Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 |
81. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
CCP Fozzie wrote: Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address. I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus ...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.23 23:21:00
|
82. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
It will be interesting to see a rep/sec comparison between a hull with a 7.5% repair bonus and a hull with a 5% resistance bonus. Not sure the repair amount hull bonus is helpful enough even after these changes to active armor tanking. Please don...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.21 22:01:00
|
83. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Bangkirai wrote: The bonus to the ferox makes the eagle totally worthless? The Eagle gets double 10% optimal range bonuses for a total of 100% optimal range at max skills, making it an actual sniping ship. Besides the fact that T2 ships hav...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 23:21:00
|
84. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Soko99 wrote: I don't quite get the restriction on the drake for kinetic missiles. It's not like any other race has limits such as only tungsten bonus or only multifrequency etc. Just trying to understand the reasoning. This goes way back, ...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 23:14:00
|
85. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
4LeafClover wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs. Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie? Yo...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 23:05:00
|
86. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
I for one would love to hear what the proposed fix to active tanking is so we can start having an intelligent conversation about these Gallente BCs. Any chance of that in the near future Fozzie?
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 22:56:00
|
87. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
mynnna wrote: 4LeafClover wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: Mund Richard wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com : The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 22:36:00
|
88. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Mund Richard wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: Blatantly stealing this from Mynnna's review on TheMittani.com : The ROF bonus on the Cyclone is better than the kinetic damage bonus on the Drake. The Cyclone also has an extra low which allows it t...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 22:06:00
|
89. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Colonel Goatbanger wrote: I know that numerous people replied to this already, but two things stick out to me (similar to what already has been said). 1. With the HM nerf, which subsequently has gimped those who pilot Drakes isn't it about tim...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 21:50:00
|
90. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: mynnna wrote: The T2 LSE also offers a fairly non-trivial boost to shield recharge and thus passive tank, so comparing it directly to an 800mm plate isn't entirely fair. I'm not saying the 800m ...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 21:27:00
|
91. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Mund Richard wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: T2 LSE has 2625 shield bonus base. T2 800m plate has 2103 armor bonus base. T2 1600m plate has 4200 armor bonus base. Read -> Math -> Post A 400 plate takes 30 PG, and is considered cruiser-s...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 21:12:00
|
92. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
mynnna wrote: The T2 LSE also offers a fairly non-trivial boost to shield recharge and thus passive tank, so comparing it directly to an 800mm plate isn't entirely fair. I'm not saying the 800m plate compares to the LSE, I'm just pointing out...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 21:07:00
|
93. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Zimmy Zeta wrote: Biggest Guns + battleship-sized plate. I think it's great that the Harbi can fit either of them and it's fine that it cannot fit both. Go with a 800 mm plate if you want to go full dps and everything s...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 20:49:00
|
94. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Mund Richard wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: Ah yeah, didn't catch that 6 drone thing. So 20% if fitting for 5 drones, 33% if fitting heavies or sentries? The loss of a turret isn't that bad since they don't get a bonus and most of your damage m...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 19:53:00
|
95. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Exterminatus Illexis wrote: You appear to have caught the stupid. Please commit a frontal lobotomy by means of large hammer. Also you're saying exactly what I said. Yes, I feel myself getting dumber every time I read your posts. Maybe I did...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 19:49:00
|
96. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Mund Richard wrote: Edward Pierce wrote: Lauren Sheaperd wrote: No it doesn't, because nobody fields just three heavy drones. You're math is almost as bad as my broad, sweeping statements. Yes, it is a significant damage bonus - it's does...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 19:40:00
|
97. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Exterminatus Illexis wrote: In a fleet scenario, yeah the active rep bonus is pretty useless. The area that I was pointing out was more of a small gang scenario. The Myrmidon however can get a universal 60%+ on its resists fit right, and in a ...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 19:31:00
|
98. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Lauren Sheaperd wrote: You know, I heard picking a single nerf from one ship with many that is already in dire straights and comparing it to a ship with few that is one of the most popular, and powerful, ships in the game makes for balanced jud...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 19:15:00
|
99. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Lauren Sheaperd wrote: * The changes to the Cyclone in particular have me agitated, though I'd hazard a guess and say this is simply because I have enjoyed flying the ship for quite some time. Doesn't make these changes less stupid. While I und...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 07:49:00
|
100. Sticky:[Retribution Point Release] Combat Battlecruisers - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sean Parisi wrote: Griffin and other E-War frigates have a massive targeting range, but that's expected. No combat frigate from what I am aware of has a base targeting range of 90km. Yes, EWar frigates have long base targeting range (Vigil ...
- by Edward Pierce - at 2013.01.09 07:23:00
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |