EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-12-02 22:47
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-03 12:06
  • Number of Posts: 525
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Mr Floydy

Security Status 1.7
  • Footloose Member since
  • Phoebe Freeport Republic Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Blade Darth wrote:
    Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much.

    I'm torn on this. Really comes down to some other stats to whether it's really usable.

    One one hand 50mbit is pretty rubbish on it's own, but that set of drones plus something like 500dps from missiles that's a whole lot of pain the ship could put out. Considering you can get 8 low slots on the Legion having 4 damage mods to boost both missile and drone dps is definitely achievable.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Bromum Atom wrote:
    This can be good, but:
    1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here.
    2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (150*1.15) owerheated
    with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (125*1.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly.


    I was thinking I like it more from an idea perspective, rather than necessarily agreeing with the numbers :)
    I'd hope that the overheated damage should this idea happen would be relatively on par with current overheated damage, and that standard damage would be lower.

    Bromum Atom wrote:
    Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub...

    Good point. Something that needs to be looked at!

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Kesthely wrote:
    Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's


    I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change!

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Caught up on the overnight chat.... Re: Cargo, I'd love to see a dedicated bay for subsystems and potentially even deployables. Something I used to do regularly when more active was solo wormhole roaming with a Legion, carrying the appropriate refit subsystems to run a full covops setup for moving around was really tight to do and hugely limited your ability to actually carry any loot from sites. Doing the same sort of thing with a Tengu was nigh on impossible due to the amount of cargo you need just for enough missiles to clear a site. Having the dedicated cargo space for subsystems would open up this nomadic gameplay some more without really having any negative impact on a pure pvp stats perspective.

    Something I also saw queried in the chat was what happens to leaving a covops cloak fitted when you remove the cloaky subsystem - it stays fitted and offline, so you don't need the cargo space for it.

    I'm really hoping these changes don't impact the stats to the point where a solo wormhole site roamer becomes impossible.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Predator BOA wrote:
    Hi All

    I think so far there going to be to many high slot , so far with the cloak and DPS subsystem you can get 8 high slots, with only 6 guns that you can use.

    The Defensive Subsystem should give you the same number as high slot as guns that you can use on it.
    So if you want to use Clock , Prob and Dps hunter you either have 6 guns and a cloak or 5 guns cloak and probs, not all three.

    Plus the Mids slot need a look at I reckon.
    Take the extra high slot and put it towards a mid.

    Look at the legion as an example, it gets max 3 mids for a DPS boat or low as 2 , less than a proteus.

    That's what I see in the graph so far of cause.



    I don't know about the slot layout being a problem yet. Taking your Legion example, a pure buffer tanked dps Legion gets 2 mids if you go with the base speed / agility subsystem. Whilst that's definitely lacking it's unlikely to be used as a solo roaming fit, so let's assume it's a prop mod and a cap booster to keep the lasers firing. You've then got 8 low slots for tank and dps mods along with 7 highslots to put your guns and some utility into.
    Want an extra mid for some tackle, switch to the other prop mod at the expense of a low slot - you've still got 7.

    As Fozzie said on the chat, ignore the utliity highs for the like for like comparisons to the current T3s right now. This current pass has an extra slot vs the current build, all 4 T3s now have a utility high slot in any dps fit.

    I'm pretty happy with a cloaky / probe fit having 8 high slots too. Full set of guns, cloak and a probe launcher. It's a change in direction from current but I think it's too early to say it's bad.

    The balance of the new T3s is all going to come down to the base stats; hitpoints, signature, base speed and fitting. Right now the main thing to look at is whether these subsystem combos are interesting. I'm really liking the various overheat related changes. I think it's definitely a good way to limit some strong bonuses too - in theory you could have them able to out perform (or just match) other ship classes, but only be able to do it in a burst - thus balancing them out somewhat.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

    Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration.

    95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi.


    I doubt that 95% has any basis in fact. Regardless, I would be surprised if T3s made any notable contribution to lag and tidi than many other things - certain drones/missiles/bubbles will all be far bigger contributers.

    Not to mention the idea of completely removing the unique and interesting art side of things would completely remove the gameplay of trying to work out what fits you could be fighting against from the look of the hulls. If you've never done that I'm going to assume you've never really hunted solo T3s / done much small scale pvp with them.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    A question triggered by this:

    From the Focus Group chat logs... wrote:

    [21:12] frsd: Is there anything thats stopping 4 different subsystems for offensive?
    [21:12] frsd: it doesn't need to be all the same
    [21:12] ccp_fozzie: yes, we can't support that on our end
    [21:13] ccp_fozzie: an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets


    Currently we've got 4 subsystem choices for each type, can you expand on why there's a limitation for only 3 now?
    Are the ships getting a complete remodel from scratch, or are you just binning off certain subsystems and now only have the art budget to maintain 3 of each of the 4 subsystems?

    I'm really hoping we're not going to lose out on some of the more distinct and pretty subsystem combos!

    I'd love to comment more on the balance side of things, but don't think there is enough of a full picture for it right now. Some of the ideas and changes to the subsystems sound promising though.

  • Dev blog: Color Blindness support is coming to EVE Online in EVE Information Center

    Not colour blind, but about time! I know a lot of people have been asking for this for years so great to see it finally happen :)

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    mkint wrote:
    Mr Floydy wrote:
    Let's face it, someone probably camped around you systems to destroy all your bubbles having seen how much of a fuss you've made about it here - purely because they knew it would be amusing.
    They were right, it is.

    Are there any left? Can I come play?

    No idea, it wasn't me. I was too busy playing World of Warships and testing out my new speakers :D:p

  • 119.3 General feedback (PC) in EVE Information Center

    New scanning stuff.... Why for the love of god have you flipped everything upside down? What does this achieve bar pissing people off?

    Also new Chimera model sucks.

    I'll report back if I find anything in this patch that's actually positive...

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Let's face it, someone probably camped around you systems to destroy all your bubbles having seen how much of a fuss you've made about it here - purely because they knew it would be amusing.
    They were right, it is.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Doctor Tower wrote:
    please also nerf networked sensor array for 50% scan resolution, to make BS greate again


    I'd more than happily have the Network Sensor array significantly changed. I do feel it's a flawed module in the scheme of things. Whilst I can understand it was added to make anti-fighter carriers viable the net result is that a carrier can often lock and heavily damage a lot of targets before they can do much about it.

  • Chimera Redesign in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Not a fan of the new Chimera. It's style is similar to the Jackdaw - which is another fugly ship. The current Chimera is currently the best looking carrier (imo), and whilst I'd love to see it overhauled I'd much rather see an iterated design on it (think old to new Maller) rather than something completely new and different. This new Chimera model looks more like an evolution from the Rokh...

    The new Cormorant model looks better, but it doesn't look very Caldari. WTB more Caldari ships along the style of the Tengu, Drake, Caracal and the Corax.

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Popped by this thread for some entertainment, did not disappoint.

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Juvir wrote:
    While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?


    Some sort of orbiting themselves would be great to have. Watching fighters immediately stop and sit stationary after every kill is frustrating enough in PvE, let alone PvP...

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    So to try and add some more constructive comments here rather than just comments along the lines of "are you kidding me?!"

    What are you aiming to achieve here Larrikin? Do you want fighters to die quicker, or just be easier to apply damage to? Assuming the latter (because the former just seems mental - as you can see from the majority of comments here) can you give the fighters a EHP buff with their additional sig?

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Jacques Arkaral wrote:
    Cloaky Campers


    Have you ever been killed by a cloaky camper? Has it ever interacted with you in a negative way? No ofcourse not. it's cloaked up and probably afk...

    sigh...

  • [March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fighters can already die damn quick in PvP and require constant micromanaging in PvE, sig changes this large and a change to aggression at the same time seems to be completely overkill. If you're going to make changes can you please do so a little more gradually so you don't end up risking carriers becoming useless overnight...

  • [March] Structure, Drone & Fighter improvements from Team Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    CCP Lebowski wrote:
    Mr Floydy wrote:
    Hell yeah, I've been getting so fed up with the drone repair mechanic on Citadel tethers barely working and not updating the UI ever. Will be nice to be able to just dock and fix stuff!
    The fix for this UI problem is also scheduled for this release Big smile

    Wooo! Nice one :D

  • [March] Structure, Drone & Fighter improvements from Team Five 0 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Claevyan wrote:
    Looks good! Especially like being able to click the repair button now. Hopefully my damaged drones will now be repaired in J-Space without having to fiddle with the tethering repair mechanics. :P

    Hell yeah, I've been getting so fed up with the drone repair mechanic on Citadel tethers barely working and not updating the UI ever. Will be nice to be able to just dock and fix stuff!