| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kuranta
Pator Tech School
   |
Posted - 2008.05.26 13:21:00 -
[31]
Support for general role and stats balancing.
|
Jolinar Malkshur
Divine Retribution
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 04:50:00 -
[32]
I support this thread rethink the blackops class
null
"Some one ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back" - Malcolm Reynolds |
Ishina Fel
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 07:32:00 -
[33]
Black Ops need a little help...
|
Gorbon Hauler
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:13:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Gorbon Hauler on 28/05/2008 18:12:57
I have put off training for Black Ops as there doesn't seem a point in flying a Widow right now. From friends feedback Its not great at ECM, has a very slow lock and doesn't tank that well.
It could be a great ship class as it pushes you towards the prerequisites for capital ships, so good for experiencing jumping etc. However the jump range seems to be such an issue.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 10:24:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 29/05/2008 10:24:28
Note for CSM:
Related thread
Black Ops - Community wishlist
 Originally by: Khan Soriano
I searched a little bit and compiled a list of changes to Black Ops proposed by EVE playerbase:
- More cargospace or dedicated fuel bay
- Possibility to use Covert Ops Cloak
- Increased jump range
- More types of ship to jump with
- Longer portal time span and larger activation area
- Ability to jump into jump-locked systems
- Make it at least strong as its T1 counterpart.
- Remove or reduce the reactivation delay on cloaks
- Remove or reduce scan resolution penalty
- Make them a long range ship so they could 'siege' POS infrastructure
|
Abel Tasman
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 11:59:00 -
[36]
.
|
Tasha Voronina
Caldari Navy Reserve Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:49:00 -
[37]
Here's to a general boost to their jumpdrives (and a fuel bay) - there might be some other smaller issues with them, but this is the worst atm (same jumprange as a dreadnought's base jump range - with the range skill trained to 4?  )
---
Sig will be updated shortly |
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 03:37:00 -
[38]
--
Knowledge is Power! |
Gazenberg
Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys
Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 07:24:00 -
[39]
Agreed.
They are either too expensive or to weak for their current performance.
-Gazenberg
|
Mia Den
Rubra Libertas Militia
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 07:31:00 -
[40]
Dont fly one but still support as considering this they arent worth the ISK yet
|
Yaar Podshipnik
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 13:23:00 -
[41]
I endores rebalancing of the black ops ships, except module to replace jump harmonics - would be better as a rig in my opinion.
|
Manonamission
Elko Bail Bonds
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 01:06:00 -
[42]
Signage for rebalance/redefinition of BlackOps.
Give this poor bum of a ship a job!
|
Malarki X
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 14:13:00 -
[43]
Ay indeed - these ships could use a bit of a buff.
|
KingOzar
Brute Strength
THORN Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 07:52:00 -
[44]
There are so many posts about buffing this. I hope it's done by the end of this year.
|
Hydrogen
Art of War
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 12:00:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Hydrogen on 06/06/2008 12:00:22
BOs need buff.
There is one thing to keep in mind though: BOs were "offered" by CCP to the playerbase as "cloaked hitters". That is exactly why I trained it (since being a really really upset Pilgrim pilot). Nothing came true - as such it would be a pain to again have wasted skillpoints if the role is defined completly different.
a. I expect a fix for the previously suggested role, which includes the ability to actually hit something (not with scan res penalty)
b. alternatively 2 BO lines for each race offering the previously suggested role and a maybe new role.
Please make it clear to CCP that another skill point wastage is not an option.
__
- click here - |
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 05:13:00 -
[46]
Make Assault frigs capable of jumping with them perhaps and you kill two birds with one stone.
|
Choobakka
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:02:00 -
[47]
Black Ops definitely need better base jump range. Considering the fact they can only jump to someone with a covert cyno that requires high enough skills to be activated, current jump range really hurts at the moment. Also even though it's wise not to let them jump to normal cyno fields, why it's been made impossible to jump to cyno generators - because that would require UI changes? |
Herring
Alcatraz Inc.
Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 11:27:00 -
[48]
Yes. I'd love to have a reason to train for blackops ships.
Boost patch...nerfs: 1) faction passive shield resistance amplifiers, 2) exploration radar sites, 3) faction co-processors |
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:12:00 -
[49]
Black Ops need some loving for all the requirements needed for it to be used
1, alt account with 2 months minimum just for the prerequisites of a recon ship and the covert cyno, or someone willing to train and spend a high slot thats only useful if you log in, with at least 80m spent on that ship probably more.
2, main account with over 5 months of specific training, many on capital jump skills that most of us will never use again, with something like 11 level 5 skills and thats for what it takes to get in the ship, let alone use it effectively. From when you make the decision to get in it assuming you are a high SP player already you are looking at around 8 months and something like 300m on skillbooks to get in it. Then after all that you have to pay 500m which is MORE then what a carrier costs to replace if it is insured.
|
SauI Tigh
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:15:00 -
[50]
You've had something like 6 months to rebalance it already and its painfully obvious that to justify the price tag its going to need some major rebalancing and if you want to take the time to get that perfect I can grudgingly accept that but at least give us a fuelbay and let covert cynos work in cyno jammed systems in the meantime! |
Telender
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:24:00 -
[51]
The BOPS battleships need across the board buffs. Currently they are a novelty, a potential logistics tool for recons, and that is about it. Using them in actual battles is just a risky way to lose an expensive ship.
On the same note, T2 ships in general, particularly command ships, often do not offer enough of an advantage over their extremely insurable, extremely low-SP counterparts to offer a worthwhile advantage. BOPS BS and Commands are without a doubt the biggest victims of this problem, with assault frigs also suffering.
|
Khan Zu
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:27:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Edited by: Erotic Irony on 22/05/2008 15:53:37
Quote:
Is it safe to assume the gains a black ops like the Redeemer enjoys over the Armageddon should be in parity with the gains a Pilgrim gets over the Arbitrator? If so, then there are some serious gaps I don't follow.
I had to use these two links to get a side by side view but surely you have more sophisticated spreadsheets:
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=643-22428
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item_compare.php?share=11965-628
The least controversial is the cap difference I think, for the recons, the gain is 20%, for the battleships, no gain for using tech two. Is this unprecedented in comparing tech one to tech two hulls? No other t2 ship has the same or less cap than its t1 counterpart. This is a crippling deal breaker.
As the Ewar powerhouse, pilgrim justifiably enjoys double the sensor strength of the t1, Black ops again have no difference. Same for locked targets, pilgrim gains one, redeemer is identical to tech one.
On scan res, pilgrim locks 12% slower than arby but has over 100% more lock range. Redeemer comes out ahead initially, 20% faster scan res but for reasons unknown only has 4% more lock range than the geddon--figure in the cloak and again we have a deal breaker. Running the cloak practically means dampening yourself.
On both shield and armor the numbers don't make sense. Both pilgrim and redeemer lose approximately the same amount of shield hit points by upgrading to tech two, 22% and 20% respectively, but this difference is heightened by the resistance gains of the pilgrim to explosive and kinetic, 20% and 15% increases; redeemer on shield gains a paltry 4% and 3% respectively. The redeemer's shield recharge is even longer than the geddon's despite having less hit points.
On armor, the pilgrim gains about 30% more armor and bigger native explosive and kinetic bonuses, 40% and 18.75% while the Redeemer has -20% less hit points than the tech one version and virtually no bonus armor resistance to explosive and kinetic. The only area where the redeemer comes out ahead vis a vis the pilgrim and arbitrator is on hull, the cruiser loses nearly 40% of its hull in choosing tech two while the bs only loses about 20%.
Although I use two Amarr ships to demonstrate this point, it is safe to say all black ops are suffering from this balancing crisis. If these ships are to be so ineffectual relative to recons, their invention costs should be wildly reduced with their skill requirements as no rational person would ever even consider flying one given the current state of recons.
TL;DR****got:
There is not incentive to use these ships for any form of pvp.
-Need scan resolution and recalibration bonus
-More cap, 10-5% more fitting
-Battleship lockrange
-Double base jump range
-Reduced fitting for bridge, cheaper jumps.
-Remove restriction on jump harmonics and implement a module to enable covert bridge movement.
Originally by: Khan Soriano
I searched a little bit and compiled a list of changes to Black Ops proposed by EVE playerbase:
- More cargospace or dedicated fuel bay
- Possibility to use Covert Ops Cloak
- Increased jump range
- More types of ship to jump with
- Longer portal time span and larger activation area
- Ability to jump into jump-locked systems
- Make it at least strong as its T1 counterpart.
- Remove or reduce the reactivation delay on cloaks
- Remove or reduce scan resolution penalty
- Make them a long range ship so they could 'siege' POS infrastructure
This is all very wise. |
Maobechev
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 00:36:00 -
[53]
Devs you realize the SIN is the biggest joke in the game right? a 2b isk ship that is worse then a 50M(fully insurable) T1 battleship? Come on, why even put ships in the game if they're this terrible.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 03:06:00 -
[54]
I would like to see the balancing and a little more loving with this ship. I purposely avoided training for it when it first came out because I felt it was going to turn out to be another useful and well conceived ship like the Smart Bomber. Turned out a little better but meh.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 04:59:00 -
[55]
Jade, when do we have a chance to see your template on Black Ops?
;___________;
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
RedeyeAce
Demogorgon's Army
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 14:56:00 -
[56]
I dont agree with giving the B'Ops every boost mentioned, however i agree with the resounding concensus that there are fundamental role issues here and they definately need to be reworked..
Please lets make these things useable
|
Mori Felding
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.11 16:14:00 -
[57]
yes please, make them sensible.. somehow. |
BlackProphet
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 04:44:00 -
[58]
Agreed please buff |
Shaitis
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:42:00 -
[59]
"What is funnier ? 20 Matari slaves pinned to one tree or 1 Matari slave pinned to 20 trees ? |
Tyrrhena Maxus
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 09:53:00 -
[60]
I was quite excited when I heard about these ships and totally disappointed when they finally came out. The jump drive uses way too much fuel, and for the cost of the ship, it really isn't THAT much beter. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |