These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Possible Winter 2011 changes (Exact stats)

First post First post
Author
Shtu Lix
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#261 - 2011-10-26 10:45:24 UTC
Blasters need a damage boost. Also check the hybrid ammo: currently is not worth it to use anything than AM and long range T2. Blaster ships could receive a MWD speed bonus too.


Another way for CCP to change Gallente would be to made "hull tanking" a viable option for more variation. Rather than having a speed penalty (armor), the ships would have an agility penalty (hull). Slap some resistance bonus on the hulls of gallente ships, mess a little bit with all the hull related modules and you have something different. It would mess with the fleet combat, but as it seems right now, hybrid ships are not good for that anyway.
------------------------------
CCP Spitfire
C C P
C C P Alliance
#262 - 2011-10-26 10:49:29 UTC
pussnheels wrote:
While i understand most of you are excited about those new changes would't it be prudent just to wait till the definite stats and other changes are in a dev blog , Othererwise alot of you will be very dissapointed when CCPdecides to change some numbers at the last moment


This would be a very sensible approach, yes. Smile We will be releasing more information on all those changes in the coming days or weeks before they arrive on the Singularity test server.

CCP Spitfire | Marketing & Sales Team @ccp_spitfire

Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#263 - 2011-10-26 10:51:53 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
This winter is going to be so ******* awesome.


Here's to hoping
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2011-10-26 10:52:31 UTC
To fix gallante ships just lower the base mass of the ship, then adding the armor plates has less of an effect.
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2011-10-26 10:58:07 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
I don't know if you've played this game, but there is RARELY a fleet of identical ships fit identically vs 50 of another. It's an impractical and unrealistic hypothetical.

Check in on ships and modules sometime. A 1v1 scenario never works (nor for that matter a 50v50 or 100v100), the fact you're going to say that it does is evidence of your ineptitude.

The game is more complex than that. We're writing off web bonus' based on another ship having falloff, somehow concluding that ship A having less dps than ship B makes ship A better?!?

The argument is asinine at worst, uneducated and completely inapplicable to any in-game scenario at best.


Inability to argue without turning nasty is a sign of your own ineptitude at debate.

Of course fleets are rarely make of a single ship type. And your point is? The Tornado and Talos have both the same roles, are both of the same classes, and will have almost equal building costs. So of course you should compare them. Refusing to do so on the grounds that other ships in the gang can interfere is like claiming that Dramiels weren't better than Comets because Rapiers exist.

You speak of writing off the Talos web bonus and speaking only about dps, yet you conveniently ignore things like range, EHP and speed (and a gallente BC with a 1600 plate isn't likely to go anywhere close to an unplated minmatar BC, if the minnie pilot isn't an idiot).

It come down to this: Can you even give a reason to choose a Talos over a Tornado for a fleet fight? There is none, for the same reason that current BC fleets are heavy on hurricanes and rarely contain a signifiant amount of harbingers.
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#266 - 2011-10-26 10:59:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
CCP Soundwave wrote:
This winter is going to be so ******* awesome.


For once its something other than words. Even hinting that these plans are real might make me resub my other account.

El'Niaga wrote:
To fix gallante ships just lower the base mass of the ship, then adding the armor plates has less of an effect.


This is what I have thought about too, although I would rather have gallente ships have some kind of bonus where fitting armor plates causes less mass increase to gallente than in other races ships. Otherwise people will just start fitting gallente ships with shield and be doubly fast.

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
Lost Obsession
#267 - 2011-10-26 11:00:03 UTC
Looks good, T2 ganglinks look nice, will this coincide with a need for ganglinks to be on grid?

Either loki alts just got awesome or its time to unsub them
Embrace My Hate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#268 - 2011-10-26 11:00:10 UTC
Shtu Lix wrote:
Blasters need a damage boost. Also check the hybrid ammo: currently is not worth it to use anything than AM and long range T2. Blaster ships could receive a MWD speed bonus too.


It would be nice to buff hybrid ammo back into relevance. Otherwise I firmly believe that blasters do not need more DPS. What they need is better tracking at close range. Blasters should have the far best tracking at close range.

Additionally I believe adding to range or falloff on blasters is just making everything more vanilla. CCP would need to add enough straight line speed to blaster boats to justify an attempt at getting into range. If Blaster boats aren't fast enough then it doesn't matter how much love blasters get.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#269 - 2011-10-26 11:00:40 UTC
Princess Alia,

I confined the comparison to a 1v1 because in gang environments, the far superior damage projection abilities of fall-off bonused ACs make the Tornado a superior choice. I know full well that there's more to PVP than 1v1, but I didn't see it necessary to compare the Talos and Tornado there, as it's so obvious that the Tornado is better. I didn't think that this needed spelling out.

Damage types. In the very small scale combat where the blaster Talos will be most useful, you almost always have sufficient warning to be able to reload. I've spent quite long enough pissing about in AML Caracals and Drakes to know the importance of picking the right ammo for the job. Even if you have no warning (e.g. jump-in via a gate), then the Tornado has the mobility to buy the required ten seconds to load Hail, then turn and let yourself get webbed. If you choose to do so, of course, you could just choose to kite the Talos outside web range, minimising tracking problems as it lumbers after you.

The rest of your posts appear to be unresearched, content-free waffle. Now, perhaps you could explain to me why you think that the AC-Tornado should be broadly on-par with the Talos in the Talos's niche?
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#270 - 2011-10-26 11:06:56 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Princess Alia,

I confined the comparison to a 1v1 because in gang environments, the far superior damage projection abilities of fall-off bonused ACs make the Tornado a superior choice. I know full well that there's more to PVP than 1v1, but I didn't see it necessary to compare the Talos and Tornado there, as it's so obvious that the Tornado is better. I didn't think that this needed spelling out.

Damage types. In the very small scale combat where the blaster Talos will be most useful, you almost always have sufficient warning to be able to reload. I've spent quite long enough pissing about in AML Caracals and Drakes to know the importance of picking the right ammo for the job. Even if you have no warning (e.g. jump-in via a gate), then the Tornado has the mobility to buy the required ten seconds to load Hail, then turn and let yourself get webbed. If you choose to do so, of course, you could just choose to kite the Talos outside web range, minimising tracking problems as it lumbers after you.

The rest of your posts appear to be unresearched, content-free waffle. Now, perhaps you could explain to me why you think that the AC-Tornado should be broadly on-par with the Talos in the Talos's niche?



She doesn't have T2 Large blasters and feels left out?

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#271 - 2011-10-26 11:12:42 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:

It come down to this: Can you even give a reason to choose a Talos over a Tornado for a fleet fight? There is none, for the same reason that current BC fleets are heavy on hurricanes and rarely contain a signifiant amount of harbingers.


The far superior mobility and damage projection abilities make choosing the AC-Tornado over the blaster-Talos in fleet a no-brainer. But since we shouldn't really expect blasters to be effective in fleet, given their short range, it's not really the right question. What we're looking for is reasons to fly the blaster-Talos over the AC-Tornado solo or in duo/trio.

The problem here is that obvious choice is still the Tornado, despite the superior EFT damage and even the 90% web. In these very small environments, mobility and damage projection is king - the ability to get tackle and to avoid tackle, the ability to apply DPS outside web range. The Tornado has these abilities; the Talos does not. Sure, the good paper DPS and 90% web look good in EFT, but a suitable comparison is one of Serpentis and Angel ships - which are more popular in space?
Nyla Skin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#272 - 2011-10-26 11:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
When fleets consist of large numbers of ships, the amount of damage projected is rarely an issue. Therefore what matters is the range and speed with which you can project said damage. This is why ships that have technically bigger damage output but at shorter range or with bad mobility are rarely flown in large fleets.

Many things look balanced when looking at small enough number of ships against each other..

In after the lock :P   - CCP Falcon www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

praznimrak
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2011-10-26 11:32:12 UTC
Hello CCP.
After incarna crap i did quit eve you to show ccp menagment waht i think off your work in last year.
But than few days ago i got invitation from CCP to resub for 5 euros one moonth and there was talking abouth ship spining coming back,so im back.

Awsom job,seems you did finaly wake up and listen to wha we(players) want to be fixied in this game.
Congrats.

Was abouth time to change stuff and im suporting you recent efforts,but still there is one thing it shoud be fixed.
When one starts to play eve he find out that anything you want to do in eve is time consuming and in the begining it is fine but whith time the nead of fast content is coming stronger as not everyone wants to playe 5 hours minimum.
There shoud be more agile gameplaye so ppl that have 2 hours time shoud have content to playe in that time period.
Thx.

keep on whith good work and server numbers wi go up again.

PRAZ

My youtube chanell: http://www.youtube.com/user/EveOnlineGameplay

Yvan Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#274 - 2011-10-26 11:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Yvan Ratamnim
THIS IS THE HOTTEST THING SINCE TOASTED SLICED BREAD

LOL people got excited over T2 command links, but did you guys see T2 Triage and Siege!

PLEASE DEAR GOD say this isn't the worlds most annoying troll......

Also... Data Subverter I ... WTF is this, it sounds hot... is the hacking profession finally getting useful???
It says "[+|n] hackOrbital" does that mean were going to be able to hack things in orbit... namely the new customs offices of our enemys!
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#275 - 2011-10-26 11:55:02 UTC
Rail damage boost looks good, need tot est it though before you can see if the level is set right for balance. Blaster tracking boost is 20% - not sure that's enough tbh given they get used at 1km or so, regardless of size. Might be a case of having larger tracking bonus for bigger blasters with smalls being set at that 20% point.

But I live in hope having seen the scope of changes being considered.
Grimpak
Manufactorum.
Atomic Fusion Industries
#276 - 2011-10-26 11:59:30 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
Rail damage boost looks good, need tot est it though before you can see if the level is set right for balance. Blaster tracking boost is 20% - not sure that's enough tbh given they get used at 1km or so, regardless of size. Might be a case of having larger tracking bonus for bigger blasters with smalls being set at that 20% point.

But I live in hope having seen the scope of changes being considered.



small blasters don't need extra tracking/damage at all. they work fine already. tbh if those changes are final, you might even end up with a taranis that can fit neutrons and mwd without even using a MAPC.


that actually worries me a bitShocked

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
#277 - 2011-10-26 12:01:29 UTC
Excellent.
All is falling into place.
Yvan Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#278 - 2011-10-26 12:02:21 UTC
Hmmm "Planetary Customs Offices" to "Orbital Infrastructure"

Doesn't that sound like there going to drop additional items, perhaps customs office light weight defensive weapons?
Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2011-10-26 12:05:22 UTC
"Large Shield Transporter II - 5 players" sounds interesting I think. I wonder what it's supposed to do... Somehow raise the maximum shield of up to 5 ships in the fleet? Will it repair up to 5 ships at the same time?
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2011-10-26 12:13:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowsword
Daedalus II wrote:
"Large Shield Transporter II - 5 players" sounds interesting I think. I wonder what it's supposed to do... Somehow raise the maximum shield of up to 5 ships in the fleet? Will it repair up to 5 ships at the same time?


It's obviously a test-only module used by devs to test balance in groups situations, like "how long does that carrier hold out against 10 BS? Let's fit that Damage mod - 10 players on my abaddon and check out".



Grimpak wrote:
that actually worries me a bitShocked


If the Taranis make a come-back, it only gives some incentive to bring along a few assault frigs or destroyers.