open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 : last (24)

Author Topic

Alex Shurk
Posted - 2007.11.12 01:45:00 - [631]
 

Originally by: Hmaon
If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers.


For some reason that, and just plain outright increasing the mass of haulers has never even been mentioned by the devs. No clue why, it's the first obvious solution. Stops the SMAs of carriers becoming useless, for a start.

Raketefrau
Caldari
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2007.11.12 02:04:00 - [632]
 

Right now the Rorqual and the jump freighter are so close together that I don't want to train for them, because you know that 6 months from now some CCP employee is finally going to say "we need to differentiate these ships" and start swinging the nerf bat all over again.

I trained a carrier because it WAS a hauler. Who knows what the Rorqual will be come this time next year?

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2007.11.12 07:48:00 - [633]
 

Edited by: Max Hardcase on 12/11/2007 07:49:15
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Susitna
Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51
Thanks for the updates and discussion.

Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor?

However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone

I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs.

The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat.




Being able to bubble up a 20km radius with a very very small ship should have some drawbacks don't you think? It shouldn't be a no-brainer to do in my opinion.


Laughing @ you if you think anything based on the caldari dessie is small. Its a pregnant hippo, almost cruiser sized with its 90m sig radius.

Aphotic Raven
Gallente
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.12 08:57:00 - [634]
 

In response to CCP Chronotis here:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=18#536

Things are looking interesting thats for sure.

A question I have for anyone in the know, not just a dev is in regards to invention are gallente decryptors (or whatever) used for Hulks AND the new freighters.

I ask because the people i know who get there hands on gallente R&D are pumping it into hulk production still.

This means gallente t2 combat ships seem to be bucking the price slash trend earlier and holding at a much higher price point than ships of other races.
(Zealot/Cerb vs Ishtar/deimos for instance)

Is this seen as a problem or just part of life? I think it could become problamatic once t2 freighters are the new lifeline of 0.0...

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2007.11.12 09:46:00 - [635]
 

Originally by: Aphotic Raven
In response to CCP Chronotis here:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=18#536

Things are looking interesting thats for sure.

A question I have for anyone in the know, not just a dev is in regards to invention are gallente decryptors (or whatever) used for Hulks AND the new freighters.

I ask because the people i know who get there hands on gallente R&D are pumping it into hulk production still.

This means gallente t2 combat ships seem to be bucking the price slash trend earlier and holding at a much higher price point than ships of other races.
(Zealot/Cerb vs Ishtar/deimos for instance)

Is this seen as a problem or just part of life? I think it could become problamatic once t2 freighters are the new lifeline of 0.0...



The Decryptor balancing should change that, by making each decryptor more or less worth using (at least I hope).

Feng Schui
Minmatar
Cruor Evertum Dominicus
Posted - 2007.11.12 11:45:00 - [636]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Cailais

Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!!

/me sobs Sad

C.


OK, really last reply here:

I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo.

Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets.


I wonder what type of curse you fly tbh, a nano-damp-curse (which is currently, overpowered in my eyes), or a curse that uses its actual ewar bonus instead.

there have been quite a few good threads around the pilgrim and curse, as related to the current state and future state (script + bandwidth changes). I'm sure that you could find them. however, a number of suggestions are:

-complete role change for pilgrim to make it fit the role of a cap warfare boat (75% reduction to energy emission systems capacitor use).

-5% bonus to armor

-and quite a few more that i cannot recall at the moment.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.11.12 12:59:00 - [637]
 

Originally by: Necrologic
You could also have stuff like different damage distribution across the formation, which would spark some life back into tanking setups. Using a certain formation could direct a % of damage taken to a ship set up for tanking, etc.


Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options.

The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have).

At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort.

The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang.

Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though.

Mattduk
Gallente
Universal Army
Posted - 2007.11.12 13:02:00 - [638]
 

Edited by: Mattduk on 12/11/2007 13:02:59
Originally by: I SoStoned
IMO classic idiocy, CCP.

I've read your thread of idiot rationalizations kicking your player base square in the cajones because they decide to use something 'their way'. Now you take the bat and go home because the third baseman caught your foul ball.

2.8 bil build cost for a f*ing jump freighter? Jebus, you twits, yank logistics away from every small/medium alliance (and pretty much any corp) at a single go. Just like HACs before widespread invention these damn ships will be 10 bil for a year or more, if not 20 bil or even higher.

You can introduce these super-movers and not even touch the haulage capacity of a much less expensive carriers and, in time (if you would allow it!!!) the jump freighters would eventually take over.
Forcing them down our gullets with a broken invention system is a big fat 'screw you' to your playerbase.
I'd like to see all the hate flames you're going to recieve from all the cancelled subscriptions.

And no, you can't have my stuff. It's all going to be trashed (the worthless carrier included). You'll find my main on eBay, for real world money thank you. Not that it can sell after this change, only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius.


'cajones' is spanish for 'drawers' I believe you intended to say 'c0jones'.

see how that works?

Regards
Matt

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2007.11.12 14:26:00 - [639]
 


Originally by: I SoStoned
only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius.


Idiot nub reporting in.

/salute Very Happy

Futureface01
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2007.11.12 14:51:00 - [640]
 

In my post linked in my signature, I spelled out a list of issues with the Golem. If you can take a look that'd be great. My questions to the Devs are:

1. Are marauders designed with PVE in mind?

2. Are you expecting people who fly Golems in Missions to use Cruise Missiles? (Despite the bonuses implying torpedo use)

3. Are you aware that if a mission runner uses Cruise Missiles on the Golem his DPS is less than that of a Cruise Missile fitted CNR? (More details in the thread in my Signature)

4. Have you "held back" on Marauders because of the threat of PVP'ers becoming too effective in them?


Thank you.


SiJira
Posted - 2007.11.12 15:31:00 - [641]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Necrologic
You could also have stuff like different damage distribution across the formation, which would spark some life back into tanking setups. Using a certain formation could direct a % of damage taken to a ship set up for tanking, etc.


Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options.

The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have).

At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort.

The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang.

Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though.


i support this post

Hmaon
STK Scientific
Posted - 2007.11.12 16:43:00 - [642]
 

Originally by: Alex Shurk
Originally by: Hmaon
If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers.


For some reason that, and just plain outright increasing the mass of haulers has never even been mentioned by the devs. No clue why, it's the first obvious solution. Stops the SMAs of carriers becoming useless, for a start.


Yeah, I don't know. I wonder whether it's even been considered. Confused

Der Komissar
Posted - 2007.11.12 16:49:00 - [643]
 

Edited by: Der Komissar on 12/11/2007 16:49:57
One way ticket to carebear hell, swg ne1?
Every mmog turns into carebear paradise with "fairplay" and safety. When is Eve's turn?

Vitelius
Black Nova Corp
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.12 17:04:00 - [644]
 

Edited by: Vitelius on 12/11/2007 17:06:38
Edited by: Vitelius on 12/11/2007 17:05:07
I must ask, now that the heavy dictors have the ability scram motherships and generally everything in low sec, isn't this kind of bad for the balance? I'm definitely for the idea of making moms scrammable but heavy dictors will now be the favorite tool of low sec gate campers. If they have infinite point strength they can quite happily catch everything they want and combined with the fact that it's a T2 cruiser that's doing this I imagine it can efficiently tank the sentries as well. I wouldn't mind if the ship using that infinite strength scram was a regular interdictor which can't effectively tank sentries, that would mean risk involved when using it and of course it still could be used in low sec near gates against mommy pilots with piratey tendencies as pirates are legal targets to shoot.

If you have hopes of populating low sec more, that is not really going to help. The carebears with full rack of stabs fitted won't be able to neither defend themselves with all those stabs or run away from the infinite strength scram. While one could relatively safely move goods through low sec in a blockade runner before, this won't be the case anymore. I just want to ask if you have considered the consequences of bringing "targetted bubbles" into low sec? Perhaps making the targetted mode script have a limited strength against regular targets would be a better solution?

This and making it even more difficult to haul stuff using carriers isn't really making anyone happy. Hauling becomes a painful task, even through low sec. I just cannot see the point in forcing people to train for new expensive tools, having a months long training gap to use the new tools while the old ones get nerfed and hauling is generally made more painful than ever before.

Slaatibartfast
Forty Two
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:08:00 - [645]
 

Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 12/11/2007 18:30:05
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
The SISI stats for the T2 BS are pretty much final. The Black-Ops ships are pretty expensive ships, and will probably not be used in close range combat. The agility bonus was to allow the Sin to scoop up sentry drones, and accelerate quickly to warp out.

We're probably never going to allow the Black-Ops ships to use Covert Ops cloaks, they do however get bonuses to normal cloaks. (you even go faster while cloaked)

Sad to hear that these ships aren't attractive to you, I'm really excited about both of them myself (mostly the black-ops though).



Just a few follow on questions:

1. You say the stats are pretty much final, but many people are reporting varying degrees of fitting issues with most of the t2 bs, my personal experience being that the amarr ones (the only ones i've tested yet) need more cpu and a bit more powergrid to actually be able to make use of all their slots (those utility highs being a problem). Are you guys aware of fitting issues and if so, is this intended or just a pre-nerf?

2. You say that the black ops bs won't be used in close range combat....what makes you think that exactly? The fact that long range fits typically mean less tank? The fact that they'll be cyno'ing into systems and can therefore not dictate range till they're had a chance to get out? The fact that being survivable means a decent tank, which in turns means cap injector if you want any sustainability, which to a large extent precludes the use of long range fits due to fitting issues? [Please don't counter using the sin as an example, it's unique in that its chief weapon system requires no cpu or grid, leaving lots of room for a tank, drone mods etc.]

3. A whole bonus just to be able to pick up sentry drones and warp out? Seriously? Well I guess that explains the agility bonus but man.... [also doesn't that tell you something needs to be looked at with regard to sentry drones if you need to waste an entire ship bonus just so they can be scooped without getting you killed?]

4. What value do you believe being able to fit an improved cloak (along with the bonus) has for a billion isk high mass bs? How do you see it being used? The way they tend to work is as follows: you cloak on grid with hostiles, you get de-cloaked and die; you cloak, say, 100km off a gate and wait for targets...why use a black ops? No real gain and lots of risk over a t1 bs. Or you can safespot and cloak...in this case an un-bonused proto cloak would do.

5. You say you're really excited about black ops bs, well what specifically are you excited about? Could you give some scenarios in which you plan to use them to give an advantage over taking on the same situation with conventional ships without the covert bridge? With the current limitations (here i'm chiefly referring to cargo size, bridge fuel consumption, jump fuel consumption, range, and the amount needed for each ship bridged, oh and the lack of room for ammo and boosters) I'm having a really hard time thinking of situations where the cost, hassle and risk involved actually gives an appreciable gain over the standard way of doing things.

I await your responses with baited breath.

Edit:
Saw a quote from Fendahl saying that black ops bs are designed to get specialised ships past gate camps. I'd just like to make a point: only covert ops, stealth bombers and cloaking recons can be bridged. To use the bridge you need a cyno in the target system. To get a cyno into a camped system you need to use a cloaking recon/cov ops. Only a couple of ships can realistically be bridged at a time and what you can bridge limits your capabilities once in system to scouting or trying to gank loners outside a station/in belts with bombers/black ops.

My question is why bother? Why would we put a black ops bs in harms way in this instance? You already have a recon in system for scouting, and a handful of cloaking recons would do the ganking job better with less risk.

Fire Stone
Posted - 2007.11.12 18:21:00 - [646]
 

Dev's was post #536 a mistake when it said electrical engineering?

vipeer
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.11.12 19:41:00 - [647]
 

Im a drone user so i'll say this:

There are two drone types worth training up to T2. Third one is conditional (people running CNRs doing caldari missions vs guristas can find them useful but nobody else and only T2 mediums since they cant use T2 large drones effectively.

T2 thermal drones have top damage. Speed sucks on T2 ogres but mediums and smalls pwn. Every drone user and their mom has T2 thermal drones in their drone bay

T2 explosive drones have very good damage and they excell against armor on T1 ships. They are also the fastest of them all and a batch of warrior II's in the dronebay is there to swat ceptors and dictors. Their tracking is best of all drones. All in all explosive drones are the drones of choice for me because they do serious damage and can keep up with all but fastest ships in their respective classes.

T2 kinetic drones are useful for swatting guristas rats and that's about it. T2 thermal drones have superior damage and T2 explosive drones have superior maneuvrability and speed and lay down heavy smack on armor.

T2 EMP drones are the bastard child nobody needs or wants. Their damage is crap compared to T2 ogres. Everyone is tanked by default on armor against them and be sure any shield tanker will plug the EMP resist hole with a 50% hardener so youre screwed either way. Add on top of that a crappy 1,38 base damage mod of the T2 Praetor compared to 1,92 on the T2 ogre. With the ship bonuses and drone interfacing 5 this translates into a massive difference in the damage output. T2 Praetors are quite fast but usually when drones arrive at the enemy the shield should be halfway down anyway. If it's not youre shooting a raven or the sort or doing something very wrong. T2 explosive drones have better tracking.

There is another important aspect why T2 EMP drones are such pieces of crap. They have the least amount of shield of all. Drone users will agree that when micromanaging drones you scoop them to refull their shields f they take damage. Shield is a buffer and EMP drones have smallest buffer on top of all the disadvantages already pointed out.

If you will change something Amarr you can start with drones. It's preety straightforward -> boost dmg mod by 20-25%, boost speed by 5%, boost tracking by 5%, boost shield by 50%, decrease armor by 30%. While youre at it you can also decrease thermal drone dmg output by 5% and increase their speed by 10% to compensate (they will arrive to target faster but do less damage). and boost explosive drone damage by 7-10%. This way all drones will be balanced out just like different types of missiles.

For example you dont have emp missiles do 100 dmg and fly 1000m/s with explosion radius of 50 while explosive missiles do 140 dmg and fly 1150m/s with 45 explosion radius and have the end of all thermal missiles fly do 220 dmg but only fly 900m/s and have 55 explosion radius.

As it stands T2 thermal drones are the be-all-end-all wtfbbqers.

I will write the next line in caps to clarify myself:
THIS IS NOT A WALL OF TEXT FOR NERFING THERMAL DRONES BUT A CALL TO BOOST EMP (AMARR) DRONES.

Caine Azuris
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.11.12 21:34:00 - [648]
 

Edited by: Caine Azuris on 12/11/2007 21:38:04
See what im finding funny about all this is, CCP is oh like "We want players to decide what happens in game and they control the game". But then nerf ANYTHING that isnt going the way THEY want it to go. If people want to use carriers as hualers then wtf, why not? Why do you guys feel the need to mess with what we pay 14.95 a month to do in game? I think that somehow you all have gotten the mentality that this is YOUR game and we will do what you all want us to do. Well tell you what, you can have the game ......... but what good is it going to do you with no players?

Sylper Illysten
Caldari
Ex Coelis
The Bantam Menace
Posted - 2007.11.13 00:54:00 - [649]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Sylper Illysten
So some Devs have touched on the carrier chanegs, module issues and a whole host of other topics. How about some replies to the concerns about the Marauder class of ships? The deathly silence from any Dev is getting a tad old.


I'll point Fendahl in your direction.


And the silence continues. No Dev comments in any thread regarding Marauder class ships...

Corphus
Posted - 2007.11.13 02:45:00 - [650]
 

Edited by: Corphus on 13/11/2007 03:47:51

what are the devs thoughts on the Elektronic Attack Ships and do u guys see any dangers of this lil buggers become a overused, overpriced and overpowered menace to everyone in eve?

my points are:

they are small
they are agile
they posses more than good resilence due to TII resists
they have the sensor strenght of a bs
they are by far superior to any ship EW wise
they have twice the lockrange of interceptors
they have high scan resolution thus firststrike advantage in any given situation

how will a cruiser pilot for example counter those pesky things in a 1 vs 1?
and how will someone even survive if those things start to camp 0.0 gates on mass since everyone will be able to fly em in a matter of 1 hour after skill release?

Also: Raven Torp buff
i read ur comment on the torp buff and that its finished and ready to hit tq.
i also read discussions about the torp buff and that it means that a raven now will be able to deal the same damage amount like a fully neutron fitted megathron at twice the range without sacrificing its tank like the megathron. this and the fact that ravens have superior cap recharge and dont need cap for their primary weapon.
will this mean that any other closerange bs like the pulse geddon, autotempest or blasterthron will from now on be vastly inferior to the raven tank and damage wise?

thanks for taking time for answering our concenrs.

corph

Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2007.11.13 03:23:00 - [651]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Uchuu

It's with changing ammo!

Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat?



it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get!



Do make sure that when you do this, Amarran ships don't get problems where two different guns try to load the same crystal.

And if tech 1 crystals would stack together automatically when they go to the hold, it'd rock.

thanks Razz

Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Posted - 2007.11.13 08:00:00 - [652]
 

So CCP cave in to whiners and won't do carrier nerf until 3 months after trinity? yay Rolling Eyes

They are too scared about people quitting, it seems. Rolling Eyes

Malarki X
Caldari
ANZAC ALLIANCE
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.13 08:29:00 - [653]
 

Change is good in general - but not every change is good ...

They want to make EVE more easy for wave that is coming of new player base that cant compete to veterans.

For every veteran that will just say - I have losed 2 years of my life to a game that is becoming kindergarden - they will get 10 new subscribers that dont want big MOFO ships in theire cortyard.

Total balance in any game is utopia, true. But that doesnt mean DEVS have to nerf everything that is "overpowered" just because its bigger and can be hard to kill. New players will have a harder time coming to just about any MMO that is on the market for years. That doesnt mean you have to nerf existing playerbase - that means you have to get creative in stoping US kill THEM.

Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
Posted - 2007.11.13 08:29:00 - [654]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
decryptors are still regarded as luxury items and are also tiered by rarity.


They are a luxury for modules but they are an absolute necessity for ships.

Datacores the main reason for issues at the moment isn't so much the heavy dependence on mech eng datacores, it's the fact that it's disproportional to the number of available agents in that field. Typically for anything like this, if the demand is higher, everyone can 'switch' to that field. With the agents being tougher to come by and standings issued etc it means the players aren't able to easily switch to meet the higher demand. Moving some things to fields with more easily available agents is pretty much exactly the same solution as just giving more agents the mechanical engineering field, though with slightly quicker results.

Eventually all datacores will be almost the same price, we're still seeing though some people who can't switch to other fields due to lack of agents in those fields, as well as lots of left over RP from lottery days.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.11.13 09:13:00 - [655]
 

Can I sneak in a single nudge about blockade runners, and the 'vision' for them? It's been noted that an active tanking bonus on a ship built for running away seems a little redundant...

(Oh, and the crane needs 4 powergrid, so it can fit a MWD like all the others)

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2007.11.13 09:17:00 - [656]
 

Originally by: Kuolematon
So CCP cave in to whiners and won't do carrier nerf until 3 months after trinity? yay Rolling Eyes

They are too scared about people quitting, it seems. Rolling Eyes


your not bright are you...

the dev blog was never a nerf, it was an idea and they asked what the community though, the community spoke, so CCP stated the problem and asked for other eays to fix it.

they never said anything about putting the changes into place, unlike the EOS or an assult frig or a bomber, they knew these were big ships to change, and what are you talking about there too!!!

the carrier nerf is happening! the logtsics nerf numnuts.

bloomich
Caldari
In Siders
Posted - 2007.11.13 11:49:00 - [657]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances.


While few will disagree with that statement, Omnitanks never were a problem prior to RMR.

This was because compensation skills were not a issue. When Compensation skills were introduced in RMR, they were prenerfed to effect only passive hardners and not active. Therefore it because more effective to change from active hardner setups to passive herdner setups.

My question is when is it likely that Compensation skills will be un-nerfed so that they effect all hardners and thus remove EANM issue altogether?

Midge Mo'yb
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.11.13 11:53:00 - [658]
 

Edited by: midge Mo''yb on 13/11/2007 11:53:23
as mentioned earlier in this thread i agree with just banning haulers from the maintenance bay

and can we get a seperate fuel bay - which will allow use of what little cargo hold you have?

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2007.11.13 12:02:00 - [659]
 

Originally by: bloomich
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances.


While few will disagree with that statement, Omnitanks never were a problem prior to RMR.

This was because compensation skills were not a issue. When Compensation skills were introduced in RMR, they were prenerfed to effect only passive hardners and not active. Therefore it because more effective to change from active hardner setups to passive herdner setups.

My question is when is it likely that Compensation skills will be un-nerfed so that they effect all hardners and thus remove EANM issue altogether?


It would make 64% hardeners overpowered, along with invulnerability fields. 64% hardener: 80% resist. Invul field II: 37.5% all resists. A CN Invul field II would give 47% resists to all. Estamell Invul field: 62.5% all.

The game doesn't need invulnerable Leviathans and the like. What is needed is a rethink of the base resists of every ship.

Scott Ryder
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2007.11.13 12:10:00 - [660]
 

Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Shevar
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

The raw DPS of an Absolution is similar to the Sleipnir (a quick check gave me 618,6 DPS from guns only with 2x heat sinks). The Sleipnir does 617,2 DPS (220mm Vulcan Autocannon II, 2x gyrostabilizers) The problem is the omni tank, and that's something we want to look into.


No it's not only the omni tank, if you say it's similar DPS then please consider the following as well;

-Sleip uses 0 cap for it's weapons leaving 18 cap/s at peak recharge
-Abso uses 13 cap/s for it's weapons leaving only 5 cap/s at peak recharge

Does this seem to be similar cap left to tank/ew as the sleip? If not then why would it be "fair" to have comparable DPS?

Yes omni tanks ARE part of the problem (actually the real problem is innate resitances, it's that shield tanks aren't popular otherwise minmatar would have similar issues (but then again they can just use another ammo type)). One solution would be to nerf omni tanks but really an easier solution would be to increase DPS of lasers.

But this wouldn't change the fact that amarr laser ships have significantly less cap/s to use then the other ships with absolutely 0 advantages.


I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances.



That looks to be the solution, Nerf the amarr tanks!

A harbinger
7 heavy modulated beam (Equal to t2 heavy beam lasers, but less fitting and costs more) G or M Crystals
Cap booster, Webber and disruptor
2x t2 Energized adaptive nano membranes
2x t2 active hardeners
T2 medium armor rep
Last low is Rcu or Heatsink

Rigs: T1 grid rig. 2x t1 cap recharger rigs. I fit 2 cap recharger rigs on almost any amarr ship to compansate for the fact that it is amarr.
Buildcost 130 million isk?

VS


A drake, the caldari battlecruiser equal to the harbinger.
A passive tanked drake rigged, fitted a large shield and some t1 missile launchers.



Who do win?
The drake as my dps is lower then his passive recharge rate peak, not to mention his 30000 shields or something. But yea i see the problem with the amarr tankRolling Eyes


Pages: first : previous : ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 : last (24)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only