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) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3756
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:27:00 -
[151] - Quote
Sigras wrote:so wait . . . you all seem upset that they took away the second high slot from the hurricane because you wanted that utility high . . .
Then in the same breath you scream that a split weapon system sucks on the cyclone because it has two utility highs?
forgive me if this sounds dumb but the hurricane has 2 missile launcher slots that it can fill those highs up with . . . why not complain about the hurricane's former split weapon system?
Because:
Quote: Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:28:00 -
[152] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Loki Vice wrote:why are you nerfing the harb across the board? it already barely gets flown This. I mean, seriously? It's the weakest all the tier 2 BCs at the moment already, why nerfing it any further? Losing 1 turret means 12,5% decrease in DPS, the lame +5% bonus increase will not compensate it.
6 turrets with a 50% damage bonus means: 6 * 1.5 = 9. So the damage equivalent of 9 turrets with the cap use and cost of 6.
7 turrets with a 25% damage bonus means: 7 * 1.25 = 8.75. So the damage equivalent of 8.75 turrets with the cap use and cost of 7.
Is this really that difficult?
EDIT: Also consider the PG and CPU required to fit 7 vs 6 turrets
For those of you too dumb to figure this out. 7 turrets cost more and use more cap than 6 turrets. Having a ship be more expensive and use more cap to fire its guns makes it worse. These changes make the Harbinger a better ship.
Better, its a buff, not a nerf. |
Mund Richard
237
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:29:00 -
[153] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Loki Vice wrote:why are you nerfing the harb across the board? it already barely gets flown This. I mean, seriously? It's the weakest all the tier 2 BCs at the moment already, why nerfing it any further? Losing 1 turret means 12,5% decrease in DPS, the lame +5% bonus increase will not compensate it. Has been posted before, but... 7*1,25 = 8,75 6*1,5 = 9 And less cap usage for the weapons. 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. |
Apathetic Brent
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:31:00 -
[154] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 5% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: 99% reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 7 Launchers Fittings: 840 PWG (-10), 515 CPU (-10) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 4000(+94) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Why do you hate me? The Drake get's its HML damage reduced, then I hear about the kin bonus getting removed for omni. I'm down with that. Taking out the extra high is fine. You don't put anything there on most fits anyhow, but then further reducing fitting....Taking away shield and armor THEN GIVING IT 800K MORE MASS!!!
Baby, you know I love you and I want to have your children, but don't take advantage of my heart like this. Get rid of the kin bonus and make it omni and I'll ignore the fact that the only thing this does better now is loot ****. |
Isengrimus
Rave Technologies Inc. C0VEN
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:35:00 -
[155] - Quote
I'm not good at maths (obviously) but still, don't you think less armor and PG does not seem to be a wise thing to do to a shitties BC in game already. :P |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1169
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:35:00 -
[156] - Quote
Cyclone = Why only 5 launchers????
Myrm+Brutix = I really wish you could give them different bonuses from each other than the armor rep bonus. It seems like it's just a lack of creativity here. Give the Brutix a different bonus.
Drake+Ferox = Same thing. I know that both could use the resist bonus, but seriously - why can't we do something a bit more creative with these second bonuses than give them the same one for each?
I guess I don't quite get why you're doing what you're doing with the Harbinger overall.
I'm curious to see how these slightly less HP BC's are going to stand in the new age.
Where I am. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:37:00 -
[157] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sigras wrote:so wait . . . you all seem upset that they took away the second high slot from the hurricane because you wanted that utility high . . .
Then in the same breath you scream that a split weapon system sucks on the cyclone because it has two utility highs?
forgive me if this sounds dumb but the hurricane has 2 missile launcher slots that it can fill those highs up with . . . why not complain about the hurricane's former split weapon system? Because: Quote: Dear Capsuleers. Two utility highslots is not the same as split weapons. All the best. -Love Fozzie
Hans.. I think you misread his comment.. He was pointing out the hypocrisy in the whinning about the 2 launchers. |
4LeafClover
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:37:00 -
[158] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:4LeafClover wrote: How many missile snipe ships do you see out there......? "crickets" How many cyclones do you see sniping out there.......? "crickets"
That's all you see them do? look at the battleclinic fits. Shield tanked and sniper fit. Mini Malestrom. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3762
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:40:00 -
[159] - Quote
4LeafClover wrote:battleclinic fits
NM, this explains everything.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
467
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:40:00 -
[160] - Quote
The targeting ranges seem pretty low compared to what all the other modified ships have gotten. There are frigates that target twice as far as a hurricane for example.
Also, can you comment on the reasoning for the very minor changes in hp? Like taking 16 structure away from the cane seems just a strange thing to decide on.
I think the ferox is still subpar - you still dont snipe with medium rails, and the brutix outdoes it as a close range blaster platform.
Same for the myrm and prophecy - drones as a weapons platform have some serious problems, and even just tracking bonused guns would help both ships a lot. |
|
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:41:00 -
[161] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:I'm not good at maths (obviously) but still, don't you think less armor and PG does not seem to be a wise thing to do to a shitties BC in game already. :P
Most tier 2 BCs lost some HP across the board (Hurricane got a little shield), all tier 1 BCs gained some HP across the board. This was done to bring them closer to each other, its called Tiericide after all.
Quit your whining, its distracting from real concerns. |
Thallius O'Quinn
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:43:00 -
[162] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:
Also, can you comment on the reasoning for the very minor changes in hp? Like taking 16 structure away from the cane seems just a strange thing to decide on
Because 3500 is easier to do math on than 3516. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:45:00 -
[163] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:The targeting ranges seem pretty low compared to what all the other modified ships have gotten. There are frigates that target twice as far as a hurricane for example.
Also, can you comment on the reasoning for the very minor changes in hp? Like taking 16 structure away from the cane seems just a strange thing to decide on.
I think the ferox is still subpar - you still dont snipe with medium rails, and the brutix outdoes it as a close range blaster platform.
Same for the myrm and prophecy - drones as a weapons platform have some serious problems, and even just tracking bonused guns would help both ships a lot.
You are aware this is base targeting range right? Even the Kitsune has less base targeting range than the lowest Minmatar BC... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:46:00 -
[164] - Quote
IMHO blaster ships should not also be combat ships, all blaster ships should be attack ships . . .
I see combat ships more like the galaxy class starships, there really isnt much maneuvering to be done with it, it basically just sits and shoots; the ships that you see moving around a lot are the defiant class or intrepid class (voyager) these are the attack ships meant to take the fight to the enemy.
Blaster ships lack the range to just sit and shoot, all blaster ships should be attack ships
To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. |
Mund Richard
239
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:52:00 -
[165] - Quote
Sigras wrote: To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. I like the innovative way of thinking there, it's not like molds aren't broken elsewhere, like with the caldari and only one each attack and combat battleship for instance. And the two would get a nice differentiation that way.
edit: fast and dirty napkin math with the current stats: Full neutron blaster with T2 ammo, 2 damage mod in the lows. Thorax 670 vs 744 Vexor, tracking bonus and mobility vs hull hp and drone bonus, same slots. Brutix 875 vs 896 Myrm, "nothing" vs drone HP and an extra midslot.
I'm feeling like I forgot what I wanted to make a point of. 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. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:55:00 -
[166] - Quote
I, for one, look forward to seeing utility highs on my Naglfar |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
324
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:56:00 -
[167] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Please consider changing the +rep bonuses to Hardening bonuses or something that scales better with fleets. Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Please reconsider the active armor tank bonuses on the Gallente hulls, or at least on the Brutix. They're completely useless for anything but solo and the smallest gangs, and really, when was the last time you saw a solo Brutix? I'd prefer *not* to see all BC/BS ships redesigned around a fleet-only focus.
Despite rumors to the contrary, solo and small gang PVP are not dead. Many of us still prefer faster/smaller scale PVP, in which logi support isn't always available.
Also, many players still run missions solo, or in small gangs, where the active rep bonuses are needed. I used an active-tank Brutix for running L3 missions solo, until I skilled up to fly a BS.
That said, active armor repping is certainly long overdue for a buff. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:56:00 -
[168] - Quote
It might just be me, but I feel that the Algos, and the Tristan got the best mix for the hybrid/drone weapon system. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:57:00 -
[169] - Quote
Sigras wrote:IMHO blaster ships should not also be combat ships, all blaster ships should be attack ships . . .
I see combat ships more like the galaxy class starships, there really isnt much maneuvering to be done with it, it basically just sits and shoots; the ships that you see moving around a lot are the defiant class or intrepid class (voyager) these are the attack ships meant to take the fight to the enemy.
Blaster ships lack the range to just sit and shoot, all blaster ships should be attack ships
To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed.
The problem here is that railguns have horrid tracking, so if you're not sniping, you're not doing any damage. The Gallente mid-range combat is done with drones, so the Myrmidon would fill your "combat ship" role; the Myrmidon is not a blaster boat. The Brutix with its current layout makes a good blaster boat, but it's current armor bonus is lacking compared to a armor resist bonus. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 23:58:00 -
[170] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:I, for one, look forward to seeing utility highs on my Naglfar It has one, but most everyone puts a Siege Module II in that slot. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:00:00 -
[171] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Sigras wrote: To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. I like the innovative way of thinking there, it's not like molds aren't broken elsewhere, like with the caldari and only one each attack and combat battleship for instance. However, the Vexor has only one less bonused turret than the Thorax, while also gaining bonused drones. Compared to that, the Myrm would be ...lacking? One less hardpoint, all unbonused, doesn't sound like that good a trade-off for +50 bandwidth. Baybe I'd think differently if I did the math. its true, but right now theyre both a bit lacking . . . and the myrm is a pretty good tank and gank ship as it stands . . .
Also drones and projectiles (the myrm's weapon of choice) is actually pretty good if you have to be (relatively) immobile. |
Suitonia
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
145
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:00:00 -
[172] - Quote
My Feedback;
Brutix: Overall solid changes rounding out this ship, the 7.5% active armor tanking bonus is still a bit lackluster however. The Brutix still seems a bit too vulnerable to be an Armor Bruiser to me, no tracking bonus or utility highslot, loses damage if it goes for a flight of light drones. Prehaps a sneaky +25m3 drone bay would be nice? Giving it similar treatment to the Harbinger, -1 turret, 5% bonus goes to 10% bonus, lower the bandwidth to 25m3 would also make it more attractive to use.
Myrmidon: Moving more of it's damage output to drones is a good thing. Solid changes. Same thing about the 7.5% armor repair amount bonus as above
Prophecy: Changes seem pretty good.
Harbinger: Nice changes. The CPU could use a tad improvement though.
Ferox: Not sure what this provides next to the Naga, its slower, has less range and does less damage. It is quite a bit tankier though and has a drone bay so I guess it's not as vulnerable as the Naga is outside of fleets.
Drake: Drake was always the best BC, nice to see it got a slap on the wrist
Cyclone: Good changes I feel.
Hurricane: Again, nice to see the Hurricane getting a slap on the wrist.
Overall these are nice changes and all going in the right direction |
Jita iswhereIsit
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:00:00 -
[173] - Quote
I will wait to see until they're on the test server but It would be nice for the Cane to have some PG back, I thought the main idea of removing it was to remove the option of 2nuets without a PDU. Its quite hard now to fit a T2 plate and have 220s so the small amount of extra PG would help.
I like the Brutix getting the extra lowslot as it will now be a viable armor tanker and can use its bonus. The drake may be getting hit a little too hard with the recent HM nerf on top (I still think missiles in general need looking at), maybe the drake should stay as it is (being it was the most controversial) and wait to see how things play out with the other BC changes and how the drake fits, they're is always the chance of nerfing it too hard and it not being useful in anyway and not be looked at again (ala incursions :( ) for a while.
The Cyclone being made into a missile boat is dumb just because I think missiles need work.
Overall I would say these aren't really that significant, I was hoping for a complete change to most of them (like T1 cruisers) but they're really staying in the same roles with very small fitting/bonus changes. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:02:00 -
[174] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Kismeteer wrote:Please consider changing the +rep bonuses to Hardening bonuses or something that scales better with fleets. Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Please reconsider the active armor tank bonuses on the Gallente hulls, or at least on the Brutix. They're completely useless for anything but solo and the smallest gangs, and really, when was the last time you saw a solo Brutix? I'd prefer *not* to see all BC/BS ships redesigned around a fleet-only focus. Despite rumors to the contrary, solo and small gang PVP are not dead. Many of us still prefer faster/smaller scale PVP, in which logi support isn't always available. Also, many players still run missions solo, or in small gangs, where the active rep bonuses are needed. I used an active-tank Brutix for running L3 missions solo, until I skilled up to fly a BS. That said, active armor repping is certainly long overdue for a buff.
The problem with the +rep bonus is that it only applies to local reps, so if you want to use a tank buffer it won't work, if you have a logi with you it won't work.
A resist bonus works for both active and passive tanks, it also works if you have logi with you.
You see, we don't want all ships to need to be in a fleet to be good, we want all ships to be good with or without the fleet. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:06:00 -
[175] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:Sigras wrote:IMHO blaster ships should not also be combat ships, all blaster ships should be attack ships . . .
I see combat ships more like the galaxy class starships, there really isnt much maneuvering to be done with it, it basically just sits and shoots; the ships that you see moving around a lot are the defiant class or intrepid class (voyager) these are the attack ships meant to take the fight to the enemy.
Blaster ships lack the range to just sit and shoot, all blaster ships should be attack ships
To that end, I propose to remove the brutix from the combat ship line and reintroduce it as an attack ship, just like you swapped the thorax and the vexor.
This would add to the flavor of the game as gallente would have 2 attack ships and one combat ship feeding their aggressive "in your face nature" as opposed to everyone elses 2 combat and 1 attack lineup.
To differentiate them, i would give the brutix the talos' tracking bonus and the talos a falloff bonus. That way the brutix becomes the "get in your face and beat stuff down" ship, and the talos can use the already native-ly longer falloff of the large guns plus its bonus to hit from a longer range and kite with its speed. The problem here is that railguns have horrid tracking, so if you're not sniping, you're not doing any damage. The Gallente mid-range combat is done with drones, so the Myrmidon would fill your "combat ship" role; the Myrmidon is not a blaster boat. The Brutix with its current layout makes a good blaster boat, but it's current armor bonus is lacking compared to a armor resist bonus. im not looking for my "combat ship" to be a mid range fighter . . . if youre referring to my suggestion on the talos i was thinking of blaster falloff to kite around 20 km which would almost be in optimal range for null ammo
also im not sure what you mean by "mid range" is that 50 - 100 km?
I was just saying that the brutix (as with all blaster ships) makes a better attack ship than a combat ship; then i gave a way to differentiate the talos and the brutix as they'd both be blaster attack ships. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
467
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:27:00 -
[176] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:
You are aware this is base targeting range right? Even the Kitsune has less base targeting range than the lowest Minmatar BC...
You are aware the t2 frigates havent been buffed yet, right? |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
325
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:31:00 -
[177] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:The problem with the +rep bonus is that it only applies to local reps, so if you want to use a tank buffer it won't work, if you have a logi with you it won't work.
A resist bonus works for both active and passive tanks, it also works if you have logi with you.
You see, we don't want all ships to need to be in a fleet to be good, we want all ships to be good with or without the fleet. I think you forget that, unlike shields, armor does not self-repair. To keep your armor tank buffer up, in a prolonged battle or on a roam, you need an armor repper - local or RR.
In solo PVP and PVE, you don't have a logi. So, esp. when running L3 or L4 missions solo, the armor rep bonus is more valuable than an armor resist bonus.
And, even when you do have a logi in a small gang, he/she is usually pretty darn busy, or jammed - anyone who can local rep helps take the pressure off the logi pilot. Also, when your logi gets popped, the rest of your armor gang isn't automatically SOL.
In a nutshell, Ed, what works for a fleet does not necessarily work for solo or small gangs. You can't design around a "one size fits all" model.
The Myrmidon, for example, is fairly useless for large fleet work, even with a resist bonus. Unbonused turrets and drones just aren't fleet weapons. |
Razefummel
Unknown Dimension Alpha Volley Union
393
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:33:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Cyclone is swapping its projectile bonus for a missile RoF bonus, giving it the ability to spew missile of any damage type desired. This should help provide more variety of ships to Minmatar pilots who enjoy Breacher/Talwar/Bellicose gameplay and want to go bigger. ...
There are some Points i dont get yet...
Minatar and Gallente are Allys right? Caldaris and Amarr are Allys too right?
Why did you gave MISSILES to Minmatar and DRONES to the Amarrians?
Isn-¦t ist funny that Minmatars got an DMG Bonus for Missiles in All DMG Types in form of RoF Bonus and The Caldaris keeps the Kinetic Bonus? Don-¦t get me wrong, but i think the Minmatar-Users realy enjoy its Proiectile Turrets and an good Option for Angel-Ships and also the Gallentean Drone Boats in that Skillingtree.
Therfore the Caldari-Users share theyre weaponary with there Enemys ... Hybrid Turrets with Gallente and Missiles in the Future with the Minmatars.
I-¦m fearing the Day the Battleships will be "balanced".
I wonder how long it takes to nerf the Caldari completly because Gallente and Minmatar will do more DPS than any Caldariship will do... so after that "Missile Change" RANGE don-¦t will be the Argument to use Caldari-Missileboats like the Caldari Turretships incase of the Gallente Variations.
Btw. If the Tengu is realy the Problem why don-¦t fix just that Ship in case of nerfing an whole Race?
I-¦m just wondering. 21 Tage Trial + Plex-Back Option : http://www.eveger.de/forum/showthread.php?20631-Buddy-Programm-21-Tage-Trial-Angebote&p=857096&viewfull=1#post857096
Der Public Chanel unserer Corporation ist: Dimension |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:34:00 -
[179] - Quote
I would have absolutely loved to see the Prophecy become a HAM ship but I sincerely doubt I'm going to get that.
As for what it is here it definitely looks better than the current Prophecy 7 lows and resist bonus will be a massive tank and the drones do present the possibility of damage worth worrying about if you can apply it, think I'd like to try that one before I commit my judgement on it. Whatever I get the 4 mids is going to make me smile no matter what.
One thing is certain though, you will NEVER see lasers on it. It will be fit with missiles, autocannons or utility, pretty much always is my first impression.
By the way I've seen a lot of posts about nerfing the Harb and only the mobility and hp hits concern me. 6 turrets with 10% bonus is like 9 unbonused turrets compared with 8.75 which you get right now with 7 turrets and a 5% bonus. With that extra 1/4 turret I might add your cap cost for firing the grouping has gone down by 1/7 as well. The damage is a buff and much appreciated. Now if only I could move. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
188
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 00:34:00 -
[180] - Quote
Hey Fozzie !
Interesting changes, but I agree with the Gentlemen complaining about the 7,5% active rep bonuses. May I bring this thread to your attention? It has been out there for a while and has the subject pretty much covered.
It's not too long and has good arguments from various people in it. I think it's worth your time.
I also agree that a cut in CPU is the last thing the Harbinger needs, even with one turret removed.
I'm really looking forward to the additional turret on the Ferox though.
Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
|
|
|
|
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 |