Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] .. 42 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 21:15:00 -
[1171]
@ Ath: No, this is a large step in the right direction. AC boats that use EMP basically just got a 9% DPS boost. Arty may (gasp) become useful, or at least a hell of a lot more fun.
I too would like to see more falloff (by any virtue) - and I phrased a question out to Nozh in the other thread. The chances of a response is unlikely, but it appears that they are reading. I haven't seen a CCP statement about hit quality in falloff as of... ever, so I wonder what kind of response they would give. Like I said in that thread, a good 30-35% falloff boost is a good "forgive and forget" measure that brings it close to being in line with their intentions, if it was 50% of DPS at optimal + (current) falloff.
Oh and the ammo damage types too. Yes, those.
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 21:20:00 -
[1172]
Originally by: AstroPhobic @ Ath: No, this is a large step in the right direction. AC boats that use EMP basically just got a 9% DPS boost. Arty may (gasp) become useful, or at least a hell of a lot more fun.
I too would like to see more falloff (by any virtue) - and I phrased a question out to Nozh in the other thread. The chances of a response is unlikely, but it appears that they are reading. I haven't seen a CCP statement about hit quality in falloff as of... ever, so I wonder what kind of response they would give. Like I said in that thread, a good 30-35% falloff boost is a good "forgive and forget" measure that brings it close to being in line with their intentions, if it was 50% of DPS at optimal + (current) falloff.
Oh and the ammo damage types too. Yes, those.
In regards to autos, you notice Nozh referred to autos as being at least previously good at range over other weapons. Somewhat unfortunately, I got the idea from his comments that ccp has in mind to leave lasers with their range advantage and give autos an advantage of best tracking. Maybe this means they plan to balance most if not all minmatar ships to speed tanking?
|
Orakkus
Minmatar m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 21:29:00 -
[1173]
To be honest, either ROF or Tracking would give Minmatar back its.. uniqueness. And with Minmatar being the "speed" race, tracking makes the most sense.
I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet. |
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 21:30:00 -
[1174]
Originally by: Roland Thorne In regards to autos, you notice Nozh referred to autos as being at least previously good at range over other weapons. Somewhat unfortunately, I got the idea from his comments that ccp has in mind to leave lasers with their range advantage and give autos an advantage of best tracking. Maybe this means they plan to balance most if not all minmatar ships to speed tanking?
It would certainly contradict the latest speed changes. Minmatar ships have lost their speed advantages (clealy... even looking at some of the faction ships, it makes you laugh. Zealot is faster than the muninn, crusader faster than the claw, etc...). It would kind of work to the idea of nerfed webs, but it kind of falls apart in today's large gang scene.
My question isn't a prod to get them to increase range (not really), but rather re-examine they benchmarks they put down for autocannon damage. If they thought that an 800dps tempest was going to do 400 DPS at 3+30KM, increasing the falloff enough so that it actually does 400 DPS at 33km isn't a stretch. If they think that it's supposed to do the ~310 DPS that it does instead, well that's fine, but they should compensate in other areas such as damage type or tracking.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2009.09.23 22:28:00 -
[1175]
of course is a step in the right direction, i agree with that and i think ACs doesnt need an huge boost...
if they fix t1/faction ammos and give more faloff (even if i prefer optimal :P) thats ok, as long as the dmg curve is good be it for a bit more dps a more faloff or more optimal that ok forme
if both dps and range will stay the same here that i start to have some doubts, tracking is good but as you said they alredy nerfed minnie speed and also thers always the risk to make it too good vs smaller ships when mounted on ships with tracking bonus... it will be an interesting option indeed but ccp tryed to move away from the 1hit/kill scenario so i have not much hope in this too
arty imo will need way more love than that, if they are really going to not boost dmg/rof ratio but just make them bigger alpha, eventually with some indirect dps gain from less reload, they should also boost range or tracking as is kinda pointless to have an alpha advantage if you are going to miss your opponent with 2 of your 8 guns due to faloff or tracking
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 00:19:00 -
[1176]
The projectile thread is too ambitious and remids me of the rigs changes where in the end they only went with the part that did not need any ballancing. It is little more than pile of wishes. For starters, matching projectile ammo damage to that of crystals and hybrids is bad idea for more than one reason (damage choice, gun optimal); that damage graph is something one week old newbie would make, the designer should be well ahead of such shallow observations.
Unless they give matar blaster DPS, "solving" the issue by sledgehammer, tempest still needs change. And the thread about navy ships is not very promising with essentially nerfed fleet pest and navy phoon back into 4/4. Consider that Pest with improved projectiles is Mega with less turrets and less drones and worse slot layout (and to be barely on par with Raven, ACs would indeed need blaster DPS).
One - minor - projectile idea that struck me reading all that, is making high tier ACs into the alpha machines everyne wants arty to be. Alpha on ACs is much less prone to abuse than on arty, gives high tier ACs something cool and is pretty non controversal change.
|
Spaztick
Terminal Impact Kairakau
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 01:33:00 -
[1177]
Edited by: Spaztick on 24/09/2009 01:33:46
Originally by: Forge Lag The projectile thread is too ambitious and remids me of the rigs changes where in the end they only went with the part that did not need any ballancing. It is little more than pile of wishes. For starters, matching projectile ammo damage to that of crystals and hybrids is bad idea for more than one reason (damage choice, gun optimal); that damage graph is something one week old newbie would make, the designer should be well ahead of such shallow observations.
Unless they give matar blaster DPS, "solving" the issue by sledgehammer, tempest still needs change. And the thread about navy ships is not very promising with essentially nerfed fleet pest and navy phoon back into 4/4. Consider that Pest with improved projectiles is Mega with less turrets and less drones and worse slot layout (and to be barely on par with Raven, ACs would indeed need blaster DPS).
One - minor - projectile idea that struck me reading all that, is making high tier ACs into the alpha machines everyne wants arty to be. Alpha on ACs is much less prone to abuse than on arty, gives high tier ACs something cool and is pretty non controversial change.
As of right now you have widely varying damage modification, tracking, optimal, falloff and rate of fire on projectile weapons, and on top of that you have projectile ammo varied from hybrid and crystals. Standardizing the damage on all projectile ammo is the best thing you can do for modifying the guns themselves because it gives a baseline to work from.
I doubt they'd give Blaster DPS to projectiles, because then you simply reverse the problems projectiles have by forcing Blasters to out track at close range against Matari gunboats instead of flat out damaging once you get on top of one. Blasters already out track projectiles, but that is incentive for Matari ships to stay at range and out of blaster optimal + falloff, not just the damage.
As for the Tempest, I don't see anything wrong with the ship itself. I do think if anything it needs a bit more agility or speed, but it's largely the projectiles themselves. If it's slot moving that you want to do, you are going to end up taking away from the sniper role or the armor tanking role if you move a mid or low (if I had to pick, I'd go with an extra mid, but I'd rather have 5 low slots for enough room for TEs so I don't have to use tracking computers).
ACs aren't about the alpha, it's about picking the range and tracking around your opponent to do more DPS at a certain range than them; with blasters it's staying away and pelting them in falloff, with lasers you get up close and outtrack them (which is very hard to do considering you are going to be webbed and possibly scrammed). Changing ACs to artillery-style guns only homogenizes the weapons and I think it would be far worse for ACs. Artillery's main strength is supposed to be high alpha, to pop your enemy before he has a chance to lock up you and fire or get remote repped. The Clarion Call showed a good example of where Tempest fleets would shine: when facing heavy heavy remote rep in the form of triage carriers and remote rep battleships. If you can alpha a ship, even if it's just into hull it's a dead ship no matter how much remote rep the enemy has.
|
Cheekie
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 02:17:00 -
[1178]
Well I have played for 4 years and then some...
To the OP why in the sweet space we call EVE has it taken you so long to admit the tempest and projo's have problems? It is good to see someone that CAN fly the tempest at a respectable lvl finally give into it being a mess. Yes the Dev's have openly admitted to it being a pile of trash and it is in the process of being reborn.
To those that argue that it is a good ship, You won't convince me or most anyone who fly's it as well as most people who have played EVE for more than 2 months. The devs say that the Tempest/projo's have problems we say they have problems and the quarterly reports warn of the problems as well. Stop being a fanatic and go find something else unfounded that you can preach about.
Till CCP fixes the problems in the thread my two accounts will remain on the sidelines buying GTC's and not playing till the isk runs out. I hope you fix it soon isk is getting thin.
|
Tyler Lowe
DROW Org Brotherhood of the Spider
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 05:14:00 -
[1179]
Originally by: Spaztick As of right now you have widely varying damage modification, tracking, optimal, falloff and rate of fire on projectile weapons, and on top of that you have projectile ammo varied from hybrid and crystals. Standardizing the damage on all projectile ammo is the best thing you can do for modifying the guns themselves because it gives a baseline to work from.
Spaztick, when you say "standardize" what exactly do you mean?
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 07:26:00 -
[1180]
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
Originally by: Spaztick As of right now you have widely varying damage modification, tracking, optimal, falloff and rate of fire on projectile weapons, and on top of that you have projectile ammo varied from hybrid and crystals. Standardizing the damage on all projectile ammo is the best thing you can do for modifying the guns themselves because it gives a baseline to work from.
Spaztick, when you say "standardize" what exactly do you mean?
Its probably a reference to this:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365
It looks like we got something started, and hopefully it doesn't get twisted up into something odd. Heres to flying minny ftw :)
|
|
Spaztick
Terminal Impact Kairakau
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 13:22:00 -
[1181]
Originally by: Roland Thorne
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
Originally by: Spaztick As of right now you have widely varying damage modification, tracking, optimal, falloff and rate of fire on projectile weapons, and on top of that you have projectile ammo varied from hybrid and crystals. Standardizing the damage on all projectile ammo is the best thing you can do for modifying the guns themselves because it gives a baseline to work from.
Spaztick, when you say "standardize" what exactly do you mean?
Its probably a reference to this:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365
It looks like we got something started, and hopefully it doesn't get twisted up into something odd. Heres to flying minny ftw :)
Yea, that. The damage on ammo for turret based ships have had different base damages, and it only needlessly complicates things.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 06:50:00 -
[1182]
OK, after critically examining the Tempest, I've found out what it would take to modify the ship for the damage output to be as it should. In order to make the tempest act as if it had 7 turret slots instead of six, the second bonus must be changed to 7% per level, and a high slot would need to be removed... In exchange for the high slot, the tempest could have the second bonus be changed to 7.5% per level, giving it a bit of an edge in alpha.
After this modification was to proceed, there would be absolutely no grounds upon further comparing it to the Maelstrom for the sake of damage output. And doing it this way doesn't require CCP to re-model the tempest. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 07:57:00 -
[1183]
Originally by: Allen Ramses OK, after critically examining the Tempest, I've found out what it would take to modify the ship for the damage output to be as it should. In order to make the tempest act as if it had 7 turret slots instead of six, the second bonus must be changed to 7% per level, and a high slot would need to be removed... In exchange for the high slot, the tempest could have the second bonus be changed to 7.5% per level, giving it a bit of an edge in alpha.
After this modification was to proceed, there would be absolutely no grounds upon further comparing it to the Maelstrom for the sake of damage output. And doing it this way doesn't require CCP to re-model the tempest.
You really need to take your terrible balance ideas and write them down in a book. Burn it when you're done.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Caroline Nikon
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:50:00 -
[1184]
Originally by: Cheekie Well I have played for 4 years and then some...
To the OP why in the sweet space we call EVE has it taken you so long to admit the tempest and projo's have problems? It is good to see someone that CAN fly the tempest at a respectable lvl finally give into it being a mess. Yes the Dev's have openly admitted to it being a pile of trash and it is in the process of being reborn.
To those that argue that it is a good ship, You won't convince me or most anyone who fly's it as well as most people who have played EVE for more than 2 months. The devs say that the Tempest/projo's have problems we say they have problems and the quarterly reports warn of the problems as well. Stop being a fanatic and go find something else unfounded that you can preach about.
Till CCP fixes the problems in the thread my two accounts will remain on the sidelines buying GTC's and not playing till the isk runs out. I hope you fix it soon isk is getting thin.
it took them all that time because in past tempest was not bad. Back when NOS worked and fitting a multi spec at the spare mid was a good idea, t2 guns could reach 200km even in a horrible ship, alpha strike was a massive advantage due to much smaller HP pools, active tanks were the norm and not the exception, tackling was limited to 10 km web and 20 km point, there was no abundance of faction ammo and everyone used T2 as high damage ammo....
Back THEN... The tempest was a very good best battleship.
|
To mare
Amarr Advanced Technology
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:38:00 -
[1185]
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
|
Tyler Lowe
DROW Org Brotherhood of the Spider
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:50:00 -
[1186]
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
Much, much better, but IMO, what they really need to do, is make that change to the standard Tempest (less the fleet armor and shield totals naturally) and give the Fleet version a 7th turret slot and the grid to use it. Probably too much to hope for. X/5/6 is such a crap layout though.
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:50:00 -
[1187]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/09/2009 16:50:05
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
Comments: - I'm really glad to see they've fixed the Phoon to not be so ******edly skill intensive. Just as I round off my Phoon training, but I suppose that's the way Eve works. - The fleet phoon changes are way awesome. I'll buy one. - The Tempest itself is an interesting change. I think giving it more armor HP will go a long way towards helping with EHP deficiencies. It won't fix the Pest itself, but the projectile changes might. I'm really pleased that they didn't give it a 7th turret for fixing it. - The Fleet Pest may or may not be worthwhile. IMO it's an improvement over the previous suggestion. :)
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:15:00 -
[1188]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 25/09/2009 17:20:37
Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 25/09/2009 16:50:05
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
Comments: - I'm really glad to see they've fixed the Phoon to not be so ******edly skill intensive. Just as I round off my Phoon training, but I suppose that's the way Eve works. - The fleet phoon changes are way awesome. I'll buy one. - The Tempest itself is an interesting change. I think giving it more armor HP will go a long way towards helping with EHP deficiencies. It won't fix the Pest itself, but the projectile changes might. I'm really pleased that they didn't give it a 7th turret for fixing it. - The Fleet Pest may or may not be worthwhile. IMO it's an improvement over the previous suggestion. :)
-Liang
Hmm. I think I would have rathered the Fleet Pest keep it's current slot layout (8/6/6) but keep the 7th turret slot. Time and testing will tell, I suppose. At least now it can tank.
For the record though, the Mach is still staying 8/5/7 with 7/0 turrets/launchers, right?
EDIT: And I'm going to have to send love poems to Iceland for all that they've done for the phoon! \o/
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:36:00 -
[1189]
Originally by: Seriously Bored Edited by: Seriously Bored on 25/09/2009 17:20:37
EDIT: And I'm going to have to send love poems to Iceland for all that they've done for the phoon! \o/
Lets not go overboard!
The changes make more sense, and 5/5 turrets and launchers are welcome on the phoon. Tempest still needs more work :(
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:40:00 -
[1190]
Woot! Energy Systems Operation 5/Torps 5 will finally pay off.
|
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:44:00 -
[1191]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Hmm. I think I would have rathered the Fleet Pest keep it's current slot layout (8/6/6) but keep the 7th turret slot. Time and testing will tell, I suppose. At least now it can tank.
For the record though, the Mach is still staying 8/5/7 with 7/0 turrets/launchers, right?
EDIT: And I'm going to have to send love poems to Iceland for all that they've done for the phoon! \o/
Like I said: it's an improvement over the previous suggestion (8(7)/5/6)... I too would have preferred the fleet pest to go back to its original slot layout (shield tank). I don't know whether it will be worthwhile in its current form.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 18:08:00 -
[1192]
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
yarrrrrrr
finally the phoon with 5/5 and fleet phoon with 8/4/8 will be very nice :) (going to get one too eheh)
for the pest i think she will need some more work as shield or armor its tank will be always bad and even with the proj boost will have not much to compensate for this weakness
personally i will like to see it with more decent tankability... be it 8/4/7 or 8/6/5
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Spaztick
Terminal Impact Kairakau
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 18:09:00 -
[1193]
I'm not of the opinion that the Tempest should be focused as an armor tanker, and I stand by my previous idea of having an 8/6/5 or 8/6/6 layout. It is a sniper ship after all, perhaps the extra low will go towards freeing up the mids for other items like LSEs and hardeners; being able to have 3 gyros, 3 TEs and a reactor control or DCU depending on powergrid frees up a midslot that would otherwise have a tracking computer in it, allowing for an Invuln field, LSE or ECCM.
I'll have to try it out on SiSi.
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 18:58:00 -
[1194]
Why are the they so stubborn with the Pest. Some minor HP swap that is largely irrelevant in 1600mm world. Makes people whine less but does not fix anything.
Fleet pest back at square one now with more tendency towards armor tank than shield tank - slight missioning nerf, slight PvP buff, nothing exicitig. The worst faction BS gets the least buffs, if not nerfs, wtf.
Fk this, they just do not want to improve Pest for some perverted reason and they won't fix projectiles with this attitude either.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 19:05:00 -
[1195]
Originally by: Forge Lag Why are the they so stubborn with the Pest. Some minor HP swap that is largely irrelevant in 1600mm world. Makes people whine less but does not fix anything.
Fleet pest back at square one now with more tendency towards armor tank than shield tank - slight missioning nerf, slight PvP buff, nothing exicitig. The worst faction BS gets the least buffs, if not nerfs, wtf.
Fk this, they just do not want to improve Pest for some perverted reason and they won't fix projectiles with this attitude either.
Funny. Our Tempest / Fleet Tempest pilots (who fly the ships a lot and have very high skills with the things) are practically dancing with joy now, on hearing these latest changes.
To quote from our internal forums:
Quote:
There are not enough emoticons to express how I feel. This is pure awesomeness. Both changes make sense and are "scaled" right.
Awesome-lub-with-winsauce
...so someone disagrees with you, quite a bit. I won't comment, don't fly Pests... but I'm loving the new Phoons
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 19:56:00 -
[1196]
...because you don't have to fit projectiles on new Phoon, am I right?
I guess a few hundred EHP is all the Pest needed to go from crap to awesome, because that is all that was changed. You are overjoyed because someone listened to your whines; you did not even get a cookie. Slaves are so cheap.
|
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 20:10:00 -
[1197]
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 25/09/2009 20:10:58 Give the tempest a larger drone bay and autocannons a 10% damage modifier boost and we might be on our way to fixing things. I would also change the Maelstrom to a damage bonus if ACs are boosted to prevent the auto-mael from becoming too powerful (plus that would give it insane alpha with arties). As it stands now with the planned changes, I see no reason to ever fly a tempest over a phoon outside of sniping or a lack of missile SP.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 20:25:00 -
[1198]
Originally by: Forge Lag ...because you don't have to fit projectiles on new Phoon, am I right?
Yeah, but projectiles are also getting some love.
Quote: I guess a few hundred EHP is all the Pest needed to go from crap to awesome, because that is all that was changed. You are overjoyed because someone listened to your whines; you did not even get a cookie. Slaves are so cheap.
Well, a few hundred HP * 1.25 * resists... bringing the ship from 65 -> 75k ehp is a real improvement. Anyway, the real improvements to the Tempest are coming through boosts to projectiles themselves.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
kessah
Anonymous Alcoholics Wrath.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 20:27:00 -
[1199]
i <3 Liang
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 23:13:00 -
[1200]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Forge Lag ...because you don't have to fit projectiles on new Phoon, am I right?
Yeah, but projectiles are also getting some love.
true but with the announced changes i dont think proj will becomes primary on the phoon... missiles are just better... good range, good dps, no tracking... i dont see bit more tracking for proj change anything here... 5 missiles 1/2 neuts rest in RR will probably be the new standard for the phoon
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] .. 42 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |