These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon 1.1] Drone Shield Regen Speeds

First post
Author
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#41 - 2014-01-16 16:14:04 UTC
Tyrant Scorn wrote:
How come these blogs don't show up on the Dev Blogs pages ?

Technically this is a "thread" and not a blog (which should answer why they aren't on the "Dev Blogs" page). If you meant to ask "why isn't this information being communicated in a dev blog?", well, I suppose that's a question only Fozzie can answer...

MDD
iskflakes
#42 - 2014-01-16 16:15:13 UTC
Phoenus wrote:
butters1 wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
Fighter and Fighter Bombers don't really need anymore nerfing.

agreed.


This. It's not like Fighters/Fighterbombers don't already die the instant anybody sneezes in a fight.


These people are all correct.

Fighter bombers die to bombs far too easily right now, it only takes a few people to wipe them all out, and we have no replacements.

Please consider making them more vulnerable to direct fire from a human player and less vulnerable to bombs (or give us spares). The current situation limits their effectiveness considerably.

-

Beth Blackstar
Totaly Insane Elite Rank 5
#43 - 2014-01-16 16:17:26 UTC
Phoenus wrote:
butters1 wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
Fighter and Fighter Bombers don't really need anymore nerfing.

agreed.


This. It's not like Fighters/Fighterbombers don't already die the instant anybody sneezes in a fight.

They don't need a nerf, agreed. Tehy're the only capital weapons system that anyone uses, and they're already incredibly vulnerable to subcapitals, bombers, smartbombs, and their own glitchy mechanics that cause them to abandon randomly throughout space.


Also, you claimed that they don't need as good a tank as a battlecruiser. A Fighterbomber costs half as much as a battlecruiser does, and are the only form of DPS a supercarrier possesses - why shouldn't they be a bit tanky? They're dumber than a battlecruiser, less flexible than a battlecruiser, less repairable due to their inability to imporove their resistances. I understand the desire for some difference across drone sizes, fozzie, but an arbitrary nerf that fails toa ccount for the realities of supercarrier ownership and combat use is yet another nerf to capital combat - why shouldn't the biggest drones in the game be meaningfully durable, instead of easily killable by a T1 or T2 frigate?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#44 - 2014-01-16 16:18:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Manfred Sideous
iskflakes wrote:
Phoenus wrote:
butters1 wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
Fighter and Fighter Bombers don't really need anymore nerfing.

agreed.


This. It's not like Fighters/Fighterbombers don't already die the instant anybody sneezes in a fight.


These people are all correct.

Fighter bombers die to bombs far too easily right now, it only takes a few people to wipe them all out, and we have no replacements.

Please consider making them more vulnerable to direct fire from a human player and less vulnerable to bombs (or give us spares). The current situation limits their effectiveness considerably.



Fozzie look lots of people all saying the same thing. Hmmmmmm

Suggestion: Fighters and Fighterbombers more resistant to AOE dmg and less resistant to targeted dmg.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2014-01-16 16:23:15 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:

Fozzie look lots of people all saying the same thing. Hmmmmmm

"look, all the supercapital owners who had been benefiting from broken mechanics are all saying don't fix them"

"bring back aoe dds and untacklable titans"

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

iskflakes
#46 - 2014-01-16 16:25:13 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:


Fozzie look lots of people all saying the same thing. Hmmmmmm


I think the problem is our ticker isn't CONDI, so we don't matter.

-

Vahl Ahashion
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2014-01-16 16:27:37 UTC
Good changes, can Fozzie please just run EVE development.
Andy Koraka
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#48 - 2014-01-16 16:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Koraka
The change "makes sense" from a certain point of view but in terms of improving gameplay this makes a pair of weak weapon systems even worse.

As it is Fighters have no niche beyond a POS carrier assigning fighters to ratting subcaps, this makes them less capable of tanking even frigate sized DPS.

Fighter bombers on the other hand have some utility grinding structures but as soon as they enter a combat situation they get smart-bombed to death. Since every Dominix, (the pvp subcap of choice since Odyssey) fits a smartbomb, and every Carrier keeps a rack of them ready to refit it doesn't make sense to make them even less resistant to random smartbombs.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#49 - 2014-01-16 17:05:04 UTC
now they just need to be given meaningful shield HP ..... most drones are only have decent structure and armour HP..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Hinkledolph
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2014-01-16 17:25:46 UTC
Raivi lost a friend :(
Bryperium
#51 - 2014-01-16 17:36:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Bryperium
iskflakes wrote:
Phoenus wrote:
butters1 wrote:
WarFireV wrote:
Fighter and Fighter Bombers don't really need anymore nerfing.

agreed.


This. It's not like Fighters/Fighterbombers don't already die the instant anybody sneezes in a fight.


These people are all correct.

Fighter bombers die to bombs far too easily right now, it only takes a few people to wipe them all out, and we have no replacements.

Please consider making them more vulnerable to direct fire from a human player and less vulnerable to bombs (or give us spares). The current situation limits their effectiveness considerably.


+1,
They are really difficult to use in large capital fights currently, which is sort of what supercarriers are supposed to excel at, no?


Anyways thanks for changes overall.

-

Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-01-16 17:43:20 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
"look, all the supercapital owners who had been benefiting from broken mechanics are all saying don't fix them"

"bring back aoe dds and untacklable titans"


I can do this too : "look at all the people afraid to use supercapitals talk about how broken they are".
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2014-01-16 17:46:22 UTC
Xolve wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
"look, all the supercapital owners who had been benefiting from broken mechanics are all saying don't fix them"

"bring back aoe dds and untacklable titans"


I can do this too : "look at all the people afraid to use supercapitals talk about how broken they are".

I mean, there's really not much expertise required here to realize that drones with larger shield capacities having the same shield regen that ones with smaller capacities do is out of line and needs to be adjusted. If you think that fighterbomber EHP is unacceptable, argue so, but don't take someone noticing an improperly copy-pasted value in the static data and going "oh that is not right" and fixing it as some sort of treatise against the Fighterbomber. It's just not that sort of action.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Slappy Andven
AirHogs
Hogs Collective
#54 - 2014-01-16 18:09:14 UTC
So, rather than making them completely useless, why not just remove them? That would do less damage than this. This just made the already questionable FB worse than useless.

-- 

Slappy Andven

CEO Natural Born Killas

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-01-16 18:18:18 UTC
Besides the consistency issues, is hitting Fighters and Fighter Bombers really called for right now? It's not like they're problematic at all.

No sig.

olan2005
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#56 - 2014-01-16 18:41:14 UTC
Just curios does anyone else perceive this as a super capital Nerf to assist the goons in their current war. IS CCP colluding with goons to hand them null sec . Did the goon tears drive you to this
Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2014-01-16 18:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Xolve
olan2005 wrote:
Just curios does anyone else perceive this as a super capital Nerf to assist the goons in their current war. IS CCP colluding with goons to hand them null sec . Did the goon tears drive you to this


I think CCP is going out of their way to push everyone that dwells in any sort of "Sov-based Nullsec" to win at EVE, one step at a time.

While sure, the shield recharge rates are seemingly out of place, but this seems like something that could have been addressed in a sweeping rebalance and not another incremental band aide fix.
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#58 - 2014-01-16 18:47:51 UTC
olan2005 wrote:
Just curios does anyone else perceive this as a super capital Nerf to assist the goons in their current war. IS CCP colluding with goons to hand them null sec . Did the goon tears drive you to this


tinfoil is not healthy when smoked, get your habit checked

No sig.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2014-01-16 18:51:08 UTC
olan2005 wrote:
Just curios does anyone else perceive this as a super capital Nerf to assist the goons in their current war. IS CCP colluding with goons to hand them null sec . Did the goon tears drive you to this

Is Kadeshi even allowed to use supercaps anymore after that little oops a week or so ago?

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Sara Navorski
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2014-01-16 19:03:30 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Lulu Ormand wrote:
Cant say I like this changes...I love sentrys =/

But now that you are checking the drones, may I ask what happened with that idea of making the sentry drones moveable?
Heard some time ago about this, but since then nothing.
Is this something on the CCP´s list?


sen·try (sntr)
1. A guard, especially a soldier posted at a given spot to prevent the passage of unauthorized persons.

I hope they don't make them movable as they wouldn't be a sentry then.


Sentries generally patrol.