Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I still stand by my new module suggestion. To have the TD be able to disrupt ALL weapon systems with one mod is, IMO, too effective. (could be said for ECM, but you need racial jammers to be effective)

I am fine with the mod to have the same prereqs as the tracking disruptor, and recieve the same bonuses. Just have a different module. It will be better for the lore, more intuitive and would not make the TD OP.

Currently the concern I have with TD changes is that a single module shouldn't be so powerful against every form of weapon (save for drones, but come on).

I think making a separate TD module, (Someone suggested making a defender missile launcher the TD for missiles). I think implementing it like that would be much more reasonable. That way, a ship could fit TDs, Defender TDs, and not have the power of 2 super TDs that can disrupt the power of every type of weapon. If you knew you would be facing a missile boat, you could use Defender TDs, and if you knew you would be facing a turret boat, you could use normal TDs. It's when the combination of both are combined into one module that it just becomes unfair.

Basically this defender TD module would be a midslot launcher (Defender launcher) that can load 2 types of defenders. Fuel valve defenders which strike the rocket fuel area of a missile, reducing its flight time, and guidance system defenders, which emit a disruptive pulse upon colliding with the missiles that reduces their explosion velocity. The module would have limited ammo, of course, and would take the same time as a normal launcher to reload (thus switching disruption types instantly wouldn't be possible). This balances things a little moar.

Also, defenders just completely destroying other missiles would be unfair if they were made to be useful. Say in the lore that caldari designers were like "Uh, no, we just made our missiles armored so they can't be detonated any longer by defenders. "(Thats why heavies have less rocket fuel after the nerf! <_<)

As well, hopefully different ships could have a bonus to these defender TDs than the standard TD ships.

the issue with the univ. inv. is not only that most ppl think it sucks, its more the way it was done.

CPP first took it to sisi, so they can get feedback from users.

feedback showed that it was a really wrong idea, but that a significant amount of player would agree to get it on TQ if a certain number of issues were adressed AND CCP give it more time in sisi to improve it and check bugs.

in the end, CCPs ends rushing it on TQ "as it was", ths breaking one of the central tool of the game.

and today, it is still painfull to manage big amounts of items, pos etc...

so yes, CCP ignored the dozens of pages / thread regarding the issues of the new inventory when it was on sisi, then brought it on TQ, and continue to ignore players on this subject.

it is still, today, a pain to manage pos, a pain to manage big amounts of items, a pain to have the windows of inv cargo changing position when undocking.
and bugs still remains, like the cargo that still cannot retain their configuration when said to lock or unlock new added items.

all thoses points / issues were brought to CCP knowledge as soon as it entered sisi, several monthago , and they still sits here.

even if i know it will not happen, bringing back the old system would still, today, be an ergonomic and functional improvement.

i work since several years at making and developing software / operating system user interfaces, so i know what i'm talking about

I would like to see also!!!

I feel for you man, truly i do...

Was wondering about one thing, now that you are working on bringing missile systems in line with their turret based counterparts have you considered bringing Ballistic Control Systems in line with turret based damage mods aswell? As it is now BCSs requires 40 CPU to fit while all the turret based damage mods require only 30 CPU to fit.

I wasn’t going to bother adding to the melee but since Fozzie says he reads all posts then here it comes.

There a 2 different things here. 1 – HM/HAM effectiveness and 2 – ships that use them

1 The HM nerf needs to happen (and I speak as a mostly HM Tengu user). HM has too much damage and range compared to other medium calibre long range weapon systems. It needs to be brought into line and HAMS need buffing to compare to other short range weapons. So Fozzie please don’t back down to the outcry, just have the courage to do the right thing for game balance.

2 Some ships are correctly nerfed and others are incorrectly totally screwed over. But don’t let that be the deciding factor – these ships will be rightfully balanced to their desired performance. Sure it's going to take time but so be it. As an alternative you could consider an interim hot fix (gash fix?) to temporarily buff the dps/range of the nighthawk cerberus etc but personally I wouldn't. Do it right – balance the weapon then balance the ships accordingly.

TD affecting missiles. I’m on the fence here. Id probably vote for reducing the TD effect on all weapons then buff the ships bonuses on the relevant EWAR ships to compensate, thus making the TD bonused ships really effective as force multipliers against all weapons.

The nerfbat swings and the nerfbat hurts. I've felt it – I didn't quit, I adapted and moved on. The game needs to be balanced and just because it might hurt today CCP (and all of us) have to face up to the fact that balancing the sandbox is right for the long-term game interests.

For missiles it would be ok but leave them drones alone. They can already be easily killed by anything : other drones, missiles, turrets and smartbombs. Additionally they can be webbed and then it's like instapop.

Yes.

in this case then the nerf looks to be fine

Do they factor in firewalls?