Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:04:00 -
[391] - Quote
you need to bear in mind medium drones wont track frigs and struggle to keep up with them. |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:59:00 -
[392] - Quote
Quote:15% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty per level
You're joking right? |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
173
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:34:00 -
[393] - Quote
Any chance of an update on things soon? It would seem things here are running out of steam and most everything has been discussed. Ideas for Dorne Improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1658683#post1658683 Updated 9/21/12 |
Suitonia
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:28:00 -
[394] - Quote
The Amarr and Gallente destroyers seem somewhat misplaced to me, the Gallente one is sorely lacking in DPS for a ship with all it's bonuses towards damage., and having the highest signature radius and drones for DPS, it's going to be popped before it can apply any DPS in most situations, it's slow and can't hold it's own in duals against the other destroyers. The Amarr one looks interesting but I don't really understand the purpose of it, the neut bonuses force it to come in close where it will lose to all the other destroyers. A coercer (probably the most vulnerable destroyer to energy neutralisation) will pop it before it can cap it out, other cruisers are likely to pop it and it doesn't have the defence needed to survive while capping something else out since a flight of light drones are going to be get rid of it. The new Minmatar destroyer looks the most balanced and well refined although the signature radius bonus seems a little tacked on. Caldari destroyer is hilariously OP, it will out-right one-shot any non-brawling frigate, with near perfect damage application, it's like an Artillery thrasher with perfect tracking and 50km+ range.
My suggestion Gallente 5% to hybrid damage replaced with 10% to Drone Tracking per level. (ala Tristan) +1 Turret. (This makes up for the damage bonus) 25m3 drone bay/bandwidth -> 50m3 drone bandwidth/bay.
This adds a few more interesting options to the Gallente Destroyer. the ability to field a flight of medium drones with the tracking bonus means it can use them against other destroyers/frigates more effectively, at the cost of practical damage application because of the slower speed of medium drones, and puts it at more risk against frigates which can out-run them or destroy the drones far away from it, this also brings the damage up more in line with the other destroyers when brawling.
It also adds an interesting option of using Sentry Drones as well. 2x Sentry Drones with drone tracking while using rails at range seems like it would be interesting.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:35:00 -
[395] - Quote
or make some light sentries so it can snipe with 5 lights :) |
Lord Distortion
20th Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:07:00 -
[396] - Quote
I'm trying to work out a Tanky/staying build for the gallente one, but i'm not feeling it lol
I can see use for it messing about in lowsec and scan plexes, But insta death in null keeps playing out in my head, At least the catalyst might get to do 4/500dps with a good warpin... before a death of glorious fire. ( Instant catalyst Rail damage with align out options? ~ or waiting for drones to return ?lol? )
The big plus about it seems to be the ability to have a point & web. But it's.. designed for range :s Small gang ew ganking? Like an old school frig gang with one ew mod each & point or web lol |
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:14:00 -
[397] - Quote
I think one of the greatest problems of the new Gallente destroyer is that you can only achieve decent dps after dedicating the greater part of 1 year to training for both drones and hybrids. This would not be a problem if it were, say, a carrier, but considering it's a small ship, you are punishing new players who want to use it.
This is also one of the reasons I'm opposed to split weapon systems. It seems that people who really like drones are forced to train for considerably longer periods to achieve the same results of someone who only trains turrets and flies a dedicated turret ship. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:18:00 -
[398] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:I think one of the greatest problems of the new Gallente destroyer is that you can only achieve decent dps after dedicating the greater part of 1 year to training for both drones and hybrids. This would not be a problem if it were, say, a carrier, but considering it's a small ship, you are punishing new players who want to use it.
This is also one of the reasons I'm opposed to split weapon systems. It seems that people who really like drones are forced to train for considerably longer periods to achieve the same results of someone who only trains turrets and flies a dedicated turret ship.
Yep drones/ drone AI/interface needs lots of attention aswell as more drone bonuses on ships and less guns it would also help if we had more drone upgrades in the highs and more cpu to use them or reduce cpu on those drone mods |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:53:00 -
[399] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:I think one of the greatest problems of the new Gallente destroyer is that you can only achieve decent dps after dedicating the greater part of 1 year to training for both drones and hybrids. This would not be a problem if it were, say, a carrier, but considering it's a small ship, you are punishing new players who want to use it.
This is also one of the reasons I'm opposed to split weapon systems. It seems that people who really like drones are forced to train for considerably longer periods to achieve the same results of someone who only trains turrets and flies a dedicated turret ship.
exactly! thats why in post #378 I made it a full out drone boat with enough cpu to actually fit some drone upgreades |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:55:00 -
[400] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote: Edit: Ooh just noticed the PG on these ships though? 8 light missile launchers and you've used up all the base powergrid? o_O
CCP Fozzie wrote:-Decrease all Light Missile Launcher fitting requirements by 2pg and 4cpu |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
774
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:56:00 -
[401] - Quote
Oh hey look, another Amarr ship with turret slots that nobody in their right mind is going to use for lasers.
IMO just take the turret slots off entirely. If I see another Amarr ship with projectiles I'm going to vomit. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2474
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:05:00 -
[402] - Quote
While the idea of making these destroyers more combat class than attack class has some merit, I think I should remind everyone that destroyers are by the most basic nature attack craft.
Sure, you could put tanking bonuses on them but due to their size, speed, number of slots, and other factors at best you would end up with a destroyer that had gimped damage and MIGHT last for one more volley in anything but a full on gank (on the destroyers side) situation.
Destroyers are always called primary in any fight they are likely to be involved in, and for good reason. They are quick to kill and their death removes a significant portion of the damage available to your opponent.
Even with tanking bonuses this would not change, or even be significantly delayed.
There are reasons why by far the most common fits you find on destroyers used regularly in combat by their pilots tend to be very inexpensive. The only time you see T2 or expensive faction fits on a destroyer is if the pilot is either
A: New to destroyers. B: An experienced pilot that will only be flying it in 1 vs 1 or gank only situations.
In any other situation you are simply throwing your ISK away, as (with rare exception) that destroyer WILL die.
To give destroyers bonuses that would actually allow them a reasonable chance of survival in a typical encounter you would have to give them defensive bonuses that pushed well into the territory of T2 vessels, and I do not think that is a wise course. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:15:00 -
[403] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:While the idea of making these destroyers more combat class than attack class has some merit, I think I should remind everyone that destroyers are by the most basic nature attack craft.
Sure, you could put tanking bonuses on them but due to their size, speed, number of slots, and other factors at best you would end up with a destroyer that had gimped damage and MIGHT last for one more volley in anything but a full on gank (on the destroyers side) situation.
Destroyers are always called primary in any fight they are likely to be involved in, and for good reason. They are quick to kill and their death removes a significant portion of the damage available to your opponent.
Even with tanking bonuses this would not change, or even be significantly delayed.
There are reasons why by far the most common fits you find on destroyers used regularly in combat by their pilots tend to be very inexpensive. The only time you see T2 or expensive faction fits on a destroyer is if the pilot is either
A: New to destroyers. B: An experienced pilot that will only be flying it in 1 vs 1 or gank only situations.
In any other situation you are simply throwing your ISK away, as (with rare exception) that destroyer WILL die.
To give destroyers bonuses that would actually allow them a reasonable chance of survival in a typical encounter you would have to give them defensive bonuses that pushed well into the territory of T2 vessels, and I do not think that is a wise course.
mm.. they sound like expensive pinatas :P sig radius drop anyone? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2474
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:48:00 -
[404] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:While the idea of making these destroyers more combat class than attack class has some merit, I think I should remind everyone that destroyers are by the most basic nature attack craft.
Sure, you could put tanking bonuses on them but due to their size, speed, number of slots, and other factors at best you would end up with a destroyer that had gimped damage and MIGHT last for one more volley in anything but a full on gank (on the destroyers side) situation.
Destroyers are always called primary in any fight they are likely to be involved in, and for good reason. They are quick to kill and their death removes a significant portion of the damage available to your opponent.
Even with tanking bonuses this would not change, or even be significantly delayed.
There are reasons why by far the most common fits you find on destroyers used regularly in combat by their pilots tend to be very inexpensive. The only time you see T2 or expensive faction fits on a destroyer is if the pilot is either
A: New to destroyers. B: An experienced pilot that will only be flying it in 1 vs 1 or gank only situations.
In any other situation you are simply throwing your ISK away, as (with rare exception) that destroyer WILL die.
To give destroyers bonuses that would actually allow them a reasonable chance of survival in a typical encounter you would have to give them defensive bonuses that pushed well into the territory of T2 vessels, and I do not think that is a wise course. mm.. they sound like expensive pinatas :P sig radius drop anyone?
No, more like inexpensive pinatas with a lot of firepower... unless you get silly with the fittings. THEN they are an expensive pinata. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:55:00 -
[405] - Quote
Gallente Destroyer
I feel it will be a better Brawler than the Cat with the cat better for mid to long range. Something like this fits I think although it has an empty high.
[Gallente Destroyer, Drone]
Internal Force Field Array I Drone Damage Amplifier II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Light Ion Blaster II, Void S [empty High slot] Light Ion Blaster II, Void S Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Light Ion Blaster II, Void S
Small Anti-Explosive Pump I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Processor Overclocking Unit I
Hobgoblin II x5 Warrior II x5
5 x Hob IIGÇÖs with one damage Mod = 183dps 4 x Ions Void with 5% damage bonus one magstab = 262dps (rails may be more viable but the CPU is very limiting) Total = 445dps
It is going to be very difficult to significantly increase the drone dps, so this ship will always be a split Hybrid/ Drone platform. This may make it the better brawler than the Cat as it has three mids for range control, drones are best used close up and with a tackled target Hobs can be used, utility highs for neuts and still has a fall back of throwing out a flight of warriors if there is any kity TD nonsense. This is something the Cat cannot do; a blaster cat caught and not able to apply dps dies very easily. Yet the Cat has good mid range DPS with rail, has instant damage application and is faster.
I guess I would like more CPU, havnGÇÖt even come close to fitting a drone rig or upgrade and it will be very difficult to fit both utility highs. Enough CPU powergrid for that high or move it to a low at least it can have a mod with zero CPU or be used to boost CPU.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
244
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:16:00 -
[406] - Quote
I am looking forward the t2 versions tbh, t2 destroyers specialised in killing things would be nice .... |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:26:00 -
[407] - Quote
Doddy wrote:I am looking forward the t2 versions tbh, t2 destroyers specialised in killing things would be nice .... They first have to make the T1s usable, then bat around T2. Ideas for Dorne Improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1658683#post1658683 Updated 9/21/12 |
Victor Gallows
Save My Tax
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:09:00 -
[408] - Quote
I'm a new player... I want to like Amarr ships, I really do. But, they're always so indecisive in their design. Here we have 2 secondary weapon systems being thrown at the player again: missiles and drones. Can we pick one please, so that if I roll an Amarr alt, I'll know which to train?
Destroyers are supposed to be the second class of ship the player gets into, correct? Why the wishy-washy design in the weapon slots then? This reminds me of the Arbitrator: is it an ewar ship? a drone boat? And, what am I supposed to do with those highs if I trained lasers? The Vexor, being similar and better doesn't have this ambiguity, it's a drone boat with hybrids as it's secondary weapon; that is easy to see and work with.
Now look at the bonuses, and like the guy said a few posts back, "here we are with projectiles on an Amarr ship again." Also, neuts? With drones and missiles? And, possibly artillery because nothing else would match up... My god, do you even see the schizophrenia in this design? It looks like an ugly ducking you should pick ANY other destroyer over until you have 20 million SP and can equip something useful in every slot.
How about 6H, 5T and a laser cap bonus or something? Want to keep the ewar? Then have a laser OR ewar bonus kick in depending on how many of -type- are equipped in the high slots. Please give it a focus of some kind, I don't care what, as long as it has one. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:16:00 -
[409] - Quote
Victor Gallows wrote:I'm a new player... I want to like Amarr ships, I really do. But, they're always so indecisive in their design. Here we have 2 secondary weapon systems being thrown at the player again: missiles and drones. Can we pick one please, so that if I roll an Amarr alt, I'll know which to train?
Destroyers are supposed to be the second class of ship the player gets into, correct? Why the wishy-washy design in the weapon slots then? This reminds me of the Arbitrator: is it an ewar ship? a drone boat? And, what am I supposed to do with those highs if I trained lasers? The Vexor, being similar and better doesn't have this ambiguity, it's a drone boat with hybrids as it's secondary weapon; that is easy to see and work with.
Now look at the bonuses, and like the guy said a few posts back, "here we are with projectiles on an Amarr ship again." Also, neuts? With drones and missiles? And, possibly artillery because nothing else would match up... My god, do you even see the schizophrenia in this design? It looks like an ugly ducking you should pick ANY other destroyer over until you have 20 million SP and can equip something useful in every slot.
How about 6H, 5T and a laser cap bonus or something? Want to keep the ewar? Then have a laser OR ewar bonus kick in depending on how many of -type- are equipped in the high slots. Please give it a focus of some kind, I don't care what, as long as it has one.
Note: When you redesigned the Tormentor I was able to understand that ship instantly. 4H, 3T, 2 Drones with good speed and a fairly long targeting range for a frigate. It's a kiting ship, drones + link augmenter and beams.
Or you know, you could use your head? |
Victor Gallows
Save My Tax
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:21:00 -
[410] - Quote
Quote:Or you know, you could use your head?
Yea I did... And this is what I came up with: Can't fit it out without all kinds of tertiary training in things even the game tells you Amarr isn't focused on.
|
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
334
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:36:00 -
[411] - Quote
You don't just go around badmouthing the Arbitrator in these parts, mister. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
618
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:44:00 -
[412] - Quote
Drone boats as destroyers only have so many ways they can go. You will get between 121 and 206 DPS depending on what type you use and how many DDA's you put on your boat. That DPS is delayed as well. Compared to the 300 - 600 DPS many of the original destroyers can throw up - that's not a whole lot. So you have to add something to the pot for balance.
The first is to allow the destroyer to field drones a size up - Valkeries or Hammerheads. The second is to add a wild card - such as the nos bonus being proposed for Amarr. And lastly you make it a mixed weapon platform. This is the route they went with Gallente.
And the drone destroyers will need to be able to tank a bit more then the old destroyers if they want to stay on the field long enough to apply their damage. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
508
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 04:31:00 -
[413] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Drone boats as destroyers only have so many ways they can go. You will get between 121 and 206 DPS depending on what type you use and how many DDA's you put on your boat. That DPS is delayed as well. Compared to the 300 - 600 DPS many of the original destroyers can throw up - that's not a whole lot. So you have to add something to the pot for balance.
The first is to allow the destroyer to field drones a size up - Valkeries or Hammerheads. The second is to add a wild card - such as the nos bonus being proposed for Amarr. And lastly you make it a mixed weapon platform. This is the route they went with Gallente.
And the drone destroyers will need to be able to tank a bit more then the old destroyers if they want to stay on the field long enough to apply their damage.
Another option in line with the devs stated purpose of the ship:
Gallente are always about raw firepower, that's why this ship has double drone damage bonuses to achieve its goals. While the drone damage may appear excessive, remember that drone damage is delayed and is often not applied by glass cannon ships like high sig radius Gallente destroyers with no adequatee defensive capabilities. On the downside, it has a limited dronebay next to the Amarr version, making it more difficult to replace lost drones - but this won't matter because somebody is gonna die before its drones are shot.
+10% to drone damage and HP per level +5% drone speed and tracking per level Role bonus: +50% drone damage bonus
How about that? 223 drone damage without drone damage augmentors, 377+ dps (or so) when fit for total gank (3x drone damage augmentors). I'm sure CCP can find an excuse to remove another high slot to further nerf, err, balance, this ship. |
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:00:00 -
[414] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:How about that? 223 drone damage without drone damage augmentors, 377+ dps (or so) when fit for total gank (3x drone damage augmentors). I'm sure CCP can remove another high slot and decrease its speed to further balance this ship.
I would remove one hardpoint and move 2 highs to lows. I like the bonuses, though, but am a bit afraid +100% to drone damage at Destroyers 5 would be a bit too much. Another idea could be this:
Ship bonuses: +10% to drone speed and tracking +5% to drone hp and mwd Role bonus: +50% drone damage Slot layout: 5 H, 3 M, 4 L, 4 turrets Fittings: 52 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 850 / 950 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 550 / 350s / 1.57s Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240 / 2.45 / 1800000 / 4.46s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 40 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 48km / 450 / 7 Sensor strength: 11 magnetometric Signature radius: 72 Cargo capacity: 350
The thinking behind this is that new players won't have to train Drones 5 to get the best (sort of) from the ship bonuses. The decreased hp kind of balances the increased speed, specially considering this is supposed to field a group of 4 meds. +20% to mwd speed (with dessy 4) will give meds quite a boost and decrease the delay of applied dps, but also make smalls outrun their targets, transforming them in a less viable alternative (unless you use goblins, in which case I think they would be ok). More tracking means more hits, which helps a lot with meds against small targets. For new players this would be a great little mission boat.
Now, for older players who have good drone skills and Destroyers 5, such configuration would allow for the fielding of 3 Valkyrie IIs and 2 Hobgoblin IIs --which I think is quite an awesome configuration-- with the added bonuses. All the other changes are meant to encourage rails over blasters (and I know Gallente is all about blasters, but CCP could change the Catalyst to be a serious blaster boat only by changing the optimal bonus for a falloff one). |
Alara IonStorm
3230
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:46:00 -
[415] - Quote
From the Combat Frig Thread.
Alara IonStorm wrote:A lot of people are talking about how the Tristan has to long an uphill train time for newer players while others are countering that this makes a good drone ship for them to train on. CCP seem to be adding more drone coverage for their Frigate lineup in general as well.
I propose that they change the way drones are skilled without changing the time they are skilled in effect leaving drones the same as before with completed training but like turret weapons and missile launchers workable at lower SP.
Example.
Drone Skill allows the launch of 5 combat drones at Lvl 1. Each level of Drone Skill trained gives 20% increase in Drone Damage. Each Lvl of Drone Interfacing gives 10% per Lvl to Drone Damage. Base Drone stats are adjusted so the combined total achieved overall is the same as current.
Secondly introduce 1 Meta lvl Drone per race with stats that are roughly an "in between" of T1 and 2.
Hobgoblin 1 : **** Meta Lvl Hob: ****** Hobgoblin 2 : ********
This would allow quicker entry into usable Drones with the same amount of time invested for refinement. Making Drones take less time to skill into and the same amount of time to max out will help new players use these newer smaller drone boats with a good level of effectiveness without taking to much time out of Core Skills Training or reducing overall training time. |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:33:00 -
[416] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote: Edit: Ooh just noticed the PG on these ships though? 8 light missile launchers and you've used up all the base powergrid? o_O
CCP Fozzie wrote:-Decrease all Light Missile Launcher fitting requirements by 2pg and 4cpu
Yeah just read this, this morning, yay! :) Should make fitting these much more viable now. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:51:00 -
[417] - Quote
Luc Chastot wrote:X Gallentius wrote:How about that? 223 drone damage without drone damage augmentors, 377+ dps (or so) when fit for total gank (3x drone damage augmentors). I'm sure CCP can remove another high slot and decrease its speed to further balance this ship. I would remove one hardpoint and move 2 highs to lows. I like the bonuses, though, but am a bit afraid +100% to drone damage at Destroyers 5 would be a bit too much. . The dps is low compared to other ranged dessies and the applied damage over time for drones is less than other weapon systems as well.
Long range coercer is going to be able to pump about 1800 damage before your drones apply any dps, and then the drones will only be applying a marginal amount more damage with these proposed bonuses. Say an average destroyer has 6k EHP.
300 dps = 20 seconds until death. Your drones have spent 6 seconds getting to target (30% of the fight.) Your drone destroyer needs to put out at least 1/3rd more dps than the opponent if you expect to win - assuming your drone decides to actually attack the opponent for those 14 seconds instead of deciding to quit the attack while turning its mwd off and on.
|
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:34:00 -
[418] - Quote
Yes, but this is assuming you rely only in your drones to project your dps. With 4 125mm rails and spike you would be looking at something close to 420+ dps after the first 6 seconds and around 40+ dps during that time. All of this at point range, of course.
I know those numbers make the total marginally higher than 6k hp, but this means you will need slightly less than 20 seconds to win. |
Luna Navita
Strike of Scylla's Navy The Mandalorians
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:06:00 -
[419] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:the gal drone ship i want to see
GALLENTE DESTROYER:
Ship bonuses: +10% to drone damage and HP per level +1 max active drone per level Role bonus: +50% small hybrid turret optimal range Slot layout: 5H, 3 M, 4 L, 4 turrets Fittings: 60 PWG, 150 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 850 / 950 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 550 / 350s / 1.57s Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240 / 2.45 / 1800000 / 4.46s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 42km / 500 / 7 Sensor strength: 11 magnetometric Signature radius: 72 Cargo capacity: 350
This will be a TRUE DRONE boat! |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:16:00 -
[420] - Quote
Luna Navita wrote:MeBiatch wrote:the gal drone ship i want to see
GALLENTE DESTROYER:
Ship bonuses: +10% to drone damage and HP per level +1 max active drone per level Role bonus: +50% small hybrid turret optimal range Slot layout: 5H, 3 M, 4 L, 4 turrets Fittings: 60 PWG, 150 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 800 / 850 / 950 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 550 / 350s / 1.57s Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 240 / 2.45 / 1800000 / 4.46s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 42km / 500 / 7 Sensor strength: 11 magnetometric Signature radius: 72 Cargo capacity: 350 This will be a TRUE DRONE boat!
Think the bandwidth may need adjusting if you really want to propose that. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |