|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
805
|
Posted - 2017.05.30 19:41:43 -
[1] - Quote
Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs.
Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
805
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 06:04:41 -
[2] - Quote
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:Novor Drethan wrote:Eustise wrote:Capqu wrote:damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are. It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification. We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification? From what numbers I can fudge together, some of the DPS numbers are awfully close to a Black ops battleship but with the proposed T3D resist profile I suspect the tank will be significantly less than a Black ops. The Loki is still rather anemic DPS wise compared to the rest. With the covert ops cloaking ability on the defensive subsystem CCP is going to have a difficult time balancing DPS numbers of cloaky T3Cs while trying to not nerf the DPS numbers to the point that its not viable in other uses. Maybe if the cloaking sub removed a turret/launcher and a high slot when equipped the DPS numbers could be brought down to a bit more reasonable numbers. High slot is needed for cloak+probes. Cloaky hunters. Frankly it will be glass cannons (and not very big cannons) with current bonuses.
1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. 2. How much cargo space on those? 3. Subsystems bay maybe? 4. How harsh nullification debuffs will be? (I'm happy with not removing option to covop+nullification)
I'm playing with Tengu combinations and it took to me to a strange places I never been before, started to check my fleet support skills for fleet bursts...
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
805
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 06:31:40 -
[3] - Quote
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:I was suggesting removing 1 launcher/turret and high slot. For example, the Proteus would have 7 high slots/5 turrets on its primary weapons sub instead of 8 high slots/6 turrets. I know this isn't a perfect solution as the Proteus also has a drone sub and dropping a turret would be less of a nerf. It would be direct nerf to tank and dps on cloaky hunters T3C.
I got another one: should covert+nullfied setups carry cyno? Maybe nullifing should remove ability to carry one?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
805
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:59:30 -
[4] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. If you buy a HIC, you're stuck with a HIC. You can't change it into a HAC or logi. But you can change the role of your T3C, so it should have a hefty premium in terms of cost. Think about it: it's cheaper to buy a specialized tool than it is to buy an all-in-one tool. Quote:Honestly if you are going to be caught by cloaky nullified T3Cs then you would also likely be caught by sub 2 second warp suicide cyno interceptors and I don't hear anyone calling for them to be removed. Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups. T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling.
We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
805
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:30:43 -
[5] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf. SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher. SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet. The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway. I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle.
We don't really now for sure how capable will be the hulls after rebalance so already annoucing cost increase is a bit premature. They are super op now they will be nerfed and more expensive after? SP loss is not connected to player in-game age. We have injectors now. It doesn't matter if player can or not afford it.
Every rebalance done to them is from pvp fleet perspective not explorers, blops etc. So having a nullifing will also bring nerfs if used. So:
Novor Drethan wrote:Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups.
T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling. May happen for solo, but nodoby will use stabs in fleet combat or any pvp.
We need more data, sigularity release would be good to play with fits.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 15:54:23 -
[6] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Noxisia Arkana wrote:Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.
And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. Both Astero and Stratios are able to fulfill their roles in exploration without interdiction nullification. There's no reason T3Cs need it for a similar role. If we're talking about using T3Cs to drop covert cynos on targets for Blops bridges, I'm still not a fan. I can see why people would want to keep that functionality for T3Cs, but there's simply too little risk involved for the potential reward. Covert Ops and Recon Ships are all expected to move through space without interdiction nullification. Surely there must be balance reasons for that, so I don't see why T3Cs should be exempt. Perhaps one of the developers could chime in and explain why no other ships in the game (save for Interceptors) were given interdiction nullification. I would love to have it on my Panther or Deimos, honestly. So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 16:27:04 -
[7] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway. I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There should be a loss of offensive capabilities and the ability to fit or light cynos. The latter of which will make people riot, of course. I imagine people are already looking for me in-game or writing up death threats for simply putting it out there as a suggestion. We already have a ship that can fit covert cloaks and has bonuses for cynosural fields: Force Recons. They aren't being used for that because T3Cs do a much better job and, again, they don't have interdiction nullification. So I'm curious as to why CCP thought those T2 hulls didn't deserve interdiction nullification while T3Cs do. Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 17:10:37 -
[8] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles. Why should it take more to counter T3Cs when they're providing the role of Force Recons than it takes to counter Force Recons? Or the Stratios, a hull that's primarily for exploration? If T3Cs can do a better job at exploration than an SoE ship, for what reason would you use that SoE ship? And no, cost is not a acceptable answer. You're paying more for T3Cs because they can change their roles. They can be a Stratios one day, a Command Ship the next, and a HAC the day after. If you wanted to do that without a T3C, you'd need to buy 3 different hulls, so T3Cs will always be the better options -- regardless of cost. That's why it can't be used for balance, and T3Cs instead need to be kept away from the roles that existing ships provide. If T3Cs can fit a covert cloak and bonuses to EWAR, they will always be better options than Recon Ships because of 1. interdiction nullification and 2. the fact that they can swap roles at a later date. It's cheaper to buy a Proteus and a few extra subsystems than it is to buy a Deimos, a Lachesis, and an Astarte. Your own words:
Novor Drethan wrote:T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. + SP loss. You already answer your own question. T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts. BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 18:12:54 -
[9] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Your own words: Novor Drethan wrote:T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. + SP loss. You already answer your own question. T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts. BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist. They won't be worse than their counterparts because they'll have abilities their counterparts don't have. T2 ships are balanced for a specific role. T3Cs can provide that role without sacrificing the same things that T2 ships have to. T3Cs should be expensive because they are multiple hulls in one. They can swap roles whenever necessary, unlike T2 ships. That is why they should cost a premium. It does not mean that they should be on par with T2 ships in the roles that T2 ships provide. Recon Ships provide greater range for EWAR than T3Cs, but they lack the same level of tank and a dead Recon Ship is a useless Recon Ship. The same goes for logi, especially now that they'll be providing boosts. The same goes for Force Recons in particular. What is the point in having a role bonus for cynosural fields and covert cloaks if T3Cs are used instead for that role because of interdiction nullification? Instead of being used for the role bonus that Force Recon provide, they're used for EWAR -- but again, not nearly as effective as T3C with how squishy they are in comparison. I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel. Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 20:16:20 -
[10] - Quote
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:[quote=Novor Drethan][quote=Jeremiah Saken]Your own words:
I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel. Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them. I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive. Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm. My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems. To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem. I don't know where they'll land but my tengu is already 1,2 bil a pop (fits+one subsystem for a change+ SP loss and it's not bling fit). Fozzie suggested they should be more expensive and removing SP loss will not occur. So w will have a hull that is more expensive than marauder.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 07:12:53 -
[11] - Quote
Can we have maximum targets locked increased to 7? Even destroyers have more.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
806
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 11:40:39 -
[12] - Quote
Is tractor beam range/velocity on covop really that usefull? Maybe it could be switch for 10%/level hacking module range?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
807
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 14:54:01 -
[13] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Harvey James wrote:tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus.. Interesting point on the kinetic lock and versatility. I suspect that a lot of folks would gladly trade some raw kinetic DPS for lower-but-any-damage-type DPS, and this would be in line with the whole notion of T3 flexibility. I know I would. Whole versatility with missiles is a lie. The most versatile weapon system are drones.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
808
|
Posted - 2017.06.02 16:12:41 -
[14] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded? Fozzie admited it's all about SP sinks and extractors market.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
808
|
Posted - 2017.06.03 12:19:37 -
[15] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye.
Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead. Sure conspiracy here you go with Fozzman thoughts about it.
Quote:Another is that SP sinks are something we consider valuable for a game like EVE. This was true before injectors and continues to be true after them. SP is our main form of progression and it's always a concern from our side that we won't be able to keep up with providing new things for people to do with it as fast as they gain it. Having a cost like this helps provide an outlet for SP from the entire ecosystem. Healthy market means more money for CCP. Why only T3C? Why not T3D or even interceptors to keep market healthy?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
808
|
Posted - 2017.06.04 10:20:01 -
[16] - Quote
Tengu has no bonus to RLML?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
812
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 13:57:49 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Please stop commenting about exploration or any PvE stuff. You have no idea how to catch explorers (hint: it's not on the gate, Rise even gave you d-scan immune ships for that). Covops and nullification will be hard nerfed I presume to the point single handed gate camp will have the chance to catch it.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
812
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 20:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp. In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons. As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones.
On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
812
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 05:45:43 -
[19] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way.
God, where to start? Neither covert cloak nor nullification is required for exploration. Those subsystems are not needed to do exploration sites. It is required for travel. Some content will be harder and will propablly need to change configuration in order to be done, like ghost sites or sleeper caches, and it is a good thing. Covert cloak is remedy for insta locking ships, nullification for non targeted interdiction, with current drawbacks that configuration will not be like walk in the park as currently is. T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities.
baltec1 wrote:This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops). Transport good? Less safe after nerf. Offensive cynos? Because nullified ceptors can't carry them...Hunt ratters? You serious? Obscene amount of ISK in null, carrier ratting in dead end pipes hidden behind mobile bubbles. Make "dirty gate" at pipe starting system and your covert only cyno carrier is useless. Run escalation safe? Yeah, they don't be caught while traveling but they will be on site. This is valid tactics in low and just because F1 monkeys in null don't know how to use combat probes and lachesis doesn't mean those hulls will be super safe.
baltec1 wrote:It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences. Just because we nerf proteus beyond the deimos doesn't mean the deimos will start to be usefull after. Covert+nullifing combo has very harsh drawbacks so I don't think recons will be overshadowed because T3Cs can nullifiy bubbles.
I have so concerns about cynos, if covert+nullified combo is too strong: 1) should nullified interdiction hull carry them? (both T3C and ceptors) 2) why not covert hulls only? 3) covert cyno reserved to recons only?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
813
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 05:59:29 -
[20] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them. Oh but they will be soon. Honestly I didn't know they are so dirt cheap right now. I bought mine 150 for hull, 50 mil for subs.
baltec1 wrote:See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered. but everybody want to see SP loss go, no matter if they want the hulls overpowered or not. The idea of delaying high skill usage of them sailed away with SP injectors.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
821
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 09:54:41 -
[21] - Quote
I have a little concern about covert+nullify combo tank. Last night I was flying trough goons space and encountered 3 smartbombing BSs. They instantely hit me with more than 2k dmg, with current ehp (10k shield, lowest resist is 50%) it was not so much but after the rebalance overall ehp will be a lot less. Leaning toward active tanking doesn't help much with such encounters and having something as lazy as "lets bring 5 BS and smart bomb everyone who want to enter the pipe" doesn't seems to fall with "risk vs reward" null needs to be.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
823
|
Posted - 2017.06.18 12:55:12 -
[22] - Quote
Align time is too high. From instawarping to BS align time?
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
824
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 19:08:33 -
[23] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:BESTER bm wrote:
You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this.
They nerfed ships worth 120 billion out of anomaly ratting (tacking titan nerfs). Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed. For the love of pod please stop teaching pvers how to do pve content. Nobody here teaching you how to fit your Mega. You don't even know what drops are from those sites. Sleeper sites are made to be high end content, I guess superior sites scaled to be done in BS hull. Guess what, nobody will do exploration in BS hull because they are non mobile after warp changes, and mobility is the number one for any explorer. Powerfull combo cloak+nulli should be nerfed but not by the cost of explorers.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
824
|
Posted - 2017.06.21 21:01:25 -
[24] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one. we already have dedicated faction cruiser that won't do superior sleeper site. You don't get one thing. It's reverse case carriers+anomalys. Carriers were buffed so players started to farm anomalies with them. CCP didn't predict that. Now they nerfed hulls via pve (sic!). Now it will be reverse. T3C will be nerfed and there is no hull that can replace them in content they are currently usable. If you think they will suddenly magically conjure T2 exploration hulls then you are wrong. Explorers asking for changing data sites content for years. ZERO response from CCP. Stale, unecessary sites, you may delete it, nobody will notice.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
827
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 05:45:22 -
[25] - Quote
Feka wrote:BESTER bm wrote: That is what will likely happen yes. While I can fit and use a Tengu to run these sites with acceptable risk, where the risk mostly consists of me being careless or greedy, Fitting any available exploration ship to have a chance will become a huge risk even in case of getting unlucky on a hack and triggering a defense. Let alone I will no longer have the option to use the site defense to actually protect myself.
Stratios is not even close to being able to run these sites and will need to leave at the first sign of an unlucky turn or mishap.
High-end sites should be high risk. sure, but we need a viable hull to even start doing them. Merging analyzers bonus into covert cloak sub leave us no choice. We can't do them because of weak tank and we can't drop covert sub because of analyzers bonuses. Maybe move analzyers bonus into hull like probes fitting bonus? Nestor is not an option and exploration is solo activity.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
827
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 07:42:53 -
[26] - Quote
Feka wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote: sure, but we need a viable hull to even start doing them. Merging analyzers bonus into covert cloak sub leave us no choice. We can't do them because of weak tank and we can't drop covert sub because of analyzers bonuses. Maybe move analzyers bonus into hull like probes fitting bonus? Nestor is not an option and exploration is solo activity.
Why should it be solo on all difficulty levels? Because those are rare so it's unpredictable when they'll spawn. Not to mention there is no such thing as group exploration.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
828
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 13:54:19 -
[27] - Quote
Tried Tengu on SiSi. It's worse than Stratios currently, far worse. No point of using it as exploration vessel at current state. For data/relics site in null ceptor exploration will be better and cheaper. For anything less - Stratios. I really don't care how much high slots I have on it. Tank is laughable, not enough utility slots, stupid amount of useless highslots ( for cloaky hunters sure, but othewise meh). It that is generalisation then good luck - useless overpriced hull. CCP has good idea to release them in summer when ppl are on vacations, s***storm will hit with far less damage.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
828
|
Posted - 2017.06.22 16:00:28 -
[28] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Where is iconic Tengu beak? The current obfuscation manifold? I always thought it looks dumb. And this is exactly why we were supposed to vote! Not a big deal really, show the pictures of the current art labeled with letters, then ask people to order them from favorite to least favorite. The one that most people dislikes gets dropped. Personally I'm more interested in the Proteus: why keep the capacitor regeneration matrix instead of the power core multiplier? I don't like visual changes at all. The look should be decided by a player flying T3C not by arbitrary subsystem bonus. It would make sense from a hull personalization perspective.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
828
|
Posted - 2017.06.23 06:06:02 -
[29] - Quote
Thomas Lot wrote:So a Cloaky T3C will still be able to pass a 30-ship insta-lock gate camp untouched, drop a covert cyno, cloak back up, and laugh at how over-powered the mechanic still is.
Pathetic.
No they won't. They align like carriers.
Mergin analyzers bonus into covert sub was a mistake. Now we get same combo (covert+nulification) for two types of ships, recons and exploration hulls. They can't buff the tank here because it will cause overpowered recons but current tank is not sufficient for exploration needs.
Slots layouts are mess, tried to fit a loki and proteus for non combat exploration, there just simply not enough mids.
Creating pure exploration T2 is futile because we already have faction Stratios that is no go. Not to mention Nestor which is viable only for WHs repping and exploration bonuses are just SoE ships line flavour.
I think approach to slots distribution is another mistake, there should be strict slot layout changed by subsystem roles (-1 here, +1 there if necessary). Otherwise balancing this will be a nightmare.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
829
|
Posted - 2017.07.01 14:12:21 -
[30] - Quote
Fozzie asking for feedback with visuals when there are already SKINs for them on SiSi. Legit as f***.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
|
|
|
|