| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Diablique
The Arrow Project
   |
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:06:00 -
[1]
Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
|
Rudy Metallo
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:12:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Rudy Metallo on 23/10/2007 01:13:25
Unfortunatly BS cant tank for hours on end and cant fit remote reps, not to mention the fact that they dont have a corp hanger, and cant cyno bout places to move massive amount of equipment like a mini freighter.
Etc.
This post is pointless and irrelevant.
Edit: Furthermore, BS are SUPPOSED to be the main damage dealers of a fleet, while carriers are logistics and support platforms.
--
We are the revolutionaries.
We are the usurpers of the heavenly throne.
We are the enemies of the Gods. |
KarateKid
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:19:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Rudy Metallo
Edited by: Rudy Metallo on 23/10/2007 01:13:25
Unfortunatly BS cant tank for hours on end and cant fit remote reps,
Are we playing the same game? :S
I thought the op was quite funny 
________________________________________________________
|
Transcendant One
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:21:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Transcendant One on 23/10/2007 01:21:39
Originally by: Rudy Metallo
Unfortunatly BS cant tank for hours on end
Neither can carriers, also this change has nothing to do with carriers' tank and everything to do with firepower.
Quote:
and cant fit remote reps
Quote:
not to mention the fact that they dont have a corp hanger, and cant cyno bout places to move massive amount of equipment like a mini freighter.
Again, nothing to do with their firepower.
Quote:
This post is pointless and irrelevant.
Edit: Furthermore, BS are SUPPOSED to be the main damage dealers of a fleet, while carriers are logistics and support platforms.
Logistics yes, carriers are fighter platforms with logistics on top of that.
But really they're different ships and the op (and the ~70 page thread) highlights how ****** up these changes are.
|
Zhaine
B e l l u m
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:32:00 -
[5]
Can anyone do a better job of my sig spoof? I are no good at photoshop :(
- - - - - - - - -
I freely admit to sucking royally at photoshop.
|
Duff Man
Caldari
The Nine Gates
Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Zhaine
Can anyone do a better job of my sig spoof? I are no good at photoshop :(
No
-----------------------
|
Closer Still
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 01:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Diablique
Hi, I'm Zalapurk and recently transferred from the Quality Assurance department to the Game Design team. IÆve been with CCP for just under two years now and donÆt plan on going anywhere. Say hello to your newest balancer (I still haven't received a nerfbat though).
I'm posting here now because the last few days we've been looking at the way battleships are functioning on Tranquility, and to be honest weære a little concerned with the direction itæs taking.
What we want is pretty basic: We want to make battleships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct nber deathbringer.
How are we going to do it?
Well, we have an idea, and before you go ballistic remember that this is an idea and weære still working on it:
We plan on changing the way guns work, and have it so that you can still have all the guns you want (within limits of your ship/skills) but you can only directly fire 2 of them at a time. That means that a battleship can assign 2 guns to a gang mate, assign 2 more to another gang mate etc. etc.
This means you will NOT be able to fire 6/7/8 guns from a battleship and aim them all to incinerate a cruiser in .2 seconds. It does however mean that you can assign 2 guns to each of your lilæ friends in the fleet and use them as the messengers of your burning fury.
Remember, weære not messing with the final total amount of guns you can have, just the amount you can control and delegate at a time. You can of course also operate 2 guns and make them attack a target of your own choice, if it pleases you.
lmfao
that was f'in hilarious.
made my day, thank you :)
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 02:51:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Zhaine
Can anyone do a better job of my sig spoof? I are no good at photoshop :(
No, if only because it's annoying. Thankfully adblock gets rid of annoying sigs for me.
|
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:03:00 -
[9]
lol and hats off to the OP for this spoofing zulu's idiotic post about fighter delegation and needless carrier nerfing.
THUKKER -Be Paranoid
|
Solant
Minmatar
Ventis Secundis
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 03:30:00 -
[10]
Way to post the same thread twice, chief.
It doesn't help that both of them are equally useless and completely baseless.
Are you trying to make a point? Cause I'm not seeing it.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |