| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
   |
Posted - 2007.06.11 06:09:00 -
[1]
Ok this is going too far. I can fully admit Battlecruisers needed a nerf thatÆs fine but why Command ships? They never got the full hitpoint boost last time around. As for SPRÆs well they needed fixing and I am very glad the named modules have been sorted out. But the nerf to CPU is pretty bad it now means you cannot passive tank frigates not even the frigates with passive tank bonusÆs on them.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:43:00 -
[2]
Devs should fix something what need to be fixed and not random *** things. FIX the CPU on caldari ships!!! Or give third damage to amarr!!! or do something usefull!!! But the best if u do nothing, than u dont make so much wrong
|
Waxau
Amarr
Liberty Rogues
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 07:51:00 -
[3]
Signed
CCP have done alot of good things in the past, but this doesnt even touch on those :(
|
Victus Fidelus
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:11:00 -
[4]
they trying to change things subtely (Spell check) so it least effect the game mechanics.
Tech II ships need to be looked at in general after the hp boost on tech1 n stuff.
AFs --> wortheless atm
Hacs --> There are good number of hacs that needs some attention.
Commandships --> to close to tier 2 BC imo...and there is quite a big gab between the eos and the others.
Commandships are my biggest concern...taken into account the time thats needed to train all the skills needed to fly one.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:20:00 -
[5]
Passive shield tanking on battlecruisers needed a nerf indeed.
I'm a Drake pilot most of the time myself, so don't give me crap about it please, I know very well what I'm talking about.
Heck, I'd even go so far as claim the 1250 to 1400 increase in recharge time is not nearly enough, it should be further increased to 1500 seconds.
The SPRs, well, they were overpowered to some degree, and the "next to no fiting requirements" made them uberuseful for any ship with a full passive setup (i.e. anything that can just use missiles, drones and projectiles).
The increase in CPU requirements to 20tf and 22tf for T1 respectively T2 is also justifiable.
HOWEVER, it would make a lot more sense now to further increase the recharge rate on T2 SPRs from 24% to 25%, back to the value they had before they were actually introduced through invention.
Sidenote, please do the same with T2 cap rechargers, bring them up to 25% cap recharge time too.
The change to CPU requirements in shield rechargers from 50 tf to 30 tf is also a great idea.
The fact the recharge RATE on the shield rechargers is nowhere near as high as on SPRs however, that's a very BAD thing.
IF ANYTHING, shield rechargers should get at least the same recharge rate bonuses as SPRs do.
Afterall, they still use up MORE CPU as SPRs, but barely have half of their effectiveness.
Yeah, they don't "destroy" the capacitor either, but then again I'd expect them to use a lot less CPU.
If you finally "fix" shield rechargers to give at least 20% recharge rate for T1 and 24%/25% for T2, you could finally also have barely feasable battleship passive shield tanks.
Alternatively, leave them as they are, but decrease the CPU requirements to something along the lines of 15 tf per recharger. That would still suck, IMHO, leave them at 30tf but give them almost double recharge rate bonuses as they have now.
Moving on to command ships.
I couldn't agree more with Pottsey here.
It is the single, most monumental idiotic change in the history of the game, if it's changed further.
And by "changed further", I mean giving them the base hitpoints they were denied in the last change.
Basically, increase all their hitpoints by at least 20%, maybe even 25%.
Moving on to another issue not yet mentioned here, the old issue of DC/EANM/EANM tanks.
It might not seem the proper place to discuss it at first glance, but it really does belong here, talking about CPU issues.
The fact active hardners and EANMs both got adjusted to 36tf (for T2) was a good thing (used to be 40 actives, 30 EANM).
HOWEVER, that doesn't change the fact that the damage control (T2) still uses only 30 tf, so the full combo STILL uses less CPU as a three-hardner combo... alongside the fact it gives the same resists (at max skills) as those of FOUR (one of each) T1 active hardners, but without any capacitor consumption (so, almost 8 cap/sec saved, which is A LOT)... not to mention the shield/hull resists and the fact you "save" a slot.
We're not talking about armor tanks here though. I just had to mention the above, you'll see why.
BUT WHY am I discussing this issue IN HERE then ?
Because I believe the actual problem lies within the fiting requirements of the damage control module.
I believe a T2 DC should "cost" AT LEAST 40tf to fit, if not even 45tf.
It's just THAT good for just about any tanking EXCEPT pasive shield tanking, where even a PDS-II is better.
Now, we have another issue.
The Shield Flux Coils. And their "sisters", the Capacitor Flux Coils.
Bottom line, BOTH of them are positively overshadowed by the Power Diagnostic System. That one just has no freaking drawbacks.
Both are in a dire need of a boost, and the boost here might just as well be the final needed tweak to passive shield tanking.
The penality to maxshield/maxcap is quite good, to be honest, heck, it could even make due with a bit of harshening.
But the bonus they give out ? It should be increased much.
_
New char creation guide | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Yzuki
Shadow Gypsies
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:26:00 -
[6]
This is sad, because the downfall of these MMORPGs is when the devs start trying to balance the crap out of everything. They feel the need to tweak and tweak until the game sucks. Why can't some ships just be better than others, some races just be better than others, some setups just be better than others? EVE used to be so progressive in they looked forward with minimal tweaking backwards.
The devs listen way too much to the crying forum *****s. the passive drake had a monster tank, but guess what? It still had a lot of holes which balanced it out. To have that uber tank you had no tackle and crappy damage output.
Eh, just my thought. I'm probably wrong about everything anyways.
Helping the EVE economy flourish since 2005
|
Zeerover
Caldari
DeadSpace Exploration and Investigations
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:27:00 -
[7]
I've often considered the arguement that "passive shield tanks don't use cap and should be nerfed." to be false. This is because you nerf your own cap to oblivion by using a passive shield setup and therefore are excluded from using the myriad of modules that require cap.
In reality a passive shield setup uses all your cap, by making it unusable for anything else.
Therefore I think it's quite bad to nerf the passive shield tanks, yes the myrmidon and drake are fantastic passive shield tanks and might be in need of a tweaking, but it's dangerous to go to far down this road as then nobody will ever bother with the passive shield tanks again, and the game will be poorer for it, as it gives us less choice.
|
Ling Xiao
Prism Project Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:29:00 -
[8]
You should post this on the game dev forum, there's probably a miniscule chance that someone at CCP will both read and understand the reasoning. I guess there's not enough passive tank advocates to make them listen though.
Oh well back to cookie cutter setups that 99% of Eve uses.
__________
If you think the game is rigged, why are you still playing? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:30:00 -
[9]
Personally, I think the best course of action would be something like this:
* Command ships get a 25% hitpoints boost and recharge rate remains at 1400 sec.
* Battlecruisers further get the recharge rate up to 1500 sec.
* increase T2 SPR and T2 Cap Recharger bonus (from -24%) to -25% recharge time
* improve shield rechargers : -20% recharge time (T1) to -25% recharge time (T2)
* adjust cap flux coils: increase penality to -20% maxcap and bonus to -35% cap recharge rate (for T2, -40%)
* adjust shield flux coils: increase penality to -20% maxshield and bonus to -35% shield recharge rate (for T2, -40%)
* increase damage control CPU requirement to 35tf for T1 and 40tf for T2
And with that, all should be fine.
Except now we need a bit of tweaking on the CPU side of ships... some of them should get a slight CPU boost to compensate, others shouldn't.
_
New char creation guide | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Cpt Branko
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:40:00 -
[10]
A ship which enables a six-month old player willing to spend 200mil to tank the ship to that extent that it cannot be killed by a guy with a Slepnir costing 3 bil, max gunnery skills, and set up for maximum gank and a couple of mates in cruisers is just redicilous.
It's going to have a crazy tank after the nerf, as well. Just 10% less powerful, what, you must admit, isn't a lot.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 08:57:00 -
[11]
The Drake needs an aproximate 10% increase in CPU (or 10% grid, or 5% each CPU/grid), and bonuses changed to 10% missile flight speed and 5% missile RoF (yeah, unimaginative, just like the Raven, but you're not getting anything good with HAMLs otherwise and a base 140m/s speed, which should remain as it is).
The Myrmidon needs its dronebay increased to 175m, speed increased 5m/s to 150, and have one of its midslots REMOVED, alongside a removal of SOME of its powergrid (1125MW instead of 1175MW sounds about right).
The Harbinger needs one extra lowslot badly. Maybe up its speed by 5m/s to 155.
The Hurricane needs its dronebay increased to 50m. Speed of 165 is good, but 170 would be better.
_
New char creation guide | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Marcus Alkhaar
Conisor Excavations Syndicate
Antagonistic Assembly
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 09:34:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 11/06/2007 09:33:27
damn, I'm happy that Akita isn't a Developer in the EVE-Balance-team!
oh god 
|
Zeerover
Caldari
DeadSpace Exploration and Investigations
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 09:53:00 -
[13]
 Originally by: Ling Xiao
You should post this on the game dev forum, there's probably a miniscule chance that someone at CCP will both read and understand the reasoning. I guess there's not enough passive tank advocates to make them listen though.
Oh well back to cookie cutter setups that 99% of Eve uses.
Good idea, now done.
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:11:00 -
[14]
Quote:
Why can't some ships just be better than others, some races just be better than others, some setups just be better than others?
Because then nobody would use anything except the better setup, and the worse ones may as well not even exist at all.
|
Rigsta
Gallente
Raddick Explorations
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:22:00 -
[15]
The passive tank is alive and well on Sisi after the charges. Command ships are designed for active tanks and are still rock hard if you fit them properly.
I'm not much of a shield tank frigate person, which ones have a passive shield tank bonus?
Originally by: Jim McGregor
I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar
damn, I'm happy that Akita isn't a Developer in the EVE-Balance-team!
oh god
I'm glad I'm not, too. But for different reasons. No matter what they do, somebody WILL whine.
Care to explain (mathematically, or with fiting examples and battle scenarios) why exactly the above mentioned changes are OH_SO_HORRIBLE?!?!!!111
_
New char creation guide | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Cpt Branko
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 10:35:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gaius Sejanus
Quote:
Why can't some ships just be better than others, some races just be better than others, some setups just be better than others?
Because then nobody would use anything except the better setup, and the worse ones may as well not even exist at all.
True. That's why, if you go to any mission hub, 80% of ships doing missions there are either a Raven or a Drake, because most people care only about efficency, and if a ship is "i-win" for any situation, they'll use it massively.
|
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:06:00 -
[18]
The new CPU on the SPR seems good for cruiser and battleships the problem is SPR is an all ship class module. There are no shield recharge small and large modules itÆs just one module for everything. So any changes should work on all ships from a Frigate to a battleships onwards. With this change you will find your frigate runs out of CPU.
Perhaps introducing new modules one set for BS and larger and one set for cruisers and smaller. That or make it so SPRÆs use difference CPU based on the ship class its installed in. Is there any reason a SPR couldnÆt be say 10 on a frig, 15 on a cruisers and 20 on a BS?
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Cpt Branko
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:24:00 -
[19]
It is an interesting idea - I'd also go with the same thing for EANMS/armour hardeners.
Having small/mid/large sizes of mods would have another effect: it'd be sensible to fit T2 on a frig. With one-size-fits-all, some modules (take EANMS) are just insanely expensive on small ships.
Then again, it'd take quite a lot of balancing / redesign to get it all right, what is a pain. Possibly boosting cpu for frigs is a easier solution, though.
|
kill0rbunny
Alpha-Hirogen
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:31:00 -
[20]
With all these nerfs, why should a shield regenerate at all.
Passive tanking is not meant to be done as it seems, ccp could just give shield boosters the same cap-effectiveness as armor repairers and all ships will look the same.
In the end who needs variation in ships anyways, we should all fly megathrons an everybody's happy.
I pew therefore I am.
|
AFTRUNX
Human Liberty Syndicate
TALIONIS ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 12:44:00 -
[21]
Edited by: AFTRUNX on 11/06/2007 12:43:40
hmm..
I Fly both.. Drake and Nighthawk...
The Drake is fully T2 Fitted with Passive tank.. great ship.. but for what?
nothing.. only for a high tanker in a fleet..
- You cant use it as PVP Ship, because the mids are corevert for the tank.. no web's no scramb...
- You cant use it for lvl4.. because the Damage output is crap...
so.. nerf or not.. i run my ships with Large booster and Cap injector.. i cant tank so long as with passive tank... but i do the double ammount of damage...
but for a active SB you need a lot of money, because you need faction stuff... :/
that what must be fixed is the CPU!!! Amplifier I 50CPU?? BCS II 40CPU??
and buy the way.. a astarte or EOS with 2 normally T2 med Reps boost over 1000 armor all 8-9secs!! nerf that also? :/
------------------------------
It's great to be a Caldari....
SIG<<===My Sig (grrr.. CCP) |
Elhina Novae
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 14:20:00 -
[22]
Someone said that most of the downfall of MMO's are when they tweak the game to death. Sure some ships should be better than others but all races should be as equal as possible. Everyone should have the same chance as the rest of the people. But there seems to nerfs and nerfs all the time in this game...
Somebody set up us the bomb |
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 15:47:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Pottsey on 11/06/2007 15:45:41
Shield Rechargers are getting boosted they use up less CPU now. Still a useless module for the most part.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Juha85
Beasts of Burden
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:29:00 -
[24]
You guys want to nerf the drake.. have you ever though how many slots you have to spend for passive tanking to make it awesome? All of your mid, low and rigslots. And the drake has crappy dps compared to pretty much any other tier2 battlecruiser.
To Akita T, you want to make the myrmidon more uber? It's drone bay should be shrinked or otherwise make it impossible for it to wield 5 heavy drones. Why? Heavy drones are a bs sized weapon.
---------------------------------------
|
Pottsey
Gallente
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 16:39:00 -
[25]
ôIt's drone bay should be shrinked or otherwise make it impossible for it to wield 5 heavy drones. Why? Heavy drones are a bs sized weapon.ö
Heavy drones have never been a battleship sized weapon youÆre just making that up. Drones donÆt follow the same path or work like turrets.
ôhave you ever though how many slots you have to spend for passive tanking to make it awesome? All of your mid, low and rigslots.ö
ThatÆs not true and this isnt just about the Drake. You donÆt have to use up all your slots to make a awesome passive tank. Just because you can use up every slot doesnÆt mean you have to. Lots of passive tank pilots fall into the trap of over tanking and using to many slots up. I am hoping to write a section about this in the new passive tank guide.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Trillian Mcmillan
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 17:01:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Trillian Mcmillan on 11/06/2007 17:02:13
Originally by: Pottsey
The new CPU on the SPR seems good for cruiser and battleships the problem is SPR is an all ship class module. There are no shield recharge small and large modules itÆs just one module for everything. So any changes should work on all ships from a Frigate to a battleships onwards. With this change you will find your frigate runs out of CPU.
Perhaps introducing new modules one set for BS and larger and one set for cruisers and smaller. That or make it so SPRÆs use difference CPU based on the ship class its installed in. Is there any reason a SPR couldnÆt be say 10 on a frig, 15 on a cruisers and 20 on a BS?
I dont want to comment the rest of the thread, just the bit about sprs and frigs.
There are other modules which can be fitted on a ship of any size but, while it is certainly possible to fit them, are highly unsuitable for frigs and they make siginifacnt sacrifices if they do use them.
I belive this is intentional and a balance mechanism.
The most obvious example of it would be the invulnerability field. Very few frig setups use it due to its high cap usage, even tho they can fit it.
Multispec ECMs are unsuitable for the same reason, the only ECM frig in the game sturggles to keep these running even though it has a bouns to their cap use.
Damage control mods are all-size-mods but on frigs they genneraly arent worth it.
This is off the top of my head im sure there are others. Point is: Some modules which are all-size are still unsuitable for frig use, SPR are becoming one for these modules and its not that uncommon.
|
Marcus Alkhaar
Conisor Excavations Syndicate
Antagonistic Assembly
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 17:42:00 -
[27]
lets go some time back... to when passive shield tanking were buffed...
newbs back then were flying lvl 3 missions in a Ferox with NO RIGS and 1 less mid slot than the drake, still they didnt have a problem, it could EASILY be tanked....
then they introduced the Drake, and all the newbs kicked out their ferox and went Drake-mode! which tanked even better...
Then the newblars got RIGS, which boosted their tank by 52%!!!!!!!!
and then they nerfed the shield recharge by a mere 12%! AND THE FORUMS WENT ALL LIKE BOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
now they balanced SPR's and the naps went OH GOD!
|
Azerrad InExile
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 17:52:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Marcus Alkhaar
Edited by: Marcus Alkhaar on 11/06/2007 17:43:18
lets go some time back... to when passive shield tanking were buffed...
the newbs back then were running lvl 3 missions in a Ferox with NO RIGS and they had 1 less mid slot than the drake to tank with, still they didnt have a problem, level 3 missions could EASILY be tanked....
Then CCP introduced the Drake, and all the newbs kicked out their ferox and went Drake-mode! which were tanking even better...
Then CCP introduced got RIGS, which boosted the drakes tank by 52%!!!!!!!!
Then CCP nerfed the shield recharge by a mere 12%! AND THE FORUMS WENT:
BOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
now CCP are balancing the SPR's and All the forum *****s go OH GOD!
Some people would rather play on "god-mode" than face the possibility of losing...
--
t20: "So Let us play and enjoy the game you and I both love on the same level." |
Khamal Jolstien
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 18:10:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Zeerover
I've often considered the arguement that "passive shield tanks don't use cap and should be nerfed." to be false. This is because you nerf your own cap to oblivion by using a passive shield setup and therefore are excluded from using the myriad of modules that require cap.
In reality a passive shield setup uses all your cap, by making it unusable for anything else.
Therefore I think it's quite bad to nerf the passive shield tanks, yes the myrmidon and drake are fantastic passive shield tanks and might be in need of a tweaking, but it's dangerous to go to far down this road as then nobody will ever bother with the passive shield tanks again, and the game will be poorer for it, as it gives us less choice.
I absolutely agree. I sometimes wonder if developers ever look at other games and their mistakes. There are a few games that have fallen for this EXACT reason. Less choices in game, the game became boring and people quit.
As for the specificson Drakes, I agree completely here as well. I consistently fly a passive Drake. It cost me a bunch of money for something that doesn't do that much damage. But it can survive, so it's a good investment.
I'm sorry to all those who feel that only the "upper class" players, the ones with money coming out the wazoo and skills from three years ago, should be able to succeed. But remember the Drake does not threaten a large amount of ships because of it's lower DPS as well as its inability to adequately use any mid-slot modules.
I hear complaints about how "my billion dollar, cookie cutter setup ship cant beat this drake, so it must be nerfed!". Get real, please. Your super expensive ship can still own everything else, just this ship happens to be a bit special, a tiny bit unique. It has it's downfalls sure, but that's what makes it interesting, as well as what makes this game unique.
I'm tired of the simple games, and I play EVE Online because it is not simple. My ship may be cheaper and easier to attain, but it shouldn't be discounted. It's certainly not a damage dealing bruiser. It can't destroy everything on the block, and it's certainly not invincible. It conveinantly came pre-balanced with a lack of damage ablilty.
So basically what I'm saying is this.
Drake does not need to be nerfed. Try flying one and realising you still cant quite break the tanks on the heavy rats in 0.0, and that you really cant stand up against the super rich players with their expensive battleships, HACS etc.
If you have trouble killing one, call your friends. It is a multiplayer game anyway.
|
Setana Manoro
Gallente
Firefly Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.11 18:42:00 -
[30]
Originally by: AFTRUNX
Edited by: AFTRUNX on 11/06/2007 12:43:40
hmm..
I Fly both.. Drake and Nighthawk...
The Drake is fully T2 Fitted with Passive tank.. great ship.. but for what?
nothing.. only for a high tanker in a fleet..
- You cant use it as PVP Ship, because the mids are corevert for the tank.. no web's no scramb...
- You cant use it for lvl4.. because the Damage output is crap...
so.. nerf or not.. i run my ships with Large booster and Cap injector.. i cant tank so long as with passive tank... but i do the double ammount of damage...
but for a active SB you need a lot of money, because you need faction stuff... :/
that what must be fixed is the CPU!!! Amplifier I 50CPU?? BCS II 40CPU??
and buy the way.. a astarte or EOS with 2 normally T2 med Reps boost over 1000 armor all 8-9secs!! nerf that also? :/
9 sec.
Btw, how long is the cycle on them T2 Large shield boosters?
And when do these boost, at the beginning of the cycle or at the ending ?
I know Math 101 is terribly hard for some, but pls try and see what is the ration HP/s before you whine. :)
---
Adopt a goon today, goons need lub and support too. Do you want him out in the cold, starving ? |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |