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 .. 70 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 14:04:00 -
[1681] - Quote
Thanks for the updates Fozzie.
I still think the NH would be best ballanced around having 6 mids though.
Regards, Sparks
Sparkus Volundar wrote:Hello,
Thanks for all the work on everything of late.
I think the premier shield tanking race command ships should follow the Drake and have of 6 mids (e.g. like the Claymore). The Nighthawk will also be shooting missiles like the Drake after all.
It makes no sense to me to have the Caldari missile command ship mirror the hybrid weapon T1 battlecruiser model of 5 mids while the hybrid weapon T2 command ship has 6 mids. Nighthawk still seems to suffer from the old tier issue of being based on the lower tier BC hull.
My suggestion would be to move one low to a mid.
Regards, Sparks
Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Alsyth
83
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 14:13:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Thank you for listening regarding Sleipnir CPU.
Claymore still struggles. Nighthawk slot layout still prevent it from being really good.
I hope your acknowledgement that the EHP problem for CS in big fleets comes from them being "unique" in a way logis or other ship aren't will lead you to consider something like: -make best links automatically boost the fleet no matter what. -use fleet hierarchy only for wing-warps & such, not for bonuses.
This way bringing 10 CS on grid in a fight will be possible, killing them will be possible but time-consuming, yet rewarding in case of success.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 14:41:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Alsyth wrote: I hope your acknowledgement that the EHP problem for CS in big fleets comes from them being "unique" in a way logis or other ship aren't will lead you to consider something like: -make best links automatically boost the fleet no matter what. -use fleet hierarchy only for wing-warps & such, not for bonuses.
From what the last devposts reads, boosting will be something close to AoE, or being in the vicinity as a condition to receive them. As such, secondary bonding to a hierarchy won't (I guess that's what was hinted at) be needed anymore, so a hp-bonus on a linkship wouldn't be necessary anymore, as 'redundancy' starts kicking in. I only correct my own spelling. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
179
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 15:15:00 -
[1684] - Quote
Conci Furiram wrote:There's 84 pages so I don't know if this has been suggested:
The Armor types have a ship that gets super tank; the Damnation with 10% hitpoint bonus. Where's the equivalent Shield ship? I think they should change the Vulture; there really is no need for double MHT optimal range bonuses...
Vulture: Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range ----> 10% bonus to all Shield hitpoints 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 3% bonus to strength of Siege Warfare and Information Warfare links The only thing I agree with you on is that the "Caldari" double 10% ! range bonus should go. The extreme range bonusing on the corm and harpy and on the missile boats are overdone. It is a stupid attempt to give short range weapon platforms on these ships a different flavor, but most people simply end up making fleet snipers out of them that no other fleet comp can come close to.
As for the hp alternative, you've got to be kidding. Sure have the hp bonus, but only if it also reduces your shield regen to zero. Otherwise it will just become the worst pve monstrosity ever in the game. "Look at me mom I can't ever die to the npcs blah blah . ."
Noemi Nagano wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Please BUFF the NH and dont nerf it even more ... DPS went down even more, and they were abysmal before. They're not for brawling. They're for tanking huge alpha while boosting. See above I am perfectly aware what CS are for. Still there is no need to severerly gimp the NH in DPS-aspects in comparison to other CS! I want the NH to be fixed and afterwards on par or even on top of the rest - Caldari deserve a good ship for sure. Btw, did someone notice how the Drake ceased to exist as a combatship like it used to do before? Exactly how I predicted .... now no one with their brains set right seems to pvp in a Drake anymore ... but yeah, go on and nerf everything more :) So, someone points out the obvious reason why dps is secondary on these ships, and you don't seem to get it. They are meant to be pvp support ships, not a pve-ers wet dream.
Also, Good to see you haven't lost your lack of perspective. After 3 years of Drake dominance cry us all a river Noemi. It is still a decent ship. But everyone abandoned it because it was no longer simple cheap and easy mode. Also, Talwar and Caracal say "hi and missiles are fine" btw. That eve-kill top twenty is looking healthier than it has ever looked. Such a mix of ship sizes, races, and weapon types. And the raw number variance is very small from number 1 to number 20, let alone number 2 or 3. So, good riddance to Drakes Online. Now if we can only avoid Cerbs Online. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 15:37:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I agree here, and apart from that the NH needs more DPS too. Its been nerfed in DPS (do the maths, 5*1.75 < 6*1.5!) and its DPS have been poor even before the HML nerf (!), and now it should be nerfed down even more. Give it similar DPS to other ships, and make it able to use all its slots with a reasonable layout. The PG and CPU buff are good though, now one more med, one less low and DPS on par with the rest (or even on top - there is no reason for a Caldari ship to be NOT best in its class in something, right?)
Did you fail math in school? Atleast get stuff right before whining |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:04:00 -
[1686] - Quote
I think some folks are greatly underestimating just what a pig the four armor command ships become when you add a 1600 plate (Which is mandatory since 60k EHP and an active rep is not cutting it for anything over 5 people) 10mn MWDs really don't give that much oomph, add in Trimarks and you're going to have some serious problems.
Long story short. You're only ~200m/sec faster than a plated baddon. And when using pulses you're dealing ~70% of the damage with 30% of the range. The irony is the 1600 Astarte is probably never going to be able to escape from a megathron either.
Rails/Beams are really your only option because they don't have the speed to chase anything down, and you're limited to 20km. While the Railstarte has some chance of fitting LR guns and 2 links, its still reaaaaaally tight.
The Damnation is still the only viable one for fleet fights, the shield ships can kite and outrange stuff just fine, and probably didn't need any fitting help to boot.
What is your plan for the other armor ships to make them viable in fleet fights? It just seems like they're all stuck in the position of the old Deimos which is you're slower than your counterparts, but you have to scram them and kill them otherwise you're dead.
They all need some form of damage projection, you can probably pull it off with the Eos with sentries and focus on all out buffer. I just don't see any role for the Absolution and Astarte except a subpar active tank lowsec ganker. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4219
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:23:00 -
[1687] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I've also seen the idea expressed a few times to expand Target Spectrum Breakers to the Command Ships, and that's an idea I think has some serious merit. There likely isn't time to get it in for 1.1, but we'll investigate further and see what comes out. Nice.
Out of curiosity have you contemplated the idea of introducing cruiser and frigate versions of the TSB? The module is still young so to speak and needs a tad bit more tweaking (lower CPU and capacitor usage), but I do like the idea of a module acts as a counter to the standard alpha and brick tank we see in almost every form of fleet fighting. . |
Vorgx
THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:28:00 -
[1688] - Quote
I have to say that i was excited when i heard about the CS changes, now that i read the changes i understand that i will not use them anymore, they are pretty mediocre ships that not worth the isk.
sadface for this totally fail changes |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:30:00 -
[1689] - Quote
For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 16:51:00 -
[1690] - Quote
WTB Marauder CS ^_^ |
|
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:15:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Capt Canada wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Another small set of changes based on what we're hearing from the Sisi feedback:
Nighthawk: +100 PWG +10 CPU
Sleipnir: +50 CPU Fozzie, if your really basing these small changes on player feedback, PLEASE 7 highs, 6 mids, 4 lows for the nighthawk. It ain't gonna happen. The design team have the caldari ships pegged as fleet boosters, not active tankers. The nighthawk is no longer a superdrake. For that, look no further than the Claymore. Except that 6/4 is better for fleet boosting since you can fit a stronger buffer, while 5/5 is fine for active since you need a coproc for the XLASB anyway. Drake is 6/4, Cyclone is 5/5. The Nighthawk and Claymore are backwards. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:23:00 -
[1692] - Quote
mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship.
can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:47:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 17:56:00 -
[1694] - Quote
The eos is just in a sad spot ATM 250 dronebay is too small, (adding 200 is a little too much) And it still is just lacking when it comes to being compared to other commandships especially the Astarte Even when I mwd around in an eos the ogres can't keep up with me... And this whole hacs have more regen than commandships is just weird and wrong As somebody pointed out the abso should have highest cap regen etc etc It's like ccp is just too timid with these ships.... And btw these ships are meant to be combat ships if you choose them to be Not strictly links |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:07:00 -
[1695] - Quote
mine mi wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this.
from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no?
sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:35:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this. from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no? sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.
You are just cripling more and more possibilites throught your "Warfare Links for Fleets belongs to Caps only" opinion.
I dont get it why your view is so capital centered... |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 18:38:00 -
[1697] - Quote
because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice... |
Captain Organs
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 19:35:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:
PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 20:36:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Captain Organs wrote:Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:
PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken Current NH Sleip and Abso look much better now than they would if hulls get changed, I seriously hope they dont change the models
And id be happy to get a reply from DEVS why the capless and caphungry CS have the same cap/sec. |
MJ Incognito
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:16:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:because if you want your link booster to absorb the alpha of a 2000 man fleet (which seems to be some people's concern), you really have little choice...
I think the concern atm is that it can't absorb the alpha of 16 dudes.... so even in a 250 man max fleet fight.... it dies way to easily.
General rule of thumb is that if you can't take about 50 ships worth of alpha.... you remove any skill for a max fleet to alpha through you and let just about anyone do it.
The issue with tank comes back to the stupid nature of Logistics ships. ALL SHIPS deserve more hp and local tank and logistics really need a considerable nerf. EVE needs to implement a degrading HP system into combat where logistics cannot repair a ship to 100% health.
I would say that shields and armor need to have a base recharge cap amount that affects where their max hp can return to. This would help a ship survive with logistics, but degrade over time when receiving constant DPS. It keeps value with logistics, but removes this unbreakable bullshit in fleet fights.
Recharges could be something like 2 minutes with similar peaks and valleys as the normal shield and capacitor recharge rates now.... only these would affect max cap and not current cap.
|
|
Webzy Phoenix
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:37:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Doed wrote:Captain Organs wrote:Why Fozzie have you tormented me so long with no link to the model changes? Is it happening? Is it not? I can't take it anymore. D:
PS. I don't want to lose my laser chicken Current NH Sleip and Abso look much better now than they would if hulls get changed, I seriously hope they dont change the models And id be happy to get a reply from DEVS why the capless and caphungry CS have the same cap/sec. Plan is to change Nighthawk model to that of a black Drake...
Apparently because we don't have enough Drake models in the game already and the perfect look of the current Nighthawk is problematic in some way. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
324
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:12:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:mine mi wrote:For some reason, perhaps correctly, do not want to put too many hp in command ships, but fleet battles need it, maybe a new ship, a flagship, a battleship command ship. can't you put links in carriers and supercaps? supers has its own problems,'s keep out of this. from the points of view of resisting alpha and giving boost, they're the most powerful players, no? sure it's a lot of cash to risk, but do you want to win or not? what was the cost to TEST for example, of losing Fountain? sometimes you just have to go all in.
So you're proposing to have subcap fleet booster be ships that can't move with the rest of the fleet?
That's some weapons grade stupid. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:47:00 -
[1703] - Quote
I am not necessarily proposing anything, just highlighting the fact that there are more options than warping/cynoing your fleet booster into weapons range of your enemy.
Another option is to put it on grid 250+ km from your enemy's guns. Then keep it moving, guard it, and have more than one so you have some redundancy.
If you want your fleet booster in weapons range, that's up to you. I dont, unless it's as strong as a supercap!
Really guys, you don't see the marines parachuting their field command post onto the enemy positions, why do it with a spaceship?
On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1083
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:05:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang operations. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:10:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now.
Ain't that the truth...
|
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:27:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now. Ain't that the truth... except....that eos's got a heavy drone bonus that's starring at SOME PEOPLE in the eye up close.
I mean, REALLY CLOSE.
did I mention close???? |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:35:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Vegine wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: On grid boosting will require tactical solutions - for both sides in the conflict.
Adapt and survive...
Don't bring that logic in here, sonny Jim. These people want God Ships, and they want them now. Ain't that the truth... except....that eos's got a heavy drone bonus that's starring at SOME PEOPLE in the eye up close. I mean, REALLY CLOSE. did I mention close????
Both gallente and minmatar command ships are designed (i.e. have bonuses and slots that favour) small scale skirmish pvp.
Both amarr and caldari command ships have bonuses and slots that guide them towards larger fleet fights at longer ranges.
Fair or not, that's the way it is. The question is, can we use these material facts to our advantage in the game or not. The first of us who finds a way will tend to win more fights.
Sisi is here for us. Now is the time for us to figure it out - before it gets really expensive on TQ!
|
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 23:41:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:[quote=Vegine][quote=Mournful Conciousness][quote=Domanique Altares][quote=Mournful Conciousness] Sisi is here for us. Now is the time for us to figure it out - before it gets really expensive on TQ!
too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).
But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches... |
Jim Lopau
C.L.A.S.H Outlaw Horizon.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:08:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Vegine wrote:[But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...
see hull resists
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
172
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 00:10:00 -
[1710] - Quote
Vegine wrote: too late for EOS it seems :P price already almost doubled (so did my investment).
But it got me thinking, if they do a complete drone revamp later, would they have to come back and visit these drone bonuses again? or they should just do them together to save some headaches...
I think it's easy to miss some of the advantages of the EOS because on paper the Astarte looks better, however...
The astarte can project damage for 5km. It could fit railguns but it has no tracking bonus to them so on balance I expect that it will be used as a boosting brawler (and by some, just a heavy brawler although I think there are better options).
The EOS can project damage theoretically out to 60km (or more with a DLA). Now I know drones take time to travel, and I know that in a 1v1 they get shot. But in (say) a 5v5 there's no time to be shooting drones. You're too busy calling primaries or saving your skin. Now the EOS also has the "useless" tracking bonus, but that's not so useless if it's being applied to the new more powerful railguns, particularly when backed up with heavy drones (I know, they'll take 20 seconds to get to target, but fights are often much longer than that). Not to mention the massive utility of EC-900 drones. Those guys play hell with ships' target locking. Even with recent changes to sensor strengths. They effectively remove one opposing ship from the fight until you are ready to take hime down.
So it seems to me that the Astarte is a reasonable option for close-in fighting, and the EOS is a better option for keeping the command ship at range, or countering a fleet that has ranged damage projection.
People have been complaining about the lack of a low slot on both ships, or the small (ish) drone bay (me included to begin with), in the same way as they have about the nighthawk's slot layout. but I think many of these posts are made because people are thinking of these ships in the old (pre 1.1) terms of just being brawlers (or in the case of the nighthawk, a capless PVE ship).
In the new world, these ships have very strong boosting bonuses and most of their utility will come from that. Damage application is a bonus but not the whole story as it used to be.
I think the price movements in TQ probably represent the quiet 'smart' money folk who have seen this truth, while others have an uninformed whinge here in the forums.
|
|
|
|
|
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 .. 70 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |