Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 14:42:20 -
[151] - 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.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3207
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 15:30:36 -
[152] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: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. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in.
Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3616
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 16:13:09 -
[153] - 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.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
812
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 20:35:00 -
[154] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: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. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones.
On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18948
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 21:31:40 -
[155] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote: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. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones. On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C.
Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way. This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops).
It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3617
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 01:35:09 -
[156] - 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.
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
523
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 03:15:42 -
[157] - Quote
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? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3618
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 03:25:52 -
[158] - 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.
|
Amarisen Gream
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
341
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 03:42:53 -
[159] - Quote
Something crazy that I think would be great, make T3C T3BC instead. It seems most of their numbers fall in line with BCs more than Cruisers anyway. Yeah it would be a crazy SP train to work out, but I think they would fit in better if they had the base stats inline with BCs vs cruisers.
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
#NPCLivesMatter
#Freetheboobs
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
232
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 03:53:16 -
[160] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote: 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.
Didn't realize cloak and nullification was a useless combination. Nullification was given to interceptors to make them unique. So they could fulfill the role of catching and holding down targets unimpeded by non-targeted effects (bubbles) but be horribly susceptible to damage as a trade off. What purpose does it serve on a T3C other than to make recons obsolete? What has been the trade off for this ability until now? Right, nothing. You had an nigh uncatchable cruiser with a BB level tank that could cloak until now.
Now those willing to put up an active defense will have the chance to catch these players. God forbid hotdroppers get a fight they weren't expecting... Maybe they could use this to their advantage and drop on the camp itself? If players do not set up a defense or are not set up properly to catch a T3C then nothing changes and you get your dank kills regardless. Remember, they still need to get the decloak.
All they are doing here is giving defenders a chance to defend and force a fight on them. Something which has been lacking for a while now with all the insta-warp nano crap that has become the meta.
Edit: fixed a broken quote |
|
Anemone221
221st Support group
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 05:41:48 -
[161] - Quote
I'm glad that the remote rep blop t3c is still a thing, never got to run a fleet with them but I would think it could be hilarious for small group to gank random instance runners and still be able to tank the site using them. In my opinion I would change the 550% falloff bonus to a 20 % increase in optimal and falloff (1/3 of basilisk). |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
812
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 05:45:43 -
[162] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way.
God, where to start? Neither covert cloak nor nullification is required for exploration. Those subsystems are not needed to do exploration sites. It is required for travel. Some content will be harder and will propablly need to change configuration in order to be done, like ghost sites or sleeper caches, and it is a good thing. Covert cloak is remedy for insta locking ships, nullification for non targeted interdiction, with current drawbacks that configuration will not be like walk in the park as currently is. T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities.
baltec1 wrote:This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops). Transport good? Less safe after nerf. Offensive cynos? Because nullified ceptors can't carry them...Hunt ratters? You serious? Obscene amount of ISK in null, carrier ratting in dead end pipes hidden behind mobile bubbles. Make "dirty gate" at pipe starting system and your covert only cyno carrier is useless. Run escalation safe? Yeah, they don't be caught while traveling but they will be on site. This is valid tactics in low and just because F1 monkeys in null don't know how to use combat probes and lachesis doesn't mean those hulls will be super safe.
baltec1 wrote:It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences. Just because we nerf proteus beyond the deimos doesn't mean the deimos will start to be usefull after. Covert+nullifing combo has very harsh drawbacks so I don't think recons will be overshadowed because T3Cs can nullifiy bubbles.
I have so concerns about cynos, if covert+nullified combo is too strong: 1) should nullified interdiction hull carry them? (both T3C and ceptors) 2) why not covert hulls only? 3) covert cyno reserved to recons only?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 09:09:45 -
[163] - Quote
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.
Sig increase isn't going to do much for catching them. You can cloak a titan before you can lock it due to the way sever ticks work so a bigger sig isn't going to do much. Question remains on the align time, in my experience you will be looking at something like battlescruiser to battleship speed, say 8 to 9 seconds to make catching it a realistic option.
|
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 09:14:42 -
[164] - Quote
baltec1 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. Sig increase isn't going to do much for catching them. You can cloak a titan before you can lock it due to the way sever ticks work so a bigger sig isn't going to do much. Question remains on the align time, in my experience you will be looking at something like battlescruiser to battleship speed, say 8 to 9 seconds to make catching it a realistic option. Why gate campers should be boosted? |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
524
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 10:47:38 -
[165] - Quote
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 12:18:34 -
[166] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote: Why gate campers should be boosted? Ususally they dont want to pvp, they can only camp the gate and run when you start pew-pew with them.
Why should you be able to ignore them? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3619
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 12:33:40 -
[167] - 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.
|
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 13:08:41 -
[168] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bromum Atom wrote: Why gate campers should be boosted? Ususally they dont want to pvp, they can only camp the gate and run when you start pew-pew with them.
Why should you be able to ignore them? Why they should get free killmail? Or why I should logoff at camped system? Why carriers ratting aligned and ignore pvp when I going to catch them? What is easy: catch carrier when it warp to new rat-site (there is no othe way to catch it if carrier pilot doesn't sleep) or catch covert-nullifier t3 when it pass through gate? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 13:37:56 -
[169] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote: Why they should get free killmail?
Its only free if you let them win.
Bromum Atom wrote: Or why I should logoff at camped system?
You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it.
Bromum Atom wrote: Why carriers ratting aligned and ignore pvp when I going to catch them? What is easy: catch carrier when it warp to new rat-site (there is no othe way to catch it if carrier pilot doesn't sleep) or catch covert-nullifier t3 when it pass through gate?
So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button. |
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 13:55:56 -
[170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button.
I told that. Dont know what you hear. You want camp gate killing t3 with you "win" button, but carriels still should be uncatchable?
Quote:You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it. I have cov ops cloak + nullifier. Why t3 should be nerfed, but carriers not?
Quote:Its only free if you let them win. I dont let them, I will refit and search for pvp at other places. Easy. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3377
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 14:40:11 -
[171] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities.
They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 14:54:02 -
[172] - Quote
Bromum Atom wrote:baltec1 wrote: So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button.
I told that. Dont know what you hear. You want camp gate killing t3 with you "win" button, but carriels still should be uncatchable? Quote:You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it. I have cov ops cloak + nullifier. Why t3 should be nerfed, but carriers not? Null+covert is just small nice bonus for such expensive t3 ship. Quote:Its only free if you let them win. I dont let them, I will refit and search for pvp at other places. Easy.
You seem to have an obsession with AFK carriers, if you want them nerfed then ask for it somewhere else. This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18956
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 14:54:50 -
[173] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them.
See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 15:08:42 -
[174] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp why shouldn't a t3c be able to when its specifically fitted to avoid it |
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
17
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 15:59:15 -
[175] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular?
|
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
90
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 16:16:46 -
[176] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:[quote=baltec1] other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp why shouldn't a t3c be able to when its specifically fitted to avoid it well anyway if the gate camp is decent there si no reason not to catch a t3c all you need is a sebo dram to decloak and point shhh . dont use secret language of logic
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
90
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 16:19:35 -
[177] - Quote
April rabbit wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular? jump freights . ceptors to ignore 95% of camps . bombers to choose when and where they want do die . blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc . i guess you get the idea
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
GÖíGÖíGÖí
|
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 16:32:19 -
[178] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered. SP is just ISK. By this logic: people just use hude price of Supercarriers as an excuse to make them overpowered. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 16:32:52 -
[179] - Quote
zbaaca wrote:April rabbit wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:baltec1 wrote:This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular? jump freights . ceptors to ignore 95% of camps . bombers to choose when and where they want do die . blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc . i guess you get the idea
yeah all of those and a few others the yacht the little mining frigs etc after these changes t3cs will be easier to catch they get agility nerf and nulli sub gets agility penalty |
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille Gallente Federation
64
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 22:46:17 -
[180] - Quote
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:"Team Five O" wrote: Dual tank bonuses for the Loki
The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no? *sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth* This is my main problem with Minmatar in general. The rule - as much as I understand - supposed be that specialization is always better than flexibility/compensation... call it what you want. The other factions picked a defense bonus for their ships: Amarr has passive armor with high resistance, Gallente has active armor with rep bonus, Caldari has passive shield with high resistance. So by logic, Minmatar should have active shield with booster bonus, and ONLY that. But Minmatar decided to be a mess by using armor and shield systems randomly, which brings up my problem: if Minmatar isn't specialized in any one defense, then shouldn't it have significantly weaker tank than the other 3 factions?
And this brings up an even bigger problem with the Loki: surprise tank. The fact that you don't know what kind of tank it has, the Loki should have a huge advantage over the other 3 ships. However, it's still not specialized, so the chance to be tanked against the opponent's weapons should be the main defense. This means that if the opponent failed to guess the tank then the Loki should probably win, even if it's tank isn't specialized, and therefor weaker. But if the opponent guessed the tank then the Loki shouldn't have a chance.
Other personal opinions about the new subsystems: - still no weapon disruption, sensor dampening and target painting. Are you suggesting that only the ECM wort anything? I would make a sensor/e-war core system with these 4 - based on the previous, another core system would be the cap warfare (Amarr), warp disruption (Gallente), web (Minmatar) and __________ (Caldari). This is another interesting thing, only 3 factions seem to have a unique engineering or propulsion based tactic. In this case Caldari is way behind the other 3 factions. - cloak and scanning in the same subsystem? Sure they are often used together, but not only used together. I would make the scanning/exploration the third core system, separated from the cloak. This way you could make a well tanked explorer/hunter without a cloak, which sometimes could be more useful.
If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!
But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |