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 .. 66 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Nemesor
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:54:00 -
[841] - Quote
Sadly, I too have to let my sub expire until I see real change. I said I would and empty promises are not my thing. |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:02:00 -
[842] - Quote
HA HA HAHA! Minmatar WIN! You losers are stuck with your gar gar turret... THE SLAVES HAVE TAKEN OVA! HAHAHAHA.
Anyways, good job CCP. Alot of setups have been improved. Certain frigate setups with regard to rail-guns have seen significant increases in viablity.
Dominix, with large blasters is looking a little better too. BLASTA-SHIELD-SIN is pretty ganky. The capacitor reduciton use is pretty good too. That will help alot with active setups. Pretty well rounded boost. Also, you will never be able to make gallente viable until gallente ships and close range ships in general are given range. Most of the player base dont like the fact they shun away from range increase, but wont use ships for that reason. Very funny and r3tard3d @ the same time. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
188
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:07:00 -
[843] - Quote
We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.
We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them. |
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:10:00 -
[844] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:Certain frigate setups with regard to rail-guns have seen significant increases in viablity.
Dominix, with large blasters is looking a little better too. BLASTA-SHIELD-SIN is pretty ganky. The capacitor reduciton use is pretty good too. That will help alot with active setups. Pretty well rounded boost. Also, you will never be able to make gallente viable until gallente ships and close range ships in general are given range. Most of the player base dont like the fact they shun away from range increase, but wont use ships for that reason. Very funny and r3tard3d @ the same time.
Yeah. But people don't like the idea of giving blasters extra range because it's a form of homogenisation. The problem is that they won't like the only alternative either, of reducing Pulse and AC applied damage at close range...
As you mention, the biggest beneficiaries of the current hybrid changes are the ships that don't actually need any help - the frigates and the Dominix, for example. The ships that actually need help haven't been helped. A bit sad really. |
Neo Agricola
BLACK-MARK
92
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:12:00 -
[845] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.
We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them. Thank you for clarification! DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=70361#post70361 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710 |
Chorgat
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:18:00 -
[846] - Quote
This is a joke right? RIGHT?
You promise to change things and all we get in return is a bag of dogs**t thrown at us.
But hey atleast we got 4 new ships (2 that will be used), engine effects and shiny new implants if we all resub and log on to see this s**t patch come live!
This is just sad ccp... really.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
330
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:22:00 -
[847] - Quote
Is there anyway that guns installed can effect other performances (nerf or boost) on the ship? Using the guns to effect the ship performance may be an avenue for resolving the problems that ships that are supposed to use them suffer from as well as preventing possible overbuffing of ships.
Theme would be long range defensive short range offensive examples
Equipping Pulse Lasers improves mass Equipping Blasters improves speed Equipping Autocannosn improves agility Equipping Dumbfire missiels improves cpu
Equipping Railguns improves shields. Equipping Beam Lasers improves capacitor Equipping Artillery improves armor Equipping Smartfire missiles improves Powergrid
However I feel that in order to balance these should dig into bonsues that might be appealing to other races and decrease performance.
To help balance things they should be a flat rate across all modules so that way you wont wind up with some very obscure setup. I also feel that raw number and not precentile is a way to go as well to prevent over buffing of ships with 8 weapon ports.
However I feel this may require an entire expansion to plan for and there simply isnt enough time for this release. Or the alternative approaches and the sorts. However I feel that boosting/nerfing ship performance with weapons based installed would further devide the weapons.
Either way food for thought.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
330
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:22:00 -
[848] - Quote
Chorgat wrote:This is a joke right? RIGHT?
You promise to change things and all we get in return is a bag of dogs**t thrown at us.
But hey atleast we got 4 new ships (2 that will be used), engine effects and shiny new implants if we all resub and log on to see this s**t patch come live!
This is just sad ccp... really.
Well they buffed it a bit instead of entirely doing nothing.
|
Imrik86
Gypsy Kings Wiki Conglomerates
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:39:00 -
[849] - Quote
SMT008 wrote: Large shield extenders don't need to be harder to fit. They need a real drawback. The plates agility drawback is a real drawback. A Loki with 2x1600mms will be FAT AS FSCK.
The signature radius buff on LSEs isn't really a drawback.
A good drawback would be reducing capacitor max amount by 15% per LSE on top of the signature radius buff. Another thing would be reduced scan resolution (Because of shields interferences, if you want a RP explanation).
WTF? Are you trying to nerf Minmatar or Caldari with this? |
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis
302
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:45:00 -
[850] - Quote
Hopefully the next wave of changes are coming soon. I expect at most a spike in frigate usage. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:50:00 -
[851] - Quote
What a shame - CCP insisting on doing half a job, just because it "might" be enough... Why don't you guys adress the concerns we have about ammo and unique role of railguns? |
Count NULL
Bad Balance
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:53:00 -
[852] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Please post your feedback about hybrid turret balancing in this thread.
Thanks. Your Tallest.
update (08/11/11): based on player feedback, the following changes will be made to hybrid balancing (and T2 ammo balancing).
* Hybrid turret reload time will be 5 seconds. * Hybrid ammo will be 50% smaller (and turret capacity reduced to keep same number of charges) * Blaster damage +5% (except XL turrets) * Railgun tracking +5% (except XL turrets) * Hail falloff penalty will be 25%, not 0%.
So, none of the fitting or cap usage reductions will be made? Is that correct? Or are things mentioned in blog still going to be in upcoming expansion?
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
106
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:58:00 -
[853] - Quote
Count NULL wrote:So, none of the fitting or cap usage reductions will be made? Is that correct? Or are things mentioned in blog still going to be in upcoming expansion?
The current build has cap and fitting changes in place.
|
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:17:00 -
[854] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.
i lol'd. u serious? you're gonna watch Gallente ships not get used for months? after all the feedback and people telling you guys these changes mean nothing? |
Shadowsword
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:23:00 -
[855] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:[quote=Shadowsword] - Autocanons being too easy to fit, having too much range with some ships/fits.
Have you ever put together a fit, and then said "Damn, I need to take dual 650 instead of 800 for this optimal MWD+buffer tank to fit"? Like, say, an Armageddon having to use dual heavy pulse because MWD + 2*1600mm plate + mega pulse are too much?
I haven't, and that's because you have no compromise to make to always include the biggest AC. And if it were balanced properly, you should.
As for LSE fitting requirements, a few numbers (all skills to V):
LSE II requirement: 0.0472 powergrid per shield HP given
1600mm rolled: 0.119 powergrid per shield HP
Since the main bottleneck in cruiser/BC sized fits is powergrid, it translate into paying about 2.5 times more for an armor buffer tank than for a shield buffer. AND you get the worst (by far) drawback. A bigger sig may make you take a bit more damage, but it's the lack of agility that actually get you killed. |
Fix Hybrids
University of Caille Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:25:00 -
[856] - Quote
Thank you for your responses, Affinity and Soundwave. It's good to finally hear something on this important issue.
I'm disappointed that further improvements to hybrids will not be made before Crucible goes live, but I'm glad CCP doesn't regard the hybrid problem as being fixed now.
Can you be more specific about the timescale for future adjustments to hybrids, and the ships that use them? Are we going to have to wait until the summer expansion for further adjustments, or will needed tweaks be identified, developed and released in between expansions? |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:26:00 -
[857] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.
We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.
How about CCP employees are restricted to only flying Gallente ships for the next 6 months? I'm sure 'wait and monitor and maybe fix' will change to 'LETS FIX THIS NOW' very quickly ;-) |
Kahz Niverrah
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming Moar Tears
54
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:28:00 -
[858] - Quote
Having not really flown blaster boats for any extended period of time, let me pose a question to you blaster aficionados:
Is getting into range only really a problem against faster Matari ships with dominating falloff? Would an adjustment to autocannon falloff / falloff bonused hulls / tracking enhancer falloff bonuses get you where you need to be? I'd imagine getting into range on Amarr and Caldari ships is much less of an issue, especially after Crucible.
Am I way off here or does this make sense? I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Nemesor
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
37
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:29:00 -
[859] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote: LSE II requirement: 0.0472 powergrid per shield HP given
1600mm rolled: 0.119 powergrid per shield HP
Maybe moving the PG down for plates instead of nerfing.
I agree with the armor penalty. It needs to be lessened a lot or replaced on rigs and mods. Same with the Sig radius. |
Nemesor
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:38:00 -
[860] - Quote
Kahz Niverrah wrote: Is getting into range only really a problem against faster Matari ships with dominating falloff? Would an adjustment to autocannon falloff / falloff bonused hulls / tracking enhancer falloff bonuses get you where you need to be?
Getting into range while having enough DPS for a CHANCE to overcome the time it took to catch the kiting ship. It is a twofold issue. Yes the falloff on projectiles and the optimal on lasers are redonkulous but both pump out enough damage that they at least rival blasters. By the time a blasterboat through some miracle of God actually reaches a Laser or projectile platform, they have lost a insurmountable amount of HP. People seem to forget that ACs and Pulse lasers are the SHORT range versions of their respective weapon types while both hit out to ranges that in engagements qualify as MID range. The problems don't ONLY rely on falloff though. It is the ability for them to literally run circles around a blasterboat while having no risk of being caught. In any engagement between like skilled pilots in the same class of Minmatar and Gallente ship, the Minmatar pilot is the one that controls the engagement completely. They can decide to point and kill or just warp off with literally no risk to themselves. I will ask the RP crowd to step in for a moment and answer this: With the **** poor showing Gallente ships have, how the hell can the Federation POSSIBLY maintain an Empire? It would be like Apollo astronauts vs Xwings.
This is what irks me. No one can say that I am stating anything inaccurate. Even CCP Devs. They know the problem. They know the extent. I know that they really do not expect these minor changes to have any real impact on the balance of flown vessels. |
|
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis
303
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 17:59:00 -
[861] - Quote
A quick way to get Gallente boats back on the map is to put the Hyperion on par with the Abaddon for fleet engagements.
Then look closely: "what have we done right here?"
Then slowly apply these changes across the board as necessary.
And yes, CCP devs. I want to make a little dare.
I want you try solo PVP in Thoraxes and Brutixes. Fit them as you like. No alts, no intel no nothing. Do some roams. You'll see the light very quickly.
3 weeks later then fly them in fleets. See if that is any better.
If you fly anything else than a blasterboat then you broke the rules. |
Nikollai Tesla
Crytec Enterprises SRS.
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:02:00 -
[862] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.
We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.
Since the community has already told you these changes are underwhelming and fleet compositions won't change since hybrids/ Gallente/Caldari plateform are not good enough or don't have a niche. Can you today, using Rally or whatever project racking tool, commit and have the throughput to have them revisited in 6 months? |
Keen Fallsword
Billionaires Club C0VEN
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:10:00 -
[863] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.
We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.
Thanks for update. Its good news.
Be in touch :)
|
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
169
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:13:00 -
[864] - Quote
lol 6 months...it's funny, but thats probably what we're looking at.
you guys have had 3 years to look at metrics for use of Gallente ships in "serious" PVP situations. you added a slight buff in damage and ROF, you've slightly decreased fitting requirements, making them subpar (a step up from horrible). you've slightly increased agility and speed of blaster boats. you've done nothing to actually make hybrids and their ships desirable, or at least somewhat equal to lasers and projectiles.
see if you guys had proper internal testing, you wouldnt have to do waste months and years doing metrics. you'd have your evidence right there in the office. i think the issue is you guys either dont play the game regularly, or none of you pvp. if this is the case you simply have to trust what players tell you. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
104
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:31:00 -
[865] - Quote
Mekhana wrote:A quick way to get Gallente boats back on the map is to put the Hyperion on par with the Abaddon for fleet engagements.
Then look closely: "what have we done right here?"
Hang on, the Hyperion's intended niche is small-scale combat. It should be the Rokh that should be on par with the Abaddon in fleet. The Hyperion should be focused on smaller fights, which means that it needs much more mobility.
|
Nemesor
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:46:00 -
[866] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Mekhana wrote:A quick way to get Gallente boats back on the map is to put the Hyperion on par with the Abaddon for fleet engagements.
Then look closely: "what have we done right here?"
Hang on, the Hyperion's intended niche is small-scale combat. It should be the Rokh that should be on par with the Abaddon in fleet. The Hyperion should be focused on smaller fights, which means that it needs much more mobility.
Lets think on a more broad scale gai's. :-D
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:00:00 -
[867] - Quote
I'll only start thinking Hybrids are balanced when I can triple plate my Vigilant with a full neutron rack and a 1600. |
Nemesor
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:05:00 -
[868] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:I'll only start thinking Hybrids are balanced when I can triple plate my Vigilant with a full neutron rack and a 1600. crap post is crap.
|
tika te
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:11:00 -
[869] - Quote
the devs should ask themselves one or two question:
-is there any reason (apart from ship's bonuses i'm fyling) to use hybrids instead (or on same level as) of lasers and projectiles? (especially in fleets) -apparently projectiles are very popular in fleet AND small scale warfare - what's so special about them and how can we use that to bring hybrids on par with other weapon systems?
|
tika te
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:14:00 -
[870] - Quote
Quote:The Hyperion should be focused on smaller fights, which means that it needs much more mobility.
i haven't seen battleships in SMALL scane fights for ages; and if, hyperion is the last tier3 bs i would field there...actually hyperion is the worst of all tier3 bs... |
|
|
|
|
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 .. 66 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |