These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Ascension] Tactical Destroyer and Small Artillery balance updates

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#61 - 2016-11-04 19:06:36 UTC
Probably 'cause pulses/beams/arti require more pwg than blasters/rails.
Golemag
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#62 - 2016-11-12 03:12:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Golemag
CCP really loves to **** it's players of doesn't it?

Just ask for the fits that are supposed to be fitted on every t3 destroyer and be done with it.

We would have been way way better if they released the ships with the fits integrated. No confusion around the idea that it can be actually fitted somewhat different to exploit different strength of the ship's hull.

Dumb it down more.
Don't leave option for people to think of a ways to fit them so that they can exploit the ship's uniqueness.

This is constructive criticism.. if someone says otherwise.
I've been following any change done on any ships since you released them. You would be amazed and frustrated like me if you had a way to see how you ruining the game trying to make it playable by idiots and morons.

With those changes you basically killed 10 different fits for each of the t3 destroyers just so that you can accommodate few nolifer users spending all their time blobbing up the forum database with moronic and non-realistic requests so that their tiny brains can better cope with the complexity of the game.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#63 - 2016-11-12 12:29:00 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:
Suitonia wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
What is the reasonining behind to keep the effortless instawarp capabilities of Jackdaw and Hecate while removing the mode-switch-trick from the Svipul and Confessor?


The Jackdaw doesn't have sub 2 second align unless you have a 4% Agility Implant, or nano/agility rig, or Geno set.

Erm ... a single T1 poly rig makes it instawarp. Don't think this is a big sacrifice.

It is if you ever decide to use the ship to fight rather than just run away.
Jack has the lowest DPS of all T3D's, using a valuable rig slot (used for damage application or tank - remembering it has also lost a mid) to help you run away faster really is quite a trade off.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Viriato Legionis
X Equestris
#64 - 2016-11-14 11:31:28 UTC
Hi there, in short; I don´t like the changes, this time you nerfed the Svipul badlySad, you pretty much went with those pilots asking for Tactical D nerfs and with those TD pilots flying non Mimmatar variants.

Of course i´m not buying/fitting new ones, that´s a sure thing and just regret now have invested heavily in them
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#65 - 2016-11-14 11:42:47 UTC
Viriato Legionis wrote:
Hi there, in short; I don´t like the changes, this time you nerfed the Svipul badlySad, you pretty much went with those pilots asking for Tactical D nerfs and with those TD pilots flying non Mimmatar variants.

Of course i´m not buying/fitting new ones, that´s a sure thing and just regret now have invested heavily in them


Of course you don't like the changes, you want your I win button.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#66 - 2016-11-15 19:53:31 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Suitonia wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
What is the reasonining behind to keep the effortless instawarp capabilities of Jackdaw and Hecate while removing the mode-switch-trick from the Svipul and Confessor?


The Jackdaw doesn't have sub 2 second align unless you have a 4% Agility Implant, or nano/agility rig, or Geno set.

Erm ... a single T1 poly rig makes it instawarp. Don't think this is a big sacrifice.

It is if you ever decide to use the ship to fight rather than just run away.
Jack has the lowest DPS of all T3D's, using a valuable rig slot (used for damage application or tank - remembering it has also lost a mid) to help you run away faster really is quite a trade off.

Well, you can't really fight if you become a wreck 'cause of gatecamp. Instawarp change was a subpar decision on CCPs part, it didn't make t3ds OP so should have been left untouched.
Bammari Spazedust
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2016-11-16 01:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bammari Spazedust
What is the reasoning behind adding the weapon disruption resistance to t3ds? Is it really necessary to fill every possible hole on what are already the most powerful (pound for pound) and certainly the most versatile ships in the game?!? At least make it resistance to ecm instead since that is already a bad mechanic.

While trying to emphasize the skill of the t3d pilot, you are de-emphasizing the skill of his opponent. You are giving him even more ability to counter anything his opponent does than he already has, while his opponent remains helplessly subject to the td3 pilot's ability to manage his abilities.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#68 - 2016-11-16 11:53:13 UTC
Bammari Spazedust wrote:
What is the reasoning behind adding the weapon disruption resistance to t3ds? Is it really necessary to fill every possible hole on what are already the most powerful (pound for pound) and certainly the most versatile ships in the game?!? At least make it resistance to ecm instead since that is already a bad mechanic.

While trying to emphasize the skill of the t3d pilot, you are de-emphasizing the skill of his opponent. You are giving him even more ability to counter anything his opponent does than he already has, while his opponent remains helplessly subject to the td3 pilot's ability to manage his abilities.


like with capitals, this resistance is so strong it may as well be an immunity. terrible tbh
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2016-11-16 21:08:17 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Suitonia wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
What is the reasonining behind to keep the effortless instawarp capabilities of Jackdaw and Hecate while removing the mode-switch-trick from the Svipul and Confessor?


The Jackdaw doesn't have sub 2 second align unless you have a 4% Agility Implant, or nano/agility rig, or Geno set.

Erm ... a single T1 poly rig makes it instawarp. Don't think this is a big sacrifice.

It is if you ever decide to use the ship to fight rather than just run away.
Jack has the lowest DPS of all T3D's, using a valuable rig slot (used for damage application or tank - remembering it has also lost a mid) to help you run away faster really is quite a trade off.

Well, you can't really fight if you become a wreck 'cause of gatecamp. Instawarp change was a subpar decision on CCPs part, it didn't make t3ds OP so should have been left untouched.


I can't fight you if you can a;ways insta-warp. Giving insta-warp was a poor choice in the first place.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#70 - 2016-11-16 22:08:28 UTC
Well, it depends what part of space we are talking about.

If we are talking about 0.0 then bubble up - so your point becomes void. If we are talking about low - then yes to a degree you are correct but at the same time it could be argued that 1) if handful of ships can actually escape gatecamps in certain environment is not game breaking 2) it is a small stimulus for low-sec solo pvp. Furthermore insta-warp gimmick wasn't the thing that made t3ds overpowered, so it is strange seeing it removed.

Also, I take it you would be for changing Jack's velocity bonus to ab/mwd one and nerfing Hec because it was "poor choice in the first place"?
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#71 - 2017-01-23 14:41:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Moving a midslot to a lowslot on the Jackdaw.
This is bound to be a fairly controversial change, and it was the last one added to the plan for this expansion. The intention here is to generally buff the Jackdaw by opening up more options for damage and mobility through the lowslot, while reducing some of the very extreme tanks. I'm very interested in hearing what the community thinks about this proposal, so please let us know if you have an opinion on either side.


I think this makes the ship much less interesting to fly and really dumbs it down. Yes you can add a damage mod or a mobility or fitting mod. This makes it allot like other t3ds instead of the unique ship that the extra mid but lower damage made it before.

As far as the other changes I see a trend you where you are making all the guns (hybrids projectile and lasers) more and more the same. You are even sort of making missiles more similar to guns with missile tds. It seems to me that your striving to try to make everything perfectly balanced is taking away allot of diversity in eve.

Finally, please stop making all these incredibly minor tweaks that really don't change much except destroy all the fits I made. I think your focus groups may be a bit harder core players than the rest of us. So for them having all their fits obsolete every 3 months may not be a big deal. But for the rest of us it can be a chore to keep up. (I know this last request is not going to be popular but sheesh 9/10s of my ship fittings are obsolete) Its true the module tiericide had allot to do with this but regardless its getting to be a full time job just to prepare some decent fits.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815