|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why does the ishtar's speed bonus not apply to medium or light drones, and if you're limiting it to heavy drones, why not increase it so they actually can go fast? Why is there no armour ship with a rep bonus? Ishtar or deimos pls, I want my honour brawler with AAR. How will you stop people from fitting battleship ASBs to the vagabond, and are there further nerfs planned for ASBs? XLASBs and MASBs are horribly OP. Why are caldari and khanid ships getting bonuses to all missiles, instead of the original plan for short and long range kinetic on caldari, short range all damages on khanid? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Soon or Soon (TM)? Smile As always with Fozzie and I there is only Soon no Soon tm If you feel cheated because of the Ishtar "only having three bonuses" you may want to consider that actually it has 7 Sentry drone optimal Sentry drone tracking Heavy drone mwd speed Heavy drone tracking Drone damage Drone hitpoints Drone control range Counting bonuses is usually not an effective way to evaluate a ship, many of our bonuses are actually combinations of bonuses so it rarely makes sense. As the Dominix has proven, Drone tracking and range bonuses are extremely powerful and the combination of this with the rest of the improvements for HACs makes the Ishtar look very scary.
Yeah for sentry blobbing. Making it better with combat drones will mean it's still good when you guys get around to nerfing drone assignment and omnis, and for when you don't want to commit to dropping stationary drones that you have no hope of recovering. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
301
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 16:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lol again @ that damage graph
tier 3 BCs totally balanced guys, they still totally wreck hacs at all ranges, just very slightly less |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
303
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Rise, any comment on the Ishtar's Heavy drone bonus and its effect on the Navy Vexor? 7.5%/lvl outclasses Navy Vexor's 5%/level, and it largely seems like the Ishtar, with its stronger sensor str, faster & better tracking drones, larger bay, T2 resists, etc. make it a clear winner. It is supposed to outclass the Vexor Navy Issue. The biggest problem with the Ishtar iteration 1 is it was completely out classed by the Vaxor Navy Issue.
I think actually they're supposed to be different somehow. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Also would you stop balancing these things around the stupid ******* talos?
Thats one of the biggest issues with all of these changes, its being balanced around of class of ships thats ******* broken. The what those graphs show is basically how a talos murders the Hac at pretty much any range. Yes the sensor strength is awesome, yes the cap is nice but none of these long range hacs will be worth **** until the ABC's either get a reduction in speed or like a 25% tracking penalty.
The one in the graph is also completely stationary, rather than zeroing transversal with its overpowered speed and agility to hit for full damage. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it.
The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails. Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up. The Deimos will not survive under fire
Shame you can't fit neutrons on either of them. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:this is teh deimos i would like to see:
DEIMOS
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus and decrease MicroWarpdrive cap activation cost
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff 7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret rate of fire
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 4(-1) turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+160), 360 CPU(+10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1350(+190) / 1750(-290) / 2000(-531) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.5/s (+1.4) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25m3) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6 Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7) Signature radius: 150(-10)
This would fix the diemos not make it op and actually make the falloff bonus usefull.
You are bad. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Michael Harari wrote:The problem with the vaga is that med autocannons are awful for kiting and it doesnt have anything close to the grid needed to fit artillery Have you ever tried to fit 180's or 220's on your hull? -doesn't seem so, 180's are simply drones/frigate assassins and dps difference with 425's is acceptable considering such high tracking of those guns. this is partly true 180's murder small stuf but th dps isnt just "a bit smaller" because of falloff you have a significant dmg reduction aut long kite ranges and therefore limit your vaga's engagement potential further. the problem with 425's is vice versa + eventuall grid issues. still 220s are the "best choice" but they dont have the 425's range pattern which i find is the minimum you need to have a actual edge over most ships that arent just outclassed by you beeing plain stronger.
425s still horribly wreck small ships all the time with falloff bonus and TEs. Why you have to be bad? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
When are deimos' green engine trails coming back? |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
307
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 19:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95
Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
flind wrote:RIP Sacra. Useless +25% to missile speed and loses its awesome capa bonus - yeah, she was imba before so CCP decided to nerf her.
Yeah buffer tanking and firing missiles requires so much cap. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
310
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:I still am disappointed that the zealot doesn't carry over the Omen's drone bay. While I am pleased that the sacrilege gets one, the zealot remains incredibly vulnerable to frigates; it has no tracking bonuses, and anybody with a fast frig fit with a TD and a decent amount of testicular fortitude can solo it. But I suppose you COULD make the argument that since the zealot is designed to be in large fleets with plenty of logistics to back it up, it doesn't fall into the 'lone star' category that some of these vessels like the deimos or cerb tend to find themselves in with solo or small gang pirates. GJ on the cerb btw; going to see if I can't turn that baby into a replacement for the lvl 5 mission running tengu. 8D
Zealot should be nerfed if anything. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
312
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:come on RISE we need some answers here :
Generally they prefer to answer the easy questions like 'hey rise what's a hac :DD'. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
341
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:
I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler.
If you want the deimos to use rails, switch it to optimal bonus so it scales better. Falloff bonus makes antimatter just better than a few other ammos, so you don't have to think about switching, but it also limits how far it can go, because the proper mid and long range ammos don't do so much for it.
Also, if you want me to shield tank my deimos, just come out and say it. Would prefer rep bonus on ishtar tbh, but yeah, rep bonus would be nice. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:32:00 -
[17] - Quote
NeoNexus wrote:The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.
How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus?
That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:NeoNexus wrote:The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.
How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus? That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great. As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking.
For rails at least, being further away means you track better, and you can use shorter range ammo for more damage, and you have a longer max range. Optimal > tracking for LR optimal guns (beams/rails). |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:56:00 -
[19] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:NeoNexus wrote:The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.
How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus? That would make it worse. Range bonuses are really great. As a close range brawling ship falloff is just a bad tracking bonus. With blasters you will be in web range the whole time, with rails a tracking bonus is still better as rails have bad tracking. For rails at least, being further away means you track better, and you can use shorter range ammo for more damage, and you have a longer max range. Optimal > tracking for LR optimal guns (beams/rails). Gal will never get optimal range bonus. Ane tracking is more useful then falloff for rails as rails have terrible base falloff
They don't actually, and they really don't if you make a lol shield setup like Rise apparently wants you to. I suggest both blasters and rails be made into optimal range weapons and have all range bonuses switched to optimal. All this half-and-half stuff is bad. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Alright, I'm still kind of out of it and I'll probably give another check-in here after the weekend, but here's where I stand for now:
I think our biggest concern is the Deimos. While the combination of the new layout and speed, added to the rail buff probably makes for a skirmisher that will be extremely powerful, we do appreciate the fact that a lot of people feel disappointed with it as an in-your-face brawler. I think the expected performance as a brawler varies quite a bit based on what kind of PVP you like (what size etc), but I would like to push it back towards that role in some way. We want to at least give back some of the base hp in armor, maybe at the cost of some of the added shield hp. I don't have numbers for this yet but I'll get them to you guys early next week. The other thing I would really like to do is give the Deimos an armor rep bonus. I think it could fit in nicely as a replacement for the MWD cap use bonus as long as the cap recharge is high enough that the kiting fits are handicapped. This wouldn't have much affect on large fleet AHAC type application, but would open up more possibilities at small scale. It also fits really well racially compared to the cap use bonus which is sort of unusual. I'm sure a lot of you won't love an active bonus because it doesn't apply to your style of play, but it would come in at little-to-no cost and offer smaller scale fighters more diversity and a more efficient brawler. I GOT THROUGH! \o/ (Yes i'm taking full credit >=[) Then i don't really have anything else to complain about with the HAC's.
Ishtar is still stuck with sentry blobbing or lol heavy drones. Complain about that. Maybe the sacrilege's lowslots as well, if you want. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 19:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:What exactly is an ahac eagle? This makes no sense. it must an AB Railgun thing... like it has the sig or speed to pull it off The eagle will still be the poor caldari HAC that everyone laughs at and would't waste 200mil + and the training time to use over a much cheaper and more effective Naga. how far does it shoot with null? could you do something like full rack of nuetron balsters 10mn ab tracking comp em hardner two invul large extender lows: dcu II TE 2 mag stabs rigs: bust accelerator shield expander though i do agree it really needs 25m3 and mb to be usefull
So it's like zealots but worse in every way. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus Added Armor Repair amount bonus Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure Removed small amount of base shield hp Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
Armour and rails doesn't fit on a giant chunk of gallente ships. Fix plx. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 18:24:00 -
[24] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:That overbuffs the deimos, no ship should be able to easily tank 900dps before heat without links nor implants. Rise doesn't know how to balance. He just listens to the gallente whiners and keeps making them stronger and stronger. Just ignore the fact that gallente dominated this alliance tourny, they need more buffs!!! They largely dominated because of sentries being OP Sentry drones are not OP. They performed very well in a very limited situation that the Alliance Tournament creates. The AT environment is completely unique and doesn't represent a "real" combat situation. That'd be like saying a boxing match accurately reflects a street fight. In the "real" world, bombers utterly decimate a pile of sentries like the tournament ships dropped. Multiple logistic ships, and support ships can easily get under the range or out of the range of gardes, which is where a lot of the problem with the sentries came into play in the tournament, since the limited engagement envelope kept ships in garde optimals much of the time. As soon as we start seeing blobby Domi fleets owning in "real" Eve, then we can start complaining that sentries are OP. But please, stop derailing this thread for a side argument about sentries that doesn't accurately reflect their current state in the game under real-world circumstances.
Assigned sentry drones are OP, and omnis give you too much of a bonus, I think. They should probably drop omnis to 12.5% for each stat and add some scripts. Making drones a little smarter on their own would be nice if they did it at the same time as removing drone assignment. 3 omnis is lol, 80km optimal with more tracking than an electron blaster. Dead frigates and cruisers everywhere - you cannot get under them without a sig bonus or an oversized prop mod. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Another small update
Vagabond powergrid raised to 900 (+45) Zealot CPU raised to 340 (+20)
Cool, but what about deimos powergrid? I don't much like fitting electron blasters while everyone else has heavy pulses and 425s. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:20:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys just a heads up for you - all of these ships, along with the command ships and pretty much everything else, are on singularity now for testing. Please go have a look and let us know what you think in the test server feedback forum or in these threads on features and ideas. Thanks!
Is there somewhere on singularity for testing, or am I going to be blobbed by test server-dwellers with their titan bonuses, machariels, vindicators, tengus and dreads? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:23:00 -
[27] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Why do the Gallente, which are the upcoming 'Armor-Skirmish' race, have such big, big signatures radiuses on their HACs?
I mean, come on, around 130+10 would be better, somewhere between Amarr and Caldari. Or switch it with the Amarr sigs.
But 150m Sig on a Deimos, that's like... wtf man.
It's not just HACs. Gallente have bad sig pretty much all the time. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
345
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 04:33:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Baron vonDoom wrote:If you're worried about AB bonused HACs with 100 mn fits, CCP could easily make 100 mn propmods BS only. Personally I can't think of creating artificial rules to prevent oversized module fitting as a good thing for any reason.
Are you forgetting that oversized prop is broken as ****? |
|
|
|