Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Prakhgoth
|
Posted - 2005.03.08 22:12:00 -
[91]
I sign. I agree with the petition.
|
Jane Vladmir
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 00:46:00 -
[92]
signed
|
Ryy Kishin
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 13:31:00 -
[93]
Also Signed Live Hard Die Young Leave A Good Looking Corpse!
|
Whitethorn
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 13:42:00 -
[94]
Signed.
Because of their nature, you could boost support ships substantially without any real balance issues. Their main role is to provide support for other ships in fleet engagements of any size, and they are just too fragile to fill that role. Their targetting range is too short to keep out of the way, and their resistances are too low for them to survive within the main group.
At the moment, very few people will consider these ships. They just don't have the survivability or usefulness to be worth investing in.
|
slip66
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 15:00:00 -
[95]
I thought they were looking into this all ready but I'll go along. I would like to actually play with one of these but $ is stupid for a ship that on all accounts sucks.
|
Gaius Kador
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 15:07:00 -
[96]
signed ----------------------------------------------
|
Feyd Darkholme
|
Posted - 2005.03.09 23:02:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Oveur Former is easy, second is coding. New modules are a whole new discussion.
SIGNED
You guys seem to live by the credo, "Nothing worth the effort is ever easy", so why doesn't that apply to every aspect of EVE? Don't take the easy way out and call it good. Either do it right or don't do it at all, that's my credo. These ships have been entirely useless since inception, which not only effects pilots who might want to fly them, but a sector of the R&D community that was lucky enough to win this BPO in your wonderful lotto... Please fix these ships so they are useful in their intended role! Thanks! ---------------
|
Shreven Bulks
|
Posted - 2005.03.10 23:15:00 -
[98]
Bump.
How long do we have to wait? Are you just going to let the months slip by, letting the useless ship classes stack up? Are you secretly working on fixes that will be sprung on us as some sort of unexpected Christmass present that ends up making these ships seem about as apealing as a hand-knit sweater that's way too big?
Why no engage with your players? At least let us know what you're thinking about so we don't just assume you're IGNORING US. "It's being looked into," is read by many as code for "Shut up, we'll give you something you don't want when we get around to it."
|
hambo
|
Posted - 2005.03.13 19:33:00 -
[99]
If you have so much flipping ISK toss me 100 mill tell then shut up, I am a casual player a miner and very very rarely do i have more than 2mil in my wallet and coming up with the 30mil for the skill and the 30mil plus for the parts and mining my own minerals for it because I don't want to borrow any more from my friends can't afford to lose a ship that has no weapons in the first place. I don't have the skills to PvP and I was hopping to support my corp and or alliance through a support capability. resists/armor is nice but the only way to make a logistics ship survive that is roleplayable it to make it a pain in the B*** to hit so much so that the other ships accuall present more viable targets, trying to get a lock on a ship that ishard to lock and is jinking and diving away from you while you are in a swarm of frigs and BS would be more realistic. I would like to see line of site checks for weapons like guns and lasers and agility checks for missiles and drones just for fun (dodging around a roid field) would make things much more interesting,
It is so obscenely easy to make loads of cash these days that ISK cost is becomming less and less of an issue. Rich playboys (of which there are an abundance) actively seek pvp combat to play with their HACs.
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.03.14 03:12:00 -
[100]
Originally by: hambo If you have so much flipping ISK toss me 100 mill tell then shut up, I am a casual player a miner and very very rarely do i have more than 2mil in my wallet and coming up with the 30mil for the skill and the 30mil plus for the parts and mining my own minerals for it because I don't want to borrow any more from my friends can't afford to lose a ship that has no weapons in the first place. I don't have the skills to PvP and I was hopping to support my corp and or alliance through a support capability. resists/armor is nice but the only way to make a logistics ship survive that is roleplayable it to make it a pain in the B*** to hit so much so that the other ships accuall present more viable targets, trying to get a lock on a ship that ishard to lock and is jinking and diving away from you while you are in a swarm of frigs and BS would be more realistic. I would like to see line of site checks for weapons like guns and lasers and agility checks for missiles and drones just for fun (dodging around a roid field) would make things much more interesting,
It is so obscenely easy to make loads of cash these days that ISK cost is becomming less and less of an issue. Rich playboys (of which there are an abundance) actively seek pvp combat to play with their HACs.
Hambo, what are you talking about? I didn't see anyone saying they should cost more, did I miss something? I must have, cause in the first paragraph you note how little money you have, and how bad off you have it, but then in the last paragraph you state how it is "obscenely easy to make loads of cash these days..." Seems to me these statements contradict, and as such, your argument, whatever that may be, gets lost. LOS checks are not gonna happen, so get over that part. The coding and physics issues would be way too much. What does "rich playboys actively seeking PvP combat in their HACs" have to do with SC? To be blunt, your post confuses the heck out of me, because it only seems to be related to support cruisers in the fact that you want to fly one, but can't. Please, make it simple for me. |
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.03.16 23:02:00 -
[101]
Anyone else REALLY upset that the SC are not on the list of improved items for this upcoming patch, and that they seem to be concentrating on new classes instead of fixing old ones?
What is it with CCP and HUGE changes? Why can't they make one change at a time (I.E. : just EW changes, or just propulsion changes, instead of everything together, or adding a bunch of ships, just to have to "fix" them later?
|
Eraza
|
Posted - 2005.03.17 00:29:00 -
[102]
i am, something needs to be done about the support crusiers, at the moment, they are about the saddest ships in the game, and have been, since before they came out.. a compleate flop really..
instead of adding more and more and more features and changes, how about fixing the features that are already ingame, but NEVER REALLY WORKED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
:)
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.03.22 16:50:00 -
[103]
bump for more input |
Shreven Bulks
|
Posted - 2005.03.22 20:25:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Malena Anyone else REALLY upset that the SC are not on the list of improved items for this upcoming patch, and that they seem to be concentrating on new classes instead of fixing old ones?
What is it with CCP and HUGE changes? Why can't they make one change at a time (I.E. : just EW changes, or just propulsion changes, instead of everything together, or adding a bunch of ships, just to have to "fix" them later?
Currently I'm a lot more outraged about other (smaller POSs' longer cycles, Transport ships, map changes) things. That's what CCP does: they defuse angry discussion about one subject by ****ing us off with something else. It's actually quite brilliant. Keeps us off balance. Clearly the Devs have a copy of The Art of War next to their C++ manuals. <insert your joke of choice>
All I'm hoping for now is that they'll tip us their hand; let us know what they're thinking of doing, and when it might be done. Is Oveur just waiting on some code? Knowing that something is on the back burner would bother me a lot less than not knowing if anything is cooking at all.
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.03.28 20:25:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Malena on 01/04/2005 18:00:18 anyone know when the next patch is due out? Oveur said soon (tm) on the last dev blog,which was like the 12th or 15th of March when it came out...but they are having all these server problems lately, so I imagine most of the coders are busy looking for whatever is causing it, not actually coding the new stuff.
I think this is the first time in my personal history with EVE that I am wishing for a stealth boost...my SC did a decent job in a very limited capacity this weekend, and I really wish it could have done it either better, or done a bigger variety of things, especially when factoring in the cost of the ship and kit.
<edit> so now we know when the next patch is due, has anyone who uses the test server seen any changes to SC?
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.04.01 18:03:00 -
[106]
anybody else want to sound off? Do you agree, disagree, what? Those of you who do fleet battles frequently, what would help the most with making an SC useful?
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.04.06 15:49:00 -
[107]
bumpage, because of a related thread. |
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2005.04.06 16:16:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 06/04/2005 16:19:36 Don't fly support cruisers myself (because they, well, suck). But offhand, the following simple modifications might make a big diff:
1. Give them assault cruiser -class shield and armor resists. Make them *tough*. Since they will be the #1 target in most cases anyway, this is top priority - nobody wants an expensive hunk with zero offensive potential *and* zero defensive.
2. Give them some drone space. Not much, but enough to launch a small swarm of light drones or something to provide protection vs lone inties and such. I mean, what's with even the Gallente version having zero drone space? Even mining barges have drone space, ffs! Boggles the mind.
With those in place, I'd view them as maybe worth training for. Maybe. And neither of the above should unbalance anything.
|
Amos Sommers
|
Posted - 2005.04.06 16:29:00 -
[109]
/me signs with both hands and feet.
As we stand, Logistics are a filler. They are USE LESS. I have seen two in last six months ...
Member of The Predators Corporation |
Raptornas
|
Posted - 2005.04.06 16:47:00 -
[110]
Signed ------------------------------------------- PITC - Combat Officer Forums: www.sugarplc.co.uk/phoenixforum |
|
Malena
|
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:33:00 -
[111]
Linkage
another related thread. Illustrates some of the issues. |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:44:00 -
[112]
Oh yea, I'll sign this...
Logistics cruisers would be nice if they were acctually useful... or Tech 1
|
Cinnander
|
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:51:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Cinnander on 08/04/2005 23:52:08 Several ideas on this, I've highlighted the key bits cos I know maintaining a *cough* page thread is a pain. And cos yellow r0x
First, would be nice if they weren't completely defenseless (other than smartbombs). How about a couple hundred m¦ of dronage?
Second, "utility": Most ships, some cruisers, and more specifically heavy assault cruisers have their functional highslots (turrets, missiles) and this magical utility slot on the 'High' Rack, which can be used for helper-modules, or a nos, smartbomb, target painter, etc. In this case the [golden] ratio is in favour of Weapons. It would be nice to see LCs the converse of this. They have say two weapon slots, perhaps 2 turrets on all races as 1 Turret with 1 ML sucks (Heron), and 2 ML sucks at the range these things operate, so the Caldari will cry. ->Most ships favour functional highslots leaving 1 utility slot. Logisitcs Cruisers are the opposite; having 4 or 5 util. slots and 2 weapons
To accomodate this; They would then also need more highslots IMO, like 6 if they ever want to rival (nay, beat) battleships ability to fill this role (could go for 4 support, 2 guns or 6 support and do it very damn well). We have barges now that removed the ftw-ness of Apoc miners, why not do the same to Scorp/Geddon supports.
Logistics cruisers also implies they could be useful for other mods, like... Target Painters, Remote Shield Hardeners (unique to this ship class), Anti-Cloaking Pulses, etc.
So, In summary I believe they could benefit from the following changes- 2 turret hardpoints
- 2 more highslots
- maybe a touch of drone space (200m3)
- Specialism with new "fleet support" modules like target painters. Perhaps bonus to fitting requirements of 'large' painters - ala CPU bonus on covert ops frigs/cloaks.
- Perhaps remote shield/armour hardener mods
- Later on, ability to function exceptionally well (compared to cruisers/frigs) as minesweepers
- Gang-bonus modifiers as already mentioned (although I think the 2% damage one might become the favourite, and it's the minnie one so we can't have that)
Edit: wow... that's a lot of yellow actually
><))))¦> This is fishy .. You know what to do. |
Shreven Bulks
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 00:41:00 -
[114]
OMG, this post still lives? I used to make good, constructive threads rather than amuse myself with caustic *****ing!?
Cinnander,
Your post pomotes a multi-role capability buff for the LCs which rather strongly goes against the T2 trend towards specialization. While I wouldn't normally be against that sort of thing, there are only so many roles for ships to fill in this game, and peeps are always going to want to use the one that is most 1337 in class for that role. Making them able to do several things would result in people using (or not using, as is now the case) them for the thing they do best, and ignoring those other features, or being so good that they end up stealing roles from several other ships which renders even more ships useless.
Their being defenseless in the midst of a large fleet is fine, though some drone space for possible future specialized drones would be nice.
2% for the minmi might be a tad high. Maybe 1.5%? Then again, imbalanced demand for one or two ships in each class seems to be the norm for every T2 ship class other than Inties, doesn' it?
|
Martinez
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 03:08:00 -
[115]
signed
|
Gazzaa29
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 03:43:00 -
[116]
Its really late here i read the 1st page then decided im too tired to read all the post.
Wat about givving them insane range and like 200-300 km. That way they can cover all the ships and hang way back from the action, making the inty/frigate role more important as these will be the only ships able to get to em to make the kill.
Prolly a crap idea but i thought id post it just incase
|
Yeux Gris
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 06:59:00 -
[117]
I personally think they should have a 20% energy or damage repair per logistics level :) as well as 20% range per level
Who let the cows out?! mOo. mOo. mOo.. mOo mOo...!
WTB 8x 280mm Scout Howies. Will pay 20% more than Naga's current price |
Cinnander
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 13:54:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Cinnander on 09/04/2005 13:56:21
Originally by: Shreven Bulks Cinnander, *snip*
I was intending to make them a bit more specialised at .. well .. logistical roles than just "medics". The idea was, if they can do other stuff like target paint with larger modules more effectively, people would (in THEORY) be more inclined to use them for other logistical purposes.
If all they are wanted for is repairing/tracking links rename them and their skill pack to 'Repair Ships' as being/requiring 'Logistics' ships/skill implies they are more than just large portable armour/shield boosters. |
Dark Silver
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 15:47:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Dark Silver on 09/04/2005 15:47:20 Touching on the drones thing, support cruisers could have drone bays of 500m3 and only be able to carry support drones, i.e. armour/shield/hull repair drones or maybe even defender drones (could guard against missiles)
Maybe create different logistics for each race concentrating on a different area of support, i.e. one for shield/arm reps, one for sensor/computer improvements and another for drone support. This would make it easier to balance and provide a wider choice to each race of what they can do, rather than having to train up lv5 on each races cruiser to be bale to supply the bonus you really need.
Also, make it cost less cap to use all support mods since these things are designed to help and no bs should be able to do it better!!!
|
Frank Horrigan
|
Posted - 2005.04.09 15:50:00 -
[120]
Signed
Originally by: Oveur
Originally by: Bhaal What has turned out better than expected?
Everything. Remember, we're from Iceland.
(\_/) (O.o) (> <) This i |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |