Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
786
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 17:53:00 -
[121] - Quote
The cap tends to be bad on nearly all the faction cruisers, even on the capless SFI and cynabal have trouble doing more than tackling and bursting mwd from time to time.
Phantasm/ashimmu capacitor is as bad as the rest only able to stay in a fight for more than a few minutes, they should have a nice extra cap buffer to start with, they practically rely on cap boosters anyway it would be nice not to have to use the booster instantly in a fight, with the awkward 800 - wait 24 seconds - 800 injector cycle (cap injected cruisers seems like a bit of a forgotten broken mechanic anyway). http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Aflons
Bristol Brigade Mad Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 19:05:00 -
[122] - Quote
I have flown the succubus, and the phantasm a fair bit due mainly too my love for shield tanking and lasers.
The Succubus in my opinion has good cap, it seems to be just as good as every other frig I have flown however it seems to be slow, and lacking in dps.
The Phantasm on the other hand has horrible cap, I cant put two adaptive invun fields on it without it going below cap stable. It also seems to be lacking in dps, and tank.
I think a decent fix for Sansha ships would be to remove the Caldari bonus and combine it with the role bonus for a total of 125%(150%) increased damage and add a shield resist bonus. Another suggestion could be to add another turret slot on these ships and again remove the caldari bonus and add the resist bonus, but keep the role bonus at %100. A final change i can think of is just buff the 5% dps bonus to 10%.
Every other pirate faction seems to have a defined role such as 90% webs. To me the role of Sansha ships is dps and currently you can get cheaper ships that fill the role of the phantasm/succubus so in order to make them worth flying they need to do this role better. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
496
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 20:50:00 -
[123] - Quote
Aflons wrote:I have flown the succubus, and the phantasm a fair bit due mainly too my love for shield tanking and lasers.
The Succubus in my opinion has good cap, it seems to be just as good as every other frig I have flown however it seems to be slow, and lacking in dps.
The Phantasm on the other hand has horrible cap, I cant put two adaptive invun fields on it without it going below cap stable. It also seems to be lacking in dps, and tank.
I think a decent fix for Sansha ships would be to remove the Caldari bonus and combine it with the role bonus for a total of 125%(150%) increased damage and add a shield resist bonus. Another suggestion could be to add another turret slot on these ships and again remove the caldari bonus and add the resist bonus, but keep the role bonus at %100. A final change i can think of is just buff the 5% dps bonus to 10%.
Every other pirate faction seems to have a defined role such as 90% webs. To me the role of Sansha ships is dps and currently you can get cheaper ships that fill the role of the phantasm/succubus so in order to make them worth flying they need to do this role better.
Your suggestions have nothing about making the ships cap better. Infact... Adding another turret will make it even more cap unstable. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 01:03:00 -
[124] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Your suggestions have nothing about making the ships cap better. Infact... Adding another turret will make it even more cap unstable. It's true, but let's be honest, I would fly the **** out of the phantasm if it had another turret, and so would you |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
497
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 01:10:00 -
[125] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Your suggestions have nothing about making the ships cap better. Infact... Adding another turret will make it even more cap unstable. It's true, but let's be honest, I would fly the **** out of the phantasm if it had another turret, and so would you
Well, with removing the caldari cruiser damage bonus and giving it another turret it would only do about 70 more dps... I don't think that is enough to make the ship worth using personally.
Keep in mind the think would only work with force fed cap boosters because its so unstable with 4 guns. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 01:48:00 -
[126] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Cambarus wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Your suggestions have nothing about making the ships cap better. Infact... Adding another turret will make it even more cap unstable. It's true, but let's be honest, I would fly the **** out of the phantasm if it had another turret, and so would you Well, with removing the caldari cruiser damage bonus and giving it another turret it would only do about 70 more dps... I don't think that is enough to make the ship worth using personally. Keep in mind the think would only work with force fed cap boosters because its so unstable with 4 guns. He said put that bonus in with the hull bonus. It would be closer to 150 extra DPS, which would definitely be nice. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3172
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 03:07:00 -
[127] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:He said put that bonus in with the hull bonus. It would be closer to 150 extra DPS, which would definitely be nice.
I dunno... that'd make it do almost as much DPS as a Navy Omen.
Yeah it'd be pretty cool then. It'd almost do as much DPS as a Navy Omen.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 04:11:00 -
[128] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote:He said put that bonus in with the hull bonus. It would be closer to 150 extra DPS, which would definitely be nice. I dunno... that'd make it do almost as much DPS as a Navy Omen. Yeah it'd be pretty cool then. It'd almost do as much DPS as a Navy Omen. -Liang Maybe my math is a bit off, but doesn't the nomen have 8 effective turrets vs the 10 that the phantasm would have with an extra turret? You could squeeze a bit more dps from an extra damage mod, but surely not enough to give the nomen better damage? |
Lord BryanII
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 04:16:00 -
[129] - Quote
Bhall needs buff to cap imo |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3173
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 05:01:00 -
[130] - Quote
Cambarus wrote: Maybe my math is a bit off, but doesn't the nomen have 8 effective turrets vs the 10 that the phantasm would have with an extra turret? You could squeeze a bit more dps from an extra damage mod, but surely not enough to give the nomen better damage?
The NOmen gets more lows (3 HS) and a bigger drone bay. A Phantasm with 4 HPL/2 HS deals less damage than a NOmen. It also has less capacitor and requires cap for its hardeners.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:03:00 -
[131] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote: Maybe my math is a bit off, but doesn't the nomen have 8 effective turrets vs the 10 that the phantasm would have with an extra turret? You could squeeze a bit more dps from an extra damage mod, but surely not enough to give the nomen better damage?
The NOmen gets more lows (3 HS) and a bigger drone bay. A Phantasm with 4 HPL/2 HS deals less damage than a NOmen. It also has less capacitor and requires cap for its hardeners. -Liang Hadn't considered the drone bay, but then I'm not fond of combat drones anyway, ECM drones = <3 for anything that doesn't get a bonus to drone damage imo.
EDIT: and I just checked, even with drones the phantasm would slightly OD a nomen. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3173
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:29:00 -
[132] - Quote
Cambarus wrote: Hadn't considered the drone bay, but then I'm not fond of combat drones anyway, ECM drones = <3 for anything that doesn't get a bonus to drone damage imo.
EDIT: and I just checked, even with drones the phantasm would slightly OD a nomen.
Yeah looks like I had my implants in the NOmen and not the Phantasm. 536 vs 519 DPS @ 23km (Scorch), pretty sure that's not good enough DPS for it to be the "Sansha Shtick". I stand by my original suggestions earlier in the thread.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:57:00 -
[133] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote: Hadn't considered the drone bay, but then I'm not fond of combat drones anyway, ECM drones = <3 for anything that doesn't get a bonus to drone damage imo.
EDIT: and I just checked, even with drones the phantasm would slightly OD a nomen.
Yeah looks like I had my implants in the NOmen and not the Phantasm. 536 vs 519 DPS @ 23km (Scorch), pretty sure that's not good enough DPS for it to be the "Sansha Shtick". I stand by my original suggestions earlier in the thread. -Liang I would fly the phantasm even if the only change was an extra turret, but yes, it does need some more cap (and ideally mobility)
Actually I wouldn't mind having that tracking bonus swapped out with a range one, though I feel it may step on the toes of the zealot a bit too much if that happened.
The last time I flew a phantasm was to go harass ratters out in the middle of butt-**** nowhere with a friend of mine like 2 years ago, and tbh I just want an excuse to fly it again EDIT: March of 20****ing10 is the last time I flew a phantasm. FFS CCP get on this.
EDIT2: Apparently the filter is not very good on these forums :D |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3173
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 07:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
If you're just looking for an excuse, we have periodic Phantasm Fleets in Amamake. ;-)
-Liang
Ed: Also, my experience with the Phantasm is a bit more recent than yours. Although, looking at it, I have more experience in a Scythe Fleet than the Phantasm... Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
272
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 11:04:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: [list]
Blood Raiders: Bhaalgorn is nice, Ashimmu and Cruor need some iteration. Need to find ways to make them useful at what they do without them competing too much with the Amarr Recon Ships. yeah, because that would be so terrible
Why, it might actually become useful... instead of mathematically justified as perfectly balanced and promptly docked to never undock again.
Maybe instead of thinking imbalances require huge acts of God that take 2 years to deliberate over and plan... when an imbalance is identified you just push an adjustment to see how it plays out?
It's depressing to think we might very well be looking at some of the flawed new balance actions CCP just did in this last patch for a year or more even though the problems are pointed out by long-time players with a wealth of knowledge above many CCP employees regarding balance and design before the patch even get's deployed.
Every time you (CCP) think something might need a change, it takes 2 years of CSM and community bitching and then I don't know... apparently you have to cultivate an olive tree to fruition and then you can push the fix... that might fix the issue.
You said it yourself, 2009! 2009. Think on that a moment. How does it take 4 years (or longer) for a ship or mod to get a small adjustment? No matter how you answer this question, the answer is wrong. The entire thought process behind justifying it is wrong.
This game is dynamic and living and your reactions to the balance of the elements in it also need to be so. It's been 10 years, it's time to stop making the same balancing mistakes over and over again.
Stop being so damned afraid of making a good ship. We'd rather see the nerf bat make it's rounds every few months than be faced with a galaxy full of mediocre ships and mods.
What do you think is worse? Multiple small deliberate actions taken over a month to balance a ship/mod? Or 2 years of doing nothing but deliberating and planning and packaging into an expansion and ultimately losing sight of the forest because of all the trees you're looking at? |
Tilo Rhywald
INVARIANT TENSOR
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 23:59:00 -
[136] - Quote
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
You said it yourself, 2009! 2009. Think on that a moment. How does it take 4 years (or longer) for a ship or mod to get a small adjustment? No matter how you answer this question, the answer is wrong. The entire thought process behind justifying it is wrong.
I think that can't be emphasized enough.
I never post on the forums but this thread really made me do it: The Phantasm is an affair of the heart. It's almost steam/tesla-punkish/20.000-leagues-under-the-sea-like-design makes it one of the most beautiful hulls in the game, and yes, that's why I pimp my Phantasms to around 400 mill because I just want to make those asthetic jewels work somehow.
For PvP (I won't address PvE in my post) the dedicated shield-laser-combination (please don't refer to shield Harbingers or Zealots...) was one of my main goals when I started this game almost 3 years back, and it hasn't lost any of its appeal. But as it is now, I don't even look at the sad little dung beetle that is the Succubus, and while I love the Nightmare and the Phantasm per se, as brawlers (and IMO that's their natural role, after trying different options) they rely completely on crystal implants, drugs and - most importantly - on a very thick wallet when you optimize their stats with faction/DED-mods. Sometimes when siege links were available it became apparent that all they needed was that resitance boost to make them viable even with a standard T2 fit, tank-wise. The cap however is still a major problem: Even when using two small DED-nos's permadraining a locked drone, a Phantasm will have major trouble MWD'ing while shooting/tackling/tanking. And that's w/o having 1+ med neuts on you, as is commonplace wherever one goes.
I find it troubling that I can fit a Rokh/Moa (specialties of mine though at least up until recently not commonly considered to be good solo PvP choices... ;) ) to outperform a Nightmare/Phantasm in both tank AND dps with better cap life for a fraction of the ISK.
Hence, as some others have stated before, I'd also strongly vote for changing the Caldari cruiser bonus into a 5% per level shield resistance bonus while making it a fixed 167 % damage role bonus (only then I won't complain about its drone bay...) on the Phantasm. Tweaked speed/agility to at least resemble the T1 cruiser rebalance and hugely better cap life should be self-explanatory. These modifications would be enough for a start w/o having to adjust fitting specs or slot layout atm.
There really is no reason not to pull the Sansha hulls out of the dark place in which they are now tomorrow. Don't tell us it's so complicated it takes years - one thing I know for certain from my professional life is this: Everybody everywhere puts on his/her trousers one leg at a time, and still everybody exclaims that his/her job is the hardest of all. ;)
Cheers, Tilo R. |
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
422
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 05:44:00 -
[137] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:If you're just looking for an excuse, we have periodic Phantasm Fleets in Amamake. ;-)
-Liang Wait, that is an invitation to Amamake in a faction cruiser, correct?
More OT: Can't agree more with Princess Alia here. Nobody gonna die if devs will push needed fixes outright instead of waiting for a thematic expansion. Actually, doing that at least every few months is what many gaming companies that support actively running product do. |
Illia Vuilleurmier
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 02:22:00 -
[138] - Quote
I don't think it was stated in this thread so far (i'm deeply sorry in the case i missed it) but the new Sansha rookie ship on Sisi has a 22.5% bonus to shield boost amount, among other things. Though that does not adress the cap issues when firing, i would be perfectly okay to see that on the whole sansha fleet :) |
Steel Roamer
Pandemic Legion Academy
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 20:04:00 -
[139] - Quote
kyrieee wrote:Storm Novah wrote:And the Mach nerf QQ begins... seriously tho they both need nerfs. The fact that its flown to the exclusion of 90% of other pirate battleships means that its way OP. That's laughable, vindicators and bhaalgorns see a ton of use in lowsec / wh fleet combat, much moreso than machs.
Quoting the guy who is in a corp that fields fleets of arty machs on a regular basis. Who also happens to claim they use Bhaalghorns more. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
233
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 20:11:00 -
[140] - Quote
Storm Novah wrote:And the Mach nerf QQ begins... seriously tho they both need nerfs. The fact that its flown to the exclusion of 90% of other pirate battleships means that its way OP.
That logic doesn't hold up, 99% of ships in EVE that use a damage control use the T2 varient witch is only 1% better than the meta 4. Does that mean Damage controll is OP, or just the best choice of all the options. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
|
Steel Roamer
Pandemic Legion Academy
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 23:35:00 -
[141] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Storm Novah wrote:And the Mach nerf QQ begins... seriously tho they both need nerfs. The fact that its flown to the exclusion of 90% of other pirate battleships means that its way OP. That logic doesn't hold up, 99% of ships in EVE that use a damage control use the T2 varient witch is only 1% better than the meta 4. Does that mean Damage controll is OP, or just the best choice of all the options.
Nice statistics you pulled out of your ass.
I fit all my frigs with a 30 CPU DC2 because all my ships have inifnite CPU.
Yours do not? |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 00:05:00 -
[142] - Quote
Steel Roamer wrote:goldiiee wrote:Storm Novah wrote:And the Mach nerf QQ begins... seriously tho they both need nerfs. The fact that its flown to the exclusion of 90% of other pirate battleships means that its way OP. That logic doesn't hold up, 99% of ships in EVE that use a damage control use the T2 varient witch is only 1% better than the meta 4. Does that mean Damage controll is OP, or just the best choice of all the options. Nice statistics you pulled out of your ass. I fit all my frigs with a 30 CPU DC2 because all my ships have inifnite CPU. Yours do not? Sorry didn't mean to offend, or start a conversation about low CPU and frig fitting. My point was that the prolific use of Machariels in the game could be attributed to as little as 1% more _____ (fill in the blank). So the Concept of nerfing it into the ground will not solve the imbalance it will just shift the imbalance to the next 1% winner. Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
207
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 01:57:00 -
[143] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Steel Roamer wrote:goldiiee wrote:Storm Novah wrote:And the Mach nerf QQ begins... seriously tho they both need nerfs. The fact that its flown to the exclusion of 90% of other pirate battleships means that its way OP. That logic doesn't hold up, 99% of ships in EVE that use a damage control use the T2 varient witch is only 1% better than the meta 4. Does that mean Damage controll is OP, or just the best choice of all the options. Nice statistics you pulled out of your ass. I fit all my frigs with a 30 CPU DC2 because all my ships have inifnite CPU. Yours do not? Sorry didn't mean to offend, or start a conversation about low CPU and frig fitting. My point was that the prolific use of Machariels in the game could be attributed to as little as 1% more _____ (fill in the blank). So the Concept of nerfing it into the ground will not solve the imbalance it will just shift the imbalance to the next 1% winner. Because ship balance is totally all about a single attribute that's displayed in the attributes tab of an info screen. Just like a damage control module. You wish ships were balanced to within 1% effectiveness of each other. You wish. Actually I wish, too. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:18:00 -
[144] - Quote
I didnGÇÖt want to start an argument in a thread fraught with arguments, but I wouldnGÇÖt think anyone would want to play a game with all the ships GÇÿBalancedGÇÖ
Minmitar, was faster than everything else but couldnGÇÖt take a hit, Amarr, slow, could tank a titan, but ran out of cap so they couldnGÇÖt hit anything, Caldari, bad mix of two races but with ECM they could afford it, And Galente was the same thing but Drones made them... well IDK what that was supposed to be the tradeoff of :)
But anyways, if you wanted the benefits of a certain races ship you were supposed to get the disadvantages as well. But the new Homogenization of ships means that it doesnGÇÖt matter what ship you fly, or what race you train, they will all eventually be the same except for the colours; so who wants to fly the blue ship, gold ship, red ship, silver ship (Dr Suess in space)?
Or maybe we can all get colour coded fleets since race and ships type donGÇÖt matter anymore as long as you match your friends. (sounds more like a night out with the girls than ships in space)
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
207
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:21:00 -
[145] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Strawmanning Moving goalposts Please don't nerf my Machariel
Meh. Whatever you say. The dev already stated the Machariel was intended to have weaknesses. We all kind of laughed when that weakness ended up being negated by the hull bonus and by... you know, the internal mechanics of the projectile subsystem itself. That was pages ago. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:32:00 -
[146] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:goldiiee wrote:Strawmanning Moving goalposts Please don't nerf my Machariel
Meh. Whatever you say. The dev already stated the Machariel was intended to have weaknesses. We all kind of laughed when that weakness ended up being negated by the hull bonus and by... you know, the internal mechanics of the projectile weapon system itself. That was pages ago. I get your angry, it comes through in your writing, I like my mach, I also like my vindicator, never cared much for the Blaaaahorn, and the Nightmare has more potential than any other ship I fly. My concern is that when they swing the Nerf hammer I donGÇÖt want the choices to be reduced to what race of ship looks best vs. what ship is best. Leaving a large enough margin to be a clear winner, is not a bad thing, especially with the current neutering of minmitar ships consider worst Dread, worst Titan, worst Supercarrier, worst Battleship, worst Frig? Is there any Minmitar ship going to be left that will make picking this race as a training goal a good choice? Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
207
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 02:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
goldiiee wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:goldiiee wrote:Strawmanning Moving goalposts Please don't nerf my Machariel
Meh. Whatever you say. The dev already stated the Machariel was intended to have weaknesses. We all kind of laughed when that weakness ended up being negated by the hull bonus and by... you know, the internal mechanics of the projectile weapon system itself. That was pages ago. I get your angry, it comes through in your writing, I like my mach, I also like my vindicator, never cared much for the Blaaaahorn, and the Nightmare has more potential than any other ship I fly. My concern is that when they swing the Nerf hammer I donGÇÖt want the choices to be reduced to what race of ship looks best vs. what ship is best. Leaving a large enough margin to be a clear winner, is not a bad thing, especially with the current neutering of minmitar ships consider worst Dread, worst Titan, worst Supercarrier, worst Battleship, worst Frig? Is there any Minmitar ship going to be left that will make picking this race as a training goal a good choice?
If the goal is to give ships differing weaknesses and strengths then your irrational fear of all ships being recolored copies of each other would stay an irrational fear.
We just discussed how the Mach weakness isn't really a weakness. |
goldiiee
Tax and War Haven
235
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 03:07:00 -
[148] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:goldiiee wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:goldiiee wrote:Strawmanning Moving goalposts Please don't nerf my Machariel
Meh. Whatever you say. The dev already stated the Machariel was intended to have weaknesses. We all kind of laughed when that weakness ended up being negated by the hull bonus and by... you know, the internal mechanics of the projectile weapon system itself. That was pages ago. I get your angry, it comes through in your writing, I like my mach, I also like my vindicator, never cared much for the Blaaaahorn, and the Nightmare has more potential than any other ship I fly. My concern is that when they swing the Nerf hammer I donGÇÖt want the choices to be reduced to what race of ship looks best vs. what ship is best. Leaving a large enough margin to be a clear winner, is not a bad thing, especially with the current neutering of minmitar ships consider worst Dread, worst Titan, worst Supercarrier, worst Battleship, worst Frig? Is there any Minmitar ship going to be left that will make picking this race as a training goal a good choice? If the goal is to give ships differing weaknesses and strengths then your irrational fear of all ships being recolored copies of each other would stay an irrational fear. We just discussed how the Mach weakness isn't really a weakness. Over the past 4 years I keep seeing Improvements to the game that continually substantiate my GÇÿirrational fearsGÇÖ. The current iteration of balancing has removed only a few months worth of training to the GÇÿwhy did I botherGÇÖ column. So yes I feel that if left unspoken I will wake up one day and be playing a game I donGÇÖt care for, and leaving friends behind feeling the same way.
Planned a long detailed explanation of T2 mach vs. T2 Gallente or Minmitar BSGÇÖs and the fact that 5 times the cost is only worth 20% better ship. And yet the masses Scream for....
Why bother, in 6 months someone will read your posts about how they screwed you in the tieracide
Reason and logic never wins over Stubborn and Convinced-á (But-áI still try..) |
Tilo Rhywald
INVARIANT TENSOR
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 06:40:00 -
[149] - Quote
WTF?! This is one of the very few threads with actual importance and a dev reply. It is about the Phantasm FFS!! A ship that desperately needs attention for years! Suggestion: Make your own Mach-spin-off thread with link to this one.
On topic: Again, let me "iterate" () on the time frame: 4 years of one of the coolest ships in game being virtually worthless without links and implants potentially means over 700 EUR spent for a subscription to a game with a flaw that can be fixed in minutes rather than hours. I know that's apodictic; it still helps underline what Pr1ncess Alia so rightfully elaborated a page earlier.
As to the notion to give the Phantasm a shield resistance bonus for being brawlers, let me explain why I think that's their intended role:
- there are more than enough other faction/T2 cruisers of the kind "kitey goodness"
- usual shield-fit laser ships are hardly ever brawlers, so that role is vacant if not taken by the Phantasm
- the tracking bonus goes in line with typical close-range ships like the Vindicator, Brutix etc.; snipers and kiters of course profit from that aswell, still their purpose is normally better served with a range bonus (except for med rails but that's inherent in their current weakness /off-topic)
- the relative slowness of Sansha ships implies their supposed "tanky" nature as the missing range bonus negates the sniping role
These points aside, I'm fully aware that the Phantasm being broken as it is is an argument against the close combat style, as Liang Nuren correctly mentioned earlier in the discussion. That's why it's important to look for the correct (thus "intended") niche for it.
Tilo R. |
Batelle
Concordiat
139
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 19:57:00 -
[150] - Quote
CCP Kittyboom wrote:
Guristas: Rattlesnake and Gila we are happy with, not so much with the Worm.
Gila could use a hair more cpu and/or slightly increased lock range. When trying to fit it for its niche (well tanked, shield, missiles, long range, drones) these all draw massively on its cpu. Fighting is Magic |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |