships that can fit them should have role bonuses to reduce the fitting or something. The days of the 6 or 7 link booster will be dead, but at least the two rep-related links of both armor and shield are being condensed into one ammo type (that is good). |
Jeinvay Kunsu
Dot.Inc
TRUE VINE
8
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 20:03:27 -
[300] - Quote
As a non-logistics/support player, i have drawn the following conclusion from the past 15 pages of responses to these changes:
A large majority of players think you, Fozzie, and your team are blathering idiots who have no actual idea how boosts should work. I am inclined to agree. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |