Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
RTSAvalanche
The Imperial Fedaykin Amarrian Commandos
21
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:33:00 -
[31] - Quote
Making armor boats more agile & faster with honeycomb & no speed reduction on active armor rigs
..then nerfing Tracking Enhancers by 30%
enough with making this game for the n00bs...... stop killing solo pvp
Keep this up and it will be the WOW player base with the higher IQ
and remember this, the hardcore gamers have been around the longest & stay the longest! This casual market you're opening your game to won't have people playing for the 10years, they stay here for a few months then move on to the next latest game - do not turn your back on the old players & hardcore ones
want to know why eve lasted so long? it's because hard games (like Chess) can last a life time - dont mess that up!! |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
36
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:34:00 -
[32] - Quote
They are still bad ships for the metagame. They make battleships useless on most scenarios.
They need to loose 1 turret, unless you intend to boost battleships so that they can become more attractive .
Battleships larger HP pool do not pay off . They are far less mobile, lock much slower, are less agile, less top speed for same amount of firepower.
Most of the combat usages of battleships can be replaced by the attack BC. So the BC need a significative firepower nerf or the Battleships will need a significative boost of some sort. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
179
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:36:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bobbechk wrote:*CCP nerfs the agility and sig radius of tier3 bc hard* I plugged the Talos changes into evehq. Using the vanilla shield setup, its top unheated mwd speed goes from 1.6 km/s to 1.53 km/s and its prop-active align time goes from 8.2s to 8.65s.
To me, that seems like a very gentle nerf to agility/speed.
v0v |
Bakuhz
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:40:00 -
[34] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:They are still bad ships for the metagame. They make battleships useless on most scenarios.
They need to loose 1 turret, unless you intend to boost battleships so that they can become more attractive .
Battleships larger HP pool do not pay off . They are far less mobile, lock much slower, are less agile, less top speed for same amount of firepower.
Most of the combat usages of battleships can be replaced by the attack BC. So the BC need a significative firepower nerf or the Battleships will need a significative boost of some sort.
Lets go for a DPS boost on BS as they are basic a baby dread and just for siege slow or non moving objects even if liek hell say 500 dps extra they wont hurt the game play then the traded of for slow as brick with fire power is affordable and somethign to think about http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bakuhz#kills |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
219
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:41:00 -
[35] - Quote
Castellan Garran Crowe wrote:EDIT: Please bring back Torpedo Naga!!!
No.
RTSAvalanche wrote:enough with making this game for the n00bs...... stop killing solo pvp
Have you ever thought of tier 3s as not ment for solo pvp in the first place? They're a ship designed to bring BS sized dps to a cruiser gang, everything else is an anomaly / bonus. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:42:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:They are still bad ships for the metagame. They make battleships useless on most scenarios.
They need to loose 1 turret, unless you intend to boost battleships so that they can become more attractive .
Battleships larger HP pool do not pay off . They are far less mobile, lock much slower, are less agile, less top speed for same amount of firepower.
Most of the combat usages of battleships can be replaced by the attack BC. So the BC need a significative firepower nerf or the Battleships will need a significative boost of some sort.
I would opt for the turret loss as bare minimum... some bs's do need more firepower however and tank 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1398
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:44:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Grath, I'm not sure exactly what you mean about making room for the other BCs more. I feel like for the most part like combat BC have a very different role than attack BC, so one doesn't really tread hard on the other. Thats not always true, of course, but I wonder maybe what environment you're talking about and what sort of outcome you would be looking for?
Well currently, if you can use large guns, there is no reason to fly a brutix over say a talos. Honestly theres no reason to fly a Vaga over a Talos the ship is (in its current form) so incredibly broken with its extreme agility and dps projection. Naga's aren't as agile and deadlyl but still do a fair bit of damage.
Normally broken things in EVE only become really evident when placed in the fleet setting and mass used, and the attack BC's are pretty much the exact opposite. Fleets of them really don't matter, they get carved up because they're so thin (intentional design) that makes them much less attractive than Battleship fleets.
However in the smaller gang and lowsec setting they start to show their skewed nature by outclassing most smaller and larger things to the point where its near silly. At the moment in smaller gang engagements or solo roaming the best ship to fly is hands down the Talos, flying anything else isn't because its better at the job, but because you like variety, there is nothing that compares to its performance pound for pound.
I'm not sure if I'm getting my point across in words that make sense but I'm really hoping it made some form of sense, and I am curious to see how your agility and mass changes alter the landscape, I'm just curious about the actual dps projection of these platforms and if its at a place that the balance team is happy with. |
MuraSaki Siki
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:47:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
NAGA:
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75000km / 200 (-20) / 8
should be 75 km
CCP Rise wrote:
TALOS:
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 210 (-20) / 6
the max targetting no. now is 7, i think it should not be changed, isn't it? |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts
152
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Grath, I'm not sure exactly what you mean about making room for the other BCs more. I feel like for the most part like combat BC have a very different role than attack BC, so one doesn't really tread hard on the other. Thats not always true, of course, but I wonder maybe what environment you're talking about and what sort of outcome you would be looking for? The attack BCs are capable of tanking, with logi support, at roughly the same level as the other BCs in fights where they are used. Since you aren't changing their speed, I don't think they are more susceptible to bombing runs as they will continue to be able to blow past bubbles and away from the bombs before they land. They still lock extremely fast for ships that melt through other ships as fast as they do. |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
74
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
These wont make any difference at all, to anything, but its good to see tweaks are atleast being considered and that you guys are keeping an eye on it!
I personally didnt have issue with the tier 3 speed or agility as their defence is so poor it's required. I think the best balance for tier 3's came in the form of the cruiser buff |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:49:00 -
[41] - Quote
Another thing that could be done. Role penalty to ALL of them: weapons resolution 150% |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:55:00 -
[42] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Another thing that could be done. Role penalty to ALL of them: weapons resolution 150%
I would suggest all weapons sig resolution should be nerfed a little especially as ships sigs seem to be on the up there is no need for frig weapon sig resolutions to be 25 nothing is that size besides light drones 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:59:00 -
[43] - Quote
Why is it that the naga, which is the most used, is also being the least changed? |
Alara IonStorm
4808
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:59:00 -
[44] - Quote
MuraSaki Siki wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
NAGA:
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75000km / 200 (-20) / 8
should be 75 km Perhaps CCP noticed space is big and massive advanced spaceships should be able engage at longer ranges then a tomahawk missile...
Nah |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
121
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:00:00 -
[45] - Quote
Quote:Well currently, if you can use large guns, there is no reason to fly a brutix over say a talos. Honestly theres no reason to fly a Vaga over a Talos the ship is (in its current form) so incredibly broken with its extreme agility and dps projection.
I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree here. In my experience you have several metrics that are all really important to what a ship is good at, and all the ships you mention have completely different allocation of those metrics. Combat BC EHP makes them a lot more ideal as tacklers/bait ships than attack BCs. So having a drake alongside your talos to hold points without getting killed is very valuable. HACs like the vaga generally are much more capable of dealing with small support. So having vaga (or deimos or zealot or even rupture) to support an attack BC by protecting it from tacklers is very valuable. Attack BC have the highest damage/projection so they are generally going to have a lot of value based on that.
The prevalence of each role shifts based on a lot of things, but I don't see a direct tension between them. You don't get read for a roam and say - which ship has the most damage, lets take only those. At least thats been my experience. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
121
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:02:00 -
[46] - Quote
@MuraSaki Siki
Thanks for the cleanup - fixed accordingly. |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:04:00 -
[47] - Quote
Also why do the talos and nado have so much more mass than the naga and oracle? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1401
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:04:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Well currently, if you can use large guns, there is no reason to fly a brutix over say a talos. Honestly theres no reason to fly a Vaga over a Talos the ship is (in its current form) so incredibly broken with its extreme agility and dps projection. I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree here. In my experience you have several metrics that are all really important to what a ship is good at, and all the ships you mention have completely different allocation of those metrics. Combat BC EHP makes them a lot more ideal as tacklers/bait ships than attack BCs. So having a drake alongside your talos to hold points without getting killed is very valuable. HACs like the vaga generally are much more capable of dealing with small support. So having vaga (or deimos or zealot or even rupture) to support an attack BC by protecting it from tacklers is very valuable. Attack BC have the highest damage/projection so they are generally going to have a lot of value based on that. The prevalence of each role shifts based on a lot of things, but I don't see a direct tension between them. You don't get read for a roam and say - which ship has the most damage, lets take only those. At least thats been my experience.
And disagreeing isn't really a bad thing, I asked a question and you gave an honest and direct answer, which I appreciate.
I for one am happy that these are even being tweaked at all, so keep fighting the good fight man. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
584
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:07:00 -
[49] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also why do the talos and nado have so much more mass than the naga and oracle?
To get the desired speeds and align times. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:08:00 -
[50] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also why do the talos and nado have so much more mass than the naga and oracle? To get the desired speeds and align times.
And why is it desirable that the ships used by small gangs get more mass than the mass nagas fielded by everyone? |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
121
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
Quote:Also why do the talos and nado have so much more mass than the naga and oracle?
They way their mass vs agility was setup originally is definitely unusual, but there didn't seem to be a good reason to rework it all at this point. |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Also why do the talos and nado have so much more mass than the naga and oracle? They way their mass vs agility was setup originally is definitely unusual, but there didn't seem to be a good reason to rework it all at this point.
I thought the whole point of this was reworking stuff
But why is the blob naga being left unchanged? |
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:11:00 -
[53] - Quote
Looks like a good start.
Talos needs to lose its drones though. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
584
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:11:00 -
[54] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also why do the talos and nado have so much more mass than the naga and oracle? To get the desired speeds and align times. And why is it desirable that the ships used by small gangs get more mass than the mass nagas fielded by everyone?
Why do you think that mass in itself is a meaningful statistic? Try looking at speeds and align times. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:14:00 -
[55] - Quote
Here is an idea: Just stop the ships from fitting the large long range weapon systems. |
Dysphonia Fera
Kaesong Kosmonauts
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:15:00 -
[56] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Here is an idea: Just stop the ships from fitting the large long range weapon systems. That is a bad idea |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Here is an idea: Just stop the ships from fitting the large long range weapon systems.
Or limit their fittings so they can only fit certain guns 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
Bakuhz
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Here is an idea: Just stop the ships from fitting the large long range weapon systems.
NO!!!!
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bakuhz#kills |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
528
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:17:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dysphonia Fera wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Here is an idea: Just stop the ships from fitting the large long range weapon systems. That is a bad idea
Why? The main problem is artynado and rail naga fleets |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:21:00 -
[60] - Quote
is it just me or does it feel like these ships are a specialisation? more like a T2 bc than a T1.... 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |