|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 15:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie First off
Ferox needs to be a brawler Naga will outperform any sniping the ferox ever could do. People have only started using the ferox again after buff to blasters not rails it should follow merlin-moa line. Drake is this losing its shield resis bonus for ROF bonus it needs too missile range is simply too good for a brawling role they won't need. Armageddon i was expecting this to be a droneboat otherwise amarr wont have a drone bs. How about myrmidon bonus will it keep its active tank or more likely follow the hybrid dmg bonus line?
Also i think sig radius on the combat line needs to be reduced as the shield tanked bc's end up as bs size after rigs/extenders |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
on the command ships/T3
I sincerely hope the links will end up with a AOE range limit maybe with skills/T2 modules increasing the range and cap use maybe. I would start with 20km range as basic to encourage them to be in LP range so there is genuine danger to them rather than being able to sit at 150km out of range of most things as that would kind of defeat the off grid boosting change and stop T3 alts boosting away in relative safety semi afk. Also liking the claymore changing to HAMS i assume. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Typhoon
Surely the raven should be more mobile as it's role will be to keep range so the phoon should be slower armour tanking still i hope it won't be changed to shields. its most useful in RR arm bs fleet as caldari don't have armour ships this is rather useful for missile pilots to be useful in armour tanking fleet please don't change this or you will be reducing its role effectively. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Sinooko wrote:Give the Maelstrom comparable locking range to the Rokh.
Also strip shield booster bonus from battleships. Local reps are completely useless in blobs. I think they could do the best of both worlds make one the Shield Boost and the other the Artillery Ship. Maybe tracking, or Falloff on the Tempest, Dmg Bonus and 7 Turrets / 6 Mids 5 Lows. Or give the Shield Boost to the Tempest and make the Mael all Fleet.
Perhaps make the tempest a larger stabber instead of its heavy ruppy style. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
@CCP Fozzie I hope vulture will become brawler too op range is pointless on it needs to be a heavy brawling ferox with links also will they both get the same T2 resis and will any be losing resis/tanking bonus in favour of a more attacking dps/range bonus? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Iniquita wrote:I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve? Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful. I am disappoint. Have you guys considered the possibility of giving links an optimal range that they work inside of, rather than an on-grid/off-grid distinction.
An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:
- Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.
yes gallente need more speed!!!! and info links need to be looked at and maybe made to amarr flavour.
- The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
"Big Moa" is the only way to go really sniping is specialized after-all leave it to the Tier3's as they already have this versatility to choose from and will do it much better than the ferox could ever hope to as medium rails/long range turrets are simply too weak. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Iniquita wrote:I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve? Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful. as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots
No links give a significant bonus and as such should be balanced as a big risk to being primaried and killed as e-war ships are. within LP range. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Also removing command processors would be nice although if we have the links as an AOE then maybe they wouldn't use them as they would need tank but still its much like micro shield mods they aren't needed and dont get used much. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
DeltaPhalanx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:DeltaPhalanx wrote:Will the changes to Gang Link bonuses be made "Role Bonues" or will the second gang link bonus supplant the existing second bonus for the Command Ships skill? Ie, would the Vulture's second Hybrid Optimal Range bonus become the 3% to Info War link bonus?
To clarify, each command ship has four bonuses based on Command Ships skill level; will the bonuses to links become native to the hull, plus having four bonuses, or will we have two bonuses and two gang link bonuses? Very likely they will become role bonuses. Once we're done we intend all 8 command ships to be useful for blowing stuff up and all 8 command ships to be useful for gang boosting. Thank you Fozzie; looking forward to combat-oriented command ships
Particularly the Eos with proper drone bonuses would be nice instead of its ***** drone bay only bonus hopefully it will get a full set of ogres too |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Fozzie, Is there any plans to completely change information links to something more useful? Currently shield, armor and speed links help every ship. 99% of the time players will choose one of those three over information bonuses every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The current fleet hierarchy only sees real use of bonuses in the fleet and wing command spots. Which is tank and skirmish. Would changing the info bonuses to be bonuses to drones, which 90% of all ships in the game have, be an option? Also I am one of the 7 with max information bonuses on T3 and command ships. I trained max information warfare skills specifically for one Info Claymore fit for the AT. And then joined CCP before ever actually flying that ship on TQ.
Lol its a link that might sit well with amarr not needing the skirmish one being a bunch of bricks and all perhaps the link could have synergy with TD's and neuts perhaps but yes maybe some drone bonuses would make it interesting or make a separate drone link altogether |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Any thoughts on adding another level in the hierarchy so a fleet can hold 1,281. Granted I am not a fan of massive scale combat, but the game needs it. All wars are fought on a coalition level and the players have outgrown the current max numbers allowed in a fleet. This would also open up another level of bonuses where information (or a new version of it) could see use in large scale combat. Regulating them to a squad commander spot is impractical when you are only helping out ten people total. You are just better off bringing a combat ship.
Nah i was thinking the other day that the wing command skill should be scaled back infact to maybe 1 squad a level instead of 5 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
On T3 ships i really hope they are limited to T1 resists but with navy like tank/fittings and certainly no resis bonus on subs and maybe increased sig radius also as these are many of the reasons T3's have ludicrous tank.
This way they could say do the job of 2 recon/CS/logi/e-war jobs but with weaker bonus and a slightly better tank than the e-war cruisers would have. I would definitely like to see them as support ships only rather than combat ships as they are mainly used for now but ofc they would need to be cheaper as a result to make them viable. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lors Dornick wrote:Jennifer A wrote:Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats. You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue? There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it. Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;)
designer minions lol |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
also on the topic of fleet boosts what are the plans on them as neutral boosts in say a high sec war? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Harvey James wrote:Lors Dornick wrote:Jennifer A wrote:Would be cool if you fixed the HORRIBLE drone UI before you made half of the ships DRONEboats. You're sure that you want the game designers monitoring this thread getting involved in a long outstanding UI issue? There are better targets for that (5 y celebrating Karkur, Puncturis and "don't touch that button" Tuxford seems likely) and they appear to be well aware of it. Let's focus our balancing wrath on Ytterbium and his game designer minions ;) designer minions lol Technically they're my minions
I bow to the minion lord |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:57:00 -
[17] - Quote
James Arget wrote:If you're looking to make info links more useful, give us some neut/capacitor bonuses with them.
not sure what you mean by neut bonus to a link but certainly cap and fittings need to be looked at. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:07:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dracko Malus wrote:Creat Posudol wrote:There is a lot of talk about boosting from behind a POS shield. I actually think this is fine (and should be possible) IF boosting is changed to ongrid boosting. So if you defend a POS, you can have the booster inside the shield, makes perfect sense. Obviously it is broken at the moment with Offgrid boosting, so a temporary fix might be in order that at least removes this ability for now, in other words: put it back once boosting is changed to be ongrid only!
To me it would be very sad if even people defending a pos couldn't boost from inside. I might be thinking too simple but can't you just set the boost range to the mining links to systemwide and the others to "on-grid"? Or are people going to complain that people mining should have a booster in their belt because boosting mining from a POS also gives the miners an unfair advantage? This eliminates the discussion rolling back to mining where I think it has no relation.
significant boost should have significant risk... its how to balance things |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Leave my Astarte alone you bastards, it doesn't need any link bonuses. Why on earth would you need to mess with the Field/Fleet dichotomy when no one has complained about it?
Are you sure about that? Fanfest springs to mind why does Fleet CS do virtually no dps? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:54:00 -
[20] - Quote
[quote=Julius Priscus]off grid boosting will not take a huge hit in high sec..
fleets if you call them that will use out of corp boosters on grid.[/quote
I would like to see ccp use the flagging system like logi will be shootable if they are neutral and interfere |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:57:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dhaaran wrote:the main problem i see with gang link changes are as follows:
1. in a big fleet fight, command ships are way too easy to kill. say you got 200 people in fleet, then killing that one on-grid commandship that specialized in EHP links takes 30% EHP off the other 199. as you promote specialization, there will be no redundancy for this. the consequence of this fact is: if you want commandships on the grid, they need to have insane amounts of resists, say 500k+ EHP with a total cost for the ship of below 500m. otherwise they just instantly get killed and then everything else dies way faster than it atm, which is already too fast due to alpha.
2. the other thing OGB T3s have going for them that Commandships can not provide is Interdiction Nullification & Covert Ops Cloaks. this makes them extremely well suited for not getting tackled and killed when jumping in and allows them to cloak up while not fighting if there is not a friendly pos in system.
3. the reduction in overall EHP for proper fleets needs to be counterbalanced by either a reduction in the dps of all ships or a general increase to all ships EHP. in a day and age where you get fights with 1200+ people there is sufficient alpha around to instapop everything, which is neither skillful nor interesting gameplay and voids the role of logistics. higher resists allow logistics to be successful at what they are doing.
Your talking about the problems of blob warfare you can't ask for ridiclous EHP buffs to solve your problem |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?).
Now don't be crazy the point is too keep it ongrid but also short ranged as its giving significant bonus and should have a big drawback |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
100
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Harvey James wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:I really like the idea of a ganglink sphere. It encourages having multiple command ships in the fleet to get coverage and variety to all fleet members. There could even be an analogous heavy command ship that launches fixed spheres (or targeted super bonuses?). Now don't be crazy the point is too keep it ongrid but also short ranged as its giving significant bonus and should have a big drawback The drawback is that I'm sitting in a command ship with 4 medium guns instead of a battleship with 8 large.
No thats the drawback of using a CS instead of a bs and it would be 5 guns. i'm saying a module always has drawbacks relative to its bonus so a high bonus to a mod means a high drawback.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 20:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
I think the battleships need to be moved around a little:
Attack Raven a larger caracal: a range ship needs to be mobile Apoc a larger omen: needs more dps than the op range bonus where you can hit 80km with scorch insane range!!! tempest a larger stabber: essentially a T1 mach would give it a role rather than its mix of this and that. Megathron a larger Thorax perhaps with a little less EHP nerf please than the thorax got.
Combat phoon: as is but with more focus on torps and armour tank. allows missile users an armour tanker option useful in armour fleets geddon: i was assuming would follow the drone line so they have a droneboat or why extend the line to bc and stop? abbadon; needs better cap. Hyperion: needs better armour rep bonus/ armour reps needs a buff also. domi, Maelstrom, rokh are all fine mostly.
I also feel lasers at all sizes have too good range aswell as missiles i think both need more work especially to rebalance TE/TC. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 21:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
fukier wrote:do you have any plans to make nos usefull again? like if you have more cap then the target you get something like 50% of the max nos amount and if you have less cap you get full nos amount?
It would be nice if you got the same drain amount until the target actually runs out of cap!!!! it doesn't make sense that it just stops cos you now have more cap than the target ship...... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:03:00 -
[26] - Quote
bongpacks wrote:Leave the Typhoon alone!!!
I literally JUST trained large T2 autocannons for my typhoon because frankly the torp phoon is worthless at killing anything smaller than a battleship unless you have 4-5 guys in your fleet with target painters. If you make it a missile only platform you'll be seriously hampering it's ability to solo smaller ships or apply anywhere near it's "paper" DPS. I've flown the typhoon for close to two years now and theres just no situation in which the torp phoon is better than the AC phoon. If the phoon is made missile only I'll have no reason whatsoever to use large T2 autocannons as theres no other battleship that comes close to the typhoons capabilities as a neut and DPS platform that uses projectiles. If anything I'd say you should make the typhoon a turret only ship since as some have mentioned before to be really effective in this ship you need to have armor tanking, drone, missile and turret skills; I would venture to guess that most minmatar pilots have most of their SP in gunnery and not missile launcher op making it easier to be effective in a phoon for new minnie pilots. Please don't kill the typhoon, it's one of my favorite ships and it's so versatile it really would be a shame to condemn it to a less effective weapons system with comparible range. I mean honestly, how many armor gangs have you flown in that had enough target painters fitted to make a torp ship worth flying in it?
SAVE THE TYPHOON!
Or use a armour tempest its actually designed for guns ......
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lipbite wrote:I have Caldari Cruiser V, BC 0 and Destroyers 0. I'll have Caldari Destroyers 4 and Caldari BC 0 after patch - correct?
edit: how much time do we have till this destryers-battlecruisers patch?
like seriously can't people read? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:17:00 -
[28] - Quote
bongpacks wrote:Harvey James wrote:bongpacks wrote:Leave the Typhoon alone!!!
I literally JUST trained large T2 autocannons for my typhoon because frankly the torp phoon is worthless at killing anything smaller than a battleship unless you have 4-5 guys in your fleet with target painters. If you make it a missile only platform you'll be seriously hampering it's ability to solo smaller ships or apply anywhere near it's "paper" DPS. I've flown the typhoon for close to two years now and theres just no situation in which the torp phoon is better than the AC phoon. If the phoon is made missile only I'll have no reason whatsoever to use large T2 autocannons as theres no other battleship that comes close to the typhoons capabilities as a neut and DPS platform that uses projectiles. If anything I'd say you should make the typhoon a turret only ship since as some have mentioned before to be really effective in this ship you need to have armor tanking, drone, missile and turret skills; I would venture to guess that most minmatar pilots have most of their SP in gunnery and not missile launcher op making it easier to be effective in a phoon for new minnie pilots. Please don't kill the typhoon, it's one of my favorite ships and it's so versatile it really would be a shame to condemn it to a less effective weapons system with comparible range. I mean honestly, how many armor gangs have you flown in that had enough target painters fitted to make a torp ship worth flying in it?
SAVE THE TYPHOON! Or use a armour tempest its actually designed for guns ...... While it's a decent alternative I still prefer having two heavy and one medium neut vs just two heavies. You can pretty much drain most ships on the first cycle then leave only the medium on target to keep them dry while you use the heavies on your secondary or tertiary targets. Plus the phoon just looks freakin awesome, it's like a death dealing narwhal...what's not to love about that?
It looks like something that needs flushing down the toilet :P And you better find a way to use the tempest as they will make the phoon changes for sure
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:21:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lipbite wrote:Tippia wrote:Lipbite wrote:I have Caldari Cruiser V, BC 0 and Destroyers 0. I'll have Caldari Destroyers 4 and Caldari BC 0 after patch - correct? Nope. You'll have the same skills you have now. If you can't fly destroyers now, you're not getting the skill (nor will you need it). Quote from blog: > Changing skill requirements for Racial Cruisers from Racial Frigates 4 to Racial Destroyers 4 But how am I supposed to have Caldari Cruiser V without Caldari Destriyers 4?
dude if you can't read a dev blog properly maybe this isn't the game for you :P |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Perhaps this has been asked and answered already (in which case, I apologize to everyone):
Looking even further in the future, is it likely - or even just possible - that T2 ships will be given the same racial skill treatment? Ie. are we going to have to train Gallente Assault Ships, Minmatar Recon Ships, Caldari Logistics, Amarr Marauder, etc.?
doubt it especially as it already takes training a racial skill to lv5 |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 00:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
Well perhaps the Prophecy might get a HAM bonus as its secondary bonus if they don't decide to put a e-war bonus on it would be nice if they didn't it will no doubt have launchers either way. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 12:37:00 -
[32] - Quote
Klymer wrote:Quote:Yes comrades, battlecruisers are indeed next to get through the tiericide revolution. LetGÇÖs face it, they had it coming, as current tier 2 variations perform too well while tier1s are found wanting. With this in mind, the plan is to adjust total slot layout to 17 on all of them and split them into two categories depending on their expected role. so... Harbinger: lose a slot Oracle: slots unchanged Prophecy: gain a slot Drake: lose a slot Ferox: gain a slot Naga: slots unchanged Brutix: gain a slot Myrmidon: slots unchanged Talos: slots unchanged Cyclone: slots unchanged Hurricane: lose a slot Tornado: slots unchanged tell me I'm daft and I'm not reading that correctly.....
You are as droneboats always have one less slot than the rest. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 16:04:00 -
[33] - Quote
has anyone thought that maybe the problem is with arties having too high alpha damage rather than the rest being crap?
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 20:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:@CCP Fozzie:
Have you considered a drastic change to the mindlinks with this since we'll be likely running multiple links or is this an attempt to force a choice and an intended consequence that you pick one particular set of leadership mods to boost while the others remain unboosted by the mindlink.
I know that we have many people who can and do fly multiple command ships and a gripe about the mindlinks has always been having to rip out an implant and plug in a new one (none too cheap fyi) everytime you shift ships.
A weaker universal mindlink, or even replacing the mindlink entirely with a new skill would probably be prefferable to having either A) unboosted leadership links or B) ripping out implants near constantly because if the goal is to get some of the other command ships in use Im curious if this change will exactly get it done, especially if the idea is to have Commands and t3 boosters to run multiple link types, it'll still be more efficient to simply focus on a single type of boosting than to spread the link types out and end up with 2-3 really weak links.
I mean, ask yourself, would you like a Damanation fully boosting armor and barely boosting skirmish becuase of the lack of a mindlink affecting the skirmish, or would you rather have a Damnation and a Claymore fully boosting each and which do you think is more likely to happen (you're a smart guy I know you know).
I mean if this is an inteded consequence thats fine but I think that you know how things will likely end up.
Multiple jump clones spring to mind mm...
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 20:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:All 4 races getting skirmish options on their commands?
Also, it seems kinda lame that the Prophecy is becoming a drone boat. It would be much better suited to follow the Apoc line of range with pulses for less top end damage. Honestly, nobody is going to use it if it can only use 3-4 heavy drones and still be **** with lasers. If you make it Ewar based, then it becomes completely out of whack with the other BC's.
Ferox should get the 5% resist, and range bonus with some slot reconfig and maybe 1 more rail. Steal one of it's 4 lows and add an additional mid slot. And it sorely needs more fittings.
Drake needs to straight up lose the resist bonus in place of something else. I'd say missile velocity would make sense in that line of ships.
Let the ferox be the unique tanker.
Like the drake needs more range ... more dps would be more useful Prophecy should have a HAM bonus along with the ogres And Apoc needs to lose it's OP optimal range bonus adds too much range for a weapon system that is already OP for range now maybe if Apoc becomes a droneboat that would not be a bad thing with HAMS also.. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 21:48:00 -
[36] - Quote
Blubsia wrote:What about our red-headed stepchildren, HACs Ever since 2006 less than a handful are worth the pricetag....and in limited set-ups
They are next line line after CS and T3 i hope. I hope they take their cue from the Attack cruisers less tank more gank and mobility. I'd love to see the deimos getting another falloff bonus and the eagle becoming a blaster boat too as naga kind of kills its role off. 75% sig reduction MWD for role bonus |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
Well presumably CS will get an 18/19 fitting slots being the T2 variant as atm CS only get 17 slots and tier2 bc's get 18. Except minnie CS that have 18 slots? god know's why :P
A note on links besides exchanging the info for skirmish on the gal CS as they are the second speed race and need it and amarr are more disruption based.
Maybe add a new drone based link boosting all the drone stats to varying degrees and add them as options to the EOS and legion. replacing the skirmish link on the legion and EOS to add more racial flavour and give people a reason to use the EOS and drone fleets in general. That and drones really need a overhaul and this would help differentiate things a little more.
Also on the idea of AOE links i assume the info link would need more range to be useful on e-war ships but i would propose a strength penalty to balance the extra range. I would encourage the armour and siege links to be the shortest ranged links as the focus on buffing tanks which is a brawling fighting style. And the skirmish could be inbetween as speed ships will be spread out more and will have a harder time staying in range and would have a more moderate penalty for the slight extra range. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 20:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Sgt Napalm wrote: Flying around with a set of swiss army knives takes away from the unique role of a command ship pilot.
IDK, you already spent 8 months training skills who's attributes have no other real value for combat training, you're pretty unique as it is, you probably have Command Ship 5, Wing and Fleet commmand 5, and at least one of the 4 leadership sets maxed out if not more (most people respec and go for the whole kit because 'whynot'). That uniqueness wont be diminished. As he said they're looking at toning down the bonus from the mind link and adding that bonus back in through some other means. This could mean a new skill or and adjustment to the mods themselves or even a NEW mod. Regardless, well skilled useful command ship pilots that can probe and know what the're doing will never lose their 'unique' ability, there's are rarely enough qualified command pilots around and my alliance is full of crusty bitter retards who have nothing to train BUT leadership skills. EDIT: I'd say if anything it has the potential to make well skilled CS piots shine even brighter
it would be better if they just removed those implants and NOT add any bonus to links they are already pretty strong boosts already and if anything need to be weakened a little. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
Sgt Napalm wrote:Harvey James wrote:
it would be better if they just removed those implants and NOT add any bonus to links they are already pretty strong boosts already and if anything need to be weakened a little.
Completely disagree. The mindlinks modules are not something you can train for tomorrow and have in a month. A significant amount of training time is dedicated to make the implants available. I can see them being adjusted to take in account the newer Tech II ganglink modules but I do not consider the level 'OP'. If my Eos is on the battle field I expect fair return for the risk involved with being called primary instantly.
depends on the fight as to who would be called primary ecm logi etc.. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:13:00 -
[40] - Quote
Sgt Napalm wrote:One could hope but there would have a be a significant boost to warrant CS hulls becoming more common. Why fly a Eos when I can buy a Drake and leadership fit it for a fraction of the cost? Better tank, can deal some damage, and won't be called primary instantly. Perhaps removing the ability of BC hulls to fit gang links would be something to consider.
Well the bc and T3 nerf combined with CS buff will make this argument redundant. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:33:00 -
[41] - Quote
Sgt Napalm wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:[quote=Sgt Napalm] No. I like the ability to fit gang links on T1 battle cruisers. Gang bonus should not be privy to the rich while the younger and not as wealthy players are shut out of options. I agree. I've parked my CS hulls many months ago in favor of gang fit BC's. Oh the flip side I do find it removes some of the uniqueness around the CS hull. It is a tough sell to fly a CS when a proper (currently) fit leadership BC covers 80%+ of the gang link role.
Perhaps the CS should have the 5% bonus to links and they could reduce some of the bonus out of the skills like 100% per lv after lv2 on skirmish link skill etc. So more the bonus comes from the CS which would also increase their effectiveness over T3 hulls. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 21:54:00 -
[42] - Quote
Sgt Napalm wrote:Harvey James wrote: Well the bc and T3 nerf combined with CS buff will make this argument redundant.
The devil is in the details. We'll see how much CCP is willing to amp up the CS hulls in the coming months. Could this be a return to the glory days of the Eos? 5 mids? a full rack of guns? a flight of heavies? Doubtful.
Damn your pessimistic I would be surprised though if they didn't give it 5 ogres and the myrm 4. full rack of guns wont happen droneboat remember but on plus side it won't have to scarifice guns for links. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:58:00 -
[43] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well presumably CS will get an 18/19 fitting slots being the T2 variant as atm CS only get 17 slots and tier2 bc's get 18. Except minnie CS that have 18 slots? god know's why :P
A note on links besides exchanging the info for skirmish on the gal CS as they are the second speed race and need it and amarr are more disruption based.
Maybe add a new drone based link boosting all the drone stats to varying degrees and add them as options to the EOS and legion. replacing the skirmish link on the legion and EOS to add more racial flavour and give people a reason to use the EOS and drone fleets in general. That and drones really need a overhaul and this would help differentiate things a little more.
Also on the idea of AOE links i assume the info link would need more range to be useful on e-war ships but i would propose a strength penalty to balance the extra range. I would encourage the armour and siege links to be the shortest ranged links as they focus on buffing tanks which is a brawling fighting style. And the skirmish could be inbetween as speed ships will be spread out more and will have a harder time staying in range and would have a more moderate penalty for the slight extra range.
Drone command links there could be 3 distinct links that add the following: -adds orbit velocity -adds tracking boost -adds shield and armour resistances |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:59:00 -
[44] - Quote
piecakes's brother wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:ReK42 wrote: It's still a nerf to the boost itself and, in the context of everyone talking about removing off-grid boosting, it should not be taken lightly. Please don't CCP this and nerf a very important mechanic from both ends.
So I want to make clear that we don't have a timeline for when pushing links ongrid will be possible. It won't be happening at the same time as these other listed changes. Harvey James wrote: An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers
However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres? Terrible idea.. like a warp distruption bubble? So will others get aggression from there target flying into your bubble..... So what you have small gang and targets are close enough in your "bubble" you are boosting them as well... FAIL
no no no... read the word like its an important distinction that says the concept would work in a similar way but not exactly the same. i.e. its a invisible bubble that doesn't interact physically more of a if your fleet members are within this range they get boosted. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 09:44:00 -
[45] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Sgt Napalm wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:[quote=Sgt Napalm] No. I like the ability to fit gang links on T1 battle cruisers. Gang bonus should not be privy to the rich while the younger and not as wealthy players are shut out of options. I agree. I've parked my CS hulls many months ago in favor of gang fit BC's. Oh the flip side I do find it removes some of the uniqueness around the CS hull. It is a tough sell to fly a CS when a proper (currently) fit leadership BC covers 80%+ of the gang link role. Perhaps the CS should have the 5% bonus to links and they could reduce some of the bonus out of the skills like 100% per lv after lv2 on skirmish link skill etc. So more the bonus comes from the CS which would also increase their effectiveness over T3 hulls. So many skills do look a little outdated and need to be looked at including some of the missile skills and leadership skills.
mm.. after further thinking perhaps a ship bonusing only 15% for what is meant to be its specialist role is still a bit low as you could still use a T1 bc to do much of the same thing for a lot cheaper i think if you want to make these the go to ship for links for a major strength bonus over a little more versatility.. T3.. perhaps a 10% a lv might the the right area.... and just redo the link skills as they are a little complicated really to understand perhaps a simpler system of adds 2 to link strength. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 18:46:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:As long as they don't make beautiful Legion useless I'll be happy.
it can't get much worse than now
Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 01:35:00 -
[47] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Quote:the Talos keeps a kiting advantage Are we really ok with the current state of tracking enhancers and T2 ammo?
TE's are too good particularly to the benefit of minmatar. but also they are better than TC's in a less valuable slot. on T2 ammo well they all have the same bonus and i think its down to the guns rather than the ammo. in particular lasers are OP for range when scorch is put in the omen is the only attack cruiser that isn't bonused for range ot tracking guess why..... its odd because it allows the harbinger to have the same range and tracking which won't be the case for the rest of the attack cruisers. I think blasters should have a higher base falloff and missiles are certainly OP for range and this is before TE/TC's will improve their range further. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
116
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 16:04:00 -
[48] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Since frigs, cruisers and likely soon bc's too are getting more deadlier & sturdier i just hope the battleships are getting buffed in the same way to avoid bringing them too close of each other tank&dps wise.
And the battleship line doesn't look too happy news to caldari players, since raven is on the combat category i'm predicting it will be the same long range cruise missile boat... The race with the most missile boats and they don't have a working hull for one of their missile systems, this should have been addressed long time ago but it's still getting delayed until we get the new battleship line.
With battlecuisers none of the medium long range guns are usable because they are completely outperformed by the tier 3 bc's with large guns. Maybe they should have a tracking penalty or something similar to open at least some usability for the medium long range guns...
I'm hoping the battleships will get a much needed mobility buff the attack battleship should at lest get some mass reduction to improve agility and speed and yes i think they should switch the phoon with raven for attack role to get the same treatment as the caracal is getting. I'm also dissapointed that there is no mention of the amarr getting a droneboat in battleship line. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
|
|
|