Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:05:00 -
[361] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lets be frank, the hyperion repair bonus with only 6 lows is quite weak. And the amelstrom powergrid pushes it as an arti boat.. counter intuitive with the booster bonus. Malestrom works.. it sjust... strange... Define "quite weak" please, because even if a 100kehp buffer is on the low end, it's not really weak ; and armor rep setup are definitely not weak. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
791
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:09:00 -
[362] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Lets be frank, the hyperion repair bonus with only 6 lows is quite weak. And the amelstrom powergrid pushes it as an arti boat.. counter intuitive with the booster bonus. Malestrom works.. it sjust... strange... Define "quite weak" please, because even if a 100kehp buffer is on the low end, it's not really weak ; and armor rep setup are definitely not weak. When the setup almost requires 3 reps or with a bonused ship 2 reps there might be a problem. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
The Sinister
SKUNKWORKZ STRATEGIC SERVICES Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:19:00 -
[363] - Quote
Note: Only the Talos has drone bay , I really think its fair to give drone bay to the rest of The Atack Battlecruisers.
Give drones to Oracle, Naga and Tornado. and that makes it even. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:43:00 -
[364] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:When the setup almost requires 3 reps or with a bonused ship 2 reps there might be a problem. Hyperion with one LAAR tank 635ehp/s. What are your requirements ? I'm afraid you are looking for a temporary invincibility module instead of active tank.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 13:49:00 -
[365] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:When the setup almost requires 3 reps or with a bonused ship 2 reps there might be a problem. Hyperion with one LAAR tank 635ehp/s. What are your requirements ? I'm afraid you are looking for a temporary invincibility module instead of active tank.
It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:15:00 -
[366] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. That is wrong. And I'm not even considering damage profile. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:30:00 -
[367] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. That is wrong. And I'm not even considering damage profile.
it is not.. Remember as I said.. only 6 slots. The other armro tankign battleships have more slots to make a bettter tank.
Simply the hyperion that is supposed to be a high dps with tanking ship cannot do both due to lack of low slots. Anybattleship taht does not bring 2 damage mods (scorpion exception) is a partial fail. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:49:00 -
[368] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. That is wrong. And I'm not even considering damage profile. it is not.. Remember as I said.. only 6 slots. The other armro tankign battleships have more slots to make a bettter tank. Simply the hyperion that is supposed to be a high dps with tanking ship cannot do both due to lack of low slots. Anybattleship taht does not bring 2 damage mods (scorpion exception) is a partial fail. Do you really want me to prove it with fitting and numbers war ? Basically, for your stance to be true, you would need 1200dps, and only the Hyperion or another blaster ship can reach such dps. More lows don't make everything. There is only one more low to the advantage of the Abaddon, and that need to account for speed, capacitor and dps inferiority versus the Hyperion. A LAAR abaddon could stand a better chance, but that's not even sure.
Now, I'm not saying the hyperion could not use a little love, but most of the time, what people complain about the Hyperion can't be fixed. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:56:00 -
[369] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. That is wrong. And I'm not even considering damage profile. it is not.. Remember as I said.. only 6 slots. The other armro tankign battleships have more slots to make a bettter tank. Simply the hyperion that is supposed to be a high dps with tanking ship cannot do both due to lack of low slots. Anybattleship taht does not bring 2 damage mods (scorpion exception) is a partial fail. Do you really want me to prove it with fitting and numbers war ? Basically, for your stance to be true, you would need 1200dps, and only the Hyperion or another blaster ship can reach such dps. More lows don't make everything. There is only one more low to the advantage of the Abaddon, and that need to account for speed, capacitor and dps inferiority versus the Hyperion. A LAAR abaddon could stand a better chance, but that's not even sure. Now, I'm not saying the hyperion could not use a little love, but most of the time, what people complain about the Hyperion can't be fixed.
Lol you are REALLY thinking in terms of SOLO combat? LOOOOOOLLL
Omg I pity you .. Omg.. so clueless. Do you think that solo combat is even remotely common enough to be used as parameter for balance?
Everytime you brig a battleship into a REAL FIGHT, not EFT fight, you will face way more than 1200 dps. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
791
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:57:00 -
[370] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:When the setup almost requires 3 reps or with a bonused ship 2 reps there might be a problem. Hyperion with one LAAR tank 635ehp/s. What are your requirements ? I'm afraid you are looking for a temporary invincibility module instead of active tank. One X-Large ASB will tank 800 DPS, and allow over 1k DPS also. and no I am not looking for an invincibility module. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 15:02:00 -
[371] - Quote
Bouh, You can't balance ships based upon 'solo' anymore, which is why it is important to look at the whole 'doctrine' picture when considering balance.
When you do this, it's clear the Hyperion is the biggest problem with the Gallente doctrine right now.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
androch
Chillwater Ltd
43
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:13:00 -
[372] - Quote
want help? dont **** with the battlecruisers they are fine and working as intended, if you want a real project to work on, fix the ******* drake i dont know what ccp claims to have nerfed on its hp but you can still fit a goddamn beyond battleship tank on the thing and not lose any dps at all |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
247
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:52:00 -
[373] - Quote
androch wrote:want help? dont **** with the battlecruisers they are fine and working as intended, if you want a real project to work on, fix the ******* drake i dont know what ccp claims to have nerfed on its hp but you can still fit a goddamn beyond battleship tank on the thing and not lose any dps at all yup also nerf the hurricane as it is way more used than the drake |
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
208
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:59:00 -
[374] - Quote
I Have enjoyed the raven for its exceptional long range moderate dips with missiles. I would like to see more of these ships for of other races with this. Maybe extra control range for Dominix. A mix of missiles and drones for Amar, and a missiles/ target painter boat for minmitar. ( less damage but its target painter rang is awesome ) Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 19:08:00 -
[375] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. I don't need your pitty, thank you, but you should be careful with what you are saying : *you* bring that 1000dps thing, which is solo or very small gang dps level.
Anyway, ever heard about those myrmidon or sleipnir tanking whole flotilla ? Hyperion will do that just better.
So I reask my question : what kind of numbers are you expecting from a good active tank ? LAAR + 2LAR Hyperion already goes to 1400ehp/s (no bonus/boost). How many more would save active tanking in itself ? For comparison, one guardian (4rep) gives 1142ehp/s to a hellcat, something you get with LAAR+LAR Hyperion.
Hence, the only "solution" to the Hyperion "problem" is to through away this bonus and make the Hyperion another ship, despite the fact that another Hyperion would only be a better or worse another ship (be it the Abaddon, the Rokh or the Megathron).
The Hyperion may lack some powergrid, but most of the other concerns are metagame problems that nothing done to the Hyperion itself can solve.
Gabriel, reread what I wrote here please.
As for the active tank bonus, the Maelstrom work with it, so the Hyperion can work with one. Again, gallente problem, and Hyperion is the representative for this, is a problem of the doctrine not satisfying players, because they do have a doctrine, it's just different from caldari and amarr ones. Gallente would shine at very long or very short range, not the ranges current doctrines work at. That don't mean gallente ships don't have any purpose.
In the end, TE nerf is a good thing for gallente doctrines. A buff to information warfare links (or even EWAR in general) could be a good thing too. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
61
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 19:38:00 -
[376] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:It still dies faster in a normal combat scenario (where you can expect on the range of 1k dps) then an abaddon would.... that is the point.. I don't need your pitty, thank you, but you should be careful with what you are saying : *you* bring that 1000dps thing, which is solo or very small gang dps level. Anyway, ever heard about those myrmidon or sleipnir tanking whole flotilla ? Hyperion will do that just better. So I reask my question : what kind of numbers are you expecting from a good active tank ? LAAR + 2LAR Hyperion already goes to 1400ehp/s (no bonus/boost). How many more would save active tanking in itself ? For comparison, one guardian (4rep) gives 1142ehp/s to a hellcat, something you get with LAAR+LAR Hyperion. Hence, the only "solution" to the Hyperion "problem" is to through away this bonus and make the Hyperion another ship, despite the fact that another Hyperion would only be a better or worse another ship (be it the Abaddon, the Rokh or the Megathron). The Hyperion may lack some powergrid, but most of the other concerns are metagame problems that nothing done to the Hyperion itself can solve. Gabriel, reread what I wrote here please. As for the active tank bonus, the Maelstrom work with it, so the Hyperion can work with one. Again, gallente problem, and Hyperion is the representative for this, is a problem of the doctrine not satisfying players, because they do have a doctrine, it's just different from caldari and amarr ones. Gallente would shine at very long or very short range, not the ranges current doctrines work at. That don't mean gallente ships don't have any purpose. In the end, TE nerf is a good thing for gallente doctrines. A buff to information warfare links (or even EWAR in general) could be a good thing too.
Give me a hyperion that can tank reasonable levels while fielding 2 damage mods. Battleships without damage mods are better not being in the field (with very rare exceptions like 8 neut battleships)
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 19:54:00 -
[377] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Give me a hyperion that can tank reasonable levels while fielding 2 damage mods. Battleships without damage mods are better not being in the field (with very rare exceptions like 8 neut battleships)
Despite this being senseless, the first Hyperion I talked about, with one LAAR, tanking 625ehp/s, was with 2 MFS.
Otherwise, define "reasonable", or define the use case for your Hyperion. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
58
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 08:02:00 -
[378] - Quote
Bouh, I did re-read your post, I simply disagree - I don't see why there should not be a drive to ensuring all 4 races doctrines are viable as fleets by taking a holistic view of balance. This does not mean copying one from another, I don't see how tweaking the Megathron, or giving the Hyperion a falloff bonus makes the Gallente doctrine a copy of the Amarr, but again, something else we'll just have to disagree on.
Anyhow, onto the other points:
The Maelstrom works despite the boost bonus, not because of it, and that comes down to slot arrangement and having 8x 1400mm's.
The Hyperion doesn't work well outside of a few niche environments because there is no scalability; yes you can tank another Battleship, or a couple/several Battlecruisers til you run out of cap charges, but that doesnGÇÖt port across to small fleet actions of 10-20 where, even just considering Cruisers, the incoming DPS can easily range from 2500 - 5000 low end (assuming half are damage dealers, average of 500 DPS).
The only place repair bonuses work, is either the very small, mitigating damage through size and speed, or the very large, Triage Carriers/Dreadnoughts, where you get a 400% bonus to repaired HPs/sec.
Are CCP going to give the Hyperion a 400% bonus to reps?... no, and because of the existing bonus it's never going to be more than a 'niche' ship, which isn't right for a Battleship or the 'doctrine' as a whole.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
267
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 09:24:00 -
[379] - Quote
The Maelstrom work with a shield boosting bonus. That mean that the slot layout and the weapons used prevail on the bonus.
What would a falloff bonus achieve on the Hyperion ? *Nothing* because amarr and minmatar ship are already better at shooting at short long range, so an Abaddon, an Apocalypse or an AC Maelstrom would still be both better than a falloff bonused Hyperion, because blasters are NOT a long short range weapon. What would a change to the slot layout achieve on the Hyperion ? That would turn it into a copy of another ship, and between the Typhoon, the Abaddon, the Apocalypse, and the Megathron, you have the choice already for 8/4/7 layout.
But talking about the Megathron : this one is the fleet, buffer tanking ship, yet, the Hyperion get a better buffer when using the same number of slot. Megathron have an easier time fitting railguns though. They are pretty much balanced in the end.
To me, Megathron is the railgun/fleet BS ; Hyperion is a blaster/small gang BS, until someone find a use to high utility ship in fleet (something I believe possible). But until then, why should we remove these options ?
The Megathron suffer from the comparison to caldari and amarr hull. It's selling point ? Very long range armor tanking, a thing of the past unfortunately ; yet, with ABC and MJD, that could come again. It's second selling point is very high short range damage, but tier2 stats, lack of resist bonus and very short range make the Abaddon a tough oponent.
So again, forget this armor rep bonus on the Hyperion, that's not a problem in itself. Hyperion already have qualities : 8 hybrid guns (be it blasters or railguns) with very high utility armor tank. If there is a problem, it's with these qualities not being favored in the metagame.
But nothing says that gallente doctrine is not viable. In fact, gallente doctrine may already be in use with armor fleet relying on EWAR in their midslots (T3 & AHAC mostly) : this is the gallente doctrine. It just appear that BS are not prefered for this tactic. |
Dante KamiyaX
STARK INDUSTRIES.INCX
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 11:00:00 -
[380] - Quote
Nerf docking games and stargate games. Once scrambled a ship shouldn't be able to dock or jump through a stargate at all.
Pros: More kills, isk sink, makes solo and group pvp more fun.
Cons: ??? Only to those who play the game of a coward? Don't like it then don't fly into lowsec or 0.0 or undock in a war?
A lot of people including myself are sick of docking games and stargate games. There are many ways to avoid scrams and not get caught. Or how about make a module that scrambles the ships ability to dock or jump through a gate having the same range of a scram but making it impossible for a ship to send out a dock request or trigger a jump sequence much like a capital ship does when its trying to jump but unable to because its scrambled?
Counters: Warp core stabs, neuts, and ECM. |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
103
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 21:04:00 -
[381] - Quote
Dante KamiyaX wrote:Nerf docking games and stargate games. Once scrambled a ship shouldn't be able to dock or jump through a stargate at all.
Pros: More kills, isk sink, makes solo and group pvp more fun.
Cons: ??? Only to those who play the game of a coward? Don't like it then don't fly into lowsec or 0.0 or undock in a war?
A lot of people including myself are sick of docking games and stargate games. There are many ways to avoid scrams and not get caught. Or how about make a module that scrambles the ships ability to dock or jump through a gate having the same range of a scram but making it impossible for a ship to send out a dock request or trigger a jump sequence much like a capital ship does when its trying to jump but unable to because its scrambled?
Counters: Warp core stabs, neuts, and ECM.
Whhhhaaaaa, give me easy kills, make my targets helpless....
trying to escape is a perfectly legitimate military strategy |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
596
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 13:43:00 -
[382] - Quote
Dante KamiyaX wrote:Nerf docking games and stargate games. Once scrambled a ship shouldn't be able to dock or jump through a stargate at all.
Are you mental? You could hardly come up with a bigger incentive for people to engage in dock/gate games.
If you really want to nerf docking games, remove the aggression timer for redocking. This would make these games almost entirely pointless, deterring all but the extremely stubborn or professionally stupid from getting involved. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
478
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 18:46:00 -
[383] - Quote
So, looking at the reaction to the particular battleship rebalance threads: Sure, tweak the ships, but don't give up on the very high-level view you're talking about here.
Right now, it seems to me that fleets and fleet support ships assume an Amarr doctrine. The way remote reps work, and in particular the way remote armor reps work, buffer is mandatory. As long as that is true, ships like the Hyperion are SOL in any kind of fleet doctrine. So reserve the current fleet mechanics for the doctrines they work for and clean-sheet some new ones for the doctrines that you'd like to see but never do.
Start with Gallente. Game out how a Gallente fleet would work. What kind of support do local-repped blaster boats need? Which support would you move to tackle? EWAR? Logistics? Command ships/Battlecruisers? Would it be a more hierarchical arrangement or a more horizontal, spider-tanked arrangement (since that seems to be going with the new Dominix and its implicit slowspud fleet doctrine)?
Bearing in mind that I am not a PVP god, and I'm just throwing ideas out for example: warfare links to reduce MWD sig bloom? To boost native cap recharge? Maybe, Remote Armor Ablators that act as RARs in reverse: If Hyperion 1 is called primary, his buddies in Hyperions 2 through 5 link him with RAAs, and the damage intended for Hype 1 is split evenly between 2 through 5--they can all run their reppers and heal it up, and suddenly local reps scale with fleets without everything getting broken (buffer ships can play, too, but they'll need the additional backup of logi to heal any damage).
tl;dr: Maybe the problem is not so much that certain ships are bad, as it is that the fleet mechanics aren't flexible enough to include doctrines in which those ships would work.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Vote for CSM 8! |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
452
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 00:11:00 -
[384] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:On to my opinions...
ARMAGEDDON I suggest a big Dragoon, a drone bonus and a neut/nos range bonus. Keep its highs limited but give it split options like the Dragoon, say 6 highs with 4/4 turrets and launchers. A minimum of 4 mids here, maybe 5, so it can run cap boosters and tackle. That leaves either 8 or 7 lows for a solid tank and damage mods.
RAVEN I see the Raven as more of an Attack Ship than a Combat ship. It's missile velocity bonus os only really useful on Torps. With only 6 launchers, it struggles to match DPS with other long range weapons. I would focus of on an attack role by making it more nimble, (not by much,) and keep it suited to combat at range.
MEGATHRON I think the Megathron needs to swap it's fittings with the Hyperion. As an Attack Ship, I feel its more important for the Megathron to have midslots than lowslots. Keeping the the utility high and increasing the overall agility should put the Megathron where it needs to be.
HYPERION I don't think it's a bad ship. The Maelstrom has basically the same bonuses and the same layout. Yet I haven't heard anyone complaining about the Maelstrom. So the problem is armour tanking and hybrids, not the ship. That said, I think the Hyperion would benefit from an 8/4/7 layout more than it does its current layout. The extra low would give it more tanking or damage potential, becase right now the Megathron can out gun it, even though it has one less turret. That's just not right. Fix Rails, Fix Armour, Fix Hyperion. I'm just gonna leave this here...
Totally called it!
I for one am really looking forward to trying out a few of these ships. I really want to try out both the Drone-ageddon and the Torp-phoon. That explosion velocity bonus is even better than a TP bonus! MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
53
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 11:11:00 -
[385] - Quote
CCP RISE! You really did need help with balancing the battleships. And it looks you still need .. A LOT! |
raawe
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 11:28:00 -
[386] - Quote
Awesome addition to CCP team. Please make armor tankers more viable in pvp kil2 ;) |
BiggestT
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 14:28:00 -
[387] - Quote
Welcome, I'm sure you already have a headache from the impending changes!
One thing you need to consider though:you are changing things that weren't asked for.
No one asked for the raven to have less HP, despite any boosts it might get.
No one asked for the rokh to be nerfed. There have been no "omg rokh is OP" threads to justify this. In fact people have been advocating for a boost to the rokh for a while now (Cap boost? Damage bonus?)
Don't add features/change things that no one wants, I know you're invested in the game but your aspirations and ideas for Eve should not outweight the wants of the many.
Please don't make the typhoon so much better than the raven, the raven will have no role despite your efforts to make it a kiting niche (unless you boost cruise missiles heavily in some way that the typhoon can't utilise but the raven can, an obselete raven will be inevitable if your suggested changes go through).
The geddon's boost will have big consequences for the game as a whole. You need to consider what this ship will do to active tanking BS's and almost every small ship. I like it's new ewar role, but you need to be careful here!
Caldari BS's have been waiting for love for a VERY long time (years and years for the raven and scorp). These changes are not the boon we've all been waiting for, revision is needed!
Hope that helps, cheers.
P.S. Any chance field commands will get some love soon? (mandatory RCU II's on nighthawks are bad mmkay)
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
608
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:49:00 -
[388] - Quote
BiggestT wrote:
No one asked for the rokh to be nerfed. There have been no "omg rokh is OP" threads to justify this. In fact people have been advocating for a boost to the rokh for a while now (Cap boost? Damage bonus?)
P.S. Any chance field commands will get some love soon? (mandatory RCU II's on nighthawks are bad mmkay)
There's nothing weak about the Rokh, it's a dominant fleet BS and does not need boosting. Although it surprised me, I understand the rationale behind dropping the resist bonus though, it's very powerful on the fleet BS scale because of slot abundances and the prevalence of RR.
A plan for CS was published a few months back - linky.
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
253
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:27:00 -
[389] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:BiggestT wrote:
No one asked for the rokh to be nerfed. There have been no "omg rokh is OP" threads to justify this. In fact people have been advocating for a boost to the rokh for a while now (Cap boost? Damage bonus?)
P.S. Any chance field commands will get some love soon? (mandatory RCU II's on nighthawks are bad mmkay)
There's nothing weak about the Rokh, it's a dominant fleet BS and does not need boosting. Although it surprised me, I understand the rationale behind dropping the resist bonus though, it's very powerful on the fleet BS scale because of slot abundances and the prevalence of RR. A plan for CS was published a few months back - linky. yes it is a dominant fleet bs due to its tanking ability and there ends its advantages :) it has plenty of weaknesses , just other ships complement it out in fleets
would it be bad to make it better at not the curret fleet warfare role? I cant see how that would be a problem anyway ships are getting so onesided it makes pvp booring :( knowing who will win just from scan isnt a good direction for this game |
Wenthrial Solamar
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 07:47:00 -
[390] - Quote
So Kil2, What happened to " we are mostly happy with T1 BS, just some minor tweaks" ?
Seriously This thread and the projection of expectations for almost a year now was very much a fine tuning and tweaking, and what is announced is a major overhaul, with huge balance and game play changes, lots of radical ideas both good and bad. All based on what , one very good post by Hakan MacTrew ?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |