Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:54:00 -
[61] - Quote
Slight typo in the title
no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1
fixed it for you.
|
Pasadenasman
Born In Jungle
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:54:00 -
[62] - Quote
A great add overall... but...
First, why AAR will use nanite repair when ASB uses cap booster ? Not exactly the same price on the market... That's ok each module has a background (capacitor for shield, nanite for armor), but this isn't in line with the reality of the industrial line in eve.
I can see 2 options, make nanite paste easy/fast to product. Or make cap booster harder to produce and in line with a PI design. Drama incoming in 3...............2.................1.....................
Then, why armor tanker have to skill to reach a "normal" state compare to other shield modules ( 5% less drawback with plates), why not making the same with shield tanking ? (25% sig radius by modules and 5% with skill...) More Drama incoming in 3...........2............1..........
07 |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
611
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:55:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP DEV blog wrote: Armor Repairers
Alongside the change above, we are reducing the base powergrid needs of medium and large armor repair systems. All medium armor repairers will need 20% less powergrid, and all large armor repairers will need 10% less powergrid.
This means that both local & remote repairers are getting the powergrid reductions? Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 |
Lili Lu
692
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:00:00 -
[64] - Quote
Gelatine wrote:It's good that armour is getting some overdue love, however would any new player choose to spend months training the many shield skills over armour now? I wouldn't, and to be honest it appears spending nearly six months training up shield skills on some of my characters has been a huge waste of time. With the shield comps losing their passive bonus I can't think of a reason why anyone would train up the shield skills considering they take up months more time to train than training armour does.
Not really balanced is it?
Lol, Gelatine. Shield is still at least equal and really better for both pve and pvp. So yes anyone sane would tell a new player train shield and a shield race first. Just because the shield damage type compensation skills are worth less (notice not onw word but two) now does not change the balance between the tanking types. For instance see the below quote.
DarthNefarius wrote:Looks like the Ancillary Armor Repairers will be just as worthless as the Reactive Armor Hardeners in Incursions not denting the shield/armour fleet PvE imbalance there which was exacerbated by the Escalation Nerf to Incursions.
Our new armor reppers are indeed not going to be as beneficial as the ASBs continue to be. Some of the changes to fittings on armor reppers and plates and the new mass reduction skill will marginally improve the currently imbalanced situation. But shield will on the whole continue to be better. I'll be preferring shield fits on all my ships for a while to come I think. |
Lili Lu
692
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:02:00 -
[65] - Quote
Lore Varan wrote:Slight typo in the title no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1 fixed it for you. Oh you're a wit that's for sure.
Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3052
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:03:00 -
[66] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote: I want to make it clear that one of our goals in this rebalancing pass is to somewhat narrow the gap between higher cost and lower cost ships compared to the canyon that existed in the past. We are not planning on buffing the high cost ships to the same degree that we did with the T1 Frigates and Cruisers, as this would simply create direct power creep and leave us right back where we started. We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, but instead present a viable and interesting option to be chosen by people of many levels of experience. Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.
I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.
-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
|
Sky Marshal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:09:00 -
[67] - Quote
I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.
You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships, you don't have a buffer who can avoid some hits on your tank unlike armor who can rely a few on their shield, shield resists are always inferior than armor ones even on Caldari ships who rely only on it, etc.
Apart the first weeks after the release of the ASB, and before his first nerf, shield meant ****. And now people whines to boost armor tank ?
Did I miss something ? |
Dominic Stone
Force of Will
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:10:00 -
[68] - Quote
It seems pretty clear from the notes on the article that the problem with battlecruisers isn't so much that the Drake and Cane are too powerful, but that all the other battlecruisers are worse than cruisers. Would it not have made more sense to fix what was really and truly broken first, then see how the changes work in comparison? |
Lili Lu
692
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:13:00 -
[69] - Quote
Sky Marshal wrote:I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.
You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships, you don't have a buffer who can avoid some hits on your tank unlike armor who can rely a few on their shield, shield resists are always inferior than armor ones even on Caldari ships who rely only on it, etc.
Apart the first weeks after the release of the ASB, and before his first nerf, shield meant ****. And now people whines to boost armor tank ?
Did I miss something ? Yes you are missing something. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:13:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Lore Varan wrote:Slight typo in the title no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1 fixed it for you. Oh you're a wit that's for sure. Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it.
The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....????? |
|
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
63
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:14:00 -
[71] - Quote
Quote:
I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.
-Liang
Can you give some examples of this, not including things like the scythe fleet issue and succubus that are in need of a rebalance already?
Keep in mind that T2 isn't supposed to be better in all respects by any means, just more specialized towards some role.
Faction ships on the other hand are supposed to be general purpose ships that are better than their t1 counterpoints, something I agree isn't necessarily the case, most glaringly in the case of the faction versions of the 4 logi cruisers. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
826
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:14:00 -
[72] - Quote
Sky Marshal wrote:I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.
You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships, you don't have a buffer who can avoid some hits on your tank unlike armor who can rely a few on their shield, shield resists are always inferior than armor ones even on Caldari ships who rely only on it, etc.
Apart the first weeks after the release of the ASB, and before his first nerf, shield meant ****. And now people whines to boost armor tank ?
Did I miss something ?
1. there is dedicated tackle in pvp fleets so havings ponits and webs is not allways usefull
2. RR is the big winner for reasons why shield is better
3. you can fit extenders and rigs and not slow down (sig radius bloom is not big enough to count)
though for small gang or solo then yeah armor has its uses but overall its still not as good.
i am still going to be shield tanking my brutix after this boost. At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
826
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:15:00 -
[73] - Quote
Dominic Stone wrote:It seems pretty clear from the notes on the article that the problem with battlecruisers isn't so much that the Drake and Cane are too powerful, but that all the other battlecruisers are worse than cruisers. Would it not have made more sense to fix what was really and truly broken first, then see how the changes work in comparison?
no.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
62
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Dev Blog wrote: I want to make it clear that one of our goals in this rebalancing pass is to somewhat narrow the gap between higher cost and lower cost ships compared to the canyon that existed in the past. We are not planning on buffing the high cost ships to the same degree that we did with the T1 Frigates and Cruisers, as this would simply create direct power creep and leave us right back where we started. We want to reach a place where cheaper ships are more than just something you fly when you start the game, but instead present a viable and interesting option to be chosen by people of many levels of experience. Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.
I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts. -Liang
That second statement doesn't necessitate the first, key words being as much (on a linear scale). In the past there used to be a huge gap in capabilities (omen x zealot, stabber x vaga etc.). The stated intention is just to relatively lower that gap across the board. Doing that sounds tricky and it most probably will be. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
424
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:21:00 -
[75] - Quote
Sky Marshal wrote:I don't understand why people consider than shield is better than armor. It was and is still the contrary.
You cannot fit scramble/web modules without sacrificing shield tank on most of the Caldari ships.
[...]
Did I miss something ?
Like the fact that, as a rule, Caldari ships have about as many mids left over after prop and tank as Amarr ships do, and with at least as many low slots to dedicate to damage mods and the ability to fit maximum size guns?
Most of the problem actually lay with active tanking, not shield or armor tanking. CCP's fix, apparently, is to introduce so-called 'ancillary' modules which are actually necessary, and which reduce the older modules to ancillary roles or just obsolete them. Plain old shield boosters are pretty bad, too.
None of them solve the biggest problem with active tanking, which is that, without resist bonuses, the ships that use it don't have the buffer to make logistic support viable. That goes double for armor, because armor reps land at the end of the cycle. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
826
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:22:00 -
[76] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Lore Varan wrote:Slight typo in the title no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1 fixed it for you. Oh you're a wit that's for sure. Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it. The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....?????
i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure.
pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3052
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:24:00 -
[77] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Quote:
I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.
-Liang
Can you give some examples of this, not including things like the scythe fleet issue and succubus that are in need of a rebalance already? Keep in mind that T2 isn't supposed to be better in all respects by any means, just more specialized towards some role. Faction ships on the other hand are supposed to be general purpose ships that are better than their t1 counterpoints, something I agree isn't necessarily the case, most glaringly in the case of the faction versions of the 4 logi cruisers.
The most glaring examples are the Condor to the Crow and Crusader to the Executioner, but the same argument for made for the Firetail/Slasher. Other examples of things that are almost that bad are the Carcal/Navy Osprey/Navy Caracal/Cerb, Moa/Eagle, Thorax/Navy Ex/Deimos, etc.
-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
|
Lore Varan
Caltech Shipyards
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:25:00 -
[78] - Quote
I dont mind the drake been taken down a peg or 2 but to achive a balanced drake requires understanding the problem with it in the first place.
Drakes are not overppowered they are safe and easy.
Insane tank and moderate only firepower compared to other bc make them a low priority target. Sit in a drake and you will probably be targeted by the enemy fleet last.
Removing some tank is good. I'd go further and lose a mid slot the current change wont make much of a difference once the obligatory LSE's and hards are in there.
Making the drake even easier with a further kin boost is bad. 50% to kin damage means I load kin and never have to consider what I'm shooting at.
I hate kin bonusses with a passion. I'd like to see a consistent progression for caldari missiles boats as far as tactics are concerned.
Rainbow damage bonuses that reward a pilot for knowing his enemys weeknesses ( resists ) are the way to go.
Kessie good rainbow bonus. Corax bad kin locked bonus Caracal good rainbow bonus. Drake bad kin locked bonus. Raven good rainbow bonus.
Please aim for a consistent stratergy for Cal missile boat pilots.
In line with this i think the following changes to Drake make more sense.
Lose the 10% kin bonus. And have a fairly week 10% faster ammo switch bonus.
go from 6 launchers to 8 ( in line with the graphics )
If the current setup is at lvl 5 bc 100% em , 100% therm , 150% kin , 100% exp
then the new setup would be at any lvl
133% em , 133% them , 133% kin , 133% exp
~tldr
8 launcher 5 mids PG and CPu to match for a lower tank , more flexible fp drake.
Less safe and Less easy than it is now, but better for solo/small gang for those of us fed up of flying canes.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3556
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:26:00 -
[79] - Quote
fukier wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Lore Varan wrote:Slight typo in the title no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1 fixed it for you. Oh you're a wit that's for sure. Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it. The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....????? i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure. pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now. Well, for PVE most of the time a sustainable and strong tank is more important than firepower. 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. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
355
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:29:00 -
[80] - Quote
Although I don't really fly the Incursus a lot any more, I'm sad to see the 10% bonus go. This bonus made the ship worth having a rep on, and now it's basically a waste of a bonus simply because of a new module. Or rather, a regular small armor repairer is not worth fitting. I hope there are plans to properly balance both regular armor repairers and shield boosters. There is now no longer any reason to fit standard shield boosters or armor repairers, just because of new modules. |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3556
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Destoya wrote:Quote:
I kinda draw exception to the idea you won't be improving T2 as much as T1. Many of the T1 ships are now just outright superior to their T2 and faction counterparts.
-Liang
Can you give some examples of this, not including things like the scythe fleet issue and succubus that are in need of a rebalance already? Keep in mind that T2 isn't supposed to be better in all respects by any means, just more specialized towards some role. Faction ships on the other hand are supposed to be general purpose ships that are better than their t1 counterpoints, something I agree isn't necessarily the case, most glaringly in the case of the faction versions of the 4 logi cruisers. The most glaring examples are the Condor to the Crow and Crusader to the Executioner, but the same argument for made for the Firetail/Slasher. Other examples of things that are almost that bad are the Carcal/Navy Osprey/Navy Caracal/Cerb, Moa/Eagle, Thorax/Navy Ex/Deimos, etc. -Liang I know what you are saying, but it's a bit early to analyze this as neither the faction nor the T2 varieties have been adjusted yet... although I will agree this is a good time to put a bug or two in Fozzies ear concerning them. 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. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3055
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:29:00 -
[82] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Although I don't really fly the Incursus a lot any more, I'm sad to see the 10% bonus go. This bonus made the ship worth having a rep on, and now it's basically a waste of a bonus simply because of a new module. Or rather, a regular small armor repairer is not worth fitting. I hope there are plans to properly balance both regular armor repairers and shield boosters. There is now no longer any reason to fit standard shield boosters or armor repairers, just because of new modules.
This is pure hyperbole, especially given the incoming armor boost.
-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
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3055
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:31:00 -
[83] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I know what you are saying, but it's a bit early to analyze this as neither the faction nor the T2 varieties have been adjusted yet... although I will agree this is a good time to put a bug or two in Fozzies ear concerning them.
Yeah, that's pretty much all I'm doing. I more or less trust him to get the job done in a way that may be the way I would do it but is reasonable and fun.
/shrug
-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
|
fukier
RISE of LEGION
827
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:31:00 -
[84] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:fukier wrote:Jonas Sukarala wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Lore Varan wrote:Slight typo in the title no drakes - ship and module balancing in retribution 1.1 fixed it for you. Oh you're a wit that's for sure. Notice the current usage stats. The Drake has a long way to fall before anyone should cry about it. The lack of change to the drake means its still OP and will be the most used bc as a result aswell as HAMS having the same range as torpedoes is plain wrong they need a range nerf..... also when TD's affect missiles might also help balance things a little that and the drake will still obsolete the ferox which is hard to understand how fozzie doesn't understand this....????? i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure. pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now. Well, for PVE most of the time a sustainable and strong tank is more important than firepower.
which is why i am a fan of gist -c type sheild boosters. low cap and good rep amount
have not tried it out yet but pretty sure i will tank any lev iv or annoms in a cyclone now.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Lili Lu
695
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:34:00 -
[85] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Although I don't really fly the Incursus a lot any more, I'm sad to see the 10% bonus go. This bonus made the ship worth having a rep on, and now it's basically a waste of a bonus simply because of a new module. Or rather, a regular small armor repairer is not worth fitting. I hope there are plans to properly balance both regular armor repairers and shield boosters. There is now no longer any reason to fit standard shield boosters or armor repairers, just because of new modules.
Eccept (at least for those scenarios where active local tanking makes some sense) you will need to keep fitting standard armor rep because unlike the ASBs the AARs are limited to one per ship. So, to make any use of this new armor repper you will still need to have dual reppers (one AAR plus one standard repper). Also the AAR eats cap like any other armor repper so you will need to keep fitting a cap booster. So standard armor reppers will continue to see use. But I agree about the ASB situation.
I agree though that standard shield boosters have been overshadowed because the ASB is so powerful. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3556
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:35:00 -
[86] - Quote
Quote:which is why i am a fan of gist -c type sheild boosters. low cap and good rep amount
have not tried it out yet but pretty sure i will tank any lev iv or annoms in a cyclone now.
With good skills that is quite possible (we'll have to see), but it will still be far easier to tank the difficult ones in a Drake... especially for less skilled or new pilots on a budget. 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3557
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:41:00 -
[87] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Although I don't really fly the Incursus a lot any more, I'm sad to see the 10% bonus go. This bonus made the ship worth having a rep on, and now it's basically a waste of a bonus simply because of a new module. Or rather, a regular small armor repairer is not worth fitting. I hope there are plans to properly balance both regular armor repairers and shield boosters. There is now no longer any reason to fit standard shield boosters or armor repairers, just because of new modules. Eccept (at least for those scenarios where active local tanking makes some sense) you will need to keep fitting standard armor rep because unlike the ASBs the AARs are limited to one per ship. So, to make any use of this new armor repper you will still need to have dual reppers (one AAR plus one standard repper). Also the AAR eats cap like any other armor repper so you will need to keep fitting a cap booster. So standard armor reppers will continue to see use. I agree though that standard shield boosters have been overshadowed because the ASB is so powerful. I'm not entirely on board with the ASB assessment (not that it matters of course).
A ship relying on an ASB without a standard shield repper in reserve only has the advantage of knowing exactly how long he has before he dies horribly. Granted, he can use that time to either get the job done, or escape... which is helpful to a degree. But if he does neither before he runs dry he pops like a wet balloon. 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. |
Sky Marshal
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:44:00 -
[88] - Quote
fukier wrote:1. there is dedicated tackle in pvp fleets so havings ponits and webs is not allways usefull
2. RR is the big winner for reasons why shield is better
3. you can fit extenders and rigs and not slow down (sig radius bloom is not big enough to count)
though for small gang or solo then yeah armor has its uses but overall its still not as good.
i am still going to be shield tanking my brutix after this boost. 1. Yes but even on small Caldari ships, it is hard to fit points/web and keep some tank.
2. I have to give you this point.
3. The fact that shield don't slow down the ship was a balancing thing. Armor is more resilient but make you slow and maybe with less damage, shield don't hit your speed but require a big amount of energy for active tanking and give trouble with the fitting. This armor boost will destroy this balance.
Dersen Lowery wrote:Like the fact that, as a rule, Caldari ships have about as many mids left over after prop and tank as Amarr ships do, and with at least as many low slots to dedicate to damage mods and the ability to fit maximum size guns? Do you realize that to kill someone, it is better than you make him unable to flee ? shield are med slot only, so you can choose between damage and tank while I have to choose between electronic and tank. Sometimes, I would be happy to sacrifice damage for anything else.
|
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1035
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:46:00 -
[89] - Quote
The AAR can be run without charges. It would be nice to be able to toggle WHEN you choose you use your 8 burst reps. As it stands right now, if you run it you use it.
The Myrm comes out of the change very underwhelming. You've lost 125 PG so that triple rep setup isn't as easy to fit as it used to be. On top of that - the Prophecy with it's resist bonus can work in a fleet AND run it's own effective triple rep setup. Lastly, the Brutix and Myrm still share the rep bonus and that feels deeply unsatisfying. The Myrm has many more choices to add flavor. Hybrid damage or Hybrid tracking would be boring but effective. Drone tracking or MWD speed would make a very interesting drone boat. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3557
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:50:00 -
[90] - Quote
You know, in this same vein I'd rather like it if they explored the possibility of having cap batteries work a bit differently.
Perhaps have the amount of cap in your battery be linked to a particular module (with the battery having its own pool of cap, peak recharge rate point, and perhaps some other traits peculiar to them) independent of your normal cap reserve.
They could be (as now sort of) less vulnerable to nos/neuts, have either a higher or lower recharge rate than your ships normal cap depending on the quality of the battery you use, and would be handled completely seperately from your main cap reseerve. They could even perhaps have a very nice synergy happen with cap boosters, perhaps only kicking in when the booster is on a reload cycle.
Just a thought, sorry for the slight derail. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |