Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rhinanna
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 15:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Rhinanna on 01/03/2009 15:32:25 First of all let me say I think EVE is a great game and I'm enjoying it a lot, however there are quite a few things that just annoy the hell out of me sometimes :) If these where fixed IMHO it would make this game much better, so here are my suggestions/ideas.
If they have been posted before I apologise for reposting but I couldn't see them.
1: No Tech 2 variations of some of the best looking ships in game. The hurricane is IMHO the best looking ship in the game, yet when I get to command ships I can't get one.... I'm going to be forced to use a slephnir which I think is a horrible looking ship. Its not a lot of work to add a Tech 2 or at least fleet variation of the BCs lacking a Tech 2 variation so why not do it?
2: Object size vs appearence - Its way too easy to bash into objects despite the graphical representation of the object been no-where near your ship. This is really annoying when trying to fly towards a target, your going fairly close to a asteroid or whatever and you bump it. This kinda needs to be fixed.
3: Approach/Orbit commands too dumb - The AI should check for objects in the way and not just try to fly straight through the buggers :) Orbiting at a specific distance never seems to even try and orbit at the distance specified which is very annoying.
4: Add a 'mass-sell' option where you can select multiple items and sell them in one go, when you do this you should get a option dialog prompting you to select a % of market price, anything above this % would auto-sell, anything below it wouldn't. This would save a lot of time for us after missions/plexs e.t.c.
5: Any lag reduction is always good, its not too bad at the moment but could certainly use improvement.
6: Improved user interface: Its annoying when you click F1 e.t.c. to fire a gun but your weapon is still on cooldown from it's last shot, can it not queue the attack command till the gun is off cooldown then fire? Also clicking a item you have cancelled (red surround) again should cancel the cancellation.
7: Sort out mission difficulty + choice. Some Lvl 3 missions are harder than Lvl 4 missions in the same ship (IE a BC) This just isn't good. Also let players have more choice when selecting missions, its annoying when I have 1 hour left before I need to do something and the dammed agents keep giving me 2+ hour missions.
Well thats what I think, any constructive critisim welcome! :)
-Drenzul
|
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 16:28:00 -
[2]
Quote: 1: No Tech 2 variations of some of the best looking ships in game. The hurricane is IMHO the best looking ship in the game, yet when I get to command ships I can't get one.... I'm going to be forced to use a slephnir which I think is a horrible looking ship. Its not a lot of work to add a Tech 2 or at least fleet variation of the BCs lacking a Tech 2 variation so why not do it?
i do agree that there are missing T2 variations but of course we need to find a T2 role that isnt already filled at the moment.
Quote: 2: Object size vs appearence - Its way too easy to bash into objects despite the graphical representation of the object been no-where near your ship. This is really annoying when trying to fly towards a target, your going fairly close to a asteroid or whatever and you bump it. This kinda needs to be fixed.
This is something that i do belive needs to be fixed as soon as possable, and it does affect gameplay quite a bit especuly with PvP around stations as well as a few undock points at stations still where bits of the station prevent warp to certian gates.
Quote: 3: Approach/Orbit commands too dumb - The AI should check for objects in the way and not just try to fly straight through the buggers :) Orbiting at a specific distance never seems to even try and orbit at the distance specified which is very annoying.
never had much of an issue with this but could use a look into at somepoint but honestly not really a high priority
Quote: 5: Any lag reduction is always good, its not too bad at the moment but could certainly use improvement.
always constantly being looked into by CCP
Quote: 6: Improved user interface: Its annoying when you click F1 e.t.c. to fire a gun but your weapon is still on cooldown from it's last shot, can it not queue the attack command till the gun is off cooldown then fire? Also clicking a item you have cancelled (red surround) again should cancel the cancellation.
this is soemthing that i would definately like to see implimented, stacking orders would be very usefull in larger fleet fights and for the Mission NPC's that pop in one shot :-P
Quote: 7: Sort out mission difficulty + choice. Some Lvl 3 missions are harder than Lvl 4 missions in the same ship (IE a BC) This just isn't good. Also let players have more choice when selecting missions, its annoying when I have 1 hour left before I need to do something and the dammed agents keep giving me 2+ hour missions.
i have only had one instance of this really and that was a while back with the mission "technalogical secrects" was braught in a while back but i think that was fixed but on this subject the difficulty step up from lvl 3 to 4 is very wide one where as lvl 1 to 2 has almost non at all and 2 to 3 has a reasonable and balanced one imho
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
NightF0x
Gallente Intergalactic League of Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 17:41:00 -
[3]
While I usually end up bashing new players for posting after only a month or two of playing, you bring up some good points.
Originally by: Rhinanna 2: Object size vs appearence - Its way too easy to bash into objects despite the graphical representation of the object been no-where near your ship. This is really annoying when trying to fly towards a target, your going fairly close to a asteroid or whatever and you bump it. This kinda needs to be fixed.
This plagues nearly all games. How close do you allow objects to get before they appear to collide? Problem is you don't want 2 objects occupying the same space. I don't really mind because I'm rarely zoomed in enough to notice.
Quote: 3: Approach/Orbit commands too dumb - The AI should check for objects in the way and not just try to fly straight through the buggers :) Orbiting at a specific distance never seems to even try and orbit at the distance specified which is very annoying.
Again with the collisions, the game has limited collision detection so not sure if it's worth it.
Quote:
4: Add a 'mass-sell' option where you can select multiple items and sell them in one go, when you do this you should get a option dialog prompting you to select a % of market price, anything above this % would auto-sell, anything below it wouldn't. This would save a lot of time for us after missions/plexs e.t.c.
I have been putting this suggestion in every so often as well. Selecting each component takes forever.
Quote:
6: Improved user interface: Its annoying when you click F1 e.t.c. to fire a gun but your weapon is still on cooldown from it's last shot, can it not queue the attack command till the gun is off cooldown then fire? Also clicking a item you have cancelled (red surround) again should cancel the cancellation.
There is supposed to be a UI change in a couple of weeks. Don't expect more functionality though. Queuing up weapons is problematic. It is functional as it stands but, yeah, some improvements are always welcomed.
Quote: 7: Sort out mission difficulty + choice. Some Lvl 3 missions are harder than Lvl 4 missions in the same ship (IE a BC) This just isn't good. Also let players have more choice when selecting missions, its annoying when I have 1 hour left before I need to do something and the dammed agents keep giving me 2+ hour missions.-Drenzul
I find it kind of fun when you get that bastard of a mission that most by-pass. You can always decline a mission every 4 hours so you can always skip it. There are several OOG websites that have mission details so you should be able to look them up and make sure it's not over your head. ------------------------------------
|
Rhinanna
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 19:39:00 -
[4]
I don't think for a ship to have a Tech 2 variant it needs a new role, no reason you can't have an option when choosing a role of 2 different ships.
While all games do suffer from some degree to objects been different sizes to what they appear, in this game the difference is massive. Worse than any MMORPG I've played before and I've played quite a few.
I agree that the harder missions are sometimes fun, but a Lvl 3 mission shouldn't be harder than a Lvl 4 mission given the rewards are substantially less. If this is going to stay the way it is then the rewards for these missions needs to be increased a lot as its not worth doing them from a ISK/LP point of view at the moment.
|
Sir Substance
Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc. MagiTech Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 20:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Rhinanna
3: Approach/Orbit commands too dumb - The AI should check for objects in the way and not just try to fly straight through the buggers :) Orbiting at a specific distance never seems to even try and orbit at the distance specified which is very annoying.
that has a lot to do with your agility skill.
if you ahve 0 agility, and try to orbit at 500m underMWD, you cant turns your ship fast enough, the closest you can get is 2.5km radius at 1000m/s or so in a rifter.
once you have some nice skills, you can work closer to 700m radius at 1.3km/s.
so the orbit size thingy is deliberate.
however, i totally agree with the avoiding objects thing. it would be really nice to have some basic pathfinding in the game.
|
NightF0x
Gallente Intergalactic League of Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 20:31:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sir Substance
Originally by: Rhinanna
3: Approach/Orbit commands too dumb - The AI should check for objects in the way and not just try to fly straight through the buggers :) Orbiting at a specific distance never seems to even try and orbit at the distance specified which is very annoying.
that has a lot to do with your agility skill.
if you ahve 0 agility, and try to orbit at 500m underMWD, you cant turns your ship fast enough, the closest you can get is 2.5km radius at 1000m/s or so in a rifter.
once you have some nice skills, you can work closer to 700m radius at 1.3km/s.
so the orbit size thingy is deliberate.
however, i totally agree with the avoiding objects thing. it would be really nice to have some basic pathfinding in the game.
The point is that if you are traveling at say 2000km/s in the middle of an asteroid field, you still hit the asteroids. It would be nice to fix that but I wouldn't hold your breath. ------------------------------------
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:06:00 -
[7]
And my take on points presented, mostly in agreement with the other old rats here.
1; The Tier 2 BCs came in fairly recently compared to the introduction of the Command Ships. In time perhaps, one can hope.
2; Collision calculations are tricky. I think CCP intentionally makes the collision areas as large/blocky as possible to reduce the CPU time it takes to calculate, could be wrong though. The big culprit is probably the "one server" thing, must take insane amounts of hardware keeping track of all us idiots running around shooting stuff
3; See 2. Anything to lessen the amount of calculations needed for any action taken. Asteroid belts actually allow for some fancy manual flying thanks to the "dumb" ships computer. Great way to lose a flight of drones or a tackler for example.
4; Just keep the best and second best named mods for sale later, reprocess everything else. Marginal ISK loss as most mineral prices continue to increase along with server population. While I would love for a mass-sell option I fear the Database Hamsters Union would start an immediate strike if it was put in.
5; Awesome idea, queued module activations. If there is a way to prevent exploitation by people prone to macro I am all for it.
6; In time you will run all missions, even level 4's, in less than 45 minutes. But I agree, there does seem to be some overlap in difficulty between 3 and 4 .. Been a while since they were 'cleaned' last so one can hope (there as a major re-assigning of missions a year or two back when difficulty was assessed).
|
Rhinanna
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:09:00 -
[8]
Even when travelling slowly around a stationary object it still doesn't work at the correct distance. Set to 750m, I normally orbit at more like 1500m while doing 150m/s in my hurricane. I'm guessing this isn't working as intended :)
Also kinda hard fly round objects manually when you can't tell how big they really are, makes objects kinda fatal for short range weapon users.
A few other minor bits:
Hitting the Z axis 180' or -180' means you have to roll round 180' to keep turning instead of just continuing to bank upwards or downwards, that could do with sorting, shouldn't be that difficult depending on how its coded.
Shouldn't we be able to turn OFF ABs even if they haven't finished their thrust cycle? Yes it would waste some power but there should be a way to turn it off mid cycle as you might need to do this for quite a few reasons and there isn't any real reason I can see why you shouldn't be able to do this.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 21:55:00 -
[9]
The orbiting thing is a game mechanic I think. You can use this to work out what orbit radius you need to input, or you can do what I did (mainly because I am a total geek) and set up a spreadsheet which tells you what you need your speed to be as a percentage of max speed in order to make a certain orbit radius.
Interestingly (or not), I found the link after I made the spreadsheet and the two do correlate quite well, as well as working ingame.
|
203
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 22:08:00 -
[10]
One Thing I'd like to be able to is to specify "not against other Empires". As it stands, my Main's Corp warned me to do more Missions against Enemys of the Empire we are in, as my Standing dropped like a Stone due to some realy cool Storyline / Faction Missions that involved those.
It's all fun and Games 'till someone's broke :) - T'is an alt for playing the Forum - |
|
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 22:47:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 01/03/2009 22:53:43 Some mixed comments. I had to remove the quoted text to make room in the post.
Originally by: Rhinanna
1.
There are two sides to this argument. One has to do with the appeal of having more unique models, which is a fair topic of discussion on it's own. The other have to do with your own personal taste, which is not a really a valid topic of discussion from a game development standpoint (you can not always make everyone happy, some people like the Cyclone model and would be heartbroken if it was removed on the Sleipnir, other favour the Claymore and would have similar reservations). Someone else have already explained why there is a lack of Tier II-Tech II models in the game, so we'll leave it at that for now, as your comment seem to deal more with personal taste than the intricates of having more models.
Quote: 3.
The reason for both sentences here have to do with combat mechanics. The speed at which you move and turn have implications on a ship's ability to hit you. Even if evasive movement was calculated and auto-performed for representation, it would affect physical calculations in the game (such as angle and transversal velocity). The same reason is applied to why a ship never seem to orbit at the specified distance; as you move faster, or closer (in a steeper angle) your ship will need to be manouevrable enough to maintain the given orbit. It's an intricate part of (mainly PvP-) mechanics, manifested in how the game attempt to mimic physics.
If you have downloaded EFT (sticky thread in the ships discussion forum) you can see these values represented as velocity and alignment time. Another good tip for learning and understanding speed physics is to look at the old tracking and missile guides (which are still on this server, despite their menu links' disappearance), or read into the topics (velocity, alignment, inertia, tracking etc) in the EVElopedia wiki.
Quote: 6.
This is actually a very good suggestion.
Quote: 7.
Yet another citation with not one, but two arguments within. The levels of missions matters, but there is also other values important to mission quality that are not as appearant as the level of the agent. You also have a quality number and effective quality towards an agent. A high quality lvl III agent is supposed to be fairly similar to a low quality lvl IV agent.
The second argument you raise here is probably the most interesting topic you bring up (especialy in light of the NPE for Apocrypha). One major selling point of EVE is how flexibly you can spend your time and still find entertainment. Some players enjoy playing infrequently, but for an extended time at a time. Other players enjoy, or are limited to, playing for short periods of time, but frequently. In most of EVE's content there is a place for everyone in that regard. Most players can find a corporation or social setting that can meet their needs, in even advanced stages of the game, and regardless of PvE or PvP preference. Some run highly scheduled gameplay, others very sporadic gameplay.
Missions, especially with "epic arcs" and (higher level-) mission mechanics in mind, can be pretty stressful and strain your gametime. Comparing these attractions in the game to other games, an appealing factor of EVE is that much gameplay do not require you to lock down your playtime for several hours (or require a corporation to lock down it's members for several hours). You can often come and go as you please when ratting or mining, and your corporation often have free choice how to organise time-consumption in EVE's sandbox environment; in contrast to several other games. I once began playing EVE thanks to that (and the flexible size of gangs). Missions is a typical exception, which produce an obstacle to ejoying them. The inaccessible time- and resource-consumption of political 0.0 (POS-) warfare is another example players often express dismay at.
Good thread overall.
|
Rhinanna
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 02:39:00 -
[12]
1: Yep, thats why I wanted it added as an extra instead of just replacing the slephnir model with the Hurricane model. I don't see how having 2 field command ships would hurt in any way. It would just give players the option to choose which one they wanted to use.
3. Yes - I was refering to orbiting well within the ship's manuverability capability.
EFT is kinda useless to me as its missing a lot of modules I'm currently using unfortunately.
7. Errr???? According to everything I've been told, the quality of the agent only affects the payout + LP rewards (maybe standing bonus as well) Not the difficulty of the missions. I've certainly seen none to little difference going from a -10 to a 19 quality lvl 3 agent.
We should definatly have more choice in selecting a mission however without needing to spend 10-15 minutes flying between agents.
|
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 03:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Rhinanna 3. Yes - I was refering to orbiting well within the ship's manuverability capability.
EFT is kinda useless to me as its missing a lot of modules I'm currently using unfortunately.
Then you also understand why automated, complicated orbiting patterns would never work?
Well, you should never say never, but why you don't precision-cut around objects today ;).
Quote: 7. Errr???? According to everything I've been told, the quality of the agent only affects the payout + LP rewards (maybe standing bonus as well) Not the difficulty of the missions. I've certainly seen none to little difference going from a -10 to a 19 quality lvl 3 agent.
I could definately be wrong here, i am not a mission-expert. I just got the impression that missions are bracketed within a certain range, some missions being more difficult than others and the payment for completing a mission is tied to the mission itself. Missions offered is later related to your quality level, ie., when you have a low quality level the agent do not offer the more difficult missions within that bracket. Higher quality agents seems to give more high profile missions. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong :).
I don't mind flying between agents, but i agree with you that two hours for some long missions, is going over the top and take away much of the appeal that EVE have in regard to quality gaming time. The game itself should not dictate that you sit around and grind PvE content for multiple hours at a time, or stress you into doing more. That's what some mechanics in regard to agent interaction do, and i hope they have that in mind for the upcomming NPE and "epic arcs".
|
alHaytham FTW
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 03:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: 203 One Thing I'd like to be able to is to specify "not against other Empires". As it stands, my Main's Corp warned me to do more Missions against Enemys of the Empire we are in, as my Standing dropped like a Stone due to some realy cool Storyline / Faction Missions that involved those.
Amen to that brother, I didn't realise that I was loosing Amarr Standing by doing Gallente mission until I was KOS with them :(
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 07:58:00 -
[15]
Quote: Then you also understand why automated, complicated orbiting patterns would never work?
Yes but I think the current one could still use some improvement.
Fairly sure the only difference the quality of an agent makes is to the payout, not 100% but fairly :)
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Biotronics Inc. Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 09:54:00 -
[16]
Just want to point out that points 2/3 and 5 kinds contradict one another. One is more complex 'hit-boxes' (irregularly chaped objects) and collisions, the other one is more complex pathfinding-algorithms. I'm pretty sure both have to be done server-sided, because you don't want the client to do that
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 13:41:00 -
[17]
Collision detection must be done server side for the normal reasons (cheating/hacking) There is no reason path finding can't be done client side, the pathfinder would then only have the same information as the player (IE if there is an invisible, undetectable forcefield the pathfinder would run into it! :) )
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 13:44:00 -
[18]
Also a lot of the problems don't come from the 'hit-boxes' not been complex enough, just too large for the object's visual appearance.
A few would probably require multiple hit-boxes to do but that would not signifigantly increase server load.
It doesn't have to be perfect but some objects are just fairly god dammed terrible at the moment.
|
Klutte
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 15:09:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Rhinanna Collision detection must be done server side for the normal reasons (cheating/hacking) There is no reason path finding can't be done client side, the pathfinder would then only have the same information as the player (IE if there is an invisible, undetectable forcefield the pathfinder would run into it! :) )
so then the server ***uld have to keep track of where the client believes the shp is instead of just getting a "vector changed to this and that" from the client... i think that would require more server calculations over todays model too
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 16:36:00 -
[20]
If you'd been here for 6 months you'd already have heard all those requests half a dozen times.
|
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 17:50:00 -
[21]
Quote: so then the server ***uld have to keep track of where the client believes the shp is instead of just getting a "vector changed to this and that" from the client... i think that would require more server calculations over todays model too
Errr why????? I'm a programmer and I can't see any reason anything extra would need to be done server side or any extra data would be need to be sent. The client side code can just send the vectors when it wants to make a direction change. Ship manuverability can be accounted for client side (the AI would assume the turn is going to be slower for bigger/less manuverable ships, the turning would still be calculated server side as it is now)
Quote: If you'd been here for 6 months you'd already have heard all those requests half a dozen times.
[sarcasm] Oh gee, thanks for the really constructive post, I'm sure many people will be amazed at the insightful and useful comment you've made [/sarcasm]
Well I haven't been here six months, I fail to see how this makes this useful and constructive thread any less so.
|
H Lecter
Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 17:59:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Rhinanna 1: No Tech 2 variations of some of the best looking ships in game. The hurricane is IMHO the best looking ship in the game, yet when I get to command ships I can't get one.... I'm going to be forced to use a slephnir which I think is a horrible looking ship. Its not a lot of work to add a Tech 2 or at least fleet variation of the BCs lacking a Tech 2 variation so why not do it?
A matter of personal taste - I would also love to have a command ship based on the myrmidon, so I support your cause without hoping for any response from CCP.
Originally by: Rhinanna 2: Object size vs appearence - Its way too easy to bash into objects despite the graphical representation of the object been no-where near your ship. This is really annoying when trying to fly towards a target, your going fairly close to a asteroid or whatever and you bump it. This kinda needs to be fixed.
I hate getting stuck on invisible barriers - if it is possible without increasing lag by enhanced collision detection I am all for it.
Originally by: Rhinanna 3: Approach/Orbit commands too dumb - The AI should check for objects in the way and not just try to fly straight through the buggers :) Orbiting at a specific distance never seems to even try and orbit at the distance specified which is very annoying.
Try approaching manually. It also helps to reduce damage by choosing a less direct approach.
Originally by: Rhinanna 4: Add a 'mass-sell' option where you can select multiple items and sell them in one go, when you do this you should get a option dialog prompting you to select a % of market price, anything above this % would auto-sell, anything below it wouldn't. This would save a lot of time for us after missions/plexs e.t.c.
Proposed many times - I hope CCP will give us the option one day.
Originally by: Rhinanna 5: Any lag reduction is always good, its not too bad at the moment but could certainly use improvement.
Agreed - according to rumours CCP is working on it.
Originally by: Rhinanna 6: Improved user interface: Its annoying when you click F1 e.t.c. to fire a gun but your weapon is still on cooldown from it's last shot, can it not queue the attack command till the gun is off cooldown then fire? Also clicking a item you have cancelled (red surround) again should cancel the cancellation.
Sounds like a nice proposal - if there is no technical reason not to implement it I'd like to see it one day.
Originally by: Rhinanna 7: Sort out mission difficulty + choice. Some Lvl 3 missions are harder than Lvl 4 missions in the same ship (IE a BC) This just isn't good. Also let players have more choice when selecting missions, its annoying when I have 1 hour left before I need to do something and the dammed agents keep giving me 2+ hour missions.
Not sure if it is that easy. We usually judge missions by the ships we do fly. Maybe for another race's BC the mission is much easier than for yours. My last mission is a long time ago, so I am not qualified to judge that.
Anyway - I am pleasantly surprised by the quality of your suggestions. I found nothing to flame and I tried very hard
My opinion may or may not be shared by my alliance |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.03 23:39:00 -
[23]
Quote: I am pleasantly surprised by the quality of your suggestions. I found nothing to flame and I tried very hard
Probably the nicest comment I've received on the net! ;)
|
Ryuga VonRhaiden
Caldari Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 04:37:00 -
[24]
Originally by: ITTigerClawIK
i do agree that there are missing T2 variations but of course we need to find a T2 role that isnt already filled at the moment.
Profession ships \o/
2x damage/tracking/range bonus, 1x resistance bonus, 1x race specific (dronebay, capacitor etc)
role bonus: 100% damage increase (halved hardpoints), can fit advanced profession tools (improved hacking/archeo/salvaging stuff only for these ships)
Do not try and find the signature... that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no signature. |
Xorbelbeeb
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 04:49:00 -
[25]
Does anyone else find that the most problematic collision issue occurs when a fleet member attempts to warp the rest of the fleet? If I am near a station, I frequently get hung up on it while the rest of the fleet warps off.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 14:18:00 -
[26]
Ughhh... I'd hate to see the 'cane tech 2 as a salvaging ship :(
Personally I think most of the T1 BCs that are missing T2 variants would fit nicely into the 'assault ship' slot. Heavy tank, good speed, good firepower, lacking in EW/sensors/support.
Kinda designed to lead lighter ships into an enemy battle formation and provide support/heavy fire to it. I don't think any of the other BCs will perform this function well.
Bonus to speed, shield/armour boost (shield for 'cane PLEASE! :) ) gun damage and optimal range. They would be very good 1v1 but needing support for gang warfare. Good with support, not so good without. Perhaps a role penalty on EW systems.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |