Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 58 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
54
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 20:14:00 -
[601] - Quote
Kalicondoin wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Have you considered changing sentries so that they keep up with and orbit the ship that deploys them? I really like this idea +1 from me. The movement of the fleet / ship / drone will nerf the tracking and lower its applied DPS. Would also force the fleets to fight face to face rather than drop and run. I think it works. Can anyone poke holes in this? depends how assignin sentries would work, if you can still assign them to another ship (and then have those orbiting the new ship) you would get a ship with 8+5 turrets without any downside basically |
Odithia
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 20:23:00 -
[602] - Quote
Kalicondoin wrote:Rek Seven wrote: Have you considered changing sentries so that they keep up with and orbit the ship that deploys them? I really like this idea +1 from me. The movement of the fleet / ship / drone will nerf the tracking and lower its applied DPS. Would also force the fleets to fight face to face rather than drop and run. I think it works. Can anyone poke holes in this? I've got an even better idea, let's stick the sentry to the hull of ship that launch them. |
Liam Inkuras
Top Belt Heroes
1224
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 20:43:00 -
[603] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:[quote=Maeltstome]Why not tracking speed? 8 gun tempest with 5% damage and 7.5% to tracking would be ideal, and even if it's just relegated to the tempest fleet, would make a nice step up from the stabber fleet issue. This would be a poor change because the issue lies not within tracking issues, but rather within damage application issues at range with ACs. This change would only really benefit artillery fits to a large degree. I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
Kalicondoin
BIack Sun Cynosural Field Theory.
3
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 20:44:00 -
[604] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:depends how assignin sentries would work, if you can still assign them to another ship (and then have those orbiting the new ship) you would get a ship with 8+5 turrets without any downside basically
yeah they just shouldn't move but only fire when you assist them to someone else. |
Catherine Laartii
Providence Guard Templis CALSF
245
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 21:22:00 -
[605] - Quote
As an alternative to the "turn sentries into arty; lower their dps overall but give them high alpha" idea, I have one that's a lot more simple, clean-cut, and solves all the issues the ishtar has.
Bar sentries from use for anything smaller than a battlecruiser. The main issue with them currently is having their parent ship has too great a level of mobility to be brought down easily, in addition to it getting obnoxious dps and range. Dropping them from cruiser down is the only viable option for that particular drone system.
Earlier it was stated by the dev that sentry downsides offset its damage and range enough.
I'm sorry, but that's complete hogwash.
Sentries are a completely different type of drone weapon system than any of their counterparts because they simply sit there and fire at long ranges. No other drone system in the game does that, and the advantage of having a long-range, high-dps weapons platform that isn't affected by any ewar at all done to the parent ship is WAY too powerful for ANY cruiser in the game to field, especially for a HAC that gets nothing BUT drone bonuses. The ishtar is fine with using heavies as its strongest drone system, and I would enjoy seeing ships like the myrmidon and especially the geddon used more as premier fleet drone boats with sentries.
Dropping their use from cruisers and below entirely completely eliminates the problems with the ishtar and cruiser sentry boats in general; that the ship fielding them can just fly away from the drones and not be grabbed an taken down easily by a fleet. It's simple, and you don't need to go through the nightmare of doing a heavy nerf and/or rebalance to either the ishtar or sentries in general. |
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
75
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 21:49:00 -
[606] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:The more I hear it the more I like the idea of just changing the bandwidth of Heavys to 20mb and lowering the bandwidth of ishtars to 100 as well as the Navy Vexor. This would be a slight buff also to Myrms as they would not be able to field a full flight of heavy drones. It's not just the myrmidon that would benefit if such a change happens. Vexor/prophecy would be able to field 3 heavies, a medium and a light Vexor navy would be able to field 5 heavies (if it was also reduced to 100 bandwidth) Proteus would be able to field 5 heavies in its drone configuration Myrmidon would be able to field 5 heavies It is a buff to the potential damage of the vexor, prophecy, proteus and myrmidon ( though suffers from no heavy drone speed or tracking bonuses) and a nerf to the vexor navy (if used as a sentry boat, but no nerf is used as a heavy droneboat), and the Ishtar (as it would lose 20% of its sentry damage, but lose none of its damage if using heavy drones). Its a tactical nerf to the sentry setup on cruisers, but keeps its exact potential when using heavy drones. It is also a buff to some drone ships and basic drone fitting functionality..
You know, I disliked this proposal a lot for a time.
I mean, lets face it, it isn't as though sentries haven't been nerfed a fair bit recently:
Drone assist nerfed to 50 (thank god).
Omnis became scripted. You could overheat, but the old optimal+tracking for gardes (or any other sentry) was impossible to reach at the same time. Even with 3 fed navy tracking comps scripted optimal, I couldn't get the same optimal I used to prenerf. Tracking seemed fine. Falloff buff helped a little with this.
Omnis got nerfed to 30 second reload times for SERVER reasons. Normal tracking comps never received this nerf. Good luck rescripting in battle in a timely fashion.
Garde DPS got nerfed like 6-8%. Even with Gal drone spec at V you would never get the same dps potential, unless you loaded around 5 Fed navy DDAs ( I have EFTed and confirmed compared to my old ratting ishtar before and after) .
All of these nerfs are justified, all of these nerfs I was pretty ok with.
But if you nerf sentries much more, the Domi is going to be in a sore spot. Arguably the other sentries, apart from gardes, got buffed a bit. Still, it isn't as though ccp hasn't been nerfing them.
However, what you just said, about the proteus, has changed my mind. The proteus terribly needs to be able to field 5 heavies at least. Honestly if the proteus was given 125 bandwidth I'd support reducing the ishtar to 100. However the reduction of heavies to 20 bandwidth works too. It is embarrassing that the only thing the proteus is really known for is heavy tank and points. Or that the tengu is the only good ratting T3. Or that the Navy vexor is a better drone boat than the proteus. Honestly it is crazy. I have officially come around to the idea of reducing heavy bandwidth to 20 and ishtar bandwidth to 100. The idea of flying a drone proteus for small gangs and ratting is so entirely thrilling, and the added effect of not nerfing sentries any further, that I can support the idea. |
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
75
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 21:54:00 -
[607] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I like the idea of ewar having an effect on drones. Right now, damps are basically the only thing that does anything if you damp all of the Ishtars, which really isn't reasonable in a large fight.
A few things have popped into my head:
- Target Spectrum Breaker disrupts all locked drones for 20s - ECM Burst disrupts all affected drones for 20s - Sensor Damps reduce drone control range in addition to target lock range (with additional drone lock script)
Bro, do you even FYF? |
Rhoaden
Phantom Squad DARKNESS.
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 22:32:00 -
[608] - Quote
Fixing the amount of cap BS use by just MWD would be a great start. Atm you need a heavy cap booster just to move around Not to mention any other mods. Most cruiser run perfect with out any form of cap injection yet ALL BS need heavy cap booster's ( few small exceptions ) . |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 22:53:00 -
[609] - Quote
Still awaiting the much needed rebalance for T3 cruisers...
Also... Why no changes yet for the Zealot - Sacrilege? |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 22:54:00 -
[610] - Quote
Rhoaden wrote:Fixing the amount of cap BS use by just MWD would be a great start. Atm you need a heavy cap booster just to move around Not to mention any other mods. Most cruiser run perfect with out any form of cap injection yet ALL BS need heavy cap booster's ( few small exceptions ) .
I fly a Navy Apoc fine without any problems with my capacitor... |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8317
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 23:06:00 -
[611] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Rhoaden wrote:Fixing the amount of cap BS use by just MWD would be a great start. Atm you need a heavy cap booster just to move around Not to mention any other mods. Most cruiser run perfect with out any form of cap injection yet ALL BS need heavy cap booster's ( few small exceptions ) . I fly a Navy Apoc fine without any problems with my capacitor...
That's because, when they first did the T1 battleship balance pass, it was pointed out to CCP Rise that after having taken away the Apoc's laser cap use bonus and nerfed it's capacitor, it's cap would last long enough to fire just its guns for about seventy seconds.
Thus, Large Lasers got a cap use reduction, and the T1 Amarr battleships got a cap increase (instead of the decrease they had originally intended). This translated into the Navy versions as well. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1449
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 23:41:00 -
[612] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote: I fly a Navy Apoc fine without any problems with my capacitor...
With a MWD regularly active? Missions? How many Cap mods to do this? Slightly more explanation may be a good thing. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
589
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 23:51:00 -
[613] - Quote
Querns wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Sentry drones have enormous downsides. They can be killed like other drones AND they don't return to your ship. There's a reason they were never used at all until assist + these tracking/optimal bonuses came along. There's enough drone bay space plus cargo space (with depot) in an ishtar to carry 6 flights of sentries, letting you mitigate these "enormous downsides" quite effectively.
What can be packed in with a Depot is largely irrelevant since it only takes ~300 to kill it before it anchors, not to mention no kiting ship will stop for a full minute to switch drones. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Madbuster73
V0LTA Triumvirate.
112
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 00:00:00 -
[614] - Quote
Muninn needs more then just a speed buff..... Muninn has always been very underwhelming. It used to good as a snipingboat popping frigates, but since they buffed frigates and nerfed Tracking enhancers, the Muninn was not seen much anymore.
For Example: Muninn has way less TANK compared to the other HACs Muninn has way less EFFECTIVE RANGE compared to other HACS (while at its core it is a sniping ship)
For comparison I looked up the numbers for the most used Doctrines of these ships:
Armor Zealot has:::::: 63k EHP - with 406 dps at -44k- optimal with -0.076- Tracking with Scorch Eagle with rails has: 50k EHP - with 430 dps at -46k- optimal with -0.033- Tracking Navy Antimatter Shield Ishtar has:::::::45k EHP - with 700 dps at -48k- optimal with -0.049- Tracking with Gardes Muninn has ::::::::::::::::38k EHP - with 450 dps at -27k- optimal with -0.042- Tracking with RF EMP
When you look at those stats it is clear the the Muninn needs more tank and more Optimal/Fallof range to be at par with the rest. You can also clearly see that the eagle could use a bit more tracking speed.
I hope you will give the Muninn some love. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
93
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 00:01:00 -
[615] - Quote
I think the tempest slot layout is fine it can shield tank and armor tank dectently enough right now hoever I think its bonuses are very weak looking at other ships the hyperion gets 9 guns + repair bonus and the maelstrom gets 10 and a shield boost bonus while the tempest only gets 9,48 guns I think giving it 10% damage and another bonus like maybe prop mod cap use would be nice
the spare highslot the munin got would be so much better as med or low
I think the navy geddon could use a bit of love its cap is very very bad
and there is still the nestor..... Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3740
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 00:36:00 -
[616] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Thsoe buffs withotu touchign the T2 woudl make their EHP toooo different. I would prefer a 25% for BC, 50% for battleships and an increase of some 20% on dps for battleships (that are NOT drone based, because those are already amazingly powerful). I'm totally cool with that. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3740
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 00:59:00 -
[617] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Impressively scattered discussion so far. I can respond to a few things directly:
"Battleships are not in a good place, you crazy Rise" - an important distinction here is that I meant battleships are in a relatively good place WITHIN the class. Whether or not they are healthy relative to other classes is more complicated, but if there's issues there (because of bombers for instance) we would more likely want to deal with that problem from the other direction (by making changes to bombers for instance) rather than changing every BS to compensate. Between Duckslayer's insults he mentioned MWD cap use on BS being a problem which I agree with and I may try to get a change for that in shortly. It's not really more complicated - battleships are borderline useless outside of PvE (regardless of whether battleships are fine "WITHIN" the class). It's not just bombers - you'd also have to adjust strategic and command cruisers as well. They need more EHP at a bare minimum: 0% for attack battlecruisers, 25% for combat battlecruisers, 0% for Maruaders and BlackOps and 50% for all T1, Faction and Pirate battleships. It wouldn't hurt to bump the scan resolution on the entire class as well. Just because they may look good "on paper" doesn't mean they have a practical application outside of high-sec or null fleets.
If one really wants to start thinking outside the box: GÇó Battlecruisers should get a -1 warp core bonus; battleships -2 GÇó Battlecruisers should get a -10% defense against neuts; battleships -20% GÇó Battlecruisers should get a -25% reduction against webs; battleships -50%
Again, attack battlecruisers, Marauders and BlackOps excluded from the list. None of these changes would make battleships "op" - but it would extend their survivability such that people might actually start soloing and using them in small gangs again. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Seraph Essael
Devils Diciples League of Infamy
764
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 01:43:00 -
[618] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We expect that some of you will feel this is far too gentle on the Ishtar, and we understand that (it's what we heard from the CSM as well), but we get releases very often now and we're happy to be conservative here, rather than nuke it out of the game, and just make more changes if they're needed in the following release. So you know the CSM have stated this isn't enough and you expect the player base will think this too. But what you're saying is "bugger it, we're not going to listen and do this minor tweak (that will just be negated by stuffing on another omnidirectional) anyway?". What's the point of the CSM if you don't even consider what they're saying?
Quoted from Doc Fury: "Concerned citizens: Doc seldom plays EVE on the weekends during spring and summer, so you will always be on your own for a couple days a week. Doc spends that time collecting kittens for the on-going sacrifices, engaging in reckless outdoor activities, and speaking in the 3rd person." |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
1518
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 01:53:00 -
[619] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Sentry drones have enormous downsides. They can be killed like other drones AND they don't return to your ship. There's a reason they were never used at all until assist + these tracking/optimal bonuses came along.
What?
Dude, you have no idea of how the game is played if this is the official CCP line on sentries.
Yes, they can be killed by other drones. But usually, the sentries are dropped out of the drone control range (<58km) of the target, meaning you have to motor towards the sentries (lel) to even task your own drones to attack ONE of the sentries (which takes forever to lock). Then your drones have to slowboat toward the sentry you have targeted. Your drones then miss their first few shots due to MWDing too fast. The Sentry has about 2500 EHP, so it takes a lot of time to kill that one sentry. Then you lock the next senty.
meanwhile, the Ishtar has done; 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1145! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1811! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1567! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1399! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1457! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1124! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1800! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1777! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1657! 08:34:27 Garde II owned by douchebag hits you for 1345!
QED, you know nothing, John Snow. Let alone the fact that the Ishtar owning the sentry drones is MWDing around at 2300m/s cap stable, at 80km while you are suffering 860 inbound DPS which hits perfectly as you orbit his drones at 58km trying to follow CCP Rise's Elite PVP Advice that addressing the Sentry set kills the Ishtar. hint: it doesn't.
or you try to chase down the ishtar itself, which works just as well, considering he will stay away from his set of Gardes, allowing you to make the mistake of staying in the perfect optimal of his set of Gardes. Or just drop a second or third set.
Yes, the drone assist meta wasn't used in EVE, you are correct. My second point in this demonstration of your ignorance, is that the drone assist feature existed in EVE for years. The meta of the game did not favor it because, to whit, 1) DDA's did not exist for the vast majority of this time, restricting the Ishtar to around the 500-550 DPS range. Adding DDA's unboxed the demon. 2) The Ishtar up until it got broken in Rubicon courtesy of yourself and CCP Fozzie, was too hard to fit, resulting in sub-optimal levels of tank. in fact, it was notoriously hard to do anything with it related to PVP simply because you ran out of CPU just by buying the damn thing. This was addressed, again by the infinite wisdom of CCP, by the addition of CPU rigs. However, this was then superceded by the problem that 4) The ishtar could never be cap stable with a MWD, and under way at 1200m/s, it's sig was so bloated (especially shield fit) that it would just get alpha'd off the field or grind to a stop after 45 seconds 5) Geckos also did not exist for brawler work. Then you nincumpoops put them in the game, because ommni-everything heavy drones is a good idea (tm).
For years, flying a weakly tanked, sig-bloated, relatively slow fitting-impossible, capacitor-bereft drone-assignation meta using expensive ships, was far less preferable to welpcanes, arty Maels, hellcats, Drakes, Tengufleets, etc, etc. Why bother with the Ishtar when naga sniping gangs or Talos gangs were far more effective, far more mobile and cheaper?
Then suddenly, magically, you had DDA's, CPU out the wazoo, buffed drone parameters favoring OMGsniper sentries, low-sig permarun MWD with no cap modules at all, and a reasonable tank, to boot. You just couldn't have more than fifty ishtars assign drones to one player to "balance"this all out.
The facts of the matter is that various factors and patches and new modules, topped off by the giant turdy cherry on top of the HAC de-balance, all combined to turn a tried and discarded drone-assign meta into an overpowered killdozer meta which scaled from gangs of two (Ishtar + tackle in lowsec = wtf) to gangs of 200...now "nerfed" to wings of 50. It's called a convergence of things which caused the meta to suddenly, within the space of 6 months, become not only viable, but so self-obviously OP that you would be insane not to do it.
CCP Rise, you and CCPFozzie should be commended for so rapidly realising the Ishtar is out of balance. I mean, six months is a short period of time to notice this graph.
I wonder how long until you realise the Deimos is unbalanced? That it needs to lose about 60 PG and 20 CPU and 5% capacitor, to stop it being unkillable by any other ship in a 1v1, aside from something with neuts and (ahahaha, I lafff) a 1200 DPS active tank and unlimited capacitor.
or, maybe, that the Sacrelige is still bad at everything it does except undocking.
- - - -
Battleship-wise, how about you give the Tempest uber webs? You have the Scorpion (for people who can't afford an equally-priced Jamgu or Failcon) for ECM. You have the Geddon with 38km neuts for people who aren't rich enough to ddrop a Bhaalgorn. Yet you have somehow, no uber webbing battleship aside from the Vindicator which gets 90% webs and fulfils a niche role as station-camping troll fit. You even have the barghest for ridiculous long-point glorious lossmail creation (I mean, whatevs, it sucks out-of-the-box)
I'm not asking for 40km webs. I'm not asking for 30km webs. But a Tempest with 20km webs and the current slot layout would be pretty much what the BS field needs. This would solve the damage application problem, provide BS gangs with ceptor defence. 5 mids would force fitting compromise for twin web setups. J's before K's. Sudden Buggery is recruiting w-nerds and w-noobs. Mail your resume in today! http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
510
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 02:00:00 -
[620] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:
or, maybe, that the Sacrilege is still bad at everything it does except undocking.
- - - -
I agree with everything else here except this.
Undocking a sacrilege is bad. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
|
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
39
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 02:06:00 -
[621] - Quote
Yes to the 8/4/7 tempest, though I would prefer 7/5/7. Also give it more pwg so it can fit arty and a 1600 plate or two. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1097
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 02:55:00 -
[622] - Quote
Would lowering the bandwidth if heavies to 20 and the bandwidth of the Ishtar (and any other cruiser with 125) down to 100? Can still use full flight of heavies but one less sentry. Also would allow myrmiddon to fit a full flight of heavies as well. |
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
76
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 03:07:00 -
[623] - Quote
Seraph Essael wrote:CCP Rise wrote:We expect that some of you will feel this is far too gentle on the Ishtar, and we understand that (it's what we heard from the CSM as well), but we get releases very often now and we're happy to be conservative here, rather than nuke it out of the game, and just make more changes if they're needed in the following release. So you know the CSM have stated this isn't enough and you expect the player base will think this too. But what you're saying is "bugger it, we're not going to listen and do this minor tweak (that will just be negated by stuffing on another omnidirectional) anyway?". What's the point of the CSM if you don't even consider what they're saying?
Ishtars don't have infinite slots you know. Stuffing an extra omni will hurt, even if only a little. For a shield ishtar it means either less tank or less mobility. For an armor ishtar it means either less mobility or less ewar.
|
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
76
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 03:13:00 -
[624] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:-snip-
I could argue, but won't. Only thing that bugged me that I wanted to address is that I think you may be wrong about drone assign post nerf.
Last I checked it wasn't 50 players worth of drones to one person, but 50 drones total to one person. This means, for one person, 10 people with 5 drones max can assign. A bit different from 50 people to 1 person.
I could be wrong, but don't think I am. |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3740
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 03:46:00 -
[625] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We expect that some of you will feel this is far too gentle on the Ishtar, and we understand that (it's what we heard from the CSM as well), but we get releases very often now and we're happy to be conservative here, rather than nuke it out of the game, and just make more changes if they're needed in the following release. When you guys start consistently hitting your release dates with the promised features I'll place a bit more stock in your estimates. As it now stands you're 0/2; the industry update was omitted entirely from Kronos and there was effectively nothing other than the deferred industry update in Crius. The numerous post-Crius patches and extended downtimes to essentially fix the numerous issues and problems introduced with Crius doesn't bode well for Hyperion - which is shaping up to be Kronos "light" at this point.
You guys are still operating under the premise that you have a lot of time to address these rebalance issues. You don't - you're on borrowed time. Unless you start taking some risks and introduce some new content, EVE is going to creep past the point of no return with respect to subscriber losses. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Corben Arctus
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
16
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 03:52:00 -
[626] - Quote
I don't care about battleships; and the Ishtar nerf... well it doesn't do much. But thanks for not destroying it right away, maybe something good will come from this mini-expansion model after all.
Like some people here already mentioned, please take another good look at the Minmatar HACs.
The Vagabond is kinda meh nowadays, bordering on irrelevant.
The Muninn is pretty much completely irrelevant where I live. It's a ship that can only be used if you have a group of 20 people flying it, alpha'ing smaller stuff.
I've seen people solo'ing whole fleets in Ishtars; I've seen small gangs of Cerberus' annihilate other gangs.
Please Rise, Fozzie; do something about Muninns (and give Vagabonds some love too). |
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3740
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 03:56:00 -
[627] - Quote
Corben Arctus wrote:Like some people here already mentioned, please take another good look at the Minmatar HACs.
The Vagabond is kinda meh nowadays, bordering on irrelevant.
The Muninn is pretty much completely irrelevant where I live. It's a ship that can only be used if you have a group of 20 people flying it, alpha'ing smaller stuff. I don't fly either, but enough have commented that they're both the equivalent of "suck lite" - so yeah, why not. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Corben Arctus
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
16
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 04:00:00 -
[628] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Corben Arctus wrote:Like some people here already mentioned, please take another good look at the Minmatar HACs.
The Vagabond is kinda meh nowadays, bordering on irrelevant.
The Muninn is pretty much completely irrelevant where I live. It's a ship that can only be used if you have a group of 20 people flying it, alpha'ing smaller stuff. I don't fly either, but enough have commented that they're both the equivalent of "suck lite" - so yeah, why not.
I don't fly the Muninn either, because none of my friends do.
Getting together a fleet of arty Ruptures or a small gang of Nados is just so much better and costs much less.
As for the Vaga: it's just a slower, somewhat tankier Stabber really. It does more paper dps, but then again... projectiles. |
Deerin
Federal Navy Special Forces
266
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 06:00:00 -
[629] - Quote
If tempest will be 8/4/7, it should come with a slight increase to PG too. Also some dronebay love for being able to field different size drones.
In fact, please increase PG and drone bay regardless. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
84
|
Posted - 2014.07.31 06:01:00 -
[630] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Sentry drones have enormous downsides. They can be killed like other drones AND they don't return to your ship. There's a reason they were never used at all until assist + these tracking/optimal bonuses came along. What? ... The Sentry has about 2500 EHP, so it takes a lot of time to kill that one sentry. In fact, it has about 8000 EHP. And to those people who cannot refit drones from cargo - it takes some practice, but quite feasible. So, 6 flights of sentries on the Ishtar equals 240k EHP to deal with. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 58 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |