Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 22:14:00 -
[481]
Regarding the changes to Caldari rail platforms: will the Vulture be changed along with the Ferrox? -- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services
At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today! |
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar KULT Production Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 01:26:00 -
[482]
Edited by: El''essar Viocragh on 07/02/2008 01:26:47 At least create a script "fallof range disruption" for tracking disruptors if this has to be done. And leave out the "falloff range" script for the tracking comps.
We are Minmatar, we are used to getting the shaft. Increased powergrid usage, permanent rig installation as a counter, we'll deal with it.
But the script you have on Sisi right now is plain simple: an active med slot ew module that affects two stats at once and works versus longrange and shortrange enemies. Effectively, it is the thing you wanted to get rid of. The reason scripts were introduced.
Hipocrisy ftl -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 02:30:00 -
[483]
Originally by: El'essar Viocragh
But the script you have on Sisi right now is plain simple: an active med slot ew module that affects two stats at once and works versus longrange and shortrange enemies. Effectively, it is the thing you wanted to get rid of. The reason scripts were introduced.
Hipocrisy ftl
But TDs are pretty awful, they deserve to have opti+fall off on same script or they will be quite ineffective against blasters for example. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Clearspace Operations Carpe Diem.
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 03:12:00 -
[484]
Originally by: A Sinner Hi, I am a gallente pilot and I like to pvp, especially in t2 cruisers cause of the agility factor. I used to like piloting recon ships for obvious reasons, but yesterday my Arazu was killed by a raven from 54km away, while I had 3 sensor damps t2 with efficiency rig aggroing him. Compared to the pilgrim or falcon, that's unacceptable. Damps needed nerfing but not when fitted to recon ships or eas. Those ships are useless now, besides the scramble range bonus which is not enough. So either lower the bulding requirements drastically or increase their bonus so Gallente pilots would fly them again. And like that wasn't enough, now you are nerfing the deimos, and ripping us of one more t2 cruiser option, making it unable to fit a proper tank. Take a high slot instead but leave the lows as they are, or people will stop flying that also. In conclusion , the only t2 cruisers that can pvp for gallente are : Ishtar and Phobos (Since Oneiros is not for shooting stuff). How is this even ?
Was he sensor boosted? If so you died for a reason. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit. |
Crux Australis
MotorSaikol LadrUNZ G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 09:58:00 -
[485]
Edited by: Crux Australis on 07/02/2008 10:03:23 I didn't read any of the replies so this will have been already discussed, but I felt like it was my duty to come here and say that my autocannons (already almost always working on the edge of falloff) can't see the day in which the enhanced tracking disruptors will get on sisi.
Owell, at least I'll be able to fit a tracking computer/enhancer and help them out someway... oshiiiiii...
Oh and:
Quote: 7.5% bonus to large energy turret optimal range per Amarr Battleship level
Lol.
Originally by: Mynas Atoch
The contract with BOB over Period Basis served us no further, so we tore it up and binned it.
|
Forced Evil
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 10:12:00 -
[486]
quote=A Sinner]Hi, I am a gallente pilot and I like to pvp, especially in t2 cruisers cause of the agility factor. I used to like piloting recon ships for obvious reasons, but yesterday my Arazu was killed by a raven from 54km away, while I had 3 sensor damps t2 with efficiency rig aggroing him. Compared to the pilgrim or falcon, that's unacceptable. Damps needed nerfing but not when fitted to recon ships or eas. Those ships are useless now, besides the scramble range bonus which is not enough. So either lower the bulding requirements drastically or increase their bonus so Gallente pilots would fly them again. And like that wasn't enough, now you are nerfing the deimos, and ripping us of one more t2 cruiser option, making it unable to fit a proper tank. Take a high slot instead but leave the lows as they are, or people will stop flying that also. In conclusion , the only t2 cruisers that can pvp for gallente are : Ishtar and Phobos (Since Oneiros is not for shooting stuff). How is this even ?
There can be some reason that u was killed......but all because u failed and not the RSD on your ship. Let see a bit calculations:
Raven with 2 SB with range scripts and maxed skills put the locking range of the raven around 228km If u have 3 RSD with range scripts on your ship with max skills, without rigs or implants that put the locking range on the raven down to 45km.
So if u was fitted like this there are some reasons u failed: a. U have very poor skills b. The raven had more than 3 SB or was remote SB c. U dont had scripts or was the wrong ones loaded d. He used f.o.f. cruise missiles
Feel free to choose one of the above listed possibilities
|
rgreat
Gallente OEG Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 13:00:00 -
[487]
Edited by: rgreat on 07/02/2008 13:01:45
Originally by: Forced Evil a. U have very poor skills b. The raven had more than 3 SB or was remote SB c. U dont had scripts or was the wrong ones loaded d. He used f.o.f. cruise missiles
Feel free to choose one of the above listed possibilities
Either way damps are quite uselless now compared to other EW. I do not even use them on arazu anymore. ;) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Coda Forstak
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 13:02:00 -
[488]
Any thoughts on the Navy Apoc?
Maybe I missed the answer, I'll check again...
|
Rooster
Amarr Organized Combat Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 18:17:00 -
[489]
Devs, you are only looking at PULSE laser fits! Amarr do have Small and Medium BEAM Lasers... if you don't balance the PG/CPU reqs for Beams, then why have them in teh game at all??! We can't fit beams, and your solution is always to "fit focused PULSE lasers"... W-T-F??
You want Amarr HACs to be short ranged I see... Sac has Hvy Assault Missiles, and you want Zealot to use focused Pulses... what about medium range? We can't even fit a 5-beam Zealot with NO tank.
Seriously, look at Beams... are they just for hangar decorations or what?
|
Aram Thracius
Amarr Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 21:47:00 -
[490]
Omen needs some extra pg/cpu to fit the 5th gun and have it work like a cruiser ------------------------------ We are all doomed! |
|
Tara'Quoya Rax
Black-Sun
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 22:26:00 -
[491]
Any known date when we can expect these changes to hit TQ?
|
Zadren Radek
Dark Synergy Operations
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 22:32:00 -
[492]
Originally by: CCP Fendahl Edited by: CCP Fendahl on 05/02/2008 20:14:26 Thanks for the feedback so far. A couple of comments:
As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. If the change is still remains unpopular after proper testing (not just in EFT ), it's not unlikely that we might decide to revert it. We are looking into seeding both versions of the Deimos so you have a better frame of reference.
Sorry chap, but the changes to the Deimos fall short of both what you were expecting and what we were hoping for - and yes I have tested it.
You want it to have a better tank. 'Winner!' us Deimos pilots think.
So you take away a low slot.
This is to allow us to fit a cap booster by giving us a fourth mid slot. 'Bonus!' us Deimos pilots think.
Unfortunately, you need 2 powergrid rigs fitted to allow us to use the weapon that makes it 'the most damaging of all the HACs (sic)' AND fit the intended cap booster. I have extremely good fitting skills, by the way.
Also, the capacitor amount boost does not quite cover the cap lost by losing the MWD bonus.
Really, the Deimos was 'do-able' as it was and extremely potent in the hand of an accomplished pilot.
This is a horrid nerf, not the intended buff. If you want to buff it for us to give it a 'fighting chance', do the following:
Remove the useless utility high slot. Add the aforementioned fourth mid. Increase the grid slightly so we don't get crippled by using a booster.
Apart from that, leave it alone.
As these changes stand, it looks like an extremely expensive Brutix (and a slightly crappier one, at that!)
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 00:46:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Tara'Quoya Rax Any known date when we can expect these changes to hit TQ?
Ohhh Id like to know this aswell. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 08:27:00 -
[494]
Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 08/02/2008 08:32:46 Sorry for popping up here again, I intended not to, but this is just too funny :-)
2x TD II on an unbonused(!) ship with skills at 4, no rigs, bring an Abaddon with MPL IIs and radios down from 68km down to 20.43km optimal+2x falloff. Or 14.21km if you use, say, an Arbitrator. Cool.
I think I'm going to tell our Gallente recon pilots to fit TDs now. They had a few mids free after the recent changes.
Ah. But TDs don't affect missiles - don't be mean, Caldari can't handle this much love. Can we have them affect missile flight time, please? And missile speed as well, if TDs also affect falloff? If a reason is needed, they surely disrupt the tracking of the missiles or the missile launching computers etc.
Or, on a more serious note, I again suggest reducing their effectiveness (and compensate by increasing Amarr specialist ship's bonuses).
|
Aram Thracius
Amarr Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 09:00:00 -
[495]
Originally by: Zulupark The more midslots argument doesn't have any one answer. The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of gold. While the Minmatar are versatile and the Caldari do electronic warfare the Amarr simply sit there and charge their lasers, secure in their knowledge that God is on their side.
well, they can't gank like gallente, or tank like the shield tankers, what are the amarr advantages again ? ------------------------------ We are all doomed! |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 12:50:00 -
[496]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Or, on a more serious note, I again suggest reducing their effectiveness (and compensate by increasing Amarr specialist ship's bonuses).
THIS! It really needs to be done and has been mentioned several times and its not only amarr that is concerned about it but also alot of our slave friends.
|
Z3r0n
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 14:47:00 -
[497]
I havn't read many of the responses but I feel it's my duty to come here and whine about you gimping my favorite HAC (the deimos).
Quote: Since most deimoses are passivly tanked, you have actaully reduced the tanking ability of deimoses. Since active tanked deimoses just lost a low slot, you have reduced their tank as well
I mean really, the deimos doesnt tank as well so you remove a low slot?
I agree... this is one of the most idiotic things i've heard in a long time. Please have someone that playes EVE monitor the "balancing" department... with a whip! This is simply terrible imo!
Currently Training: ePeen Compensation Rank (19) |
Kendolph
Caldari Bulgarian Mafia Squad
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 15:52:00 -
[498]
Quote: The additional turret on the Raptor allows it to instantly project damage at long ranges (for a frigate). Given its role as a tackler interceptor it can also warp scramble at those ranges, which makes for a very effective combination. It's better to decrease the power output a bit now and ease up a bit on the power output at a later stage if needed, rather than risking to introduce a Pod'o'matic Interceptotron of Doom.
HAhahahahHhahahahahahahaHAhahAHahAHhahAHAhahhaHAhHAhahahahaHAahhahahahahahahaa
Please don't make me die laughing with statements like that because I can sue You for attempted murder :). I actually can't say much more than the guys already said. You talking about inty sniper - Say WHAT ? Have you played the game at all ? And even if it's a sniper (hahahahaha no please no more) why not ? It's the slowest and useless inty in the game why not at least be some kind of useless inty sniper :) . Somebody can find some use for that ... probably ... someday ... somewhere. And to lower PG on that currently almost impossible to fit ship. Man I'm speechless, because I only can say some insult and I don't want too ;)
|
Sparta
Honour Bound
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 21:26:00 -
[499]
Originally by: CCP Fendahl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by: CCP Fendahl on 05/02/2008 20:14:26 Thanks for the feedback so far. A couple of comments:
As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. If the change is still remains unpopular after proper testing (not just in EFT ), it's not unlikely that we might decide to revert it. We are looking into seeding both versions of the Deimos so you have a better frame of reference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OMG at least play the Deimos before trying to "boost" it. You got to be making a joke--right? Please do not change the Deimos unless you are giving it more power grid.
|
Almarez
Setenta Corp INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 03:06:00 -
[500]
Originally by: Kynes Harkonnen And adding more turrets to amarr ships... Need to boost their base cap aswell to run them?
Couldn't agree more. It is quite difficult to run the 4 turrets as is, running a 5th is going to be damn near impossible.
If the Amarr are a colony of ants then CCP is that mean kid with the magnifying glass trying to set the ants on fire. |
|
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 04:51:00 -
[501]
Edited by: Reiisha on 09/02/2008 04:51:34 My take on this, real quick.
Omen and Zealot can't actually use the 5th turret slot due to fitting. Any kind of close range setup also needs additional modules to make sure they can actually get into close range, and keep other ships there - This means fitting an AB/MWD and/or a webber/scrambler. This is a huge drain on the cap reserves due to the missing mid slots, and the 5th slot with no other changes means you want those ships to be even more cap unstable due to the increased cap use.
Medium-Long range on these ships is impossible from the get-go, due to the aforementioned fitting problems. You should not need powergrid and cpu enhancing modules to fit a ship as it's designed to be fitted (see Vargur).
All in all, this is a very poorly considered change on this 2 ships. If anything at all, they need a small CPU and a moderate PG increase.
The Apocalypse has the same issues. The ship is not a sniper - Amarr ships are not designed to be snipers. Suddenly having a single ship in it's entire fleet that can shoot a bit further is very strange, and completely ignores the entire Amarr design philosophy by not giving it bonusses geared to Amarr combat. It just feels wrong. A bonus to tanking or damage would be more appropriate.
The Deimos change is another big mistake. First of all, the 6th high slot should be replaced with a mid slot, and all 6 low slots should stay. The 6th high never gets used simple due to PG issues, even when using a passive tank. Why are you trying to force it into having even more fitting problems, and removing a low slot that would help with that problem? The ship is now the worse for it, as it can neither of its roles effectively anymore due to cap and fitting problems. But assuming people use an active (sustained) tank for PvP is already a very strange assumption. One might think that the devs have absolutely no idea how their own game works, and you can already tell that questionsmarks are being placed as to why this particular dev is in charge of balancing.
The Moa and Eagle changes are actually quite good, but they still need more PG to (barely) support 250mm railguns. IT is a trange assumption that the top-end guns are in the game just so they don't actually get used. Again, the questionmarks.
Even though i have never flown a Raptor before, i can already tell this is by far the biggest mistake made in the entire blog. An extra turret slot, while removing PG? What kind of drugs were you on, because i want some of that stuff. It goes without saying where it went wrong here. And again, the questionmarks.
EVE History Wiki
|
Amaldor Themodius
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 06:05:00 -
[502]
Edited by: Amaldor Themodius on 09/02/2008 06:06:43 Edited by: Amaldor Themodius on 09/02/2008 06:05:46 I dont like the proposed changes.. but like usual CCP doesnt really take the input of its customers seriously.. These adjustments are another step towards mnaking all ships the same for all races.. I like a rich game environment where some races ships are say better tankers, and another races ships are better damage dealers, and the richness of having specific racial weaknesses and strengths.. these factors make the game tactical and strategic..
We have seen in recent nerf a thons damage dealing combat modules like damps and nos and others have been sidelined to a degree now we see the ships begining to become homogenous.. Soon we will have a game where all races are equally suited to all tasks and that imho will suck.. Also with all these buffs i note the Gallentae nerf fest hasnt yet run its course of all the ships reviewed only the deimos warranted adjustment..the uberness of ythe Eris must be apparent for all to see oh yeah and the much praised brutix that i rarely ever see used in fights anymore.
CCP please send this GM back to the welfare line u pulled him from, clearly he doesnt play the game, and has no valued contribution to offer.
|
Voltaeis Gemini
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 06:07:00 -
[503]
/signed
|
Lucidia fern
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 11:20:00 -
[504]
Man if you guys spent as much time testing the changes as you did whining about them we might get some where. Theres no need for it , not many people care about what your saying the vast majority of you are bias anyways. Galente's wanting to protect their stuff from the impending nurf ect ..... so technicaly only 1/4 of you lot would enjoy the changes , the 1/4 that flys amarr. yes the changes affect all the races . go test , stop whining
|
strive nails
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 11:40:00 -
[505]
TD changes:
if there is a EW mod to decrease falloff, can we then get added falloff on tracking enhancers & computers?
let me rephrase: will it be possible to counter this at all? did you actually think this through?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 12:55:00 -
[506]
Originally by: strive nails TD changes:
if there is a EW mod to decrease falloff, can we then get added falloff on tracking enhancers & computers?
let me rephrase: will it be possible to counter this at all? did you actually think this through?
Sure if projectiles start using cap. You cant have ALL the advantages. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 14:21:00 -
[507]
A zealot with tank, mwd, web, scram and 5 Heavy Beams or 5 Heavy Pulse is perfectly fitable and viable in use. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 14:41:00 -
[508]
As for the TD changes, I have to agree with strive nails.
A tracking disruptor is the counterpart of a tracking computer. The former lowers tracking and/or optimal, the latter raises them. The addition of a 3rd factor (falloff) should be done to both modules, for the sake of balance.
Also, if such changes are made, it would be in line with their current versions to foresee another ARM script for the falloff factor.
Put simple: - If you focus on range and you face/play amarr, you load the optimal script - If you focus on range and you face/play minmatar, you load the falloff script - If you focus on range and you face/play gallente, you keep the module unloaded. - If you focus on tracking, you load the tracking script.
|
Takeshi Yamato
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 14:56:00 -
[509]
Quote: Also, if such changes are made, it would be in line with their current versions to foresee another ARM script for the falloff factor.
Disagree with that. The optimal script is supposed to reduce the range of turrets, and it does just that when it lowers optimal and falloff. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that it affects two stats of is simply because turret range derives from the combination of two stats, optimal and falloff.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 15:02:00 -
[510]
Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Disagree with that. The optimal script is supposed to reduce the range of turrets, and it does just that when it lowers optimal and falloff. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that it affects two stats of is simply because turret range derives from the combination of two stats, optimal and falloff.
You're right. Didn't think of the joint effect. But in that case the optimal script in a tracking computer must also boost falloff as well as optimal.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |