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) |
here'n'there
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 11:01:00 -
[601]
a few questions from me.
1) can you comment this?
2) why nerfing tracking computers, are they really overpowered now?
3) will you make die cast models someday?
|
Sniser
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 11:36:00 -
[602]
I have been reading all the threat but i didnt found any answer about this so there here go.
if you check weapon types usually there are 3 tiers of each type weapon
for example
Medium blasters - Electron - Ion - Neutron
medium auto cannons
- dual 180mm - 220mm - 425mm
medium pulse laser - focused - Heavy
The gap of damage between focused and heavy pulse laser is a lot, many times i would like to fit a weapon between focused and heavy, because i dont have enough powergrid for heavy but i dont want use focused because im not full tanked.
Is there any chance to make a new weapon between those , focused and heavy? The same question go for bs sized weapons.
if this is not possible then would be possible make a taychon pulse so i can use the powergrid left after i use a pg/module rig? Atm i find it a problem since if i want go gank fitted i feel im out of pg(no powergrid module) or i feel i have too much pg left(a powergrid module). there isnt anything in middle of those options
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 11:43:00 -
[603]
Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys?
I fear eve may go the same way...
LOL! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP! I feel the same way. I also remember a time when devs used to talk and listen to the players
|
Miz Cenuij
Caldari Simply Smacktackular
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 12:21:00 -
[604]
We are all going to WOW !
Im sure they hired some WOW devs.
"Men are going to die... and I'm going to kill them" |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 12:36:00 -
[605]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 11/11/2007 12:36:46
Originally by: Def Antares
Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys?
I fear eve may go the same way...
LOL! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP! I feel the same way. I also remember a time when devs used to talk and listen to the players
wow good job ignoring the 20 dev replys in THIS VERY THREAD.
please don't troll.
also live dev blogs with live questions, and fanfest, the round tables they JUST HAD with players form bob and goonswarm at the same table.
tthey listen numnuts. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi |
Ramblin Man
Empyreum
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 13:47:00 -
[606]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Def Antares
Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys?
I fear eve may go the same way...
LOL! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP! I feel the same way. I also remember a time when devs used to talk and listen to the players
wow good job ignoring the 20 dev replys in THIS VERY THREAD.
please don't troll.
also live dev blogs with live questions, and fanfest, the round tables they JUST HAD with players form bob and goonswarm at the same table.
So... there's now [OHGODBOB], who is in actuality engaged in a civil war?
Welcome to the dark side old friend. .Shar Where we hate people through words. |
ilovedronesandcarriers
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:20:00 -
[607]
Originally by: Miz Cenuij We are all going to WOW !
Im sure they hired some WOW devs.
Le OutragT!
Indeed.
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:56:00 -
[608]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Raketefrau But timing-wise, will the carrier cargo nerf be hitting before the jump freighters are introduced?
Technically, no. They're both being introduced with the same patch, however, jump freighters are T2. They will take several MONTHS to invent and build, at a simply staggering cost (estimates ranging into the 7-8b region). There is also a huge lack of freighter pilots with the required jump skills, so it will take time to transition the duties of the experienced carrier logistics pilots to the freighter pilots training jump skills.
The drone regions are only survivable through massive logistics programs. The last thing we need is a nerf like this.
signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- Really enjoying this |
Lord AtTiLAs
Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 15:06:00 -
[609]
Thanks for all of you answers DEV. You made my anger almost dissapear about the carrier nerf/change/buff. Now I think that was a needed change and I understand that carrier became a too easy way of transportation for POS fueling / Minerals / Moon harvested producst. Also, carrier buff enabling to transport 2 battleship, more rigged ship ( since we are not gonna hesitate to load hauler or not) and a lot more smaller ship is really awesome and will still give a lot MORE potential to the new carrier. But here is some points that, in my opinion, is needed to realease at the same time of the carrier change:
1) All capital ship, due to their complex structure, should not be able to use any expanded cargo hold and/or cargohold optimization anymore. To avoid any carrier pilot to see Dread or Rorqual as an alternative and then get nerfed again ( Loosing 450M of skill ).
2) Rorqual, like the carrier, should not be able to load any ship filled with stuff other than ammo/charges in its Ship maintenance Bay. Avoiding Rorqual to reach a ridiculous 126K Cargo (nerfed by rule 1) + 10K hangars + 3 X 38K Iteron in cargo = 250K m3 !!!!
3) Carrier should be at least get the same amount of cargohold as the dread which is near 8.5K m3 ( While being also nerfed by rule 1 ) to get some kind of way bring more fuel, travel longer distance and use Triage mode more efficiently. Or best double up the Corporate Hangars since carrier will be rapidly filled up with only 10K by goods + carrier fuel. This giving carrier 20K ( cargo buff ) or 26K ( Corporate hangar buff) of effective transportion space which is allready a 60% nerf comparered to actual 65K ( With Rigged iteron 5 and Hulk ).
Please don't make an temporary alternative while not nerfing ALL capital ship. Rorqual will then be the most effective POS fueler with 50K cargo and may be gonna need a little bit more nerf to avoid all carrier pilot to get over rorqual for its hauling potential and not for his Mining purpose.
Thanks
|
Hmaon
STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 19:52:00 -
[610]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark Carriers were hauling stuff around by placing cargo expanded Industrial Ships in their ship maintenance bay, then placing a large number of "stuff" in the Industrials cargo hold. They don't have to fit any cargo expanders.
If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers.
|
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 23:05:00 -
[611]
Edited by: I SoStoned on 11/11/2007 23:07:07 So, well, now the Devs are finally seeing that people are expanding their logistics by manufacturing modules... so they introduced the Rorq and mineral compression & refining nerf.
Apparently that didn't work well enough, now their increasing module size by a factor of 10... lovely. Now ratters can't loot. At all. Not even with a salvaging destroyer...
... so where's the hauler with the huge cargo hold, abysmal speed, 8 high slots for tractors (tractors & salvagers fitting into 'utility' slots no hardpoints need to be offered on the hull), and a 100% range/speed bonus for tractor beams per level in whatever skill?
Or make these huge flying jetcans very nimble, but extremely slow, and with huge volume so they can't be hauled by ... whatever nerfed ship that may have tried.
Oh, yes, and Hangar Cans that freighters can use to haul rigged/insured/fitted ships (without cargo or ammo!). The freigher can't deploy them, so it's forced to dock or move them into a POS hangar before they can be used.
|
SamuraiJack
Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.11.11 23:28:00 -
[612]
All i'm gonna say is i want a respec of my SP's.
oh and WTS: Carrier.
i wonder if the devs even play the logistics game.
Go mine and acutally discover the "other" part of EVE. Stop griefing in lowsec like the rest of the 12yr old idiots.
SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
|
Alex Shurk
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 01:45:00 -
[613]
Originally by: Hmaon If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers.
For some reason that, and just plain outright increasing the mass of haulers has never even been mentioned by the devs. No clue why, it's the first obvious solution. Stops the SMAs of carriers becoming useless, for a start.
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 02:04:00 -
[614]
Right now the Rorqual and the jump freighter are so close together that I don't want to train for them, because you know that 6 months from now some CCP employee is finally going to say "we need to differentiate these ships" and start swinging the nerf bat all over again.
I trained a carrier because it WAS a hauler. Who knows what the Rorqual will be come this time next year? signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- Really enjoying this |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 07:48:00 -
[615]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 12/11/2007 07:49:15
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Susitna 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.
Being able to bubble up a 20km radius with a very very small ship should have some drawbacks don't you think? It shouldn't be a no-brainer to do in my opinion.
@ you if you think anything based on the caldari dessie is small. Its a pregnant hippo, almost cruiser sized with its 90m sig radius.
|
Aphotic Raven
Gallente E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 08:57:00 -
[616]
In response to CCP Chronotis here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=18#536
Things are looking interesting thats for sure.
A question I have for anyone in the know, not just a dev is in regards to invention are gallente decryptors (or whatever) used for Hulks AND the new freighters.
I ask because the people i know who get there hands on gallente R&D are pumping it into hulk production still.
This means gallente t2 combat ships seem to be bucking the price slash trend earlier and holding at a much higher price point than ships of other races. (Zealot/Cerb vs Ishtar/deimos for instance)
Is this seen as a problem or just part of life? I think it could become problamatic once t2 freighters are the new lifeline of 0.0...
Originally by: Dr Cupid Let me tell you all that I'm really enjoying eve-beta, and can't wait for the real game to come out!
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 09:46:00 -
[617]
Originally by: Aphotic Raven In response to CCP Chronotis here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=18#536
Things are looking interesting thats for sure.
A question I have for anyone in the know, not just a dev is in regards to invention are gallente decryptors (or whatever) used for Hulks AND the new freighters.
I ask because the people i know who get there hands on gallente R&D are pumping it into hulk production still.
This means gallente t2 combat ships seem to be bucking the price slash trend earlier and holding at a much higher price point than ships of other races. (Zealot/Cerb vs Ishtar/deimos for instance)
Is this seen as a problem or just part of life? I think it could become problamatic once t2 freighters are the new lifeline of 0.0...
The Decryptor balancing should change that, by making each decryptor more or less worth using (at least I hope). ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Feng Schui
Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 11:45:00 -
[618]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Cailais
Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!!
/me sobs
C.
OK, really last reply here:
I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo.
Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets.
I wonder what type of curse you fly tbh, a nano-damp-curse (which is currently, overpowered in my eyes), or a curse that uses its actual ewar bonus instead.
there have been quite a few good threads around the pilgrim and curse, as related to the current state and future state (script + bandwidth changes). I'm sure that you could find them. however, a number of suggestions are:
-complete role change for pilgrim to make it fit the role of a cap warfare boat (75% reduction to energy emission systems capacitor use).
-5% bonus to armor
-and quite a few more that i cannot recall at the moment.
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 12:59:00 -
[619]
Originally by: Necrologic You could also have stuff like different damage distribution across the formation, which would spark some life back into tanking setups. Using a certain formation could direct a % of damage taken to a ship set up for tanking, etc.
Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options.
The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have).
At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort.
The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang.
Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Mattduk
Gallente Universal Army INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 13:02:00 -
[620]
Edited by: Mattduk on 12/11/2007 13:02:59
Originally by: I SoStoned IMO classic idiocy, CCP.
I've read your thread of idiot rationalizations kicking your player base square in the cajones because they decide to use something 'their way'. Now you take the bat and go home because the third baseman caught your foul ball.
2.8 bil build cost for a f*ing jump freighter? Jebus, you twits, yank logistics away from every small/medium alliance (and pretty much any corp) at a single go. Just like HACs before widespread invention these damn ships will be 10 bil for a year or more, if not 20 bil or even higher.
You can introduce these super-movers and not even touch the haulage capacity of a much less expensive carriers and, in time (if you would allow it!!!) the jump freighters would eventually take over. Forcing them down our gullets with a broken invention system is a big fat 'screw you' to your playerbase. I'd like to see all the hate flames you're going to recieve from all the cancelled subscriptions.
And no, you can't have my stuff. It's all going to be trashed (the worthless carrier included). You'll find my main on eBay, for real world money thank you. Not that it can sell after this change, only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius.
'cajones' is spanish for 'drawers' I believe you intended to say 'c0jones'.
see how that works?
Regards Matt
|
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 14:26:00 -
[621]
Originally by: I SoStoned only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius.
Idiot nub reporting in.
/salute
|
Futureface01
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 14:51:00 -
[622]
In my post linked in my signature, I spelled out a list of issues with the Golem. If you can take a look that'd be great. My questions to the Devs are:
1. Are marauders designed with PVE in mind?
2. Are you expecting people who fly Golems in Missions to use Cruise Missiles? (Despite the bonuses implying torpedo use)
3. Are you aware that if a mission runner uses Cruise Missiles on the Golem his DPS is less than that of a Cruise Missile fitted CNR? (More details in the thread in my Signature)
4. Have you "held back" on Marauders because of the threat of PVP'ers becoming too effective in them?
Thank you.
State of the Golem Oct 25, 2007 |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 15:31:00 -
[623]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Necrologic You could also have stuff like different damage distribution across the formation, which would spark some life back into tanking setups. Using a certain formation could direct a % of damage taken to a ship set up for tanking, etc.
Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options.
The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have).
At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort.
The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang.
Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though.
i support this post ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem |
Hmaon
STK Scientific Black-Out
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 16:43:00 -
[624]
Originally by: Alex Shurk
Originally by: Hmaon If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers.
For some reason that, and just plain outright increasing the mass of haulers has never even been mentioned by the devs. No clue why, it's the first obvious solution. Stops the SMAs of carriers becoming useless, for a start.
Yeah, I don't know. I wonder whether it's even been considered.
|
Der Komissar
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 16:49:00 -
[625]
Edited by: Der Komissar on 12/11/2007 16:49:57 One way ticket to carebear hell, swg ne1? Every mmog turns into carebear paradise with "fairplay" and safety. When is Eve's turn?
|
Vitelius
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 17:04:00 -
[626]
Edited by: Vitelius on 12/11/2007 17:06:38 Edited by: Vitelius on 12/11/2007 17:05:07 I must ask, now that the heavy dictors have the ability scram motherships and generally everything in low sec, isn't this kind of bad for the balance? I'm definitely for the idea of making moms scrammable but heavy dictors will now be the favorite tool of low sec gate campers. If they have infinite point strength they can quite happily catch everything they want and combined with the fact that it's a T2 cruiser that's doing this I imagine it can efficiently tank the sentries as well. I wouldn't mind if the ship using that infinite strength scram was a regular interdictor which can't effectively tank sentries, that would mean risk involved when using it and of course it still could be used in low sec near gates against mommy pilots with piratey tendencies as pirates are legal targets to shoot.
If you have hopes of populating low sec more, that is not really going to help. The carebears with full rack of stabs fitted won't be able to neither defend themselves with all those stabs or run away from the infinite strength scram. While one could relatively safely move goods through low sec in a blockade runner before, this won't be the case anymore. I just want to ask if you have considered the consequences of bringing "targetted bubbles" into low sec? Perhaps making the targetted mode script have a limited strength against regular targets would be a better solution?
This and making it even more difficult to haul stuff using carriers isn't really making anyone happy. Hauling becomes a painful task, even through low sec. I just cannot see the point in forcing people to train for new expensive tools, having a months long training gap to use the new tools while the old ones get nerfed and hauling is generally made more painful than ever before.
---
|
Slaatibartfast
Forty Two
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:08:00 -
[627]
Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 12/11/2007 18:14:21 Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 12/11/2007 18:12:58
Originally by: CCP Zulupark The SISI stats for the T2 BS are pretty much final. The Black-Ops ships are pretty expensive ships, and will probably not be used in close range combat. The agility bonus was to allow the Sin to scoop up sentry drones, and accelerate quickly to warp out.
We're probably never going to allow the Black-Ops ships to use Covert Ops cloaks, they do however get bonuses to normal cloaks. (you even go faster while cloaked)
Sad to hear that these ships aren't attractive to you, I'm really excited about both of them myself (mostly the black-ops though).
Just a few follow on questions:
1. You say the stats are pretty much final, but many people are reporting varying degrees of fitting issues with most of the t2 bs, my personal experience being that the amarr ones (the only ones i've tested yet) need more cpu and a bit more powergrid to actually be able to make use of all their slots (those utility highs being a problem). Are you guys aware of fitting issues and if so, is this intended or just a pre-nerf?
2. You say that the black ops bs won't be used in close range combat....what makes you think that exactly? The fact that long range fits typically mean less tank? The fact that they'll be cyno'ing into systems and can therefore not dictate range till they're had a chance to get out? The fact that being survivable means a decent tank, which in turns means cap injector if you want any sustainability, which to a large extent precludes the use of long range fits due to fitting issues? [Please don't counter using the sin as an example, it's unique in that its chief weapon system requires no cpu or grid, leaving lots of room for a tank, drone mods etc.]
3. A whole bonus just to be able to pick up sentry drones and warp out? Seriously? Well I guess that explains the agility bonus but man.... [also doesn't that tell you something needs to be looked at with regard to sentry drones if you need to waste an entire ship bonus just so they can be scooped without getting you killed?]
4. What value do you believe being able to fit an improved cloak (along with the bonus) has for a billion isk high mass bs? How do you see it being used? The way they tend to work is as follows: you cloak on grid with hostiles, you get de-cloaked and die; you cloak, say, 100km off a gate and wait for targets...why use a black ops? No real gain and lots of risk over a t1 bs. Or you can safespot and cloak...in this case an un-bonused proto cloak would do.
5. You say you're really excited about black ops bs, well what specifically are you excited about? Could you give some scenarios in which you plan to use them to give an advantage over taking on the same situation with conventional ships without the covert bridge? With the current limitations (here i'm chiefly referring to cargo size, bridge fuel consumption, jump fuel consumption, range, and the amount needed for each ship bridged, oh and the lack of room for ammo and boosters) I'm having a really hard time thinking of situations where the cost, hassle and risk involved actually gives an appreciable gain over the standard way of doing things.
I await your responses with baited breath.
|
Fire Stone
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:21:00 -
[628]
Dev's was post #536 a mistake when it said electrical engineering? |
vipeer
Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 19:41:00 -
[629]
Im a drone user so i'll say this:
There are two drone types worth training up to T2. Third one is conditional (people running CNRs doing caldari missions vs guristas can find them useful but nobody else and only T2 mediums since they cant use T2 large drones effectively.
T2 thermal drones have top damage. Speed sucks on T2 ogres but mediums and smalls pwn. Every drone user and their mom has T2 thermal drones in their drone bay
T2 explosive drones have very good damage and they excell against armor on T1 ships. They are also the fastest of them all and a batch of warrior II's in the dronebay is there to swat ceptors and dictors. Their tracking is best of all drones. All in all explosive drones are the drones of choice for me because they do serious damage and can keep up with all but fastest ships in their respective classes.
T2 kinetic drones are useful for swatting guristas rats and that's about it. T2 thermal drones have superior damage and T2 explosive drones have superior maneuvrability and speed and lay down heavy smack on armor.
T2 EMP drones are the bastard child nobody needs or wants. Their damage is crap compared to T2 ogres. Everyone is tanked by default on armor against them and be sure any shield tanker will plug the EMP resist hole with a 50% hardener so youre screwed either way. Add on top of that a crappy 1,38 base damage mod of the T2 Praetor compared to 1,92 on the T2 ogre. With the ship bonuses and drone interfacing 5 this translates into a massive difference in the damage output. T2 Praetors are quite fast but usually when drones arrive at the enemy the shield should be halfway down anyway. If it's not youre shooting a raven or the sort or doing something very wrong. T2 explosive drones have better tracking.
There is another important aspect why T2 EMP drones are such pieces of crap. They have the least amount of shield of all. Drone users will agree that when micromanaging drones you scoop them to refull their shields f they take damage. Shield is a buffer and EMP drones have smallest buffer on top of all the disadvantages already pointed out.
If you will change something Amarr you can start with drones. It's preety straightforward -> boost dmg mod by 20-25%, boost speed by 5%, boost tracking by 5%, boost shield by 50%, decrease armor by 30%. While youre at it you can also decrease thermal drone dmg output by 5% and increase their speed by 10% to compensate (they will arrive to target faster but do less damage). and boost explosive drone damage by 7-10%. This way all drones will be balanced out just like different types of missiles.
For example you dont have emp missiles do 100 dmg and fly 1000m/s with explosion radius of 50 while explosive missiles do 140 dmg and fly 1150m/s with 45 explosion radius and have the end of all thermal missiles fly do 220 dmg but only fly 900m/s and have 55 explosion radius.
As it stands T2 thermal drones are the be-all-end-all wtfbbqers.
I will write the next line in caps to clarify myself: THIS IS NOT A WALL OF TEXT FOR NERFING THERMAL DRONES BUT A CALL TO BOOST EMP (AMARR) DRONES. -------------SIG STARTS HERE------------- Chaining BoBo in south Feyth:
Your Neutron Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Dukath [EVOL]<BOB>(Vindicator), wrecking for 741.0 damage. |
Caine Azuris
Gallente Killson Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.11.12 21:34:00 -
[630]
See what im finding funny about all this is, CCP is oh like "We want players to decide what happens in game and they control the game". But then nerf ANYTHING that isnt going the way THEY want it to go. If people want to use carriers as hualers then wtf, why not? Why do you guys feel the need to mess with what we pay 14.95 a month to do in game? I think that somehow you all have gotten the mentality that this is YOUR game and we will do what you all want us to do. Well tell you what, you can have the game ......... but what good is it going to do you with now players? ------------
|
|
|
|
|
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 |