Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 263 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Serge SC
The Valhalla Project
54
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:29:00 -
[5911] - Quote
Quish McQuiddy wrote:Kul Mazuf wrote:Changes are still **** Ytterbium
-Increase locking range to near recon ship levels if you're talking about projection - increase tractor range if I'm going to be jumping a 100km all over the ******* place. - Give the kronos back it's 75 m3 bandwidth, or up the dps to compensate for this dps loss. - Don't ever try balancing ships again. PLEASE
Yup - as for Vargur - its a crying shame. The Kronos and Vargur dps is laughable.
Not sure about the Kronos (I dislike hybrids), but the Vargur has the same paper DPS as a Maelstrom, but better applied thru tracking bonuses and falloff bonuses, using half the ammo.
After some EFT-warring, my new Vargur can almost match a Machariel paper DPS wise, (951 vs 927). Granted, I'm forcing the fit a bit on both and using implants to help compensate where compensation is needed.
As for incursions, the new 8 high-slot marauder can prove to be an interesting ship. Spider tanking, and forgo Bastion all together. Haven't tested it out, as there's not enough people willing to go into sisi and have marauders skills yet (knock knock, can we do something about it?). Finally, yes, pirate hulls are superior than marauders, but to be superior you have to have 2 battleship skills trained up. For a machariel to be effective, AWU5 is a must, projectile rigging 5 is a must, gallente and minmatar battleship 5 is a must.
I just find it a bit annoying that the vargur requires now more training for Bastion to work and MJD around, but well, I already invested into Marauders 5, might as well go all the way...
To the positive side though, thank you Ytterbium for listening to the buffer problems. I'll be sure to test how they fare now (deadspaced omni tank fit and not even 100k ehp was way too low). Also thank you for the drones. Now I can carry more light drones and salvage drones, without worrying that I'll run out quickly of sets of lights.
For missions I'm thinking triple salvager setup with the tractor structure dropped next to me. Gotta test these out. Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
29
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:30:00 -
[5912] - Quote
Quote: CCP Ytterbium There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Hope that helps, I will post the changes in the original thread .
why, o why, so much hate against our friends, logistic pilots?! |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
784
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:36:00 -
[5913] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also Ytterbium -have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???
Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post . Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:
- TP bonus:
+ More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots. + Target painting affects a whole group of players - Require med slots in the first place
- Explosion radius bonus:
+ Doesn't require med slot in the first place + Always applied as long as you shoot - Static, cannot be influenced by itself - Doesn't affect other players
So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well.
another + would be it would benefit much more from other peoples target painters or other modifiers vs the target = to a tracking bonus which is better if you ask me... if people need bonused target painters, recons or new eaf will be good enough Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
584
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:37:00 -
[5914] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also Ytterbium -have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???
Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post . Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:
- TP bonus:
+ More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots. + Target painting affects a whole group of players - Require med slots in the first place
- Explosion radius bonus:
+ Doesn't require med slot in the first place + Always applied as long as you shoot - Static, cannot be influenced by itself - Doesn't affect other players
So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well.
I hope you realize that the "Uses a slot and fittings (you forgot the uses fittings)" is worht a lot of MINUSES when comapred to any of those other points. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd Order of the Exalted
11
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:39:00 -
[5915] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Quote: CCP Ytterbium There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Hope that helps, I will post the changes in the original thread . why, o why, so much hate against our friends, logistic pilots?!
Because when it comes to logistics, there are only two states of being for incursions as far as I have seen:
1) Not enough logistics, fleet waits for more. 2) Too many logistics, people sitting around doing nothing. |
Serge SC
The Valhalla Project
54
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:46:00 -
[5916] - Quote
Oh, I forgot to add something!!
Please CCP, give your deisgners and artists something to do, and make so that the Vargur in Bastion doesn't look like I'm silly and forgot to move.
Bastion transformations should be more obvious, like opening flats, or compacting the hull, or something. As it stands, the Vargur adds platings to the wingy btis (on a shield ship) and something under the bridge moves. Perhaps open some plates like the Golem too? Or Contract the hull "protecting" the exposed orange areas? Tucking in the engines (we're immobile anyways)? Popping the guns out? Something more obvious to the changes of the hull. Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC |
TheFace Asano
Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:50:00 -
[5917] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also Ytterbium -have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???
Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post . Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:
- TP bonus:
+ More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots. + Target painting affects a whole group of players - Require med slots in the first place
- Explosion radius bonus:
+ Doesn't require med slot in the first place + Always applied as long as you shoot - Static, cannot be influenced by itself - Doesn't affect other players
So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well. Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the TP bonus for one that buffs the ship innately. Think about it: if a Golem is fighting a ship that is EWAR immune (I dunno, maybe from a Bastion Module ^.- ), then it totally loses out on this bonus (as well as a wasted midslot). Second, and I think it's a pretty salient point here, is that you guys are effectively removing a midslot on these Marauders by buffing MJD use on them so much. It's nice that the Golem gets a bonus to ewar; it just doesn't fit well, though, with the "new" Marauder (plus, it steps on Minmatari racial ewar preference). That being said, even if you guys were to remove the TP bonus on the Golem, PLEASE keep the TP change of lower cycle time!! I don't believe ships are immune to TP with ewar immunity..
they are, I engaged a paladin in the golem and my tp cycle shut of when he bastioned
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
565
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:53:00 -
[5918] - Quote
TheFace Asano wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also Ytterbium -have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???
Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post . Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:
- TP bonus:
+ More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots. + Target painting affects a whole group of players - Require med slots in the first place
- Explosion radius bonus:
+ Doesn't require med slot in the first place + Always applied as long as you shoot - Static, cannot be influenced by itself - Doesn't affect other players
So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well. Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the TP bonus for one that buffs the ship innately. Think about it: if a Golem is fighting a ship that is EWAR immune (I dunno, maybe from a Bastion Module ^.- ), then it totally loses out on this bonus (as well as a wasted midslot). Second, and I think it's a pretty salient point here, is that you guys are effectively removing a midslot on these Marauders by buffing MJD use on them so much. It's nice that the Golem gets a bonus to ewar; it just doesn't fit well, though, with the "new" Marauder (plus, it steps on Minmatari racial ewar preference). That being said, even if you guys were to remove the TP bonus on the Golem, PLEASE keep the TP change of lower cycle time!! I don't believe ships are immune to TP with ewar immunity.. they are, I engaged a paladin in the golem and my tp cycle shut of when he bastioned
that's a big disadvantage over having it as a built in bonus
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. |
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:54:00 -
[5919] - Quote
You're getting there CCP. Now just look at maruaders on tranquility and realize that they are fine and nobody is complaining about their performance. |
Siddicus
Nation of Sidd Order of the Exalted
12
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:55:00 -
[5920] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Siddicus wrote:gascanu wrote:Quote: CCP Ytterbium There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Hope that helps, I will post the changes in the original thread . why, o why, so much hate against our friends, logistic pilots?! Because when it comes to logistics, there are only two states of being for incursions as far as I have seen: 1) Not enough logistics, fleet waits for more. 2) Too many logistics, people sitting around doing nothing. 3) Ppl can fly both dps and logi so they can change ships when or what they need
Can and do are two very very different things. Yes some do, but the vast majority don't. |
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
29
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:55:00 -
[5921] - Quote
Quote:CCP Ytterbium
Why would I want to use Marauders in Incursions now that the web bonus is gone?
There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Bottom line is, we are not willing to leave a web bonus on Marauders to cater to ultra-specialized Incursion fittings when that conflicts with our design goals and their role as a whole. Especially when alternative tactics exist that make them still very effective in Incursion also: did your internal play test have shown how ******** easy is to gank one of those "kiting trough the MJD" marauders? i gues you didn't really have gankers on your "internal paly test" eh? |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
589
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 16:59:00 -
[5922] - Quote
TheFace Asano wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also Ytterbium -have you considered replacing TP bonus on golem for an explosion radius bonus???
Ah yes, forgot to address that in the previous post . Yes, we did - it all comes down to this:
- TP bonus:
+ More than one can be added, allowing to give more benefit than the explosion radius bonus. Especially useful due to the Bastion module that frees med slots. + Target painting affects a whole group of players - Require med slots in the first place
- Explosion radius bonus:
+ Doesn't require med slot in the first place + Always applied as long as you shoot - Static, cannot be influenced by itself - Doesn't affect other players
So far, we prefer the TP bonus - but that's debatable. The other Marauders don't rely on specific tackling / EW modules anymore (web bonus removed), thus it could make sense to remove it as well. Honestly, it would probably be better to remove the TP bonus for one that buffs the ship innately. Think about it: if a Golem is fighting a ship that is EWAR immune (I dunno, maybe from a Bastion Module ^.- ), then it totally loses out on this bonus (as well as a wasted midslot). Second, and I think it's a pretty salient point here, is that you guys are effectively removing a midslot on these Marauders by buffing MJD use on them so much. It's nice that the Golem gets a bonus to ewar; it just doesn't fit well, though, with the "new" Marauder (plus, it steps on Minmatari racial ewar preference). That being said, even if you guys were to remove the TP bonus on the Golem, PLEASE keep the TP change of lower cycle time!! I don't believe ships are immune to TP with ewar immunity.. they are, I engaged a paladin in the golem and my tp cycle shut of when he bastioned
At least Marauders are large enough targets for missiles to be pretty effective against..
Not to mention they're immobile |
Serge SC
The Valhalla Project
56
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:02:00 -
[5923] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
At least Marauders are large enough targets for missiles to be pretty effective against..
Not to mention they're immobile
Aside from the immobility, their signature has been greatly reduced, that's a HUGE advantage. The main problem with a Paladin in incursions was that ungodly signature, and the Golem was right behind, even worse with shield penalties.
EDIT: Wording/idea wasn't well expressed Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC |
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
23
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:05:00 -
[5924] - Quote
When is the Golem getting a RHML bonus? |
Tramar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:07:00 -
[5925] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Quote:CCP Ytterbium
Why would I want to use Marauders in Incursions now that the web bonus is gone?
There are other advantages to Marauders - internal play tests have shown us than kitting through the MJD bonus is very effective, as NPC warp scramblers don't stop you from using it. Plus their tank is good enough not to require Logistic support. Bottom line is, we are not willing to leave a web bonus on Marauders to cater to ultra-specialized Incursion fittings when that conflicts with our design goals and their role as a whole. Especially when alternative tactics exist that make them still very effective in Incursion also: did your internal play test have shown how ******** easy is to gank one of those "kiting trough the MJD" marauders? i gues you didn't really have gankers on your "internal paly test" eh? They didn't, with bastion it becomes the most easy to gank ship to find in anomalies, unless the EW immunity lasts some seconds after the bastion is shut down, but even that won't save it from a proper gank, 100km is very easy to cover with a fast ship before the maradeur manages to warp away. |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
199
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:08:00 -
[5926] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:
As for incursions, the new 8 high-slot marauder can prove to be an interesting ship. Spider tanking, and forgo Bastion all together. Haven't tested it out, as there's not enough people willing to go into sisi and have marauders skills yet (knock knock, can we do something about it?).
RR on shield marauders is meh, because of the high CPU requirements of shield transfers(it gimps your fitting), it only really works on armor marauders(this is not sissi testing, but tested in a full marauder setup that rolls live on TQ).
Btw, you just need to join the moveme channel and type in "bastion", it gives you marauders 5 and the skills for bastion.
Serge SC wrote:The main problem with a Paladin in incursions was that ungodly signature, and the Golem was right behind, even worse with shield penalties.
The main problem of the paladin is the low lock speed in contests, however without the web bonus it makes it a lot worse for grind. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
584
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:15:00 -
[5927] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:
At least Marauders are large enough targets for missiles to be pretty effective against..
Not to mention they're immobile
Aside from the immobility, their signature has been greatly reduced, that's a HUGE advantage. The main problem with a Paladin in incursions was that ungodly signature, and the Golem was right behind, even worse with shield penalties. EDIT: Wording/idea wasn't well expressed
Still large enough to take more damage than normal T1 battleships.
BTw I am selling my 2 vargurs, 1 paladin and 1 kronso. Now that ccp is throwing them into the garbage can of ships with this useles over tank but no offensive advantage mode. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1349
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:17:00 -
[5928] - Quote
The Djego wrote:Serge SC wrote:
As for incursions, the new 8 high-slot marauder can prove to be an interesting ship. Spider tanking, and forgo Bastion all together. Haven't tested it out, as there's not enough people willing to go into sisi and have marauders skills yet (knock knock, can we do something about it?).
RR on shield marauders is meh, because of the high CPU requirements of shield transfers(it gimps your fitting), it only really works on armor marauders(this is not sissi testing, but tested in a full marauder setup that rolls live on TQ). Btw, you just need to join the moveme channel and type in "bastion", it gives you marauders 5 and the skills for bastion.
Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test. I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are. I would love to get 10 Paladin pilots on grid, with a Eos off grid, and fraps the whole thing, and load on You Tube.
But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Serge SC
The Valhalla Project
56
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:29:00 -
[5929] - Quote
The Djego wrote:
RR on shield marauders is meh, because of the high CPU requirements of shield transfers(it gimps your fitting), it only really works on armor marauders(this is not sissi testing, but tested in a full marauder setup that rolls live on TQ).
Btw, you just need to join the moveme channel and type in "bastion", it gives you marauders 5 and the skills for bastion.
The main problem of the paladin is the low lock speed in contests, however without the web bonus it makes it a lot worse for grind.
Hmm I was pretty sure it only gave bastion related skills...uuhh good to know it gives the full set of skills!
Well, the lock speed has been fixed, somewhat. Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC |
baltec1
Bat Country
8258
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:34:00 -
[5930] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test. I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.
No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships. |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage Fidelas Constans
119
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:36:00 -
[5931] - Quote
should have just given them bomb launchers Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread --- Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3503687&#post3503687 ----á for FW rebalance in 2013 |
Tramar
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:40:00 -
[5932] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test. I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.
No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships. making maradeurs still useless exept for some situational pvp and even more for null/low pve isn't that much of a change. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
254
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:45:00 -
[5933] - Quote
I really dislike the 5% cap capacity bonus per level on the Paladin.
Why? because it's just a hidden way of saying that the hull has 25% more cap than the base (amarr BS V is required to fly the ship) and it only gets 3 actual bonuses.
Please add 25% to the base cap and give the hull an actual bonus. Something Amarrian, like armor resistances or laser tracking, hell even a NOS bonus would be fair game. Just don't fall back into old habits. Remember when almost all amarr ships had that cap usage bonus for lasers, and you replaced it by reducing the cap usage of lasers and giving them actual bonuses? That's the same issue here.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:47:00 -
[5934] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess. The reality is that with the third iteration, Marauders are finally the ships the majority of us have been hoping for. I'm not sure if you've been following this from the beginning, but the latest revisions are light years from the original two proposals.
baltec1 wrote:No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships. Yeah, I have to concur. These haven't changed so radically that they'll be drastically different from the current Marauders for PvE. If anything, they should be better for PvE. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:48:00 -
[5935] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:should have just given them bomb launchers What for? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage Fidelas Constans
119
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:56:00 -
[5936] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:should have just given them bomb launchers What for?
to bluntly force their design towards pvp. or static siegea. or capital warfare. or logi obliterating.
instead we get... this other thing...
give them bombs and the ability to lock on to cynos or give me my sp back Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread --- Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3503687&#post3503687 ----á for FW rebalance in 2013 |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
187
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 17:56:00 -
[5937] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Plus, I created threads on the test feedback forum and mission forum about getting people together to test. I have tested with less than optimal quantities, and that alone showed how bad these changes are.
No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships.
Typical goon response |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1349
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:02:00 -
[5938] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:But CCP won't listen. Guys like Yitterbum refuse to see the reality of this mess. The reality is that with the third iteration, Marauders are finally the ships the majority of us have been hoping for. I'm not sure if you've been following this from the beginning, but the latest revisions are light years from the original two proposals. baltec1 wrote:No it just shows yet again the attitude of the average pve player. They never test anything then whine for months that things changed even if that change benefits them. Literally the only people not happy with this change are the incursion runners who want marauders to do the job of pirate battleships. Yeah, I have to concur. These haven't changed so radically that they'll be drastically different from the current Marauders for PvE. If anything, they should be better for PvE.
Not radically different eh...just shows how much of a troll you are. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
330
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:07:00 -
[5939] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:to bluntly force their design towards pvp. or static siegea. or capital warfare. or logi obliterating. instead we get... this other thing... give them bombs and the ability to lock on to cynos or give me my sp back Since when were bombs and cynos a criteria for Marauders? These are used outside of null-sec... In any event, Marauders just picked up an extra 4th high slot which doesn't necessarily need to be utilized for Bastion.
Octoven wrote:Typical goon response Regardless, he happens to be right.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Not radically different eh...just shows how much of a troll you are. Yes, not radically different. Bastion is an entirely optional if so desired. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
772
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 18:12:00 -
[5940] - Quote
21 minutes and 30 seconds to move an unplated Paladin 16 jumps. I'd love to compare against TQ but I never really got around to finishing my Marauder training. I will of course have to re-test that time once the mass changes come through.
Anyway, having a bit of experience with battleships and the like but no experience with TQ Marauders, I can say that these proposed changes (especially under Version 3) will be tying up a month or two of my training queue once Gallente Cruiser 5 finishes.
Also, since everyone likes to talk about Pirate Ships vs Marauders, I'm just going to leave this here... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 263 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |