|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
286
   |
Posted - 2013.08.27 14:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sweet baby raptor Jesus!
Looks like the Fedo sacrifices were not in vain! |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
289
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Wolfman wrote:Buried in replies!
Thanks for the comments guys. Remnant and I are reading and itGÇÖs given us things stuff to think about. I donGÇÖt have time to respond to everything right now but IGÇÖll quickly throw a few more details out there.
*When we say weGÇÖre establishing a foundation with the most necessary archetypes that doesnGÇÖt mean youGÇÖre only getting basic and standard. You will have access to proto modules.
*We will be going over AV damage values along with these changes.
*Dropships will be scoring transport based WP rewards (and yes they have more HP).
It's fine to have tiered modules - just please don't make the actual platforms that use them have tiers.
The defense against Weapons shouldn't be the Platform as much as it should be Modules. You tank DPS with Repairs; you tank Alpha with Buffer; you supplement with Resistance and Remote Reps. All of which are modules.
Variety in hulls can be established with operation skill bonuses, slot layouts, and specific stats; but one hull should never be outright better than another at everything.
Module tiers aren't straight upgrades when the platforms don't have tiers: performance increases, but costs more to fit, so you can only fit so and so many high tier mods before running out of CPU or PG. While fitting skills then increase the amount of high tier mods that can be fit, it is offset by increased cost.
It should be possible to fit your vehicle exponentially more expensively than the hull cost, as this is what usually limits the practical application of "max performance" fits in EVE.
It's a proven effect: most players simply don't fly 15 Billion ISK Officer fit Tech 1 battleships into PvP, because it isn't worth risking 14.9 Billion ISK on a 100 Million ISK hull 99% of the time. Risk vs Reward at its finest. No, it's much more reasonable to fit a 100 Million ISK hull with 2x the hull cost in fittings, and get solid performance at a much lower cost if you lose it (assuming you're going into a heavy PvP scenario).
So let's say we have 500k ISK HAVs. Creating max efficiency fittings that cost 30x the price of the hull should be possible.
How much better than a 1 million ISK HAV fit should they be? Linear performance for exponential cost; e.g. perhaps 20% better for 30x the cost. Would we see 15 million ISK HAVs fielded? Yes, but only when 20% matters enough to warrant spending 30x the ISK.
Just my 0.02 ISK. |
J-Lewis
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
291
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 13:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kekklian Noobatronic wrote:Wolfman, more thoughts:
Are there plans to change how Vehicle Recall works? Giving vehicles more EHP is great and all, but if it simply leads to more users just blowing cool downs, popping out, and near-instantly recalling their vehicle just because it's come under fire (A tactic already acknowledged by your staff in Feedback/Suggestions round up) you're going to have a mess on your hands.
Perhaps extending the time needed to recall? Denying recall if the vehicle has recently been engaged in combat(I.E. a Crimewatch-like system, such as EVE has)? Denying vehicle recall if modules are active or on cool down? I can imagine a hundred other systems to prevent tankers from abusing the vehicle recall system, and limiting it to it's intended purpose - a tactical option for tankers to adapt to changes in battlefield conditions(And not a 'get out of jail free' card the moment an AV player starts pinging them).
For starters, making the vehicle recall require a RDV to come pick it up (which can be shot down) instead of just warping it away would be good. If modules are active, the RDV will wait until that is no longer the case before picking it up. You cannot call in a new vehicle while the RDV is picking up your recalled vehicle. Scratch that, RDVs crashing into each other because you recalled and called in at the same time would be hilarious.
This results in a scenario where a vehicle recall and re-deploy could take up to a couple minutes. This seems acceptable.
Vehicles (and suits) that are recalled should repair and resupply over time (say, 30 seconds), not instantly (and you should be given a timer for when it's ready). During this time, the vehicle will not be in your usable assets pool (you can call in another identical tank if you have one available though). This idea can be used by itself. |
|
|
| |
|