Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
174
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 13:42:00 -
[121] - Quote
First of all, many many thanks CCP not only for finally trying to improve W-space, but also for considering the options proposed by the community and for being honest and clear about your view of W-space in your devblog. As well as for not destroying what makes it unique!
On topic: awesome! Those are really interesting changes. I think Black Holes are going to be awesome right now; I just hope Caldari POS' keep their launchers while on Reinforced Mode... Great! Wolf Rayets. Dat damage bonus. All hail our new overlords the c6 blaster catalysts... I think I prefered armor resists, but HP are also good... We'll have to see. Red Giants: great idea with the Bomb bonuses! That's going to be interesting. Those cap transfer penalties on Cataclysmic Variables and NOS/neut bonuses on Pulsars are going to be interesting too; they seems balanced with the local cap bonuses on both.
Me likes. Especially the idea of frigate/destroyer fleets using the new small regenerating wormholes, entering high-class Wolf-Rayets...... that's going to be nightmarish. |
Anize Oramara
EVE Protection Agency Bloodline.
211
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 14:19:00 -
[122] - Quote
would the changes to black holes make phoenixes viable farming ships? o.0 |
Adarnof
Free Trade Monopoly You Are Being Monitored
25
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:34:00 -
[123] - Quote
Daenika wrote: As a matter of record, a triage Archon with two meta local reppers, three remote reppers, and one remote cap transfer (plus an EANM and DC, and the rest cap regen) is fully capable of solo-tanking escalations, even in a C5 Cataclysmic Variable. Our standard setup is precisely as above, and we live in a C5 CV. With two local reppers and links from an command ship, a Triage Archon can tank a maximum of about 8663 DPS (8800ish with a second EANM instead of the DC, but we prefer the extra hull buffer just in case), and is nearly stable doing so even with a full double-wave (first carrier, first dread) of 12 Sleepless Guardians neuting it (it's 64% stable without the neuts, and still lasts 7 minutes on cap with all 12 neuts on it 100% of the time with both local reppers working 100% of the time as well).
Now, each Sleepless Guardian does 694 DPS, so a wave of 12 does 8328. Said carrier can tank them just fine.
8663 DPS tank is a far cry from full house aggro on a quad like we do now. No way in hell I'm going back to staggering the escalations, that takes way too long.
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
137
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:43:00 -
[124] - Quote
Quote:8663 DPS tank is a far cry from full house aggro on a quad like we do now. No way in hell I'm going back to staggering the escalations, that takes way too long.
Well, if it means you have to field, say, 4 chain archons instead of 1 triage and 1+ drone DPS carriers, I'm not sure your "it's faster" is actually applicable.
I mean, as long as the Moros never don't have a target, you're not gaining any speed either way. Even when we're fielding 3 Moros instead of 2 (more than that and targeting/webbing gets too chaotic), we have almost no downtime in the site for escalations.
Still, if it's too much for ye, move to a system that doesn't have a local rep penalty... |
Adarnof
Free Trade Monopoly You Are Being Monitored
25
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 15:54:00 -
[125] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:8663 DPS tank is a far cry from full house aggro on a quad like we do now. No way in hell I'm going back to staggering the escalations, that takes way too long. Well, if it means you have to field, say, 4 chain archons instead of 1 triage and 1+ drone DPS carriers, I'm not sure your "it's faster" is actually applicable. I mean, as long as the Moros never don't have a target, you're not gaining any speed either way. Even when we're fielding 3 Moros instead of 2 (more than that and targeting/webbing gets too chaotic), we have almost no downtime in the site for escalations. Still, if it's too much for ye, move to a system that doesn't have a local rep penalty...
It's faster when you have more dreads on field, and hence more simultaneous escalations. My point is quite applicable. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
753
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 19:26:00 -
[126] - Quote
Dem Wolf-Rayet bonuses...
I, too, enjoy 15m sigRad 25kEHP Assault frigates zipping around around at 1000m/s doing 650dps. RIP. Literally no reason to ever bring anything else ever for PvP.
I'm also anxious to see the first vids of the new 33km/s Succubus. Yes, that's kilometers, as in 33000 meters. Ofc, if you want one that is combat capable, stick to a MWD and zoom around at only 21km/s.
Well, it should spawn some awesome pvp vids. vOv
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
Alabugin
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exit Strategy..
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 20:50:00 -
[127] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Dem Wolf-Rayet bonuses...
I, too, enjoy 15m sigRad 25kEHP Assault frigates zipping around around at 1000m/s doing 650dps. RIP. Literally no reason to ever bring anything else ever for PvP.
I'm also anxious to see the first vids of the new 33km/s Succubus. Yes, that's kilometers, as in 33000 meters. Ofc, if you want one that is combat capable, stick to a MWD and zoom around at only 21km/s.
Well, it should spawn some awesome pvp vids. vOv
If I did my math correctly, in a c6 an enyo will be doing 414*200% = 414+828 = *insert dubstep jam 1200+DPS
A catalyst can break 1500 but with less tank, less speed and higher sig. Pretty scary if you ask me. |
Wingzero Mileghere
Cascading Failure Un.Bound
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 21:23:00 -
[128] - Quote
One thing I wonder is why buff everything in a mag but nerf drone tracking is there a good answer for that otherwise I like all of the proposed changed especially black holes |
nimon
unlogic for U
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:09:00 -
[129] - Quote
Its time for more wormholesystem effects
Hi I would like to say thats CCP could make a little bit more then that to wormholes. All in the Hyperion Patch sounds good and please dont change the new distance coming out from wormholes, some players crying or not that is a good change.
But please bring more wormholesystems with new effects like some examples... Very dangerous with damage per minute or being like blind in overview about gas or something, moving electric storms, ..... Afterburner bonus, Drone systems, upgrading especially damage type systems, more gas planetary or ore amounts to some.
Of course there are many more posibilitys for that but bring more for more tactics and curiosity its time.
PS. The best idea in Eve were the wormholes this gives small groups and solo players a chance to play in their own systems. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
137
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 22:45:00 -
[130] - Quote
Quote:If I did my math correctly, in a c6 an enyo will be doing 414*200% = 414+828 = *insert dubstep jam 1200+DPS
A catalyst can break 1500 but with less tank, less speed and higher sig. Pretty scary if you ask me.
Assuming Fozzie is correct and the implementation stays the same, a RLML Tengu in a C6 W-R can drop 2340 DPS, and a cloaky RLML Tengu can drop ~1300 (with 50k EHP and 500k self-rep on Ancillary). With almost perfect damage application and 30km range to boot.
I mean, that's just silly. |
|
the Infenro
Edge of Existence
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:45:00 -
[131] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:If I did my math correctly, in a c6 an enyo will be doing 414*200% = 414+828 = *insert dubstep jam 1200+DPS
A catalyst can break 1500 but with less tank, less speed and higher sig. Pretty scary if you ask me. Assuming Fozzie is correct and the implementation stays the same, a RLML Tengu in a C6 W-R can drop 2340 DPS, and a cloaky RLML Tengu can drop ~1300 (with 50k EHP and 500k self-rep on Ancillary). With almost perfect damage application and 30km range to boot. I mean, that's just silly. Quote:It's faster when you have more dreads on field, and hence more simultaneous escalations. My point is quite applicable. So move to a non-Cataclysmic? I'm also not too sure how you manage to coordinate targeting and webbing with that many dreads on field. Even with 3, it gets rather chaotic. 5-6 dreads, you're going to have a lot of targeting overlap, BSes dying while others are still locking them, two dreads shooting at the same target, etc, and actually getting webs on all of those being shot will be nearly impossible (especially since it takes those BSes like 30 seconds to slow down from full speed).
well in effect your statement says that your ****** doing anoms in a CV, so now your group has to move into a different variable. congrats you have made a new black hole system..... |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
420
|
Posted - 2014.08.07 23:55:00 -
[132] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:If I did my math correctly, in a c6 an enyo will be doing 414*200% = 414+828 = *insert dubstep jam 1200+DPS
A catalyst can break 1500 but with less tank, less speed and higher sig. Pretty scary if you ask me. Assuming Fozzie is correct and the implementation stays the same, a RLML Tengu in a C6 W-R can drop 2340 DPS, and a cloaky RLML Tengu can drop ~1300 (with 50k EHP and 500k self-rep on Ancillary). With almost perfect damage application and 30km range to boot. I mean, that's just silly.
I really hope this change goes through as is! 200 dps crows 450 dps talwars? Can fight anything out numbered and out gunned. I think the massive dps boosts will even out with the massive armor amounts. Blue-Fire Best Fire |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
137
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 00:00:00 -
[133] - Quote
Quote:well in effect your statement says that your ****** doing anoms in a CV, so now your group has to move into a different variable. congrats you have made a new black hole system.....
Nope, only doing them the way you're doing them. Our method of escalations (triage carrier, staggered waves) will continue to work just fine.
I mean, the entire point of system effects is to force you to change your playstyle in those systems, to shake up the playing field. While I think the cap transfer nerf is overdoing it, as it breaks even sub-capital cap chains, I see no problem with a system effect that favors solo logi making it more difficult to successfully running chained logi operations in that system. |
Adarnof
Free Trade Monopoly You Are Being Monitored
25
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 00:00:00 -
[134] - Quote
Daenika wrote: So move to a non-Cataclysmic? I'm also not too sure how you manage to coordinate targeting and webbing with that many dreads on field. Even with 3, it gets rather chaotic. 5-6 dreads, you're going to have a lot of targeting overlap, BSes dying while others are still locking them, two dreads shooting at the same target, etc, and actually getting webs on all of those being shot will be nearly impossible (especially since it takes those BSes like 30 seconds to slow down from full speed).
Moving means admitting defeat. I will not be beaten by these changes!
And yes it is harder to coordinate, but when you start killing things too fast you just add more webbing lokis who alternate targets and preweb many in advance. Also dreads prelock 5-6 BSes (spacing when they start the lock so they never have more than 2 locked at once) to keep up. |
the Infenro
Edge of Existence
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 00:19:00 -
[135] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:well in effect your statement says that your ****** doing anoms in a CV, so now your group has to move into a different variable. congrats you have made a new black hole system..... Nope, only doing them the way you're doing them. Our method of escalations (triage carrier, staggered waves) will continue to work just fine. I mean, the entire point of system effects is to force you to change your playstyle in those systems, to shake up the playing field. While I think the cap transfer nerf is overdoing it, as it breaks even sub-capital cap chains, I see no problem with a system effect that favors solo logi making it more difficult to successfully running chained logi operations in that system.
with all respect, i lived in a c6 CV for 3 years, and have tried the non tras logi as a backbone to a fleet, and triage fits even in the current setup it is extremely hard to pull off triage carriers in a c6 due to you only get 50% of the self repair, meaning that you effectively use 4x the cap of normal to keep yourself up, while you can manage for a triage carrier it is hard, why most groups have gone to the pantheon setups. now the oirneros work to a certain degree (i have flown one before, the issue you run into is if you get energy neutralized. while this can be mitigated by bringing 5+ logi onto the field this still means that you need 2-3x the logi boats you need currently. and still have capacitor issues for the entire fleet. as it stands atm you can use 2 guardians using stage escalations)
The big issue with the old stats is that its harder to brake a cap chain not impossible tho i've seen it done with smart FC(s) and good tactics and pilots. if you wish to counter the old effects this can be done with ewar and or nos boosts, it would level the playing field for pvp while still retaining peoples ability to run anoms without making it the worst variable by far in the game, it already has less use than other effects, this change would cripple them as currently proposed primarily for small-mid sized groups |
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
44
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 03:21:00 -
[136] - Quote
ZOMG, what have you done to my precious mags. That drone tracking + TP nerf = I'm sure CCP studies my fleet comps. Red giant bomb shens even more fun. Adding bomb aoe range bonus would also be hilarious. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
699
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 03:46:00 -
[137] - Quote
the Infenro wrote:Daenika wrote:Quote:well in effect your statement says that your ****** doing anoms in a CV, so now your group has to move into a different variable. congrats you have made a new black hole system..... Nope, only doing them the way you're doing them. Our method of escalations (triage carrier, staggered waves) will continue to work just fine. I mean, the entire point of system effects is to force you to change your playstyle in those systems, to shake up the playing field. While I think the cap transfer nerf is overdoing it, as it breaks even sub-capital cap chains, I see no problem with a system effect that favors solo logi making it more difficult to successfully running chained logi operations in that system. with all respect, i lived in a c6 CV for 3 years, and have tried the non tras logi as a backbone to a fleet, and triage fits even in the current setup it is extremely hard to pull off triage carriers in a c6 due to you only get 50% of the self repair, meaning that you effectively use 4x the cap of normal to keep yourself up, while you can manage for a triage carrier it is hard, why most groups have gone to the pantheon setups. now the oirneros work to a certain degree (i have flown one before, the issue you run into is if you get energy neutralized. while this can be mitigated by bringing 5+ logi onto the field this still means that you need 2-3x the logi boats you need currently. and still have capacitor issues for the entire fleet. as it stands atm you can use 2 guardians using stage escalations) The big issue with the old stats is that its harder to brake a cap chain not impossible tho i've seen it done with smart FC(s) and good tactics and pilots. if you wish to counter the old effects this can be done with ewar and or nos boosts, it would level the playing field for pvp while still retaining peoples ability to run anoms without making it the worst variable by far in the game, it already has less use than other effects, this change would cripple them as currently proposed primarily for small-mid sized groups
Could always chuck in some egress port rig, talismans... not really serious heh but theres ways around this for getting cap chains working.
Overall seems a bit of a strange change to CVs though I can see what it is supposed to do. |
DG Athonille
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 05:42:00 -
[138] - Quote
Stepped back, read through the responses on CV's, and wanted to add flavor for the Dev and the community.
The original logic submitted was that some WH systems were underutilized, yet the specific logic for changing CV effect was to deter perceived issues with capital balance. I don't agree that Cataclysmic Variable system population across wormhole classes and high-end (C5/6) capital balance are linked at the hip. I am concerned that changes are being promoted to catas that have nothing to do with their specific system use and population.
Catas [to me] are defensive holes by virtue of the effects in place. The bonuses to RR make spider fleets from battleships through carriers the best option, but they also promote lower SP/smaller corporation fleet composition for PvE. The downside is lower ISK/hr redemption, however, that trade off is acceptable to smaller corporations. Concurrently, buffing RR fleets makes residents in catas more able to defend their system IMO, especially as they add carriers to the mix and accounting for mass restrictions on incoming forces. Since I have telegraphed enough intel already, this is exactly why our corporation selected a cata C6 to move UP to.
Alternatively there is the magnatar effect which IMO favors large corporations/alliances and promotes high ISK/hr returns. To me, catas and magnatars are diametrically opposed, and functional, system effects that allow corporations to tailor and adapt and succeed under differing influences.
Why is this perceived to be an imbalance issue? The middle of the missive in the original post was congratulatory towards pilots for adapting, and leveraging in unforeseen ways what has been encountered. More importantly, I cannot see how the proposed changes to cata would make it more favorable than it was previously. I think the proposed changes move it down to last in place. There is a fleet doctrine that works quite well in catas for those that care to go into catas. How will the proposed changes (and required doctrine changes) improve that? I cannot see it.
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories Vertical.
678
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 06:28:00 -
[139] - Quote
Dunno, but an Orthrus as a doctrine ship for wolf-rayet home defense seems ridiculous in c5/c6 - meaning 1700-2100 dps fully selectable with rapid lights, crazy? That's like a pumped up proteus D: "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 11:38:00 -
[140] - Quote
Your assumption about Black Holes low activity may be WRONG. Most WH PVP Is not by setting mutually agreed time and place for dueling.
Consider that maybe when PVP roams go to black holes they currently seldom find anybody to fight !!!
Most WH PVP is about roams for ambush tears or attempts at defending convoys or ISK making ops. Maybe low PVP is due to no sleeper or site farmers settled in black holes. Is PVE farming harder or mining more difficult?
So if you make WH more interesting places to fight , that does not ensure lots more PVP will occur there if the chances of encountering other players remains the same.
Consider making Black Holes into WH systems that lots of convoys want to travel through.
(Convoys attract PVP roams due to value and flood of tears. People might even settle black holes as pirate bases!!!)
#1 Make Black Holes into nexus points with say double the number of WH connections. #2 Go one step further and give adjacent WH systems connected to black hole systems a greater chance of connecting to high sec or null sec. Thus Null Sec folk can find shortcuts to high sec markets by traveling routes through Black hole systems. Similarly higher class WH dwellers will also tend to find that routes to high sec markets pass through black holes systems.
Storywise you can say spinning black holes tend to generate or attract wh connections.
(Of course if you really just want to make it hard for bums to settle in WH systems - that is good too and you can ignore my observations. And despite the spin you would still be telling the true. Harder is simply harder and not forcing people out.) |
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
346
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 11:39:00 -
[141] - Quote
Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Samsara Nolte
Sternenschauer AG W.A.S. Alliance - Weapons Armor or Shield
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 11:46:00 -
[142] - Quote
Sith1s Spectre wrote:Threll Lornax wrote:To expand on my original train of though, I do not understand why you feels that cataclysmic variables need this nerf when your numbers for this kind of space are negative. Admittedly not as much as for black holes, but still negative. To me, this means that cataclysmic variables are in need of some kind of buff to make the space more desirable. I don't have any game-fixing ideas when it comes to buffs, but I do have a suggested tweak to maybe address your issues with capital logistics in cataclysmic variables whitout making a logi chain in these systems impossible.
If the current bonuses to remote energy, shield and armour were to exclude capital modules the carrier fleets you want to address would be nerfed, without touching the smaller sizes (i.e cruiser logi and Dominix/Armageddon chains)
Alternatively, make the bonuses mentioned scale to 50% in C6, not 100%. Fleets would still be viable, but not to the supposedly overpowered level.
My main concern is that medium- to small-sized groups will be severely hurt, if not completely crippled, by your suggested changes since PvE will not be doable for some ppl in C5-6. When more logistic cruisers are needed in place of battleships, dps is lowered significantly without gaining a bonus in the new system, thus making the sites impossible to complete by current fleet sizes. Replace guardians with Onerios' (or scimitars) end logi subcap problem
Sure that would work if sleepers wouldn-¦t neut the **** out of you ... when you scims are neuted whats keeping your fleet together .... well we could always bring more scimmis ... to do the job 3 basis were able to you would need arooud 6 scimmis to be safe from being neuted an then you lost the ability to give your huginns or Lokis any cap .... to keep their webs running seems great ... where these needed pilots can-¦t do anything else like fly a dreadnaught ... sarcasm on "seems like a great change to me, because more logis will greatly reduce the risk you have to take during the siege cycle because the extra rep is gonna make the sleepers die faster so you don-¦t have to use extra siege cycles, for an already disliked variable - and of course when you are jumped by the big ones scimmis are the best option because they-¦ll never gonna bring any Bhallgorns to the fight, right ?" sarcasm off
Cataclysmic are already on the far end of you fast you are able to escalate and this will put it even more behind ... which is gonna make it less desirable by far - the upsiude so far by this effect was that if needed you could defend your hole against superior numbers by using a pantheon carrier setup which is now dead - efectivelly increasing the risk to live in such a wh as a small group manyfold i doubt many are willing to take this |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 12:04:00 -
[143] - Quote
I really doubt that players run into each other in WH systems and both sides decide not to fight because of system effects very often. Well some may attempt to flee due to disadvantage but then with proper ambush and tackling their consent is not necessary. One side almost always wants to fight.
They might decide not linger in and especially not to settle WH systems due to special effects and things like WH connection mass considerations. But the weight f special effects maybe just as much or more PVE and ability to warp away from mining to escape than influence on PVP once actions begins.
Udonor wrote:Your assumption about Black Holes low activity may be WRONG. Most WH PVP Is not by setting mutually agreed time and place for dueling. Consider that maybe when PVP roams go to black holes they currently seldom find anybody to fight !!! Most WH PVP is about roams for ambush tears or attempts at defending convoys or ISK making ops. Maybe low PVP is due to no sleeper or site farmers settled in black holes. Is PVE farming harder or mining more difficult? So if you make WH more interesting places to fight , that does not ensure lots more PVP will occur there if the chances of encountering other players remains the same. Consider making Black Holes into WH systems that lots of convoys want to travel through. (Convoys attract PVP roams due to value and flood of tears. People might even settle black holes as pirate bases!!! Meaning that black hole has people hanging around large amounts of time just looking for fights.) How? One easy two step implementation is... #1 Make Black Holes into WH space nexus points with say double the number of WH connections to other WH systems for class. #2 Go one step further and give adjacent WH systems connected to black hole systems a greater chance of connecting to high sec or null sec. Thus Null Sec folk can find shortcuts to high sec markets by traveling routes through Black hole systems. Similarly higher class WH dwellers will also tend to find that routes to high sec markets pass through black holes systems. Storywise you can say spinning black holes tend to generate or attract wh connections. (Of course if you really just want to make it hard for bums to settle in WH systems - that is good too and you can ignore my observations. And despite the spin you would still be telling the true. Harder is simply harder and not forcing people out.) |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories Vertical.
678
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 13:17:00 -
[144] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now.
Without bonuses damps, you get them down to like 30k lock range with stacking penalty (from their 85 base fleeted). Looks pretty sad for balancing, only upside that those things 'only' got 80k ehp and 'only' move 2.6km/s (dual prop hurr) "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
|
Mithandra
Serene Vendetta Brawls Deep
115
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 14:10:00 -
[145] - Quote
I love these changes. Black hole systems have been in need of love for a while.
Hopefully people will start to take up residence |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 14:57:00 -
[146] - Quote
Now as for spectacular and silly effects...
how about slowly drifting and sparkly CLOUDS on any ACTIVE grid which do damage or EW or slow movement or add inertia?
Something pretty that is that is only a hazard during fast moving battles
Break a tackle or get out of optimal by dodging around until you put a small damage cloud between you and opponent. Of course they can just fly through it if they got tank to spare.
Or flying through an EW cloud might cause you to lose lock.
Or a dense cloud might slow your speed or make acceleration and turning harder.
-OR-
how about some rare and infrequent pulses of environmental damage? especially around pulsar and black holes
Something that varies upwards with WH system class and that might turn the tide of battle if it happens to overlap
maybe the pulse is more a visible sweeping searchlight effect which can be evaded if not locked in battle. |
Aurora SunBelle
Old Man Gaming The Void Collective
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 15:28:00 -
[147] - Quote
DG Athonille wrote:Samsara Nolte wrote:Well - considering your chart Cataclysmic Variables are disliked second to only Black Hole and your idea to fix that is keep it exactly the same except for a nerf on the one attribute you shouldn-¦t have touched "Remote Capacitor Transmitter amount" the sole reason for the few who are living in there is that their carriers are pretty good inside - and after this change everybody living inside in one is pretty much flying them out, well except the ones needed in higher class holes for escalations.
No matter how hard i try to find any reason at all, that someone not already living in a cataclysmic is wanna live in one now, im unable to - without any exaggeration i think you just created the new "Black Hole" Agreed - the new cata bonuses and debuffs make no sense as proposed. The existing debuff pushes fleets towards remote rep versus local rep (and the implications for dreads vs carriers), and now you propose adding another debuff that would hamstring sustained remote rep? How is this promoting content creation, other than making our residents in cata systems easy prey? How does the proposed changes balance cata systems? They were already mostly disliked, but usable for remote rep fleets. Nerfing remote rep fleets just makes them completely disliked IMO. Overall these changes smack of promoting full time PvP gameplay and offer nothing to individuals or groups that are PvE-centric. While the intro went to great lengths to paint a picture of not forcing players out of j-space, I think that is exactly what will occur for those individuals and corps that prefer a PvE-centric game play and selected specific WH systems to settle and operate in that fashion. Yes, PvP is *always* a possibility, however, making the system largely untenable except for large corporations and large fleets will push small corporations out IMO. This is how I feel. My group is more PVE-centric. We aren't looking for fights but some of us will engage if provoked. But largely we just want to be left alone. It really takes away the fun for a lot of newer players to build something and then have it smashed right off the bat because... "pvp is the best thing ever lets go smash some new players stuff!" mentality. It really seems that this is what CCP is promoting now with these changes. I am concerned that as a PVE-player I will be reduced to hi-sec play only unless I somehow join a large alliance and want to continuous fight instead of actually playing industry. |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
346
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 16:16:00 -
[148] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Damp the orthrus, it doesn't have a very high lock range. That's the only real advice I can really give right now. Without bonuses damps, you get them down to like 30k lock range with stacking penalty (from their 85 base fleeted). Looks pretty sad for balancing, only upside that those things 'only' got 80k ehp and 'only' move 2.6km/s (dual prop hurr)
If you fight alone against any linked boosted and otherwise vastly outclassing opponent then you will die pretty much every time.
To talk about an orthrus as being a unique case here is disingenuous. A cerberus would also be hideously powerful here and it has much more staying power on field. The orthrus does significantly more volley damage it's true but the cerb has a superior capacitor and better bonuses for sustained fighting. All it takes is one arazu to wreck face.on an orthrus. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015 T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346 LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 16:33:00 -
[149] - Quote
How about creating a special area near black holes and pulsars where the star has a webbing effect proportional to distance?
If you make a mistake (especially during combat) and get too close webbing rises to 100% (near event horizon for black hole and similarly too damn close to pulsar). Escape only by dying. For black hole you could even stop training queue as NOT EVEN CLONE DATA can escape undistorted.
You might consider allowing a POS to circle the black hole at the 50% webbing distance if the inner planets are gone (quiet black hole). Mostly just to encourage use of the special battle area. Pulsars of course emit too much radiation even without infalling debris. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2014.08.08 17:01:00 -
[150] - Quote
Stop swimming upstream. MMO industry finances depends on the rule "more Excitement = more nonconsensual combat" Terms of CCP loans probably state that.
However, if you petition CCP to split off the Industrial side of EVE code into its own game like DUST...well maybe everyone will be happier and you can try prove you point about crafting players NOT being a money sink for MMOs.
The parts of EVE could still be connected by a common market like DUST. And there would certainly be the equivalent of orbital bombardment when industrial corps clash over territory (probably barge and POS bombing). But likely only occasional interest after the initial introductory thrill.
Aurora SunBelle wrote:DG Athonille wrote:Samsara Nolte wrote:Well - considering your chart Cataclysmic Variables are disliked second to only Black Hole and your idea to fix that is keep it exactly the same except for a nerf on the one attribute you shouldn-¦t have touched "Remote Capacitor Transmitter amount" the sole reason for the few who are living in there is that their carriers are pretty good inside - and after this change everybody living inside in one is pretty much flying them out, well except the ones needed in higher class holes for escalations.
No matter how hard i try to find any reason at all, that someone not already living in a cataclysmic is wanna live in one now, im unable to - without any exaggeration i think you just created the new "Black Hole" Agreed - the new cata bonuses and debuffs make no sense as proposed. The existing debuff pushes fleets towards remote rep versus local rep (and the implications for dreads vs carriers), and now you propose adding another debuff that would hamstring sustained remote rep? How is this promoting content creation, other than making our residents in cata systems easy prey? How does the proposed changes balance cata systems? They were already mostly disliked, but usable for remote rep fleets. Nerfing remote rep fleets just makes them completely disliked IMO. Overall these changes smack of promoting full time PvP gameplay and offer nothing to individuals or groups that are PvE-centric. While the intro went to great lengths to paint a picture of not forcing players out of j-space, I think that is exactly what will occur for those individuals and corps that prefer a PvE-centric game play and selected specific WH systems to settle and operate in that fashion. Yes, PvP is *always* a possibility, however, making the system largely untenable except for large corporations and large fleets will push small corporations out IMO. This is how I feel. My group is more PVE-centric. We aren't looking for fights but some of us will engage if provoked. But largely we just want to be left alone. It really takes away the fun for a lot of newer players to build something and then have it smashed right off the bat because... "pvp is the best thing ever lets go smash some new players stuff!" mentality. It really seems that this is what CCP is promoting now with these changes. I am concerned that as a PVE-player I will be reduced to hi-sec play only unless I somehow join a large alliance and want to continuous fight instead of actually playing industry. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |