| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 96 post(s) |
Torco
   |
Posted - 2007.11.08 23:33:00 -
[361]
 Originally by: Cosmo Raata
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
I think we could do something to make these ships more fun and useful. Do you have any ideas? Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr". I'm just talking theoretically here :)
You've not read the 2 billion posts on Amarr???
Here are just a few of the millions of ideas people have come up with.
- Reduce cap usage on Lasers by 50% & replace all ships cap bonuses with something else (e.g. 5% cap per level). Oh, and dont use the excuse we dont want other races using lasers bull....Every race can use everyone elses weapons & does atm so that argument is invalid.
- Change EM/Thermal Damage balance. More Thermal, Less EM or just reduce EM resistances across the board.
- Give the Apoc a role, drone ship, Neut ship, Missle Boat. Something else, its a useless ship atm.
- Fix the Curse/Pilgrim/Bhaalgorn/etc., you broke them with the stupid Nos nerf and have yet to fix these
- Reduce PG requirements on Cruiser & BS sized beams, you fixed the frig sized ones & stopped there for some insane reason.
- Give Retribution a med, take away the utility high.
- Give the Zealot a 5th turret point
- Increase PG significantly on the Omen
- Maller is an Apoc clone, give it a role similar to what has been mentioned for the apoc (minus the drone boat, as we have one of those already)
I think i've made my point, there are literally thousands of ideas and we've never gotten feedback on them.
Hi there DEVS- For the AMARR Problems this thread is full of solutions and thoughts. You should read it!!! :-)
AMARR-Thread-CLICKY
|
Moraguth
Amarr
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 23:34:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Semkhet
So, you would like to see nanoships nerfed under the principle that they can tank better than you do, regardless of their pathetic DPS. However, you never talk about lowering your own DPS in exchange. That's your definition of balance ? 
I'm saying that if you setup my apoc (my favorite armor tank) or even those rediculous armor tankers, there is a finite amount of damage they can take before they go boom.
If you setup any of those nano ships for speed, they can tank an infinite amount of damage. Something is obviously broken with that.
a small fleet of nano ships versus a small fleet of armor tankers one of two outcomes are possible.
1: the nano ships kill the armor tankers
2: the nano ships run away
where's the third option of
3: the armor tankers kill the nano ships?
It doesn't happen. That makes it a ballance issue. Nerf them, boost us.... give us more options to even the odds. Just change it.
good game
|
Necrologic
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.11.08 23:57:00 -
[363]
Well since it looks like it's Q and A time i've got a couple:
1) From an economics standpoint, do you have any plans for low sec? It used to be a great middle ground where you could make decent cash and only had to worry about pirates, not massive blobs and interdictor bubble camps. Now there isn't enough economical reason to go there due to the ease of making money in high sec. It used to be the step between high sec and 0.0, but it seems that has failed. I would suggest that a whole new vision for the point of low sec space is in order. Currently the only empire in empire is wars, and 0.0 has mostly bs/cap ship blobs and roving dictor gangs. Perhaps try to set lowsec up to be somewhere in between? I know the most fun i've had in this game was the inbetween small gang stuff that went on in low sec. Ganking miners in belts was good too, but now its not worth the risk to do that stuff in low sec anymore.
2) Do you have any thoughts on making it more worthwhile to defend your operations? Make it worthwhile to defend your mining or NPCing operation when the gankers (me) show up rather than just dock and log immediatly. Currently pvp consists of either attacking or docking/logging until you can counter attack. There is no Defense in the game with the exception of pos warefare, but even this is more accuratly described as letthing them shoot your pos then preparing a counter attack for once reinforced ends.
I think the game could benefit massivly by bringing in defense. Make it lucrative for that mining op to have a combat gang covering them and fight instead of just running. Its like half of combat is missing as we only have offense and retreat.
_____________________
In the arena of logic I fight unarmed. |
Kurann
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 00:03:00 -
[364]
Edited by: Kurann on 09/11/2007 00:04:26
in regards to an amarr "oomph"
please point yourselves to the following threads that are very well laid out with minimal whining in the Ships 'n Modules section (in case you haven't noticed them)
@CCP: Amarr Recon - The Broken Ships
esp. Page 9 has some very good ideas imo
Questions for Amarr Pilots
has an excellent format that many of the amarr pilots have been contributing to. albeit some unbalanced options for fixes in some posts, it is what the pilots think is wrong with their ships (including myself) and causing most to train other races
Edit: I was going to call it S 'n M, but i thought that wouldn't be appropriate and vague
|
Kaylana Syi
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 00:18:00 -
[365]
Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 09/11/2007 00:22:23
I'd first like to say you guys are doing a great job overall with balancing EVE. I really like the drone balance as well as the anti-industry-logistical nerfbomb to carriers. Being I have 2 carrier pilots and have flown them for years I agree with you, they just didn't make sense.
I have a few questions for you, I hope I didn't miss my opportunity to speak and get a response :
1) Triage module, as has been said, is a total goofball. It's greatest power is in its self tanking ability. The other roles for it are lackluster and have harsh cap and logistical penalties that are definitely not reasonable for mainstream adoption. Please get on them asap. That is a LOT of wasted SP hanging over my head.
2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom.
3) The Nidhoggur. The SISI changes do not solve any problems for this ship. Infact, it creates problems. For example, if you compare the carriers with a similar fitting
Nidhoggur with Armor
Nidhoggur with Shield
Thanatos
Chimera
Archon
You will see that the Nidhoggur runs the weakest tank no matter what tank profile you use. Its biggest quality is to have a greater cap recharge which will help the 2nd bonus. However, going to a 5/6 mid/low setup will not improve the tank much. It will be more similar to the Thanatos but will be far more cap intensive for its bonus.
I petition you to leave the slotting as is and implement a Shield Boost bonus so that the shield tank can improve while the option to armor tank for better cap recharge to run remote repping will still be available.
At the same time you 'could' disolve the Thanatos drone damage bonus and implement a Armor repair bonus. This will give them 'repair' based tanking that could perform more or less like the other two while still being different and allowing the stats like number of fighters carried etc to differentiate the lineup.
-Black Ops Jump Distance. Can you please look into raising the base to 2.5 light years? 2 might be a tad short if you need carriers to support fast moving ship combat-logistics as well as Black-Op guerrilla deployment.
-Assault Frigates. Please do a eve-search on Weirda's ideas and please read them.
-Scripted Modules. Please keep balancing these to make sure they are all useful. Please don't deploythem on TQ without making sure they are actually useful.
edit : changed bad link for archon
Team Minmatar
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 00:31:00 -
[366]
There's one thing that I've noticed with a lot of upcoming changes that's sort of settling in light of harder logistics.
It seems to me that CCP's balance team is finally putting a kind of a stop to the "bigger is better" mentality to ships in EVE. They have made and will make changes to capitals that should decrease their use (even if some ideas get shot down that kinda sorta could have worked  ), and the scripts for sensor boosters and tracking computers should make sniping battleships less of the focus in major fleet battles. The changes could give way for smaller ship combat, meaning that, if people are essentially forced to mine their own lowends and ices in deep 0.0, the lower quantities of minerals needed could end up making it somewhat easier to deal with at the same time. Hopefully that's how it could turn out, anyway...
But still, any chance of deep 0.0 super yield ice asteroids or super-veld? Or anything else that might be more effective at mining lowend minerals in 0.0? |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 00:54:00 -
[367]
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Nidhoggur with Armor
Nidhoggur with Shield
Thanatos
Chimera
Archon
The Than and the Nid can both field:
Smartie, 2x HNeut, 2x Cap Remote Rep
1x SB, 4x cap recharger
2x Capital Rep, Exp, Kinm, Therm, EANM
3x CCC
For a 3176 tank (EFT Normalised rep/s) . So I don't see any great issue there.
The problem however are the Chimera and Archon who can repair far, far more than these ships. The Chimera's 25% bonus for example gives it a normalized rep/s of 5186. Thats 2010 more, a 61% increase. While the Than gets an extra 250 DPS (before resistances  ) and the Nidd gets a little extra remote rep.
Carriers are, as far as I can tell, the worst balanced ships in EVE in comparison to each other.
|
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 01:05:00 -
[368]
Originally by: I SoStoned
This one feature alone allowed small & medium alliances/corps to bypass the jackass lowsec gatecamps with smartbombing moms (I see you haven't done anything about that glaring exploit) and fuel their lowsec POS or move from region to region around the chokepoints.
Did you even notice hactors with their ability to tackle low sec motherships or were you too busy ranting?
I'd say that's something about lowsec moms.
The only thing I agree with you on is I would _really_ like to see some sort of list of changes/proposed changes somewhere as there is a huge number.
Everything from module sizes to freighter mass to new ships to sensor dampners to scripts, etc, etc, etc.
I didn't even know about the dictor nerf until I saw it mentioned in this thread - and that would normally be a pretty major news item!
Zarch AlDain
|
Mika Meisk
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 01:16:00 -
[369]
Just as a complimentary suggestion, its about amarr  .
Are you looking into the different roles as they are beeing used in actual pvp? IE when does a gang benefit obviously more if bringing amarr ships than other-racial substitutes. This question has nothing to do with if one ever can use an amarr ship (you can ofc :p) but in which general case are they preferable, cause in the bs case I really cant find a situation where ppl go " Oh your maxxed skilled in all races bring amarr", it would most likely bring another racial bs.
When it comes to recons/hac, same thing sure the amarr ones arent useless (even after the nosnerf) but why (not considering the new scripts even though you didnt think it prominent to buff tracking disruptors) would one choose amarr over the other races?
The answer should be that cause amarr are poor in solo combat (as caldari) they should outshine the gallente and minmatar counterparts in gang combat? Well ive never heard anyone ask for an amarr hac instead of a min or gal in a speed gang nor have I heard screams for the amarr recons, after the nerf, compared to the other recons?
Yet this is but a small ripple in the amarrian pond... Lasers are broken. Ofc there are ships that are good, hence the ships doesnt appear as lackluster as one mkight think, but when the best amarr ships are mere substitutes for a char not skilled int the appropriate races I feel something is wrong.
Decide on a design phlosofy and make amarr shine in its respective areas such as:
*Inflicting more damage than the counterpart when weps are fired from the start during a battle.
*Making the famous HP buffer (res bonii and plates) of amarr count
*Make capboosters either be amarr cap or make them less of a factor, cause atm amarr looses out as just breaking ammo cache for both weps and armour quicker than the rest.
*Tachs are oversized make em truly be it. We use the bigget range wep IG let the stats reflect it (including bonuses and resistance its useless compared to fitting reqs)
*Most important look over the amarr t1 cruiser line
As a sidenote search up that idea about afterbutners vs mwd and the balancing revised from there cause if mwd is mandatory amarr will allways be gimped.
//Mika
|
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr
The Wild Hunt
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 01:27:00 -
[370]
Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 09/11/2007 01:38:31
As one of the Devs asked for ideas on Amarr, here's some;
Main Amarr problems (imo) are damage type, slotting, cap problem.
- Damage type could simply be solved by changing the EM/thermal balance towards thermal a tad more. Make it so that multifreq. does 2/3 thermal 1/3 EM and Radio 1/3 therm, 2/3 EM. That in itself is more than enough to buff the damage.
- slotting; Some ships like the Maller, Proph, Retribution, Geddon simply NEED an extra midslot. Amarr doesn't have insane tracking so it needs a webber, and ofcourse you need a MWD and scram. Adding a 4th would enable it to actually use their ECM or fit a cap injector.
Cap problem; It's partially covered by the slotting point but lowering the cap use on amarr guns would help a tad but what I'd REALLY like to see is something special; Since Amarr is the cap race you could give them a racial 'treat' of reducing any NOS/Neut applied to them by a set amount, like 30%, or 50%.
That way anyone attacking Amarr without using NEUTS is fighting the 'normal' Amarr. HOWEVER, anyone using a massive cap bleeding setup wouldn't have that much of an impact. He's ofcourse still able to strangle the Amarr ship but it's not set in stone anymore. To me that feels like a real special 'cap race' bonus.
Would you do it the other way round (buffing NOS/Neut used by Amarr) would create something way too overpowered and would bring back the solo pwn mobile called Pilgrim. Doing it the mentioned way (reducing nos/neut effects done TO the Amarr ship) simply makes it a more even playingfield.
Damage type, slotting for either ECM or cap injector for ships with 3 midslots (or in case of the Retri, just 1) and a cap boost, but with a twist.
Welcome to EVE Online:
Press 1 for Caldari, PVE Online
Press 2 for Minmatar, PVP Online
Press 3 for Gallente, PWN Online
Press 4 for Amarr, Lulz Online |
|
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 02:11:00 -
[371]
naturally I go to class, come home and +3 pages and the devs ran away
About the omnitank of doom, are we talking several EANM + dc, or Eanm + 3 hardeners. the first has a uber em resist and decent other resists, where the second has good all around resists?
6 months you said you were giving amarr some oomph and now your saying you will take a look at it soon
for instance taking my zealot against a deimos,
zealot gets about 86 dps per gun heavy pulse II with conflag all skills 5, times 4 guns for 345 dps total (and a heatsinkII)
deimos gets 77 dps per neutron blaster II with void times 5, + 5 hammerhead IIs for 543 dps (no damage mods and all skills 5)
it should be noted the deimos will be fighting at about 5km, and the zealot from 10-14km, the zealot has slightly higher base speed then the deimos (by 13m/s), but with microwarp drives the deimos has about 127m/s better speed.
against a vaga i think its right click self destruct. or hope you have a huggin nearby.
and eagle well someone will warp off. or if its blaster fit the zealot should win just based on em resists.
and that is just some amarr problems in one ship set.
what is that titan doing in lowsec without support is a very vaild question. maybe if its jump bridging at a pos, can you activate a jump bridge from inside a pos shield?
100km snipers sound like one of the best dd tanked dictor solutions to me. hey look its a dictor.... POP! (or maybe a few assault frigs  )
battleships bumping titans/moms/carriers/dreads yes that is something that needs to be looked at... although you will feel hitting a man with a car. (although titans/moms are supposed to affect the tides on a planet so a battleship bumbing that is more like a squirrel stopping a tank)
I do think Jitatrade Alt has a very vaild point. 0.0 really should be worth fighting over for more than 100-200mil moons and belts to rat in (hello empire missions? and no for the love of god dont nerf missions more then you already have) or is 0.0 supposed to be a playground where people just shoot each other for no reason?
YES basicly any of these things would help a lot, althogough too much oomph and amarr becomes fotm, not enough and everyone will keep whining.
3 month copy time plus a -4 to -9 pe level = yuck taste in the mouth.
DDD tanks give it what kind of survival against other stuff, again with 10+ bs shooting at it how long will it live?
zulu you are saying the same things i say about speed fits. the main counter argument is that when they are webbed they have enough speed going that they get out of web range before slowing down enough to get stopped by another ship. although i suppose that is the definition of hit and run. hit and if it doesn't work run, if it does work run. I did mention something to someone about getting them to run away isn't the worst outcome that can come in a fight and they still argued that it wasn't a way to stop speed setups. I believe i replied with well they ran away whats wrong with that?
and yes, the objects are a little to static for my liking, that and there is way too much ambient light for outer space(imho)
Nozh this makes me giggle, look at the amarr design please for the love of god, you will see far too much overlap (at least i do) especially with the paladin. oh yes and the golem being worse off then a cnr.... (guess what cnr is cheaper and easier to get)
I personally would put all of the t2 worse then t1 named on the to look at list
zulu you can at least name what you killed cant you?
nothing wrong with a cloaky curse
if you want to have an amarr discussion feel free to jump in on one, or start one up (maybe not uber spam?!) or i can do1
|
Ramirez Dora
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 02:40:00 -
[372]
Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 09/11/2007 02:41:05
Since more general questions seem to get considered, I have one small, yet very important one that most other Caldari players will have on their mind.
Does the development team believe at this point that some (or all) caldari ships have too high mass/agility? Do you consider this a major issue for caldari players?
I don't expect that you have a detailed plan layout (or that you've even had a meeting about it). But I would very much like to know if this perceived problem, as far as us caldari players go, has been brought to your immediate attention.
Is there any plan to review this matter? Basically no caldari ship (except the inties maybe) is able to play the 'speed game' with the other races. Even if that was the intent, base speeds and aligning are serious problems for Caldari players.
Speed mods imho, are basically ineffective for a caldari. This due to the fact that any speed gain we can get can easily be nullified by the other races' speed ships (which are aplenty). Combine this with the fact that speed is a all or nothing scenario, either you are fast enough or you are not, we have no way to compete whatsoever.
Whilst many say Caldari is better at pve (that may be true) I hope that this has never been the intent, all races should have approximately equal ability in pve AND pvp, just through different mechanics.
I understand this issue goes far above and beyond the speed of the ships (missiles is a big one too) but this would be a start.
Currently a lot of people still think the mass/agility of caldari ships is a legacy of the dual MWD era.
|
bsspewer
Caldari
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 02:51:00 -
[373]
Originally by: 'CCP Nozh'
"I've always wanted carriers to be a bit more logistic focused but not as haulers, but rather as remote repairers etc., with spare ships and modules for the fleet."
Originally by: 'CCP Nozh'
"We generally try to make ships unique and not overlap the abilities of others. Paying more for the "same ship" just slightly better would get boring quick. I know it has been done before, ship classes have become redundant, thats something we want to steer away from."
So you don't want to make ship classes that are redundant, yet you want the carrier to fill the role of a logistics ship? If you don't want them to just be more expensive logistic ships (I'm speaking of logistical cruisers so you're not confused again) but wish for them to fill a better role of a mobile base; then the problem with this is they become POS huggers that are ineffective because you can't refit a ship with intense lag from the fight in system. And if this is the role they end up filling, what's the point? Because in the POS they're hugging, you can already anchor a hanger and refitting array.
If carriers are also not meant to deal out the amount of damage they do, but instead repair, then the last viable ship left for them to repair can't even be repaired when deployed (Dreads). With the nerf to sensor boosters, a carrier can't lock a battleship in enough time to save him.
This is herein where the problem lies. There becomes no role for the carrier to fill anymore based on what you keep saying carriers are supposed to be and what they're not supposed to be.
You want ideas from us on what to do with this, and what to do with that; so we develop these ideas and use them ingame, only to have CCP decide they didn't intend for that. So then why do you want us to come up with any ideas if you already had one before?
____________________
|
Susitna
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 03:20:00 -
[374]
Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51
Thanks for the updates and discussion.
Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor?
However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone
I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs.
The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat.
|
Phantom Slave
Amarr
Mozzaki United
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 03:27:00 -
[375]
Hello CCP Zulupark and CCP Nozh. I'm not sure if you are going to return to this thread or not, but if you do I'd like to point you to another thread.
Ultimate Amarr Whine Thread
Bad choice in a name, but I didn't start it. Zulupark, I believe you asked for examples of what kind of Amarr ideas to get some 'Oomph'. I'll leave you with that. I hope you take a moment to read through the thread.
____________________
Changes on Sisi are NOT the end of the world. Wait until Rev III/Trinity is released before drawing conclusions. |
Riato Hargoumi
byeee Corp
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 03:46:00 -
[376]
Edited by: Riato Hargoumi on 09/11/2007 03:53:06
Arrggg, EVE-O forums logged me out and wiped my responce. Agreeing with nerfing nanoships. At the moment they are pretty much the 'godmode cheat' of eve.
Make overdrives reduce tracking speed, drone damage and the precision of missiles. Doing this would cause the nanoships to have as much of a threat at 7km/s at 11km out as the target is a threat to them.
Alternatively, overdrives drastically decrease agility when MWD is active. Nanoship can go at 7km/s in an almost strieght line.
|
Una D
Ex Coelis
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 03:47:00 -
[377]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Some ships are meant to go fast, some ships shouldn't. There are some modules out there that may need minor tweaking, but remember. If you meet a ship that has low base speed and is "speed tanking" it's sacrificing almost everything else to be able to do so. One simple web, or one mistake on that pilots behalf, and he's pretty skewered.
Is it here that a vaga that gets almost insta locked by 2 huginns (so 4 webs on it) can power down to the gate before even half it shield is gone even when 15 ships or so are going for it?. I guess that will be solved with new heavy dictors that will prevent use of jump gates so I don't care too much (still would be nice to get a bit balance on t2 webers).
Any chance what so ever of looking at the cloaks? After all if you can nerf nuke most of the other things in the game why not look at that? ATM cloak and some patience is the I win button. We can not do anything to a large cloaker gang. There is no way to force engagement and if they are patient they will get kills sooner or later since this is game and you can't expect people to stay in combat readiness 24/7. Make it at least coupled to soverginity so that you can at least kick them out of your own space.
I like (well I hate the logistic nuke but I figure that you are going to ignore everyone on that one so no point in whining about it) the change to the carrier (being able to move 2 BSs is a bit low but still not bad) but could we please get a bit large corp array. Carrier is supposed to be mobile platform and in real life (well real eve) carriers do need to refit and with the sizes of capital modules there is no way to even bring remote reppers if you fit for more drones for example.
|
Sylper Illysten
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 04:14:00 -
[378]
So some Devs have touched on the carrier chanegs, module issues and a whole host of other topics. How about some replies to the concerns about the Marauder class of ships? The deathly silence from any Dev is getting a tad old.
|
Becka Call
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 04:22:00 -
[379]
Just a couple questions:
When were the changes to the hauling abilities of carriers first discussed internally? When was a implementation timetable internally discussed for these changes?
Did anyone internally think it was a Bad Idea(tm) to introduce a T2 version of a battleship that a developer stated(in a dev blog) would be getting a role change without implementing that change to base the T2 ship on?
|
ShadowAgony
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 05:21:00 -
[380]
Edited by: ShadowAgony on 09/11/2007 05:24:22
Edited by: ShadowAgony on 09/11/2007 05:23:29
My version on amarr "Oomph"
-Lasers should go TROUGH shileds
-Like totaly ignore shields doing dmg directly into armour
<smiles>
Edit :
-can work backwards also :
-totaly remove shields from amarr and add the numbers to armor ammount
|
|
|
Maglorre
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 05:30:00 -
[381]
Pardon me if this has been mentioned before but it's hard to read all of the posts regarding this.
One thing that has bubbled to the top of my mind every time I read about the hauling nerf is this. Why not make an "overloaded" ship unable to be placed in a carrier?
An Iteron with no pilot can only hold 6000 m3, period, that is all you can put in it if it is not actively piloted. If it was possible to modify the code so that it is not possible to move an overloaded ship from one place to another this would possibly solve the whole issue of massive amounts of cargo in a hauler inside a carrier and still allow other ships to have anything they wanted in their holds (spare mods for changing setups etc.)
Cheers
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 05:50:00 -
[382]
Will we ever see the missing 6th Amarr Frigate? Are specialized damp and TD ships going to have their bonuses increased somewhat, as ECM strength bonuses were improved/added when ECM got nerfed?
Also, is the Mackinaw ever going to be brought in line with the other two barges so it can fit T1 upgrades and tank, or T2 upgrades without needing implants? At present it is severely lacking in CPU.
--------------------
ICE Blueprint Sales
FIRST!! -Yipsilanti
Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth |
Greenwing
SuX ltd.
Rare Faction
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 06:00:00 -
[383]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Edited by: CCP Nozh on 08/11/2007 21:57:00
Because we've never considered the hauling capability of carriers an intended role, it was more an unwanted side effect that everyone got used to. I've always wanted carriers to be a bit more logistic focused but not as haulers, but rather as remote repairers etc., with spare ships and modules for the fleet. We're however going a completely different direction like we've said many times, the final solution is still being discussed but it will involve people setting up for their desired role.
Can you please explain how you can take both your own fuel and modules with you at the same time with the limited cargo space of a carrier ? Taking fuel for only 2 jumps already halves your cargo space. If you want it to bring ships and modules for the fleet there must be some kind of solution for the logistics (be able to sort items a nice way, containers don't work too well and take too much space if not filled completely) and for the space itself (both fuel/modules don't fit)
BTW very nice thread and thnx for the answers ! Please get more of those.
|
Celedris
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 06:08:00 -
[384]
Originally by: Jurgen Cartis
Are specialized damp and TD ships going to have their bonuses increased somewhat, as ECM strength bonuses were improved/added when ECM got nerfed?
I would also like to know this. Are the devs happy with the current power level of the Celestis/Arazu/Lachesis specialized ships with the current damp changes on the test server? I fly both Gallente and Caldari recons myself, and I have trouble envisioning a good reason why I would fly a Lachesis or Arazu (or Rook) instead of a Falcon with the current numbers. The very light damage these ships do is almost a non-factor in their gang-support role; Their ability to effectively disable a few enemy ships is the primary reason they are used.
On a per-module basis, 14 point jammers on a Falcon seem a whole lot stronger than the new scripted damps on Celestis hulls.
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 06:47:00 -
[385]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
And I think I'm pretty much boned if I want the players to like me, it's been like this forever, you all hate the man with the nerfstick. 
Wait, what happened to previous owner? Did he simply get *vanished*?
Anyway, your tone and replies here says that "Oh looky, I'm a Dev, I know what I'm talking so STFU!" and you wonder why people go awol against you? How about you say something NICE and perhaps that your looking to carrier problems (Like allowing CERTAIN items in cargo holds, adding separate FUEL storage, fixing amarr ships that aren't inline with other races ships etc.)
It's great being Amarr isn't it.
|
Edmund Khan
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 07:11:00 -
[386]
Edited by: Edmund Khan on 09/11/2007 07:11:26
First of all, i find lot of changes stupid, but they are coming in. I'll have to adopt or quit. I'll try to adopt first.
But let me get to the point of why I'm posting.
I don't get the carrier changes. I mean the ones where ships can't carry stuff in their cargo holds while stored in the carrier. This is just plain stupid. You remember how much pain it was having to unload the ammo from guns before storing the ships?
This will be the same sh**. And now you even have to open the corp hangar, which opens after 5 minutes if you're lucky, specially on a mothership. Then you drop your stuff into corp hangar, which everybody has access to - with 4k people in alliance you can't count on everybody to just take theirs, so you end up without your stuff, maybe 40j away from empire in hostile space....
As of this very moment i have at least one mod in every ship i own iirc and they come in very handy in hostile space, many of them are in carriers.
Instead of just banning haulers from carriers you do this stupid move. It's the same thing as with freighters.
I figured they probably can't have rigs because with 3 cargo rigs they could carry around dreads and potentially to high sec systems. And then you ban all rigs from them instead of just making dreads repackaged size a bit larger and prevent that.
I mean, who will use carrier for hauling if you can get a tech2 freighter easily and move more stuff without haulers.
Sometimes i just don't get it.
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 07:59:00 -
[387]
Ok from what I read... they don't mind the dreads or rorqual hauling because they severe their capabilities by equiping a hauling setup.
This boggles me...
So the carrier pilot jumps in their carrier. They remove all their medium and low slot modules. Put Expanded cargoholds tech 2 in the lows. You expand to 15000ish m3. Cap rechargers tech2 for the mediums. This way it isn't anywhere near as long to recharge back to the 95% needed for the next jump. Obviously CCCs in the rigs.
Hi slots dont matter. It doesn't matter at all. There's absolutely no tank for these unless they willingly want to wait the extra time just to perserve their shield tank. Even then... they most likely really don't want to get involved in any fights. Even if they perserved their shield tank.
When they transfer over too transportation mode they are just as severed as any dread or rorqual.
|
F90OEX
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 08:09:00 -
[388]
Nozh, just one question for you.
Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again.
Thanks ..
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 08:53:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Jason Edwards
Ok from what I read... they don't mind the dreads or rorqual hauling because they severe their capabilities by equiping a hauling setup.
This boggles me...
So the carrier pilot jumps in their carrier. They remove all their medium and low slot modules. Put Expanded cargoholds tech 2 in the lows. You expand to 15000ish m3. Cap rechargers tech2 for the mediums. This way it isn't anywhere near as long to recharge back to the 95% needed for the next jump. Obviously CCCs in the rigs.
Hi slots dont matter. It doesn't matter at all. There's absolutely no tank for these unless they willingly want to wait the extra time just to perserve their shield tank. Even then... they most likely really don't want to get involved in any fights. Even if they perserved their shield tank.
When they transfer over too transportation mode they are just as severed as any dread or rorqual.
Carrier transporting does not depend on their cargobay. Dreads/Rorqual need the expanders to carry cargo. All a carrier has to do is get an iteron V, lowslots with expander IIs, cargo expander rigs, and it has about 38k cargo capacity. Fill it to capacity, put in ship maintenance bay and you are carrying 38k while still having all your slots for tank/combat. Then do the same with a viator (still room for that in the ship bay) and add 10k more. So 48k m3 cargo without using a single moduleslot for a carrier.
------------------------------------------------
|
|
CCP Zulupark
|
Posted - 2007.11.09 09:18:00 -
[390]
Originally by: Necrologic
Well since it looks like it's Q and A time i've got a couple:
1) From an economics standpoint, do you have any plans for low sec? It used to be a great middle ground where you could make decent cash and only had to worry about pirates, not massive blobs and interdictor bubble camps. Now there isn't enough economical reason to go there due to the ease of making money in high sec. It used to be the step between high sec and 0.0, but it seems that has failed. I would suggest that a whole new vision for the point of low sec space is in order. Currently the only empire in empire is wars, and 0.0 has mostly bs/cap ship blobs and roving dictor gangs. Perhaps try to set lowsec up to be somewhere in between? I know the most fun i've had in this game was the inbetween small gang stuff that went on in low sec. Ganking miners in belts was good too, but now its not worth the risk to do that stuff in low sec anymore.
This is something we'd love to do, there are some ideas floating around, but at the moment they would fall more into the pipe-dream category more then being actual designs.
Originally by: Necrologic
2) Do you have any thoughts on making it more worthwhile to defend your operations? Make it worthwhile to defend your mining or NPCing operation when the gankers (me) show up rather than just dock and log immediatly. Currently pvp consists of either attacking or docking/logging until you can counter attack. There is no Defense in the game with the exception of pos warefare, but even this is more accuratly described as letthing them shoot your pos then preparing a counter attack for once reinforced ends.
I think the game could benefit massivly by bringing in defense. Make it lucrative for that mining op to have a combat gang covering them and fight instead of just running. Its like half of combat is missing as we only have offense and retreat.
That's another very very interesting idea. It would be very interesting to look into it but I'm not entirely sure where we'd start. It is something we want to see (i.e. more defensive roles) but it would probably be a pretty large change to gameplay. Who knows what the future holds, eh? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |