Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
798
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 21:53:00 -
[871] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:ElQuirko wrote:If you can't begin to explain then evidently you have no argument. Reducing the range of shortpoints on ships designed for kiting spaces them out from the standard cruisers we have now; why do we need to spend 10x the ship cost just to gild the hulls that serve perfectly already? As for the MJD issue, that was more for the gimmick than anything, but I can see useful applications which can be countered by, for example, a warp scrambler. That oh-so-rarely fitted module. Ugh.. First, nothing in the game does this, it's super confusing for everyone and has absolutely no consistency. It adds absolutely total safety for kiters. You will never see another Vagabond lossmail. Ever. Why? What does it add to the game? Why is it needed?
Because people want HACs to have a role instead of just "overpriced faction cruiser."
It takes 12 seconds for a MJD to fire up, that is plenty of time for a fast tackle to scramble it.
I have no idea what the 50% scrambler/disrupter thing is all about though. |
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:02:00 -
[872] - Quote
Hortoken Wolfbrother wrote:They say t2 is for specialized ships. Perhaps Hacs specialize at sucking
blah blah blah blah... blah
|
paritybit
Repo.
246
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:09:00 -
[873] - Quote
Somebody else has probably already pointed this out, but I thought it would be useful to at least say it in case nobody has.
The reason that Assault Frigates don't completely outclass Tech 1 Frigates is because they have a ~15% -¦ 3% slower base speed. This pretty much ensures that they can't keep up with a Tech 1 Frigate unless they fit a microwarpdrive or fit specifically for speed and pick on slower targets. This is, of course, with the exception of the relationship between the Rifter and it's higher tech brother the Jaguar.
In this pass the Heavy Assault Cruisers are only 5% to 10% slower than the Tech 1 Cruisers. And already Tech 1 Cruisers are slow enough that most people feel the need to put a microwarpdrive on them. We're at a good place now with Tech 1 Cruisers being used a lot, but I feel that we're going to lose that if Heavy Assault Cruisers are buffed to this level without a downside (in addition to cost).
We already know that cost is not a significant enough deterrent. We know this through the proliferation of supercapitals. We know this through the proliferation of Strategic Cruisers. If the only deterrent to flying a Heavy Assault Cruiser is cost, pilots won't have a reason to choose Tech 1 Cruisers and we'll be back to the old days where elite PVP alliances will shun anyone who lowers themselves far enough to fly a Tech 1 Cruiser.
There may be some amount of hyperbole here, but my point is accurate. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
383
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:14:00 -
[874] - Quote
Quote:Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
The problem here is again the resilience i.e. EHP is still too weak ... you just nerfed the deimos tank and the Vaga and zealot have less than 1000 structure where is this resilience???
Mobile... eagle ..zealot, sacrilege, ishtar are all slow and unagile... so where is the mobility here???
And for the role bonus well it just doesn't go far enough as far as we are concerned .. lower the sig radius and increase the mwd to at least 60%... as mitigating damage is all well and fine so long as you can tank the other 75% of damage.
And with the miniscule dps most of these have aswell as the stunted projection on some of them what is the tanking good for .... absolutely nothing!! :) 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. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:15:00 -
[875] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:ElQuirko wrote:If you can't begin to explain then evidently you have no argument. Reducing the range of shortpoints on ships designed for kiting spaces them out from the standard cruisers we have now; why do we need to spend 10x the ship cost just to gild the hulls that serve perfectly already? As for the MJD issue, that was more for the gimmick than anything, but I can see useful applications which can be countered by, for example, a warp scrambler. That oh-so-rarely fitted module. Ugh.. First, nothing in the game does this, it's super confusing for everyone and has absolutely no consistency. It adds absolutely total safety for kiters. You will never see another Vagabond lossmail. Ever. Why? What does it add to the game? Why is it needed? New features are often confusing for people at first, I don't think that idea is more confusing than many of the successful new features that we have seen.
It certainly doesn't give kiters total safety. It just means that they can tackle and apply DPS to some targets while being outside of point range. It achieves that without increasing the actual damage projection or point range of the HACs themselves. They can still be tackled, they can still be killed. They gain the ability to operate in a range envelope that would otherwise be deadly to most ships, but outside that envelope they are still either in great danger or impotent.
Diesel47 wrote:I have no idea what the 50% scrambler/disrupter thing is all about though. Not scrambler, not web either. Just the disruptors, because the vast point ranges of today have a lot to do with how difficult skirmishing has become.
That and the lightning fast speed of on-grid probing has made hit-and-run far harder that it should be.
This is gameplay that needs to be encouraged, not stifled. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
799
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:27:00 -
[876] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Somebody else has probably already pointed this out, but I thought it would be useful to at least say it in case nobody has.
The reason that Assault Frigates don't completely outclass Tech 1 Frigates is because they have a ~15% -¦ 3% slower base speed. This pretty much ensures that they can't keep up with a Tech 1 Frigate unless they fit a microwarpdrive or fit specifically for speed and pick on slower targets. This is, of course, with the exception of the relationship between the Rifter and it's higher tech brother the Jaguar.
In this pass the Heavy Assault Cruisers are only 5% to 10% slower than the Tech 1 Cruisers. And already Tech 1 Cruisers are slow enough that most people feel the need to put a microwarpdrive on them. We're at a good place now with Tech 1 Cruisers being used a lot, but I feel that we're going to lose that if Heavy Assault Cruisers are buffed to this level without a downside (in addition to cost).
We already know that cost is not a significant enough deterrent. We know this through the proliferation of supercapitals. We know this through the proliferation of Strategic Cruisers. If the only deterrent to flying a Heavy Assault Cruiser is cost, pilots won't have a reason to choose Tech 1 Cruisers and we'll be back to the old days where elite PVP alliances will shun anyone who lowers themselves far enough to fly a Tech 1 Cruiser.
There may be some amount of hyperbole here, but my point is accurate.
Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
134
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:28:00 -
[877] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Quote:Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor. The problem here is again the resilience i.e. EHP is still too weak ... you just nerfed the deimos tank and the Vaga and zealot have less than 1000 structure where is this resilience??? Mobile... eagle ..zealot, sacrilege, ishtar are all slow and unagile... so where is the mobility here??? And for the role bonus well it just doesn't go far enough as far as we are concerned .. lower the sig radius and increase the mwd to at least 60%... as mitigating damage is all well and fine so long as you can tank the other 75% of damage. And with the miniscule dps most of these have aswell as the stunted projection on some of them what is the tanking good for .... absolutely nothing!! :)
miniscule dps? All those HACs are running 400 to 600 dps upwards depending on the range/speed/tank you fit. It runs up to extreme examples as a nanoishtar aligning in less than 4 seconds and most of all permarunning mwds for around 1.5km/s in average for armor, far far higher for shieldtanks. Given their resilence and the overall stats, I really would personally dislike them going on a much further buff. Tweaks are great, but they are - as of now - quite closing the gap between HACs and combat fitted T3s. Cerb, Muninn, Deimos and Zealot atm all compare pretty well to their respective combatfits, with the exception of the more extreme configurations some T3s allow in the 100mn segment. Combat fitted roughly tranlates to their respective correct offensive/propulsion sub with buffertanks and the eccm-sub. Surely HACs can't run those buffertanks, but on the side of damage projection and effective hardpoints, effectiveness of projected RR and general mobility, they are on par, slightly behind, about even and about even.
It costs me around 50mil to fit out a vexor, and it will probably cost me 200mil to fit out an ishtar. I think paying 4times is worth it here.
I only correct my own spelling. |
paritybit
Repo.
247
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:31:00 -
[878] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now. |
Retmas
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:34:00 -
[879] - Quote
i guess my only point of confusion is why the ishtar is given two essentially conflicting bonuses. sentry ishtars arent likely to also be carrying heavies, and as some folks pointed out, ogres still are slower than any cruiser hull with a MWD, making them pretty much dead weight solo. for fleets, they're not even considerable.
i dunno, i just feel like the ishtar, while good now, is getting mutually exclusive bonuses. if you want specialisation, CCP, why give it bonuses that tread in the territory of split weapons? make it a sentry boat, or a heavy boat if you must, but your stated goal of a specialist boat is simply not realised here.
alternately, put a pause on the ship and turret balancing passes, and give drones the attention they have greatly lacked. i mean really, turrets have undergone multiple balancing passes over the last two years, drones got damage amps. while appreciated, more attention is needed, especially with the prevalence of drone fleet concepts out here in null. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
801
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:37:00 -
[880] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now.
Not if we all whine hard enough.
|
|
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:41:00 -
[881] - Quote
Enough about probably over buffed ships that were good before the changes.
Lets talk about the Eagle? |
Endeis
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:43:00 -
[882] - Quote
I said earlier that Vaga needs more dps, I agree with a lot of what I've read after that saying it needs more dps at range specifically to avoid this brawler vaga idea. It does like 150dps at 30k, it really can't kill much atm. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:46:00 -
[883] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option I think you are giving up on the best option too readily.
paritybit wrote:which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same.
With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:47:00 -
[884] - Quote
Now seems like a good time to re-post part of my comments from a few pages ago. On discussing the hulls that will likely 'make the cut' or 'not':
Let's take a quick look at the 4 that will likely be popular in 1.1:
Zealot - The current baseline. Good sig (AB), great dmg projection, decent tank, holds up well under reps Vagabond - 1/2 speed, 1/2 shield thank. only lacking *a little* in projection, otherwise fine PROPOSED Ishtar - some nice changes here, only concern is that it's being forced into a shield tank role (ref. Gallente lore). :Drones: aside, great projection. PROPOSED Cerberus - Finally enough dps, great projection, nice speed
What I see all of these having in common? DPS, and the ability to apply that DPS. These feature a winning combination of Speed, Sig, DPS and dmg projection. A large portion of their survivability comes directly from the T2 resist profiles, but also have the capability of fitting a significant tank without unduly impacting the ability to land hits on target.
Now for the other 4. Perhaps not surprisingly, these four are the ones that don't have the combination of speed & projection...
Sacrilege - Slow as balls. Option to EITHER fit tank OR fit dps, and even if you fit dps it's still not going to be impressive. Bonus to HML is nice, but low dps makes that fit unlikely. Bonus to HAM range will mitigate speed disadvantage somewhat, but closing range will still be an issue. Used to be able to dual active tank like a boss... not so much soon(TM). RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Keep the dps where it is, change the missile velocity bonus to explosion radius or explosion velocity. 25m3 drones. +1 low or move the utility high to a low. (personal wish list: Please roll the whole cap bonus into the hull).
Eagle - Also slow as balls. Slower than even the Sac. How is this thing supposed to brawl? Is it supposed to brawl? Dual optimal range bonuses imply 'sniper,' but that's a role better filled by ABC's. The only HAC of these four that has only a single damage bonus, giving it weaker raw dps than pretty much anything with a cruiser-sized gun mount. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: If you want it to be able to brawl, drop one optimal bonus for another damage bonus to give it some alpha. Increase speed to 200 so it can compete. If you're going for a dedicated sniper platform, then drop the shield resist bonus for extra tracking. Medium rails will thank you.
Deimos - It can bring the pain, it just has trouble bringing it close enough... Especially if you take 10-15% of its raw hit points away. The MWD capacitor bonus is rendered superfluous by the proposed cap recharge rates. Personal pet peeve: Why do the Gallente hulls have more structure hit points than shield or armor? Haven't they read the "Hull Tanking Elite" certificate writeup? RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Don't be daft - give this thing some armor hit points to work with. Also, drop the MWD bonus in favor of a bonus that either allows blaster dps to be applied at range or increases tracking. This thing already does beastly dps, so reduce the dronebay to 25m3. Web range bonus might also be an option.
Munin - Good arty platform, but completely overshadowed by Tornadoes. Optimal range bonus does ~nothing for autocannons. Only 3 mids severely limits the fitting options. RECOMMENDATION FOR VIABILITY: Give Autocannons some love. Change the 10% optimal bonus to 5% optimal and 5% falloff. Smooth the T2 resist profile on this one to be slightly more uniform. Boost armor HP to 2200. Consider moving the utility high to a mid.
For these last four, can you PLEASE consider a different Role bonus than the MWD bloom? And PLEASE consider 16 fitting slots?
Addendum: Also please consider splitting the HAC lineup into two; you already have 4 that look like they'll be perfectly viable on this pass. The other 4 could use a different role bonus and some re-thinking. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:47:00 -
[885] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. They have a different engagement profile and you fly them differently. I still think the relationship between Tech 1 Cruisers and Heavy Assault Cruisers will be dysfunctional (because most people fit Tech 1 Cruisers with microwarpdrives already, so there's no real fitting difference), but it will be a little better than what's being proposed now. Not if we all whine hard enough.
i reduced my expectations....
...realisticly all i wat now is to get more pg on the vaga. |
Knoxx Golem Asator
God's Equation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:52:00 -
[886] - Quote
Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 |
paritybit
Repo.
247
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:53:00 -
[887] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option I think you are giving up on the best option too readily. paritybit wrote:which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same. With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket.
Well, it's hard to see the light past all the cries that the buff isn't going far enough to make HACs the ultimate combat cruisers. Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:55:00 -
[888] - Quote
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP) |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1311
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:59:00 -
[889] - Quote
Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with. Be bold with your solutions Rise/Fozzie, if your fears come true it'd be easier to tone down one or two use cases than leave HACs as a class still in a bad place until the next time they come up for balance.
10%/level drone bonuses for the Ishtar, return the Deimos armor, take that lovely man's suggestion for adjusting the Sacri slot layout, drop Eagle shield resist bonus for a damage or tracking bonus, drop the Vaga shield boost bonus for a falloff bonus,
AND MAKE THE MWD BONUS WORTH (it's not a bad idea, but it needs to be 75% to have any traction) "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:03:00 -
[890] - Quote
paritybit wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:paritybit wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Then you should encourage CCP that HACs need a role other than OP t1 crusier.
Right now what is the cerb besides a stronger caracal? ETC.
Something to set them apart from every other ship in the game, aswell as being useful so people fly them.
It's pretty obvious they don't want to do this. So I was going for the next best option I think you are giving up on the best option too readily. paritybit wrote:which is to give the a similar relationship to that between Tech 1 Frigates and Assault Frigates; Assault Frigates are beefier but slower than Tech 1 Frigates. Too many ships already fill that role, otherwise I would probably be arguing the same. With the number of medium gun hulls being so vast, we at the very least need to have the T2 ones in specialist roles. You have plenty of room for beefier but *whatever* alternatives to the t1 cruisers in the vast selection of cruiser and battlecruiser variants available. Keeping HACs in that general combat role is bad both for HACs and for everything else that shares that bracket. Well, it's hard to see the light past all the cries that the buff isn't going far enough to make HACs the ultimate combat cruisers. Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Yes, but there is a reason why we pay CCP to make this game for us: We are all terrible at game design. |
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:17:00 -
[891] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Remove a launcher, change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen.
Shameless re-bump. Many agree this is a worthy idea. I hope you're reading this, CCP Rise. We can revive one of the most underpowered and underappreciated HACs in the game, without making it OP in any way, by implementing this redesign alone.
Hear the prayer of every Amarr Victor and fix this darn ship. |
Knoxx Golem Asator
God's Equation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:17:00 -
[892] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP)
Sorry can you give me a link so i can read?
|
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:20:00 -
[893] - Quote
Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:nikar galvren wrote:Knoxx Golem Asator wrote:Hello. Its 32 pages of posting. So honestly haven't read them all.
So here goes my million dollar question:
ISHTAR: From the first impression it has 285 cpu units. From my perspective its ridonculous. Wondering if there is any change to improve this number to the sema level as other hacs. I believe it would completely transform this ship's role in eve.
o7 Ishtar was boosted to 340 CPU (see OP) Sorry can you give me a link so i can read?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3409697#post3409697
scroll to the Ishtar details |
Knoxx Golem Asator
God's Equation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:26:00 -
[894] - Quote
ty |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
752
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:29:00 -
[895] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with.... This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1311
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 23:47:00 -
[896] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Considering how long they've been in the dog house, possible temporary HAC OPness is not really something i as a PVP player would be terribly upset with.... This is Eve, 'temporary OP'ness' has so far meant 2-3 years or forever .. and even if .. what would end their reign when the time comes, we are pretty much done with the "normal pew hull" tiericide. Best not This is 2013, CCP's dedicated balance team would like to say hello and welcome you "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:02:00 -
[897] - Quote
I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise... |
Kick Rocks
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:09:00 -
[898] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Lucien Cain wrote:nikar galvren wrote: [wall of despair] snip! [/wall of despair]
Your logic is so sound that I'm starting to fall in love with you darling. In all seriousness, you nailed the whole problem accurately. Take notes CCP! BTW: Liked Thank you. I seriously hope that CCP is taking notes.
They might be if your post was slightly less...rude.
I certainly don't like it when people shove words in my mouth. Rise and CCP might be different but I wouldn't bet on it. I personally do not feel that being correct entitles me to be an ass, but that is just me.
That being said I get what you are saying and understand your frustration. I don't care that much because I fly Muninns because I like the way they look, which is why I fly most of my ships. It is just internet spaceships to me but I don't hate on you or anyone else for caring. This thread had been very entertaining. |
Shadow McGregor
Trident Tactical Group The Unthinkables
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:37:00 -
[899] - Quote
Overall there is some promise to be had here. I like that you have increased the CPU for the Ishtar and remove the drone bay bonus, thank you. Although changing the Sentry Tracking/Range bonus 10% to 7.5% and making it the Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonus instead of Gallente Cruiser Bonus is very disappointing. I also agree with a previous poster in saying that the speed bonus should not be centered around just Heavy Drones which received a strong nerf when the AI was upgraded to the rats, maybe consider doing a 5% Drone MWD speed bonus. This would have good results in PVP allowing light drones to catch the faster frigs aswell.
ISHTAR
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed (was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 5% bonus to Drone MWD speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7) Signature radius: 145
This Ishtar could be used for both PVE and PVP options. |
Koshie Naranek
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
16
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:42:00 -
[900] - Quote
A few thoughts, but I am probably way off.
Recently every time a Minmatar ship has been redesigned it has been cursed.
The Tempest looks so good. And now is the worst tech 1 BS in the game (7/6/6 slot layout please, who the hell armor tanks this thing with only 6 low slots and still have room for gyro's). Two neuts are nice, if you are trying to kill supers. You will still have one high utility slot left. Geddon is your new neut boat anyways.
The Stabber (especially the vaga variant) looks a lot better, but its a shield tanker with 4 mid slots.
The Muninn (no the Rupture hull hasn't been redesigned, but it should be, but after the Moa...WTF) should get that extra high slot transferred to a mid, not a low slot. Everyone shield tanks Muninns for a reason.
I know you are trying to add variety but Minmatar are shield tankers by nature. Not armor tankers. Look at the t2 resist profile for shields vs armor on mini ships. We have Gallente and Amarr for armor tanking.
I should have posted anonymously, as I am just rambling. But these are some thoughts I've had for a while.
But overall thanks Rise for the changes. All the changes. You must have some really thick skin. Or a lot of tear collection buckets.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [30] 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |