EPTEVE Corporation - Page 1495
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
| ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
On March 28 2013 06:16 Ramiel wrote: So i was just looking at the ONI and dear lord- even with the new TE's if you put two of them on that ship with scorch, no implants or drugs- 40K optimal. yay! Less dps than what it is currently though. | ||
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
| ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
sebo vindicator: http://www.teamliquid.killmail.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=16890425 pointless oracle: http://killfeed.eveuniversity.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=76062 | ||
KwarK
United States44243 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
Right. Minmatar dominance. Well this will basically sabotage the Slicer and massively decrease the value of Zealots. Pretty much any kiting frigate setup will be hurt badly by this. This is the wrong way to swing the balance of power, honestly. They are trying to make armor more competitive but are nerfing various specialist ships and skill-reliant fits. What is really the point of a Zealot now? It has already been marginalized by the introduction of Oracles (and to some degree the other Tier3 BCs). Decrease the mass penalties that armor incurs, especially for the cruiser- and BS-sized modules. Mass is in many ways the worst stat in the game because of the way it puts an upper limit on a ship's capabilities and utility. That will make them much more competitive. If they want to free up low slots for armor ships, how about reworking resist modules? Shield ships have Invulns - a single-slot item. Armor ships have to fit multiple resist modules or leave huge holes. The game mechanics tell me that armor ships should be the best at sig-tanking (no sig bloom from shield modules) and the best at active tanking (smaller sig + better resist profile), but that's not the case for non-capital ships - not even remotely. Add a small armor bonus to armor repairers. This will devalue the situationally stupidly OP Guardian and possibly allow people to consider making new small-gang fleets without it being a "we know we're handicapped, this is just for fun" thing. Having to fit active tank in addition to armor plates is extremely difficult in terms of CPU and grid and takes up additional space away from damage and tracking mods (and, let's be honest, nanos). Armor repair is already paired up with ships with naturally high resists or fits that fill in bad resists - a small amount of armor added to the active modules will go a long way. Make signature size difference mean something. Currently, any ship that fits a MWD apart from interceptors has a huge signature relative to their class. In addition, the sig difference between an armor fit and a shield fit is something like 15% - this is barely noticeable in actual combat and is sure as hell not enough difference to make something reliably more survivable. There are lots of reasons that armor fleets tend to fit ABs - give them a reason to fit MWDs by making their signature significantly smaller. Without a change to this, armor ships are basically just really slow shield ships with similar or worse EHP that don't regen damage naturally. This is why armor ships are not used the way shield fleets are - they are more often than not restricted by their various inferior attributes to fulfill specialty roles. Actually all that sounds like work, let's just nerf TEs and say it hurts only those damned OP Minmatar (curse them!). | ||
|
Divine-Sneaker
Denmark1225 Posts
Making armor a viable choice should be about lessening the downsides of it than nerfing what makes some really cool and interesting fits viable. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
On March 28 2013 07:19 Ramiel wrote: t2 burst / 5% might fix that? What? The new version of the Omen Navy as stated in the dev thread thing, does less dps than what it is currently. Or so I am told. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
| ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On March 28 2013 08:10 DefMatrixUltra wrote: "The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years..." Right. Minmatar dominance. Well this will basically sabotage the Slicer and massively decrease the value of Zealots. Pretty much any kiting frigate setup will be hurt badly by this. This is the wrong way to swing the balance of power, honestly. They are trying to make armor more competitive but are nerfing various specialist ships and skill-reliant fits. What is really the point of a Zealot now? It has already been marginalized by the introduction of Oracles (and to some degree the other Tier3 BCs). Decrease the mass penalties that armor incurs, especially for the cruiser- and BS-sized modules. Mass is in many ways the worst stat in the game because of the way it puts an upper limit on a ship's capabilities and utility. That will make them much more competitive. If they want to free up low slots for armor ships, how about reworking resist modules? Shield ships have Invulns - a single-slot item. Armor ships have to fit multiple resist modules or leave huge holes. The game mechanics tell me that armor ships should be the best at sig-tanking (no sig bloom from shield modules) and the best at active tanking (smaller sig + better resist profile), but that's not the case for non-capital ships - not even remotely. Add a small armor bonus to armor repairers. This will devalue the situationally stupidly OP Guardian and possibly allow people to consider making new small-gang fleets without it being a "we know we're handicapped, this is just for fun" thing. Having to fit active tank in addition to armor plates is extremely difficult in terms of CPU and grid and takes up additional space away from damage and tracking mods (and, let's be honest, nanos). Armor repair is already paired up with ships with naturally high resists or fits that fill in bad resists - a small amount of armor added to the active modules will go a long way. Make signature size difference mean something. Currently, any ship that fits a MWD apart from interceptors has a huge signature relative to their class. In addition, the sig difference between an armor fit and a shield fit is something like 15% - this is barely noticeable in actual combat and is sure as hell not enough difference to make something reliably more survivable. There are lots of reasons that armor fleets tend to fit ABs - give them a reason to fit MWDs by making their signature significantly smaller. Without a change to this, armor ships are basically just really slow shield ships with similar or worse EHP that don't regen damage naturally. This is why armor ships are not used the way shield fleets are - they are more often than not restricted by their various inferior attributes to fulfill specialty roles. Actually all that sounds like work, let's just nerf TEs and say it hurts only those damned OP Minmatar (curse them!). Stop being reasonable. If ccp were to actually do such a thing then they'd have one less reason not to do a pos overhaul. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On March 28 2013 08:10 DefMatrixUltra wrote: Война и мир in my opinion, the fundamental nature of armor in eve is not good game design. Moving into close range = getting hard tackled at anything cruiser+ size, and moving at sub 100 m/s speeds shuts off most of the decision-making that makes combat interesting. It is pretty much: 1. am I at zero? 2. if not, click approach 3. check 1 things aren't as uninteractive with frigate-sized ships, possibly because in most cases, moving within scram range still grants you some mobility. If CCP actually wanted to make flying armor involve more interactive gameplay*, the following rebalance to blaster ship (thorax / deimos / brutix .. mega?) bonuses might be good, though they might seem non-intuitive: Gallente _______ : 10% increase to MWD overheated speed bonus, 5% additional heat damage per level *they don't, see prometheus exenthal getting very mad about people in scram/web shield thorax with kite potential. This is who CCP listens to | ||
|
Eschaton
United States1245 Posts
| ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
http://teamliquid.killmail.org/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10220160 | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 28 2013 11:04 419 wrote: in my opinion, the fundamental nature of armor in eve is not good game design. Moving into close range = getting hard tackled at anything cruiser+ size, and moving at sub 100 m/s speeds shuts off most of the decision-making that makes combat interesting. It is pretty much: 1. am I at zero? 2. if not, click approach 3. check 1 things aren't as uninteractive with frigate-sized ships, possibly because in most cases, moving within scram range still grants you some mobility. If CCP actually wanted to make flying armor involve more interactive gameplay*, the following rebalance to blaster ship (thorax / deimos / brutix .. mega?) bonuses might be good, though they might seem non-intuitive: Gallente _______ : 10% increase to MWD overheated speed bonus, 5% additional heat damage per level *they don't, see prometheus exenthal getting very mad about people in scram/web shield thorax with kite potential. This is who CCP listens to If we're mentioning "interesting" game design decisions, don't forget about the whole "scrams disable MWDs" thing. Get super close to fast things (i.e. catch up with them) to make them slow. In practice, this is only really interesting in the case of frigate vs. frigate conflicts and serves as amusement when things like this happen. With respect to speed differentials and interesting combat: recons pretty much exist to ruin interesting combat. They are so fucking overpowered in anything but the largest fleets because they can basically log out their target at huge ranges. Even the Curse, which I think is the best designed and most interesting recon by far, just shits all over fights when fit with a heavy neut. Hard tackle itself isn't the problem if you look at the bits and pieces that make it up, but altogether it tends to make fights more boring. I thought microjumpdrives were going to be a neat "solution" to this issue, but that turned out to not be the case. I would like to see some kind of extremely powerful burst AB with a "cooldown" to be paired with a MWD. That would simultaneously diminish the effect of heavy tackle while being a direct buff to armor ships (assuming it's a mid slot, obviously). The thing is, you can "fix" bad design in this case by just throwing power at something that suffers from the design. There's no downside with the current state of the game to just going through armor modules and platforms and handing out various buffs. Из пе́сни сло́ва не вы́кинешь. .l.. | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On March 28 2013 11:04 419 wrote: in my opinion, the fundamental nature of armor in eve is not good game design. Moving into close range = getting hard tackled at anything cruiser+ size, and moving at sub 100 m/s speeds shuts off most of the decision-making that makes combat interesting. It is pretty much: 1. am I at zero? 2. if not, click approach 3. check 1 things aren't as uninteractive with frigate-sized ships, possibly because in most cases, moving within scram range still grants you some mobility. If CCP actually wanted to make flying armor involve more interactive gameplay*, the following rebalance to blaster ship (thorax / deimos / brutix .. mega?) bonuses might be good, though they might seem non-intuitive: Gallente _______ : 10% increase to MWD overheated speed bonus, 5% additional heat damage per level *they don't, see prometheus exenthal getting very mad about people in scram/web shield thorax with kite potential. This is who CCP listens to I'd argue that the fundamental idea of tank type going beyond resist profile is fruitless and pointless. It just devolves into kite fighting anyways. Scrap t2 resist profile, work it more like a bonus towards resistance based on modules. IE a flat buff to individual shield/armor resist mods and or some sort of bonus towards enhancing plates/extenders. Normalize tank amounts between the two, as in extenders and plates confer equal raw hp. Small groups can still sacrifice life for speed in the way of nano, use links, and other enhancements. Sov war gets to play meta games with guess the tank type/damage type which is about as exciting as their meta gets anyways. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
Better nerf the agility a very tiny amount guys, yeah that'll work Also, they should return the Revenant's old jump range, and add Sansha Carrier | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
Small steps are better than a nerfhammer (although, it doesn't concern me yet, still on cruisers waiting for the skills to finish up for a harbinger ._.). At least that's what i think. Edit: man, neither TS nor hatchery pub works to get in touch with some (active) TL-players, does E-Uni "train" gang pvp? ._. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19237 Posts
| ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On March 29 2013 05:29 tofucake wrote: they train blobs .. i know.  But as a beginner in the game, just playing for like two weeks now and feeling more and more the urge to shoot at players, i would like to learn from actually good pvpers. SB/Hatch is dead, i don't play for long enough to actually know who's good and who's bad. Except E-Uni, but that was easy. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19237 Posts
| ||
| ||
