Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 [50] 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
241
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:46:00 -
[1471] - Quote
Cytherion wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:To the numpties who obviously can't be bothered to read the dev blog that's been up for ages: The Sleipnir is not being made into a missile boat, the Claymore is.
All the Command Ships are being balanced so they can either boost, (using up to two types of boosted links @3%/level,) or fulfill a combat role.
That's means the Sleipnir is probably going to lose either its falloff or damage bonus from the Command Ship skill in lieu of a 3% link boost.
T3s are having their warfare sub changed to affect 3 types of links @2%/level.
Also, I haven't sorted out access to SiSi as yet, has anyone actually compared the Brutixs agility and speed to some of the other BCs? I'm curious how the mass change is affecting it. I am an ex field Command Ship pilot (both NH and Sleipnir) who just came back to the game to check out the noise that was all about, finally found the BC/Command Ship "dev blog " after digging for it. For those interested in reading it, here is the link http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530All I can say is that they better not touch my Sleipnir damage bonus , command ships need to be able to multi-task like a mother and not just be someones buff-monkey. They need to be able to deal significant damage (slighty under top tier BS damage) while holding their own. They are command ships, thats where they belong, in the middle of heavy fire, wrecking havoc. Not stuck inside a pos piloted by an alt.. Most command ships (sleipnir aside) already seriously lack in the damage area "rebalancing" them in this area is only going to make matters worse.. So far not a huge fan of BC changes and its definitely made me wary of what they might do to the Command Ships...braces for impact How do you equate "Command" to mean "DPS"? The purpose of Command Ships is to speialise in Links, to boost the effectiveness of the squadron, wing or fleet they are leading. Hopefully CCP will laso sort out offgrid boosting and that will be the end of POS bubble and safespot boosters. They should be on the field, but they are not there to be DPS platforms, they are there to increase the capabilities of friendlies. I accept and agree that they need to survive longer than normal BC's, because the bonuses they give are worth more to the fleet than any one other ship.
CCP's rebalancing program is supposed to make T2 focus on its speciality. If you want a T2 BC for a DPS platform, I suggest asking for one. MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 17:58:00 -
[1472] - Quote
ccp's plan is to allow all command ships to be either a dps platform or a boosting platform so that the sleipnir could be used for boosting just as well as the claymore for killing ships Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:22:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Nerf all command boosts. Both on grid and off grid. It is really a terrible mechanic. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Mund Richard
285
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:08:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0
Should someone have missed it.
So... How many were complaining before, that the Harbi is too easy to fit in PG and restrictive in CPU? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
961
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:42:00 -
[1475] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I know this is late, but active armor repping is only good for solo'ish fighting - even with the incursus' massive repping bonus.
One Gallente BC should be for solo'ish (which fits really well for the Myrm + drones), and one ought to be able to contribute to gangs and fleets (the Brutix with turrets).
|
Mund Richard
285
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:53:00 -
[1476] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:But Fozzie, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount on both Gallente Battlecruisers?? But we all know how much active armor tanking sucks!! Whatever will you do about this dilemma..... I know this is late, but active armor repping is only good for solo'ish fighting - even with the incursus' massive repping bonus. One Gallente BC should be for solo'ish (which fits really well for the Myrm + drones), and one ought to be able to contribute to gangs and fleets (the Brutix with turrets). Well, these aren't the patchnotes yet, and there is at least one more iteration in the works I think, so it's not too late to stress:
Why would any lineup need BOTH ships with active tank bonuses?
Heck, I'm not convinced on both being passive as well, but at least those scale for fleets (though 5 mids is a tad bit...). Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
577
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:33:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Prophecy:
The lack of a turret/launcher damage bonus encourages spending as much powergrid as possible on defensive mods, then fitting the highs with whatever is left. It is simply not a sensible choice to spend 30% of your powergrid on 4 HAM launchers that will only contribute 30% of your total dps (assuming 2x drone damage mods and 5x hammerheads). Lasers have even worse powergrid to dps ratios.
The fix is rather simple: remove the turret hardpoints, reduce launcher hardpoints to 2 and the number of highslots by 2, add a +100% damage to heavy and heavy assault missile damage" role bonus. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:05:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:So... How many were complaining before, that the Harbi is too easy to fit in PG and restrictive in CPU?
No one, with a reasonable fit you go over cpu and pg. -32pg (skills and -1 turret taken into account) may not seem as much but it really did make an incredibly hard to fit ship an useless ship. Compare it to the cane, after fitting just guns on harby and cane the cane has over 100 more cpu and almost 50 more pg to fit on the same number of slots. And is also much faster, now has the same ehp, does more damage when closer than 12-15km. There is no reason to fly Harbinger over Hurricane, now more than ever. And this is a balancing patch, i really expected the gap between the two to close not grow bigger. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 01:29:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Cytherion wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:To the numpties who obviously can't be bothered to read the dev blog that's been up for ages: The Sleipnir is not being made into a missile boat, the Claymore is.
All the Command Ships are being balanced so they can either boost, (using up to two types of boosted links @3%/level,) or fulfill a combat role.
That's means the Sleipnir is probably going to lose either its falloff or damage bonus from the Command Ship skill in lieu of a 3% link boost.
T3s are having their warfare sub changed to affect 3 types of links @2%/level.
Also, I haven't sorted out access to SiSi as yet, has anyone actually compared the Brutixs agility and speed to some of the other BCs? I'm curious how the mass change is affecting it. I am an ex field Command Ship pilot (both NH and Sleipnir) who just came back to the game to check out the noise that was all about, finally found the BC/Command Ship "dev blog " after digging for it. For those interested in reading it, here is the link http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530All I can say is that they better not touch my Sleipnir damage bonus , command ships need to be able to multi-task like a mother and not just be someones buff-monkey. They need to be able to deal significant damage (slighty under top tier BS damage) while holding their own. They are command ships, thats where they belong, in the middle of heavy fire, wrecking havoc. Not stuck inside a pos piloted by an alt.. Most command ships (sleipnir aside) already seriously lack in the damage area "rebalancing" them in this area is only going to make matters worse.. So far not a huge fan of BC changes and its definitely made me wary of what they might do to the Command Ships...braces for impact How do you equate "Command" to mean "DPS"? The purpose of Command Ships is to speialise in Links, to boost the effectiveness of the squadron, wing or fleet they are leading. Hopefully CCP will laso sort out offgrid boosting and that will be the end of POS bubble and safespot boosters. They should be on the field, but they are not there to be DPS platforms, they are there to increase the capabilities of friendlies. I accept and agree that they need to survive longer than normal BC's, because the bonuses they give are worth more to the fleet than any one other ship. CCP's rebalancing program is supposed to make T2 focus on its speciality. If you want a T2 BC for a DPS platform, I suggest asking for one.
Oh but it will be so fun when a pilot will have to be on grid with the fleet to boost it, and won't be able to do anything else than tank and hope his fleetmates keep him alive. Would you allow a Sleipnir to keep some small drones please, so he can at least look at them chasing rabbits?
This is a bad idea, and especially if you keep in mind the humongous training times needed to actually fly a Command Ship properly
In fact, it's quite obvious that a Sleipnir, once made able to sport some serious command links won't be able to do the same DPS it would do when fitted for pure 1V1, for the simple reason that it will need to use highslots for links, and quite likely a lowslot or more for fitting mods. But why in hell one should nerf the ship which is so fine as it is, to make it a brick-in-space and nothing else? It doesnt' make sense to suggest ships must be stuck in one role and that's it, so why should they be able toto change fittings? Each pilot can choose how he likes to use his ship depending from the role but keep in mind that the people flying it are PLAYING A GAME so they still need to be doing something fun, a pilot doesn't deserve to be bored to hell just because he is in a booster role... And also, where's the "sandbox" going there?
Sleipnir is a very fine ship, if it will be able to fit more command links it will be a choice of the pilot to either downgrade the DPS and/or speed a lot and keep a nice tank, or keep some decent DPS and speed while going "naked", maybe just with some hardener and relying on spider tanking. It's good to give more options and fine-tune things, but it's bad to put spaceships on a railway and make them dumb and boring. |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
135
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 03:10:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Prophecy:
The lack of a turret/launcher damage bonus encourages spending as much powergrid as possible on defensive mods, then fitting the highs with whatever is left. It is simply not a sensible choice to spend 30% of your powergrid on 4 HAM launchers that will only contribute 30% of your total dps (assuming 2x drone damage mods and 5x hammerheads). Lasers have even worse powergrid to dps ratios.
The fix is rather simple: remove the turret hardpoints, reduce launcher hardpoints to 2 and the number of highslots by 2, add a +100% damage to heavy and heavy assault missile damage" role bonus.
The Mrym still fits guns. Cause you know, more DPS is more DPS. ANd the only things that have 100% bonus to damage are faction/T2 BSs I think. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. -Paper |
|
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 04:34:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Now that we have seen the armor tanking changes, let me just say that active rep bonus is horrible, and likely wasted on anything above frig size.
Myrm might as well be a Minmatar ship, because it is still best with shields and projectiles.
The only reason some people are OK with keeping the active bonus on the Myrm is because a very small segment of players like triple rep solo/small gang PvP with that ship. Seems like catering to a very small segment of the player base (sorry 3MAR Myrm lovers), get rid of actve rep bonus on both Gallente hulls IMO.
I get that the new mod will free up a mid and lows, but even with the new mod the bonus is still much worse than the resist bonus. The Myrm will still be a ship with a very small niche. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 06:36:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Now that we have seen the armor tanking changes, let me just say that active rep bonus is horrible, and likely wasted on anything above frig size.
Myrm might as well be a Minmatar ship, because it is still best with shields and projectiles.
The only reason some people are OK with keeping the active bonus on the Myrm is because a very small segment of players like triple rep solo/small gang PvP with that ship. Seems like catering to a very small segment of the player base (sorry 3MAR Myrm lovers), get rid of actve rep bonus on both Gallente hulls IMO.
I get that the new mod will free up a mid and lows, but even with the new mod the bonus is still much worse than the resist bonus. The Myrm will still be a ship with a very small niche. You do realise that 1 load of charges from a single Medium Ancillary Armor Repper will provide more HP than a T2 1600mm Plate even without overheat or rigs right?
Add in overheating, some nano pump rigs and one of those new rigs that benefit OH reps and you have an insane amount of burst rep. Add in the fact that armor already has higher base resists than shields and you have a very decent armor buff. I think you just dismissed everything because the buff didn't happen exactly the way you wanted it to. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:52:00 -
[1483] - Quote
I don't like how some BCs don't have a utility high. What are Caldari explorers supposed to use between the Heron and the Tengu? To fit a probe launcher you have to sacrifice a turret/launcher for all Caldari cruisers and battlecruisers now. On top of that, new players who use cruisers and battlecruisers for exploration are also more likely to bother with salvaging mag sites and overseer wrecks. So wheres the salvager go? Take off another turret/launcher for that? Use salvaging drones? I don't wanna know how long it will take them to salvage an overseer wreck... and can't use them on the cans.
I hope that the Gnosis is part of a new exploration line-up of ships and not a once-off gift... though that would homogenize things a bit. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:29:00 -
[1484] - Quote
ok, after getting on the test server and trying some of the fittings out, i have no idea what your guys' problem is . . .
The following are the stats I got with my skills, (all weapon specialization 4, acceleration control 4 and BC 5)
The Harbinger Fits fine and has great damage projection, though it is quite a bit slower than the other ships. I chose valkyeries so I could be doing 3 damage types.
903 m/s (with MWD) (will be faster with new armor upgrades skill and buff to 800mm RRTP) 47,835 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + gets a medium cap booster to keep its guns and MWD running + web and LR point.
The Hurricane still a great ship though it did slow down a bit with the patch, the only modification I had to make was to drop a neut; i choose hobgoblins instead of warriors so I would be doing 3 damage types.
1249 m/s (with MWD was 1311 before patch, so it lost 62 m/s) 39,938 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 576 DPS (barrage + hobgoblins in eve fitting screen) (Sorry they didnt have RF EMP on the test server) + 1 medium neut to deal with small tackle that gets in close. + LR point
The Brutix This ship might actually be viable after the patch . . . i cant believe it . . . I cant remember the last time I actually said that i might consider flying a brutix. Again I chose valkyeries because of the damage type.
Active Tanking 1204 m/s (with MWD no rigs simulating the rig changes) 34,199 EHP (in eve fitting screen, tank stats below estimated) 789 DPS (void + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + 321 DPS tank** (see below) + web and scramble + cap booster
Buffer Tanking 1012 m/s (with MWD will be faster with new armor upgrades skill but using a 1600mm RRTP so no buff there) 50,805 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 830 DPS (void + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + web and scramble + cap booster
I estimated the tank using a Medium Innefficient Armor Repair Unit and a Medium Automated Carapace Restoration because they should rep the exact amount that a boosted AAR will also used an auxiliary nano pump and a nanobot accelerator, but I didnt want to go through the math to simulate the new rig overloading
I got the tank numbers by averaging the resist numbers together and dividing the average HP repaired per second by that number.
TL;DR I did some testing on the test server, I dont think the hurricane or harbinger are sufficiently gimped, nor do I believe the brutix was over buffed.
My review of the drone ships will be coming up next, sry dont have caldari or missile skills . . . |
Roosevelt Coltrane
Rupakaya
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:43:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Roosevelt Coltrane wrote:Now that we have seen the armor tanking changes, let me just say that active rep bonus is horrible, and likely wasted on anything above frig size.
Myrm might as well be a Minmatar ship, because it is still best with shields and projectiles.
The only reason some people are OK with keeping the active bonus on the Myrm is because a very small segment of players like triple rep solo/small gang PvP with that ship. Seems like catering to a very small segment of the player base (sorry 3MAR Myrm lovers), get rid of actve rep bonus on both Gallente hulls IMO.
I get that the new mod will free up a mid and lows, but even with the new mod the bonus is still much worse than the resist bonus. The Myrm will still be a ship with a very small niche. You do realise that 1 load of charges from a single Medium Ancillary Armor Repper will provide more HP than a T2 1600mm Plate even without overheat or rigs right? Add in overheating, some nano pump rigs and one of those new rigs that benefit OH reps and you have an insane amount of burst rep. Add in the fact that armor already has higher base resists than shields and you have a very decent armor buff. I think you just dismissed everything because the buff didn't happen exactly the way you wanted it to.
Actually I dismissed it because the rep bonus is of limited use. Unlike the Prophecy bonus, the rep bonus is useless with remote reps or buffer tanks. I had zero complaints about the new mods. New mods are great. Armor rep bonus is not. It continues to shoehorn the Myrm into a very small niche. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:41:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
The Harbinger Fits fine and has great damage projection, though it is quite a bit slower than the other ships. I chose valkyeries so I could be doing 3 damage types.
903 m/s (with MWD) (will be faster with new armor upgrades skill and buff to 800mm RRTP) 47,835 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + gets a medium cap booster to keep its guns and MWD running + web and LR point.
Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu
Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight.
|
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 11:51:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
476
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:34:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus?
Because as it is it will be ******* win with AAR's?
Massive reppage, decent cap, facemelt dps and SPEED TO CATCH CANES |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
328
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:58:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu
Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight. And it need AWU 5 or it will break pg limit as well. And cruisers now can squeeze in a 1600plate. Sup. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:35:00 -
[1490] - Quote
Yeah im ********. But still 800mm plate and you cant fit tracking computer or tech2 distruptor without an implant is a big deal. And there is no way to fit that utility high. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1767
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:36:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Lack of utility highs sort of demotivates from using gang links on many of these BCs.
Not sure if good or bad.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
SMT008
Wormholers Anonymous Transmission Lost
498
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:14:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu
Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight. And it need AWU 5 or it will break pg limit as well. And cruisers now can squeeze in a 1600plate. Sup.
Nothing to argue about. The fitting requirements of the new Harbinger are bad and should be fixed. Period. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
154
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:37:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Fitted out a Harbinger on Sisi the same way as I have mine on TQ minus one HPL II. Sighed deeply. Awaiting Fozzie update. The FMPL Harbinger was a dark time in my life. Please don't send me back there now that I have emerged into the light. |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:57:00 -
[1494] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help.
Can you make a role bonus for BC so they can fit T1 links without having a respective racial warfare skills(Skirmish Warfare Specialist ie) and have a flat bonus of 200-300% of the base value(equvalent to levels 3-4 of that skill) so that they will be able to provide 5-10% bonuses after 3-4 days of character training giving a nice newbie command ships?
I suggest that training chain for command ships should look like this:
BC -> Leadership V -> xxx Warfare V -> xxx Warfare Specialist IV, Warfare Link Specialist IV -> Command ships -> Link specialist V -> Cybernetics V |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
258
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:07:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Sorry for not getting this post up sooner, been pretty busy here at CCP.
Why are you removing so many empty high slots from BCs when they keep the Gang link bonus?
This is a very legitimate concern, and I'm going to be working to see if we can ensure that each race has at least one T1 BC that can fit a gang mod without giving up too much from the highslot. Even though gang links on T1 BCs are not incredibly common at the moment, it would be great if it became more common so we'll see what we can do to help. Can you make a role bonus for BC so they can fit T1 links without having a respective racial warfare skills(Skirmish Warfare Specialist ie) and have a flat bonus of 200-300% of the base value(equvalent to levels 3-4 of that skill) so that they will be able to provide 5-10% bonuses after 3-4 days of character training giving a nice newbie command ships? I suggest that training chain for command ships should look like this: BC -> Leadership V -> xxx Warfare V -> xxx Warfare Specialist IV, Warfare Link Specialist IV -> Command ships -> Link specialist V -> Cybernetics V
This would make it very hard to see who was a gang bonus ship in a T1 battlecruiser gang, something that can add significant numbers to a gang tank or abilities. Its important to know what ships may be giving the bonuses. The Gang Link visual effect is limited and identical to the Sensor Booster visual effect, making finding it, next to impossible. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:14:00 -
[1496] - Quote
Moonaura wrote: This would make it very hard to see who was a gang bonus ship in a T1 battlecruiser gang, something that can add significant numbers to a gang tank or abilities. Its important to know what ships may be giving the bonuses. The Gang Link visual effect is limited and identical to the Sensor Booster visual effect, making finding it, next to impossible.
Does not that makes a perfect disguise for field command ships? |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:20:00 -
[1497] - Quote
I played around on testserver again last night with a friend... Not much changed from ealier opinions, but still many of the ships felt surprisingly close to being good ships.
Ferox : I love it ! ! Drake : Still awesome, but seems to lack just a little more cpu (about 10 cpu)
- only thing bothering me is Drake not only having 1 more medslot but also share the resist bonus. It would make more sense to me if one had 6 medslots and no resist bonusm while the other had 5 and a tank bonus. And ofcourse the lacking warfare link options...
Prophecy : I love it ! ! It's sweet... Harbinger : Seems to tank worse than the other battlecruisers with only decent dps? Need to test more...
- Again like the Caldari ships it bothers me to see a 7 lowslot prophecy with a resist bonus and the harbinger with 6 lowslots and no tank bonus. The Prophecy should give the resist bonus to the Harbinger and get a laser bonus to reward players using lasers instead of autocannons...
Hurricane : Still awesome as always. Cyclone : I kind of really like it, but it's not easy to get a proper tank with limited cpu and only 5 medslots. I made it work but would not be easy to find a good setup with warfare links. I think it's alright if given a bit more cpu? Single ASB setups really need a helping hand though after the last nerf...
Brutix : Didn't get to try it yet Myrmidon : Seemed to work okay but wasn't performing as well as I thought. I only got to try it once though but I always feel like I have a medslot too much. More testing required for me... |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
485
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:21:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Why don't we give the Brutix a +10% armor HP per level bonus instead of forcing both Gallente BCs to active tank or waste a bonus?
Why would you want to make your ship even slower than already is? As far as armor modules/rigs drawbacks go a +10% armor per level means you're adding mass, decreasing even further it's agility and speed.
You don't want any of these drawbacks when flying blaster ships except some Serpentis ones (because bonus and base ship stats) or limited edition snowflakes (Adrestria). With a 28km point+off grid links on a missile or autos ship you get a hell of pointing distance, speed and agility. All you'll be able to do is watch your ship melt and insult EFT dps numbers "but...but..."
You see, the problem at the start comes from small stuff put all together, then add OGB and figure out why, except with some snowflakes, you shouldn't armor tank your ships but shield and fill all those lows with dmg mods and nanos. Haven't seen yet the active armor tanking changes but can only expect another brick in the wall of silliness that is armor tanking. -á-á-á-á-á-á / |__|-á-á-á This is a tears cup, fill it !
Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++ |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
353
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:43:00 -
[1499] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:Sigras wrote:
The Harbinger Fits fine and has great damage projection, though it is quite a bit slower than the other ships. I chose valkyeries so I could be doing 3 damage types.
903 m/s (with MWD) (will be faster with new armor upgrades skill and buff to 800mm RRTP) 47,835 EHP (in eve fitting screen) 719 DPS (conflag + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) 547 DPS (scorch + valkyeries in eve fitting screen) + gets a medium cap booster to keep its guns and MWD running + web and LR point.
Harbinger CPU - 437,5 after Electronics V Internal Force Field Array I - 17cpu 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I - 23cpu Heat Sink II - 30cpu x 2 = 60 cpu Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II - 36 cpu x 2 = 72 cpu Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I - 50cpu Medium Capacitor Booster II - 25 cpu Patterned Stasis Web I - 23 cpu J5b Phased Prototype Warp Distruptor I - 34 cpu Heavy Pulse Laser II - 26.3 cpu x 6 = 157,8 cpu Grand total = 466,8 cpu, you need 6% implant to fit it, even with 800plate and downgrading every module to save cpu. And an empty high slot. Not what i call easy to fit. Even if i put something wrong and this is not your exact fit its still incredibly tight. And it need AWU 5 or it will break pg limit as well. And cruisers now can squeeze in a 1600plate. They have this new thing now called an adaptive nano plating that you can use instead of a EANM; it takes no CPU at all . . . you should check it out! |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 16:55:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Sigras wrote: They have this new thing now called an adaptive nano plating that you can use instead of a EANM; it takes no CPU at all . . . you should check it out!
Someone already pointed out that i am stupid, but that still does not change the fact that the ship is a ***** to fit. I already downgraded every other module on it. And also if you downgrade EANM you wont get ehp the op reported. And its a fit that uses 800mm plate. Even cruisers now can fit 1600.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 [50] 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |