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 .. 60 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:20:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:20:00 -
[272] - Quote
Ivol Kishtani wrote:David Kir wrote:Ivol Kishtani wrote:Does anyone use the Muninn as a long range platform? I would think a 4th mid would be more useful than an additional low. It's often used in armor alpha gangs, and quite effectively so. The extra low gives it that little bit of tank or damage it needs. BL Muninn+Huginn gangs are infamous. BL Muninn gangs are shield not armor.
I know, otherwise I wouldn't have specified that they also use the Huginn.
|
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:22:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me.
Can we just have all missile boats get the bonuses to RLMLs like they should? Its a medium weapon system and it should get the benefit of not having to pick and choose which ship gets it like all the other weapons in the game. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:23:00 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150 Eagle should have recieved +1 turret if you want it to be able to put out measurable dps. It's the same sort of thing you did with the Ferox to keep it viable. As it currently stands with this initial pass, it doesn't look like it's going to get much more use than it currently does.
And just to make another point: you really ought to consider changing out the lol bonuses for some that actually make sense. Flat our remove the +50 drone bay for something more useful, or if you're going to give it a stupid bonus, make it an active rep bonus. At least it wouldn't be using it's cap for weapons, and the ship may actually get some use as a brawler.
For the 5% cap/level and the Sac's 5% cap charge/level---you can do better. Look at the other ships. Some have 4x damage/application bonuses. Put these that have dumb bonuses on par, at least. Give one +5% armor amount per level, +repair amount, etc. Keeping the old bonuses because you couldn't think of anything better isn't a reason to keep them. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1277
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
CCP Rise or CCP Fozzie, maybe even one of the CSMs in the thread, are drones going to be looked at any time soon, or are they a lost cause and need to be completely rewritten? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
687
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:24:00 -
[276] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's.
This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1144
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:25:00 -
[277] - Quote
Still dont understand why thorax tracks better then the diemos... There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:25:00 -
[278] - Quote
Ok, so Cerberus will get the same super-destroyer role the Caracal fits into. I can deal with that. |
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:27:00 -
[279] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Rise wrote:I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look. The problem is that the Ishtar has problem running S-sized mods in its high slots, to say nothing about any kind of highslot drone mod or remote support mod. Giving it a proper amount of CPU is not so much a buff as it is a balancing of the ship. The new drone mods (and especially their T2 variants) have already ruled out any kind of highslot extravaganza, and even with the old T1 mods, you were always at the very edge of what the CPU would allowGǪ GǪwith small guns fitted. By all means, keep the CPU limited, but then do something that lets it actually fit the modules that are in line with the ship's main purpose. If that means going outside of the ship balancing act and changing the drone mods, or if it means giving the ship a fitting bonus doesn't particularly matter (to meGǪ Maximus Andendare disagrees). What matters is that everything you want to fit on an Ishtar eats CPU like crazy before you even get to such extravagances as turrets.
It seems to me that guys just took the easy way out and buffed what these ships are currently used for...lol fail AHACS. They used to be the small gang/pvp corp's BS. You supposedly gave us tier 3's for that but they just got co opted into sniper blobs so that didnt work out, save the talos. Omni Directionals should always been a high slot mod. Heavy drones in any form of PVP save suicide heavy tackle is fail. With T2 Omnis and the new sentry/Domi bonus i could see use for this ship again. Although with Omnis in the mids thats a big if. And btw how does this ship have good damage projection with heavies? |
The Ironfist
Nordgoetter Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:28:00 -
[280] - Quote
For the ishtar to be viable in any kind of fleet capacity it desperatly needs more CPU! When I outfit it for armor tank and drone range/damge I'm left with 3 med and 2 high-slots I can not fit because of CPU. Fitting for shield you run into the same issue. Dunno but that just doesn't seem right to me. I mean you guys took one highslot away which we could never outfit anyway but at the very least you could give us some more base CPU.. +20 or something like it would go a long way. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10874
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher. I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess.
Indeed we will. If by some incredible turn of events we don't see people flocking to use a ship that can't outrun a Caracal (let along a Stabber) as a skirmisher, I hope there will be an opportunity to look at giving it a genuinely distinctive role.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:28:00 -
[282] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:It would be nice to do something interesting like a +100% velocity bonus to Afterburners, instead of the MWD sig reduction bonus. I have to echo this sentiment. I realize that CCP likely won't do this because it'd make these ships vastly overpowered (sig tank + speed + damage), but I don't know if the MWD sig reduction goes far enough or even performs its purpose. These ships will balloon with their MWDs on, so that kills shield ships sniping and does nothing to AHACs/brawlers once they get in range. Unfortunately, though, Omnathious, I'm pretty sure CCP is set on this. Fozzie stated during a Fanfest presentation that this was in the works, so I'm sure with such an old idea, they started with it and went from there. I expect this one is going to stay.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
220
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:29:00 -
[283] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look. for the way tracking works to find out why.
Little point in having the slots if you can't fit them with anything but a place holder.
Consider reducing the number of gun slots or even drop another high slot in return for some more CPU. Fear God and Thread Nought |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:29:00 -
[284] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Rise wrote:EAGLE - The Eagle will be a lot better because of the rail change alone, but we've also increased its power grid and replaced the utility high with an extra mid slot.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 950 PWG(+75), 430 CPU(-8) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3) Capacitor (amount) : 1350(-25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 175(+11) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km / 252 / 8 Sensor strength: 18 Gravimetric Signature radius: 150 Eagle should have recieved +1 turret if you want it to be able to put out measurable dps. It's the same sort of thing you did with the Ferox to keep it viable. As it currently stands with this initial pass, it doesn't look like it's going to get much more use than it currently does. And just to make another point: you really ought to consider changing out the lol bonuses for some that actually make sense. Flat our remove the +50 drone bay for something more useful, or if you're going to give it a stupid bonus, make it an active rep bonus. At least it wouldn't be using it's cap for weapons, and the ship may actually get some use as a brawler. For the 5% cap/level and the Sac's 5% cap charge/level---you can do better. Look at the other ships. Some have 4x damage/application bonuses. Put these that have dumb bonuses on par, at least. Give one +5% armor amount per level, +repair amount, etc. Keeping the old bonuses because you couldn't think of anything better isn't a reason to keep them.
The ferox is currently underpowered, actually. It has the same number of effective turrets as everyone else, but theirs are compacted into 1 fewer highslots. That's why the ferox is 1 mid short of a drake, for no good reason. It's because it would be kind of silly to double up the range bonus to meet the doubled up damage bonus of the other ships. That whole BC nerf was pretty underwhelming and bad, really. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:29:00 -
[285] - Quote
ITT: No one comprehends T2 native resists and proceeds to complain about things that don't matter.
(The Deimos mwd bonus is silly, though.) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:30:00 -
[286] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's. This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx.
Well this is where the argument over adding missiles to TE's/TC's come in as gunships can use them to strong effect against frigs but missile ships can't having a similar tracking to say a vaga via a Light assault missile with TE's/TC's and say an explosion velocity bonus would be adding more options to the game and make sense instead of using frig ammo to do the job with much less dps. It should have ability to fight larger stuff aswell instead of being a anti frig only ship.
Also corax is excellent anti frig .. the role of the destroyer and all .. cruisers shouldn't be aimed at killing smaller ships than itself. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:31:00 -
[287] - Quote
I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:31:00 -
[288] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I'll be amazed if people use the cerb as a skirmisher. I think you're super wrong here. We will have to see I guess. Indeed we will. If by some incredible turn of events we don't see people flocking to use a ship that can't outrun a Caracal (let along a Stabber) as a skirmisher, I hope there will be an opportunity to look at giving it a genuinely distinctive role.
Having a much larger tank and more damage is a pretty good substitute for being better at running away. Why should it be able to outrun a caracal? |
David Kir
Tailender
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:33:00 -
[289] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Capqu, so aggressive =/
I did forget to mention in last post that I think adding RLML to Cerb makes sense to me. seriously Rise with RML's .. have you not thought about how insane it is using frigate ammo on cruisers? abolish them and replace with a light assault variant i.e. like the difference in using 180's to 425's. This is stupid. How else are missile boats going to defend against frigs? 15 m3 drone bay? No thx. Well this is where the argument over adding missiles to TE's/TC's come in as gunships can use them to strong effect against frigs but missile ships can't having a similar tracking to say a vaga via a Light assault missile with TE's/TC's and say an explosion velocity bonus would be adding more options to the game and make sense instead of using frig ammo to do the job with much less dps and ability to fight larger stuff aswell instead of being a anti frig only ship. Also corax is excellent anti frig .. the role of the destroyer and all .. cruisers shouldn't be aimed at killing smaller ships than iteself.
What? Cruisers shouldn't be aimed at killing smaller ships?
What should they be aimed at, only killing each other?
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1277
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:33:00 -
[290] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look. for the way tracking works to find out why.
Wait, are you serious on this? We get a bonus to sentries, putting Garde IIs out to 45Km, but then you don't expect us to put medium sized weapons in the high slots. So we are left with 45Km drone projection and 8~10 km turret projection. And still not enough CPU to give a damn about drone mods and tank. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
darius mclever
53
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:34:00 -
[291] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs.
cerb has a drone bay? |
Enthes goldhart
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:34:00 -
[292] - Quote
For the Deimos PLEASE DONT TAKE MY 6TH HIGH SLOT! It desperately needs this for NOS due to the amount of neuts in the game. You did this for the Megathron and it worked as Megathrons always have cap boosters fitted due to the MWD, however with the cap bonus to the MWD the Deimos doesnGÇÖt need a cap booster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown. This would really hurt the passive Deimos setups.
The rest of the changes look good mostly though i feel they might not have gone far enough compared to their T1 and navy counterparts. (I would have liked to see and increase to sensor strength to stop those pesky ecm drones) ooster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
336
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:36:00 -
[293] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:The ferox is currently underpowered, actually. It has the same number of effective turrets as everyone else, but theirs are compacted into 1 fewer highslots. That's why the ferox is 1 mid short of a drake, for no good reason. It's because it would be kind of silly to double up the range bonus to meet the doubled up damage bonus of the other ships. That whole BC nerf was pretty underwhelming and bad, really. Yes, but Ferox is arguably better with 7 turrets that it ever was over 6, since it's bonus is to optimal. With Eagle having dual bonuses to optimal, yet only having 5 turrets, it's going to suffer. Nobody is going to use an Eagle over a Naga--even with the rail buff--since the Naga's raw damage output is going to eclipse the Eagle's medium charge's sig. at that distance.
Either add another turret or--better--they could improve the damage bonus to 10%/level.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1145
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:36:00 -
[294] - Quote
How about for the eagle up the optimal range bonus to 20% and replace the second bonus with a rate of fire There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
975
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:37:00 -
[295] - Quote
TheButcherPete wrote:Using HMLs to snipe is kind of silly...
The whole point of medium long range weapons being to make them worth using at decent ranges with decent DPS and YES, Heavy Missiles are the medium long range missiles weapon, therefore needs to be on the line with medium turrets instead of Rapid Lights becoming seriously OP as anti support.
Rapid lights are the weirdest weapon system in the game, those are not small versions nor med versions, just like if you had some sort of middle ground turret in between small and medium with small tracking and medium dps ability, which is silly imho and should be removed from the game or turned in to exclusive defenders (FOF?) launchers with even higher rof
Arty canes are already used as anti support and have such alpha nothing from frigate to destroyer can decently survive to one or two volleys at best from those, with missile mechanics and a ship like Cerberus with those RLM faction ammo/javelins nothing even at 8km/sec can ever approach your fleet to provide warp ins or drop a bubble unless suicide bubbles which is not only stupid as game play but completely uninteresting for whoever plays those. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:37:00 -
[296] - Quote
There still remains the question of "what are HAC's specialized in as a T2 ship"
Even after these changes, it still seems like every one of these HACs (except the Ishtar) is completely outshone by a similar purposed Strategic cruiser, which might cost 1.5-2.5 times as much, but have more tank, DPS, and utility than any of these HACs can dream of.
Successful T2 ship classes have roles that it and only it can fulfill, only dictors can bubble, only Bombers can bomb, only Logistics ships can provide long range reps on a tough platform. As long as HACs are strictly worse than T3s in every aspect besides price, the use of HACs will be limited (and similarly, Command ships are less used because a boosting T3 completely outshines it). HACs should be able to do something that only HACGÇÖs can do, instead of being a T3 for poor people.
How about giving HACs a role bonus to allow them to more easily hold their ground against masses of battleships? AB HACs are GÇ£a thingGÇ¥ so the MWD bonus is poorly suited for tanking battleships fleets, which are often supported by Recons and Tackle T3GÇÖs. Perhaps a 50% reduction from Web and Painter effects, so these ships can get under battleship guns even when webbed and painted. That specific bonus is probably too powerful in brawling situations.
Or failing that give them a MWD cap use bonus on top of the sig reduction to make them kiting ships without peer. Just anything to make them something other than poor-man T3's. I trust CCP Devs to figure a way to make HAC's truly useful. http://themittani.com -á- your one stop site for all News Eve Related |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:37:00 -
[297] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:How about for the eagle up the optimal range bonus to 20% and replace the second bonus with a rate of fire
never suggest a ROF on cap sensitive weapons..... they might just do it!!!! ... damage bonus please instead of resis nonsense bonus on a sniper Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:38:00 -
[298] - Quote
Enthes goldhart wrote:For the Deimos PLEASE DONT TAKE MY 6TH HIGH SLOT! It desperately needs this for NOS due to the amount of neuts in the game. You did this for the Megathron and it worked as Megathrons always have cap boosters fitted due to the MWD, however with the cap bonus to the MWD the Deimos doesnGÇÖt need a cap booster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown. This would really hurt the passive Deimos setups.
The rest of the changes look good mostly though i feel they might not have gone far enough compared to their T1 and navy counterparts. (I would have liked to see and increase to sensor strength to stop those pesky ecm drones) ooster taking away that high slot forces it to have one or risk being shutdown
A medium nos is only an effective counter to 1 small neut, and it uses up pretty much all of your powergrid. Utility highslots are going to continue to be worse than mids/lows for the forseeable future. |
HazeInADaze
L'Avant Garde
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:38:00 -
[299] - Quote
Gallente ships seem underwhelming. The diemost still has the MWD cap bonus instead of the tracking bonus. I think I'd rather kitein a thorax. And removing a high slot won't fix the reason why no one fits highs on an Ishtar.... we need more CPU! Especially now that we have CPU hungry drone amps in the low slots. |
Tsubutai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
211
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 15:38:00 -
[300] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Tsubutai wrote:I'd rather see the Cerb lose its silly drone bay and have the kinetic damage bonus swapped to an all-flavor damage bonus in exchange, but I think it'll be in a pretty good place overall as long as the double range bonus is applied to light missiles as well as heavies and HAMs, and that it should be a very viable skirmisher. The double range bonus is excessive for heavies, but it's excellent for lights and HAMs. cerb has a drone bay?
The OP wrote: CERBERUS ...
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15)
|
|
|
|
|
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 .. 60 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |