|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3612
   |
Posted - 2017.05.31 14:09:05 -
[1] - Quote
I have always seen the variable slot layouts as a balancing nightmare. Giving the ships a default slot layout and then having the subsystems modify that would be a much easier way to balance the ships.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3612
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 18:31:02 -
[2] - Quote
IMO, I would like to see all offensive subs lose a hard point and a fitting slot, they just seems to have too much as proposed.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3613
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 14:43:28 -
[3] - Quote
I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more.
On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded?
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:42:40 -
[4] - Quote
Quote:[18:50] ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.
I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship?
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 13:52:32 -
[5] - Quote
Toobo wrote:TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company
Then they could bring back clone costs, that removed a lot of SP from the game from players who forgot to upgrade there clones. The constantly increasing costs of an older clone also guided players to purchase more plex or grind more causing more instances for ships to be lost which in turn could also make it more desirable to purchase plex.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 14:42:20 -
[6] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:baltec1 wrote:Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.
Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly. I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these. I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps. Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons.
In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp.
In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons.
As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 16:13:09 -
[7] - Quote
I know CCP is in process of full stats as well as overhauling how subsystems affect the hull, I'm an anxiously awaiting V2 of the changes.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3617
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 01:35:09 -
[8] - Quote
With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3618
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 03:25:52 -
[9] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Is that objectively a bad thing?
Beyond making the subsystem relatively useless, no.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3619
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 12:33:40 -
[10] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Rawketsled wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Is that objectively a bad thing? Beyond making the subsystem relatively useless. That kinda defeats part of the reason they are going down to 4 sets of 3 subs, which is to have better choices and remove useless combinations. Which subsystem? Each one seems pretty useful... just not in that exact situation you want them for.
Individually they are all useful but certain combinations quickly turn into hot garbage. There are 1024 combinations for each hull, how many have you used? Personally I use(d) about 20.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 14:58:40 -
[11] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Dior Ambraelle wrote:Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.
Rare, pirate faction subsystems.
One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha
It sounds like they heading in a direction where the subsystems have a lesser effect on the hull than in the past, where they simply modify the base stats rather than each subsystem adding specific stats.
If this is truly how they are going to handle them, then pirate faction subs are absolutely possible without too many balance issues.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 13:09:56 -
[12] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:One more thing I would like to leave here: at the end of October last year I made this thread about how I think the T3Cs could be redone. The conversation didn't go far and the thread was locked due to inactivity, most likely because the idea is a huge wall of text. The reasons I bring it up again is because: - it has become relevant - some of my ideas are in the current concept, like removing the cloak from the offensive subsystems and putting the logi and command modules there Maybe now that it's actually happening, people will take a few minutes to at least read it, even if it's really long.
They are in process of a second pass on the ships, also I don't see too many similarities between current and your proposal, and almost even less with what is being suggested.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 22:42:19 -
[13] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:zbaaca wrote:Mhari Dson wrote:
I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay.
caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ?  Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions.
Old tengu only had drones on 1 sub, I don't see why the new one should get more drones.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 01:10:55 -
[14] - Quote
That seems to fit with the norm for caldari cruisers, looking through the ships it appeared at first glance only one had a full flight of light drones. Though we have to wait until the new stat sheets are released before we have an opportunity to voice our opinions.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 14:44:12 -
[15] - Quote
Is this now touching the realm of power creep? At least in terms of the re-balance?
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 12:29:38 -
[16] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.
For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also.
Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:12:46 -
[17] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Noxisia Arkana wrote:
I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.
For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also. Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets. What about the drone bay on the Proteus? I think that's an important detail of the balance too. Should it be Ishtar, Stratios, somewhere in between or lower?
Personally I would love to see the drone bay as a fixed stat on the ships.
That being said, the Ishtar has 375, Stratios has 400, VNI has 200, current Proteus has 225, I think bumping it to 250 would be OK but I could also see dropping it down to 200.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:53:52 -
[18] - Quote
Noxisia Arkana wrote:@Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.
I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken.
I am in no way suggesting that the Bandwidth should be a fixed part of the hull, if possible I would like to see it added or subtracted based on what subsystem you have on the hull.
Simply the drone storage section would be fixed.
Edit: also I think the drones need to be removed from the blaster sub of the proteus.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3620
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 16:41:51 -
[19] - Quote
You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 13:23:34 -
[20] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay. I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price.
The Proteus is not supposed to have a similar drone bay as the Stratios or the bandwidth of the Ishtar, it has options that both of those ships don't have, needing to sacrifice a little bit of drone bay is a fair trade off.
The reason I didn't like to use a drone proteus was the difficult slot layout it created 6 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints, 3 mid slots and 7 low slots is a difficult drone cruiser.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.17 22:46:46 -
[21] - Quote
I would expect it's because they are updating to the new figures.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 11:22:06 -
[22] - Quote
Why did the Proteus Drone synthesis projector take such a large hit to the drone bay size? 175m I very small for having 100mbps
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.19 16:16:20 -
[23] - Quote
These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3621
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 13:42:27 -
[24] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:
how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake
Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared they are both ships
If the ships are balanced correctly and intuitively it should take less HACs than T3. This though is not an issues with HACs because in the scope of cruisers they are fine, T3C are what are out of alignment with other cruisers.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
|
|
| |
|