Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 108 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 06:46:00 -
[1831] - Quote
Regolis wrote:This is a comparison of the lasers and railguns. As you can see from this the Tachyon doesn't equate to anything on the list. I am all for balancing lasers so it would appear one of two things needs to happen first. Either get rid of the tachyon and balance lasers or add the equivalent tachyon sized gun to all the laser class beams. People have been blowing smoke about balance and how unfair it would be to reduce power costs of lasers. This is the current balance on Live servers.
TLDR: Until you get to battleship sized turrets there is parity between Beams and Railguns except for the abusive power costs.
Dropping this into here since you guys stopped talking in the Large Energy Turret thread
I think that weapon system energy cost should balanced between the racial weapon system however. My view would be that CCP should perhaps increase blaster energy consumption. I also oppose the fact that there are completely energy free high slot energy systems. At least reloading if not refiring missile battery or projectile gun should take energy (1gj) this would balance the cap importance between different tanking types and make half of the eves weapon system also more vulnerable for ewar. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
112
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 09:13:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Greetings,
I'm mainly concerned about minmatar Battleships, but wanted to see what people in other threads are talking about.
As in other BS balance threads people have complaints. Since all threads have become huge threadnoughts, I would like to make a short list of these complaints.
From what I understand most pressing concerns about Amarr BS line are like this:
General: Cap Usage => Using energy weapons should be a right, not a burden. Fitting => Although Amarr ships have decent PG, module PG costs are even higher so fitting them is a nightmare.
I couldn't find any ship specific concerns. They were ultimately connected to energy weapon problems.
So please add any obvious concerns that I've missed. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
81
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 10:10:00 -
[1833] - Quote
Since I imagine CCP is still somehow watching this massive threadnaught, I figured I might add in something I thought of just a moment ago.
Rather than giving the Armageddon a bonus to nos/neuting like the Dragoon has and probably stepping on the Bhaalgorn's toes in the process, why not give it the Arbitrator's bonus to tracking disruption? |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
174
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 10:11:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Since I imagine CCP is still somehow watching this massive threadnaught, I figured I might add in something I thought of just a moment ago.
Rather than giving the Armageddon a bonus to nos/neuting like the Dragoon has and probably stepping on the Bhaalgorn's toes in the process, why not give it the Arbitrator's bonus to tracking disruption?
No they are not watchign anymore.. they already passed that stage. They closed themselves inside that happy world inside their immagination where they can beleive most people loved what they have proposed to the battleships and where battleships completely supriro to others in every aspect are balanced between themselves... |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
626
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 10:51:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Quote:No they are not watchign anymore
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 10:57:00 -
[1836] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:No they are not watchign anymore
You must grant that that was the most efficient way to make you post ...../ |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
553
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:01:00 -
[1837] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:No they are not watchign anymore You must grant that that was the most efficient way to make you post ...../ People post this every 3 or 4 pages. Stating in the OP that they are continually watching the thread is apparently not enough, and people actually use "they abandoned the thread guise!!11" to promote their own argument. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
626
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:07:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.
We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them. |
|
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
69
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:28:00 -
[1839] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.
We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.
What you guys could do is make a weekly post with your general views and feelings on each of the 4 races threads.
People will obviously think you guys are gone. because on several threads peopel basically prooved there are thigns wrong and nonsense (like all that tempest vs hyperion in other threads) and for I think, 2 weeks, there is no feedback on that... |
Meduza13
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:37:00 -
[1840] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.
We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.
Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low. example
augoror - 88 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints
Interesting isnt it? |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
626
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:39:00 -
[1841] - Quote
I don't mind the idea of some kind of regular balance check-in. That seems kind of cool. I'll talk with people here about it.
As far as "proving things wrong" I think that fortunately EVE is rarely so straight forward or absolute. The Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify. Not to mention how much more complicated it is to solve problems than to find them. Those Tempest comments you're talking about seemed to assume that the correct course of action was to make big changes to the Tempest rather than making small ones to the Hyperion and there was no sensible comparison between those options, or any others. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
626
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:46:00 -
[1842] - Quote
Quote:Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low. example
augoror - 92 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints
Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions
There is virtually no power based conclusions you can make about the relationship between 8 low mega and amarr as an overall race design. You need to be much more specific on how that is a problem.
Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap.
I'm curious about your augoror vs guardian comparison - I'm guessing your aurgoror has some other issues that you are leaving out of your comparison. |
|
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
69
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:47:00 -
[1843] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I don't mind the idea of some kind of regular balance check-in. That seems kind of cool. I'll talk with people here about it.
As far as "proving things wrong" I think that fortunately EVE is rarely so straight forward or absolute. The Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify. Not to mention how much more complicated it is to solve problems than to find them. Those Tempest comments you're talking about seemed to assume that the correct course of action was to make big changes to the Tempest rather than making small ones to the Hyperion and there was no sensible comparison between those options, or any others.
Well , I think that is kind of expected. People are much more likely to propose buffs to a ship than to propose nerfs to another.
And no one said your job of balancing was as easy as finding the problems. If it was, you would not have been hired to do it :P |
Meduza13
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
16
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:54:00 -
[1844] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Im glad you are still watching, but I do not think amarr going to right direction. You are making them weaker, by reducing efficiency of armor tank (resistance bonuses) and boosting other races (8low slots on gallente) and taking away 50% bonus on capacitor and giving 10% instead. But my biggest concern is direction where EVE seems to be going - more and more benefits for new young players, and taking away advantages from older players with more skills and bigger budgets. Soon 10 t1 cruiser will be taking on triage archon, so new players are happy they killed capital ship with their 5 mil isk cruisers and 4 weeks skills. In 2 years everyone will be flying t1 cruisers and other rubbish, because flying expensive and big ships will not make any sence as "gain versus price+skills required' ratio will be so low. example
augoror - 92 km rep range 598hp repaired / 5sec guardian - 68km rep range 384 hp repaired /5sec - guardian costs many times more and requires a lot more skills ofc archon - 52 km rep range 1500hp repaired / 5sec- and we talking here about capital ship with 1 capital module costing more than whole fitted augoror and requiring tons of skillpoints Resistance bonuses are problematic for very clear reasons which Fozzie has done a great job articulating. The ships that field them have a range of power and application and should each be addresses relative to the new changes individually, rather than making oversimplified "amarr is getting weaker" conclusions. There is virtually no power based conclusions you can make about the relationship between 8 low mega and amarr as an overall race design. You need to be much more specific on how that is a problem. Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap. I'm curious about your augoror vs guardian comparison - I'm guessing your aurgoror has some other issues that you are leaving out.
Thank you for your answer. I will never win battle on words with you, you are probably are able to make a fool out of me, no problem (your isk/skills comment). My point is you are closing the gap between new players and old players too much. Ofc augoror has other issues, but it doesnt change a fact that t1 ship shouldnt have any (especially that big) advantages over its t2 equivalent, but sure, it me probably making oversimplified conclusions
|
LuisWu
I hope you were insured
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 11:56:00 -
[1845] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.
Yes, because cap problems and fitting problems are solved, the new armageddon has stolen the hearts of the community, and this thread is full of happiness and love.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
92
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:25:00 -
[1846] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.
We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them. We don't worry that you are gone. We are sure you are long gone insane. You don't even understand the problem you were called to solve. Just a few examples: Armageddon is already a good brawler. It's problem was not because it's bad brawler, but because of the tiers. Tier 1 ship is bound to be underperforming due to lack of powergrid and CPU to fit even most basic set of modules. Sane mind would see it and first put the ship on an equal terms with other to compare. But you're insane. You picked the worst possible solution - "LET'S SCREW IT! Really, why not? Noone will notice - noone using this ****!" Abaddon's ONLY argument to keep it [mostly] untouched was that, again, "it is most used". Tier 3 ship is bound to be most used. But you presented your argument like it have every possible credibility in the universe. Obvious troll is obvious. And by ensuring, that Amarr ships are no longer Amarr, you somehow decided, that they are "in better shape". What the hell you were using, to pick hulls and assign roles? Coin flipping? Don't start to tell me about "statistics" - you don't know how to interpret it, first, and don't know, where to look for real, representative numbers, last. Killboard stats don't tell anything for ship balance, because they are bound by combat doctrines employed over people using the ships. If a shield tank is demed more viable by the community, you won't see many Amarr ships around, because they can't efficiently shield tank. |
Meduza13
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:27:00 -
[1847] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap.
And instead of trying to be a comedian, I suggest fix "asap" issues than people actually 'let you know" about. regards
|
Zangorus
Big Shadows Initiative Mercenaries
693
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:34:00 -
[1848] - Quote
So geddon is turned into a cheap bhaalgorn? Like my comment and recieve 1 million isk ingame! |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
143
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:34:00 -
[1849] - Quote
Even as a non amarr pilot I can see that the apocalypse needs a crazy amount more pg so it can actually fill a sniping role with tachyons. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."-Vermaak Doe |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
93
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:40:00 -
[1850] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Tempest comments point to some possible issues, but they also exaggerate some things and great oversimplify. Yes? Yes? I mean, yes? You don't even DARE to think, that other players MAY know this game better, than you? Also, what Meduza13 said. Instead of trying to smile heavenly upon us, please answer a few questions. They won't take much time, I promise. |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:52:00 -
[1851] - Quote
LuisWu wrote:CCP Rise wrote: We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.
Yes, because cap problems and fitting problems are solved, the new armageddon has stolen the hearts of the community, and this thread is full of happiness and love.
CCP RISE Yes im sure people would love to know why amarr ships are going to stay so handicapped - cap regen is far too low for guns too run for longer than a couple of minutes -as a result they have to use more slots for cap mods. is this acceptable for CCP? no other race needs to do this. -The apoc will still be slow when dual plated. -beams are still impossible to fit on many of the battleships and again lots of mods to fit it if you can and for cap. -the changes for laser turrets aren't enough any response to this?
Also any ideas on perhaps changing slot layouts on any of these ships? How about abbadon trades a turret for a utility high? and maybe lose a high for a low. you could compensate dps with stronger damage bonus. 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
229
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:55:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Regolis wrote:This is a comparison of the lasers and railguns. As you can see from this the Tachyon doesn't equate to anything on the list. I am all for balancing lasers so it would appear one of two things needs to happen first. Either get rid of the tachyon and balance lasers or add the equivalent tachyon sized gun to all the laser class beams. People have been blowing smoke about balance and how unfair it would be to reduce power costs of lasers. This is the current balance on Live servers.
Small
Small Focused Beam Laser I 10 km range 4 km falloff 7.22 activation GJ 4.00 rate of fire 3.0 damage modifier 0.1 rad/sec tracking
150mm Railgun I 12 km range 6 km falloff 2.34 activation GJ 4.25 rate of fire 3.025 damage modifier 0.0735 rad/sec tracking
Medium
Heavy Beam I 20 km range 8 falloff 21.67 activation GJ 6.00 rate of fire 3.0 damage modifier 0.033 rad/sec tracking
250mm Railgun I 24 km range 12 falloff 7.0 activation GJ 6.375 rate of fire 3.025 damage modifier 0.02415 rad/sec tracking
Large
Mega Beam Laser I 40 km range 16 falloff 65 activation GJ 9.00 rate of fire 3.0 damage modifier 0.0153125 rad/sec tracking
425mm Railgun I 48 km range 24 km falloff 21 activation GJ 9.56 rate of fire 3.025 damage modifier 0.01010625 rad/sec tracking
Tachyon Beam Laser I 44 km range 20 km falloff 95 activation GJ 12.5 rate of fire 4.5 damage modifier 0.01392 rad/sec tracking
TLDR: Until you get to battleship sized turrets there is parity between Beams and Railguns except for the abusive power costs.
Dropping this into here since you guys stopped talking in the Large Energy Turret thread
Taking the Larges only here. Though the Mediums & Smalls need similar & larger reductions, same as the large turrets do. Mega. 3.0 Multipler / 9.0 Sec rate of fire. 1/3rd* per second. Rail. 3.025/9.56. 0.316* per second. Tachyon. 4.5/12. 0.375* per second. When you take the ROF into account, they come out much closer together, with the Rail having the longest range of them all. And requiring less than 25% of the Cap of the Tachyon. (I'm not sure how the Lasers requiring tripple the cap of the Rails is 'Parity' btw.... have I failed at maths.) Additionally the Tachyon requires crazy amounts more fitting than the rails. For..... (0.375/0.316) 18% more. It's a nice 18% more sure. That might need a little tweak so that Tachyons are laser alpha while mega's are fast firing for their DPS.
But the current (After Odyssey) stats do not balance at all with these numbers.
|
Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
147
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 13:32:00 -
[1853] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.
You make it sound like its automatically a bad thing to try and talk to the player base.
We worry when we don't receieve any notion AT ALL that the issues we have been raising are actually being properly looked into. You mentioned the concerns that people raised about the Tempset and then in the same sentence, stated they overinflated and oversimplified the issues: Its difficult to get the developers attention to physical flaws in their redesigns when you do such, to which I can understand your personal frustation at times, but we don't see the raw data that you guys do. We don't have access to the tables of ship data, or the golden idol of CCP Guard, so we have to make do with what we get.
CCP Rise wrote:After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey.
Wrong, wrong, wrongity wrong.
They are much worse off than they are before - with the puny reduction in cap/powergrid useage that you guys have so magically graced us with, our capacitor drain is still far and above the other races. Flavour is one thing; Physical gimping to promote an ideal that has no place in EVE is utterly insulting.
CCP Rise wrote:We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.
I'm highlighting that particular word to show how vague a statement like that is. "If" determines that you must agree that these changes are infact wrong and that the current incarnations are actually perfectly fine. However, that same conditional also gives you the power to claim utter superiority to the playerbase who have made it consistantly and publicly known (i.e this thread) that these changes will have a negative impact on the race, and ignore them. Changing that to a "when" still gives you a conditional that if the initial changes are stable, they will remain in place, but also determining that you are not going to ignore the evidence that is presented before you that when shown that these changes are infact the hinderance as we have made known to you, that they will be either reverted (a dream, so highy unlikely) or altered to make them viable.
Alas, I feel that the former is going to be used here. Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
79
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 13:34:00 -
[1854] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap.
There is a area where having more SP is just bad after certain level. I'm talking about Interceptors and Interdictors that, after perfecting all skills they are benefit from, just become to expensive to fly because of high clone cost for older characters. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
69
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 13:37:00 -
[1855] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Rise wrote: If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap. There is a area where having more SP is just bad after certain level. I'm talking about Interceptors and Interdictors that, after perfecting all skills they are benefit from, just become to expensive to fly because of high clone cost for older characters.
He Kind of got you there. There is indeed a poitn where high SP becomes more of a hassle than a help :P I woudl love if cloen costs woudl have a max cost around 20 Mil isk. |
Regolis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 14:34:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Taking the Larges only here. Though the Mediums & Smalls need similar & larger reductions, same as the large turrets do. Mega. 3.0 Multipler / 9.0 Sec rate of fire. 1/3rd* per second. Rail. 3.025/9.56. 0.316* per second. Tachyon. 4.5/12. 0.375* per second. When you take the ROF into account, they come out much closer together, with the Rail having the longest range of them all. And requiring less than 25% of the Cap of the Tachyon. (I'm not sure how the Lasers requiring tripple the cap of the Rails is 'Parity' btw.... have I failed at maths.) Additionally the Tachyon requires crazy amounts more fitting than the rails. For..... (0.375/0.316) 18% more. It's a nice 18% more sure. That might need a little tweak so that Tachyons are laser alpha while mega's are fast firing for their DPS.
But the current (After Odyssey) stats do not balance at all with these numbers.
The parity I was talking about is the how the weapons have similar DPS and range. I have been fighting for awhile now to try to get people to recognize that the Tachyon needs to be balanced separately from the rest of the beam lasers. On every tier of weapons,beams have near identical range and DPS except the insane power costs. Megabeam = 425mm Rail not = Tachyon If we get some balance between the fitting and power costs of the Megabeam the devs can then bring the Tachyon in line with that.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 14:46:00 -
[1857] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them.
Well, that's it, I'm done. Dear ears and all that.
Yours truly,
The Once and Future Redheaded Stepchild (Amarr). Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Korgan Nailo
5ER3NITY INC Apocalypse Now.
141
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 14:49:00 -
[1858] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Yeah, I guess part of the drawback to so much active participation in the thread earlier is that now people worry we are gone.
We aren't gone. Fozzie and Ytterbium and I have been talking about the battleships almost every day still. After our last round of reviews we still feel that Amarr is likely in the best place it can be for Odyssey. We will keep watching closely as everything heads to sisi and if more adjustments are needed we will make them. Glad to see you're still following the thread, but kind of saddened to read that you believe there is no problem.
If I may, would you share your thoughts about why the Abaddon is the only ship that has no cap bonus of any sort (less turrets, cap regen, cap bonus itself)? How does the design team envision this ship's purpose? --== EvE Online Quick Reference Sheet: E-Uni Forums Link / EvE Forums Link ==-- |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
216
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 14:53:00 -
[1859] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Closing the gap between new players and old players in some areas is definitely positive. If you notice that EVE gets to a point where you would rather have less ISK and SP let me know, we'll fix it asap.
I'd like to not pay 50m for a new clone. Can you help with that? I don't want to live in a level 5 FW station forever. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 15:11:00 -
[1860] - Quote
The ships itself are alright in my oppinion. The real Problem ist only the Weapon-System. Without a Capusage-Bonus, Lasers use over four times the cap as Hybrid-Weapons. This is way to much. With the changes you may reduce the Capusage by 10% and 20% but this is still to less. Reduce them to a point where the use twice as much cap as Hybrid-Weapons, then everything would be fine.
To increase teh cap-recharge of the ships would be the wrong way. (My oppinion)
Sorry for my bad english |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 108 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |