Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:50:00 -
[1321] - Quote
The cost is due to the new metamaterial requirements, and the current low supply thereof.
See: Scientist's Life: Metamaterials Scientist's Life: Jita Connundrum |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:53:00 -
[1322] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours. I stand corrected. Hope you feel better. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
937
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:06:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Meh, most of these changes don't go far enough and i'd consider some of these changes to result in a worse ship that the round 1 proposals. Not interested in reading your crappy "fixes" anyone ccp but good luck o/ Putting work in since 2010. |
columbo miner
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:13:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Hi,
Ishtar:
I am still hoping for a 6th low slot even if we lose something for balance and to appease the non drone boat pilots.
With regards to the Ishtar HAC skill bonuses, they become useless when using the std 5x OGRE fit for med/close range. So is it excepted that you only need HAC lvl 1 to fly the Ishtar if you don't intend to snipe? Could the bonuses be tweaked even further please, i feel we are nearly there .
I think the drone bonuses are correct but why separate? Other HAC's have bonuses that stack with there choice of weaponry i.e. Dmg, rate of fire, fall off and optimal all applied to the weapon they have mounted. What is been currently given to the Isthar is the same as giving separate bonuses to auto-cannons and Artillery on a Minmatar HAC or separate rail and blasters bonuses. This will then allow you to add a separate small but useful bonus as currently the Ishtar is not quite there yet.
I think the majority realize that it's going to take a few rounds to get it right /GL pleasing everyone.
Thanks, Boz.
aka Bozzith, Columbo Miner.
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:31:00 -
[1325] - Quote
columbo miner wrote:Hi,
I think the drone bonuses are correct but why separate? Other HAC's have bonuses that stack with there choice of weaponry i.e. Dmg, rate of fire, fall off and optimal all applied to the weapon they have mounted. What is been currently given to the Isthar is the same as giving separate bonuses to auto-cannons and Artillery on a Minmatar HAC or separate rail and blasters bonuses.
That is how it currently works.
Thats why the Muninn has a tracking bonus and the Vaga has a falloff bonus. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1264
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:33:00 -
[1326] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
Is this where you give the deimos a rep bonus ? =D BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
346
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:42:00 -
[1327] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hi guys
Sorry I've been away. Been out of the office for two days because of barfing etc.
I'm behind on the thread so I'm going to get caught up today and respond to some of the common points in a few hours.
WTB +1 low on sac
TIA |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
346
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:42:00 -
[1328] - Quote
You can take the drones and/or the utility high as payment. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:54:00 -
[1329] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:You can take the drones and/or the utility high as payment.
Taking the drones for a low is absolutely not worth it. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
379
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:58:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall Do you mean-- how the speculators are speculating, and this is causing a price spike? As it always does? Prices will settle back to equilibrium soon enough.
The equilibrium is still too high for how these ships compare to t1 |
|
HiddenPorpoise
BG-1 The Craniac
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:12:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Lallante wrote:The equilibrium is still too high for how these ships compare to t1 How so? Before the market spike they were 135-160mil each, so they're about five or six times the cost fitted for double the tank and a nice dps boost. The markets always dive back in a few weeks. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1937
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:22:00 -
[1332] - Quote
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.
Following the Deimos there's a few ships which seem to be drawing more attention than any others, but for most of these I don't expect to make big changes before 1.1 goes out. This list would include Vagabond, Muninn, and Sacrilege.
Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.
Muninn: I understand wanting the 4th mid, but I don't think we will do that. I think by adding a low the Muninn will get better at everything it already does (mostly arty/shield fleets), by using the low for more speed or more damage, while also picking up the possibility to run armor variations. This might not be insanely popular but I think it's important for Minmatar to have the option to do both, and the Vaga is pointed towards shield even more now than it already was.
Sacrilege: The Sacrilege was definitely one of the more difficult ones to pin down, but I think we're in a pretty good place. We looked at a few other options for its layout and bonuses but because of the power of the resist buff it's very easy for it to become too strong. We also really like that it tends to fit in to fleets as a ship with enormous utility rather than being all tank and gank like a lot of the other HACs. For that reason we really wanted to leave the utility high and the 4th mid. It would often make a better straight up brawler with another low, but by going the route we went of adding more drone dps and more fitting room, we improved it a lot as a brawler while preserving its character as a very high-utility HAC that can do a lot of different things.
Ishtar: A little side note here. If you are confused about the slot count being one lower, thats very standard for our primary drone weapon ships. In general I think the Ishtar is certainly among the most powerful ships coming out of this rebalance so we definitely aren't looking to make it any more so.
On 1 slot vs tech 1 counterpart rather than 2: Honestly we never talked about adding a slot to every ship, but I don't think it makes much difference. If we did do that, we would have to pull power away from other metrics to make up for it. Whether the whole class has 12 or 15 or 18 it should hopefully still be balanced to function in the role we have in mind, and so it's not as if adding a lot to all of them would suddenly make them all much more powerful.
Thanks for the well wishes, I'm doing pretty okay now. Please comment on the Deimos changes and I'll check back tonight or early next week after the alliance tournament is over. Also - if you want to hear me get grilled about HACs and other things as well, tune in to EVE Radio tonight at midnight EVE time where DJ Funkybacon is going to interview me on all this stuff. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:28:00 -
[1333] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
.
Please think about making the repair bonus a dule bonus like the drone damage/HP
So the bonus would read as: 7.5% to effectiveness of Armor repair and reduction in Capacitor activation cost Per level
This would help the ship out greatly as its extreamly cap hungy and lack of high slot means it cant fit a nos.
also. pretty please change one of the damage bonus for a 7.5% to rate of fire and remove the 5th high slot for a 7th low.
this will allow players to get damage mods on plus an active tank if they wanted too... and free up room on the power grid to fit larger guns like nuetrons or 250 rails. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
406
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:37:00 -
[1334] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Rise wrote: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.
. Please think about making the repair bonus a dule bonus like the drone damage/HP So the bonus would read as: 7.5% to effectiveness of Armor repair and reduction in Capacitor activation cost Per level This would help the ship out greatly as its extreamly cap hungy and lack of high slot means it cant fit a nos. also. pretty please change one of the damage bonus for a 7.5% to rate of fire and remove the 5th high slot for a 7th low. this will allow players to get damage mods on plus an active tank if they wanted too... and free up room on the power grid to fit larger guns like nuetrons or 250 rails.
Yes adding a cao hungry dps bonus to a active tanked ship makes a lot of sense
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
406
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:39:00 -
[1335] - Quote
RISE
Please for the love of god talk to me about the eagle ... its slow as **** and does nothing particularly well the fact that it needs 2 optimal range bonuses tells you something does it not?
Please look at making it a viable blaster kiter... speed and proper dps please drones and a stronger damage bonus /lower sig comes to mind.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:39:00 -
[1336] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.
But by giving it a bonus that wont help at all in most of the cases isnt really a bonus... For the time it is treated like the zealot that doesnt get any significant change.
After TE changes it still needs something more to compensate. DPS bonus instead of range is somehow better in the way that you risk alot if you get in stasis range with this ship and it stills does around 75% if it's damage in the range that it usually stands.
PS. All HACs have a different role. They shouldnt be all so fast... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:44:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:RISE
Please for the love of god talk to me about the eagle ... its slow as **** and does nothing particularly well the fact that it needs 2 optimal range bonuses tells you something does it not?
Please look at making it a viable blaster kiter... speed and proper dps please drones and a stronger damage bonus /lower sig comes to mind..
this is just me but i would remove one of the optimal range bonus replace with a tracking bonus and replace the damage bonus with a rate of fire bonus.
this would give that ship great range. good tracking and really good applied damage. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Nabuch Sattva
The Green Cross Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:02:00 -
[1338] - Quote
On the Deimos:
In my mind the preferred change would be to give the TRACKING BONUS instead of the MWD cap bonus. Would suit more play styles. Would be very nice with the new hybrid changes... So I say: Do eeeeeet!!!
The active armor bonus, with the 4th mid could work. But will see more resistence from the player base I imagine. Useless in big fleets etc etc..
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
271
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:03:00 -
[1339] - 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:
Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.
Because the new "Bonus" you gave it is terrible and won't really be used.
Ships with high speed and low EHP have to have decent applied DPS to make use of said speed, otherwise you get a ship with good disengagement options and not much else. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:08:00 -
[1340] - Quote
The Deimos... Ok let's see. It's massively cap hungry, and everybody hates armor rep bonuses, but the most recent changes to reppers maybe enough to use it....
Maaaaybe... |
|
Aglais
Liberation Army
318
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:10:00 -
[1341] - Quote
No mention of the Eagle or Cerberus in that address at all.
I'm losing hope here for being able to fly Caldari T2 ships and not feel a massive sense of shame, between this and the Command Ships thread. At least they're trying with Gallente.
(Seriously just drop the kinetic damage bonus and turn it into a generic missile damage bonus or RoF or SOMETHING stop trying to take away one of the biggest advantages missiles have over guns, for Caldari only, while giving Amarr and Minmatar to basically have what Caldari, the 'missile specialist' faction, don't have.) |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:12:00 -
[1342] - 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:
[Generally excellent observations and comments]
Also - if you want to hear me get grilled about HACs and other things as well, tune in to EVE Radio tonight at midnight EVE time where DJ Funkybacon is going to interview me on all this stuff. Thank you for addressing many of the points that most of the posters have been concerned about. Excellent, consise observations and explanation of reasons/reasoning.
I'd still like +2 slots, I think it would give significantly more flexibility in how each individual HAC can play to it's strength, and (imo) wouldn't be OP if there were little to no increased fitting that came with the extra slot.
Also, can you comment on the reasoning that lead the Eagle to it's current state? Is there any chance for a bit of a speed buff or change of a bonus to something more combat-friendly?
Thanks for your work! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
407
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:13:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Also on Deimos i think the armour rep bonus makes sense but more as a kiter like the ASB Vaga so a stronger falloff bonus would make sense and please don't remove shield HP for armour it could do with more of each not less. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
341
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:22:00 -
[1344] - 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. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:25:00 -
[1345] - 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:
.
Where do you address the Eagle - it is crap - you admit it is the worst HAC but you've had so little to say about how you intend to fix it.. Here's everything you've had to say able the poor bird https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3417222#post3417222
Nobody flies an Eagle - thus nobody really defends it because you are not taking anything away that they would miss.
Just admit you haven't a clue what to do with it and remove it from the game... or say why it should remain.. either will do. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1414
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:26:00 -
[1346] - Quote
CCP Rise With the Deimos I agree more gearing toward armor is a good thing, the armor rep bonus will help it with that as well, but please change that silly falloff bonus to a tracking bonus.
About the Ishtar -1 slot, it makes no sense for drone ships to have -1 slot, drones don't have that much of an advantage and certainly no "extra" utility compared to other ships. If anything other ships have gained extra utility over drone ships with the proliferation of drone bays on ships. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:29:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Also if you want deimos to use armour reps than besides improving cap of deimos you might want to talk to fozzie about improving armour reps in general there have been many threads on just how bad it is ranging from long cycle time, huge cap consumption particularly as a single rep even AAR's aren't good enough.
on AAR's things like - reduce reload time/ change mechanics to inject based so 75% reps and 15-20secs until nanite paste is reloaded/injected .. its nanites not massive cap boosters come on!! - reduce cycle time .. maybe reps often but reps less so its more of a continuous repping rather than massive chunks every now and again which isn't very useful if you're a small buffer ship - reduce powergrid Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
NeoNexus
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:29:00 -
[1348] - Quote
The arnor rep bonus is an improvement for the the diemos overthe mwd bonus.
How about swapping the falloff bonus with a tracking bonus? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:32:00 -
[1349] - 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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
408
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:33:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Danny John-Peter 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:
Vagabond: I'm still fairly confused about how there is so much resistance on this ship design. The complaints range quite a bit but I think the most legitimate one is that the Vaga struggles to project damage compared to its competition (Deimos/Cerberus mostly). I think you have to accept that the Vaga has huge advantages in some other areas that should easily outweigh its slightly lower damage projection. Compared to Cerberus for instance, you have an enormous speed advantage, a utility high, and significantly lower Signature. How valuable you think these things are will vary of course, but you can't expect the Vaga to push damage out as well or it simply becomes better in all cases.
Because the new "Bonus" you gave it is terrible and won't really be used. Ships with high speed and low EHP have to have decent applied DPS to make use of said speed, otherwise you get a ship with good disengagement options and not much else.
Also the fact that you're not allowing it to fit the top guns that the other ships get including the cynabal that adds 9km range unless you want to gimp the fit with pg rigs. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |