Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bo Rothrock
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 20:01:48 -
[1] - Quote
Battlecruisers are in a funny place. Their role bonus is generally left unused, so they're just big slow cruisers with a little more hit points and damage -- and any ship whose sole defining characteristic is 'more hit points and damage' will be in a rough spot. They have two unique features:
Gang link modules Medium micro-jump drive
Gang links are tough because the ships' fittings are balanced around their exclusion, which is kind of funny seeing as how the modules are strictly limited to certain hull classes. One non-game-breaking change might be to give as a role bonus, -90% to fitting requirements for gang link modules. Then remove command processors from the game. Seriously, they do the game no good. They only encourage bad game decisions. Then you have to consider whether you want links to work for a true solo pilot, but I'm not sure that's necessary. There are plenty of ships that can trade in instead of a battlecruiser for DPS and tank, but making a command link semi-ubiquitous on them would be an interesting design mechanic and also encourages the Space Buddy System.
Medium micro-jump drives are ill-conceived. They can't be fit on the ship class that can take advantage of the range (ABCs) so exist solely as an escape mechanic. If they spooled up in 4.5 seconds, cycled in 30 seconds and jumped 50km, they'd be a lot more useful and would breathe life into longer-ranged battlecruiser fits, where a 50km engagement range is a real possibility.
Prom posted elsewhere that MJDs should be able to script to a more traditional propulsion module, and I completely agree. Not only would that help fits hurting desperately for mids -- which happens quite often in battlecruisers -- but micromanaging the cycling down of the MWD to MJD, paying attention to the vector your ship is taking and will be on after the spool-up time, and changing scripts are all micromanagement-intensive skills. In short, it favors multi-boxing less heavily in PVP, which is probably a good step to make.
Though battlecruisers suffer from slow speed, they generally tank a lot better than t1 cruisers and have the fitting for longer-ranged weapons than t1 cruisers. Having a ship class that can blink through lowsec would be an interesting twist, given that the lowsec meta is largely dominated by the long point. If every 30 seconds these guys started a 4.5-second spool up and hopped, it would both increase their effective speed by 1.5km/sec or so in a different way than cruisers and could give scrams a role. Push enemies into scram range and armor fits might become viable.
I dunno. Maybe I'm reading too much into that. But I'd love to see some 50km MJDing myrmis bouncing around lowsec. |
Sylveria Relden
Relden Enterprises
34
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 20:29:35 -
[2] - Quote
I'd have to agree that the BC's could use better role bonuses- and perhaps the link bonuses could instead be incorporated into Command Ships (for which their more suited, intended for anyway).
I can't remember a single time when I used links on a battlecruiser, personally. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing anyone else use it for that purpose, either. Most of the time from what I've observed, people opt for BC's as tankier hulls opposed to T1 cruisers.
By the time you've skilled up to T2 cruisers, BC's tend to be left behind, as the T2's have specilized bonuses and much better base resists.
I'd definitely like to see BC's get a role that's more appropriate to actual use.
(deposits 2 isk) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1852
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 20:53:41 -
[3] - Quote
The MMJD (& the LJD also) would very much benefit from having a standard prop mode & a jump function. This would avoid what's almost a necessity to dual prop if you want a jump drive which messes terribly with fittings.
If it was half way between MWD & AB both in speed & penalties, it's already shut down by Scrams so that part isn't a problem. Then they would be good modules.
Fitting the command links isn't actually a problem if you want a link. It's more very few people train links because it requires some dedicated training even for T1 links, and it's Cha training so almost always off map for most people. So I don't think that aspect of BC should change. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15900
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 21:18:16 -
[4] - Quote
Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago.
The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed.
The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to be reverted. The basis for this in the first place was pretty shaky; with the long range medium turrets getting a fat buff almost straight after, whatever grounds there were for this ill conceived change were completely removed.
The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Leeloo Killik
Everyone vs Everything THE R0NIN
68
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 01:19:32 -
[5] - Quote
Sylveria Relden wrote:
I can't remember a single time when I used links on a battlecruiser, personally. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing anyone else use it for that purpose, either. Most of the time from what I've observed, people opt for BC's as tankier hulls opposed to T1 cruisers.
I am actually using Ferox with 6 links to boost a mining fleet while having logi around. It's a fair compromise. Cheap too. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2159
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 01:32:46 -
[6] - Quote
Dangit! I got rid of my years-running forum signature within an hour of seeing this thread!
The signature said that if you fit a ganglink to your T1 battlecruiser, your fleets will be superior to those you go up against. Then it had an Odyssey update mentioning that the signature existed before the Odyssey battlecruiser rebalance--which made it much easier to fit ganglinks to T1 battlecruisers.
I believe that the problem is not that the ganglinks aren't useful, but that fleets don't bother to employ squad boosters with links. Perhaps it's due to the extra work of sorting that out, or the lack of pilots with leadership skills, both, or even other things as well. But not that it wouldn't be an excellent strategy if a fleet actually bothered to do it. It would be even more important if ganglinks were on-grid only.
As for battlecruisers not being used much, that's probably partially due to the novelty of the cruiser rebalance but also to wanting fleets to be fast and agile. I don't see anything wrong with battlecruisers at current, and wouldn't hesitate to bring a battlecruiser for a fleet op if they called for battlecruisers. Maybe some minor tweaks are in order, but nothing major. Battlecruisers are fine, maybe people just need to be reminded what they're capable of.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2159
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:08:16 -
[7] - Quote
Bo Rothrock wrote:Medium micro-jump drives are ill-conceived. They can't be fit on the ship class that can take advantage of the range (ABCs) so exist solely as an escape mechanic. If they spooled up in 4.5 seconds, cycled in 30 seconds and jumped 50km, they'd be a lot more useful and would breathe life into longer-ranged battlecruiser fits, where a 50km engagement range is a real possibility. I agree completely, and would go a step further and suggest a frigate version which jumps 25km and spools up pretty quickly. Then I think the fitting restrictions should be removed. Let anyone fit any MJD they want.
Bo Rothrock wrote:Prom posted elsewhere that MJDs should be able to script to a more traditional propulsion module, and I completely agree. I disagree. Having to fit 2 prop mods to get both types of propulsion seems reasonable to me, even if you are never using both at the same time. There is a huge strategic advantage to being able to either jump or zoom, and it should come with a cost.
I did want to see the addition of a low slot propulsion module, passive-always on if you don't have another propulsion effect on, and still offering a bonus if you do. My thought was to do this with the overdrive injector: it would grant triple the bonus once per ship if you don't have any other propulsion effect going, but when you turn on your prop mod the overdrive injector would go back to giving its base bonus. If you put on multiple overdrive injectors, the triple speed bonus only applies once and the rest give the single bonus with stacking penalty. This would make it more viable to avoid using up a mid slot with a prop mod, or it could be used along with a MJD if you can't afford to spend 2 mids on prop mods.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
Sylveria Relden
Relden Enterprises
38
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 02:40:45 -
[8] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I believe that the problem is not that the ganglinks aren't useful, but that fleets don't bother to employ squad boosters with links.
It would be even more important if ganglinks were on-grid only.
THIS. It speaks absolute volumes about the current state of strategy in game, and if the mechanics were reworked so that on-grid boosting was forced, instead of people using off-grid booster alts, it would solve a lot of problems quickly.
Of course, I expect all those who have trained off-grid booster alts to refute/deny/refuse/flame but go ahead. Everyone already knows it's reality, and if they don't they soon find out rather quickly. |
Mirya Kanjus
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 04:24:51 -
[9] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago.
The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed.
The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to be reverted. The basis for this in the first place was pretty shaky; with the long range medium turrets getting a fat buff almost straight after, whatever grounds there were for this ill conceived change were completely removed.
The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS.
I was flying in my very expensive tengu last night. I got scanned down by a probe but I didn't get spooked until I saw the garmur. A frigate burning toward me at 5900. I just bailed straight away knowing that hml would be completely ineffective against this target in part due to probably not even having the speed to hit it. Im pretty sure that the HML problem is a combination of extremely poor application and low speed. HML must just about be the singularily least viable pvp weapon. Below smartbombs and tachyons.
I don't see why especially on caldari hulls they don't remove the 50% flight time bonus and instead buff the missile flight velocity by 100% and then give all caldari hulls a 25% explosion velocity/radius modifier. One or the other and for ships like the cerberus and tengu/navy drake give them both.
I can't really express my feelings of exasperation at being forced out of a complex by a piddling frigate when I'm flying a 1.6bil t3 but there you have it because the ships weapons are woefully incapable of being a threat to a ship with 3k ehp. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2161
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 04:47:56 -
[10] - Quote
Heavy missiles were never overpowered in the first place, it was most of, and not all of, the hulls that used them that were needing nerfs. CCP ignored the heart of the problem and applied a misguided fix that deepened the already existing imbalance.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
|
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 10:39:27 -
[11] - Quote
RIP (HML Drake/Tengu) I really missing them both... sigh... |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
595
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 11:43:26 -
[12] - Quote
A superb use of a CBC is as a cheap on grid booster for small gang roams. I do it a lot and you do notice the difference. If you shove a 15% warp speed implant into your head you warp at almost the same speed as cruisers. You can also rig a CBC to warp faster if required.
The biggest issue for me is the base targeting range on CBC's (especially Minmatar Hulls). If you want ot use an MJD aggressively (and I do) you must be able to lock a target at >100km. This allows you to have the target pre-locked before jumping so you can instantly apply tackle. Currently, you have to really make sacrifices to do this and the Minnie hulls simply can't do it at all. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
630
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:46:01 -
[13] - Quote
They are good as cheap boosters. However there is not enough difference between a BC and the current crop of T1 cruisers interms of what it brings to the field. More DPS, more tank but not enough more to be making it worthwhile given the trade offs in place. They take more damage, the are a hell of a lot slower getting around and they lock slower.
They have no niche. Cruisers are fast enough to be...fast, battleships bring much more when actual DPS and survivability is called for. They are in no mans land. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
194
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:56:59 -
[14] - Quote
Killing BC's is usually incredibly easy because of their high signature, which is why I consider them useless in most stances. |
Tiddle Jr
Galvanized Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 14:12:50 -
[15] - Quote
Lots of newbies using BC's to run missions and some sort of ratting. They simply don't care of warp speed sig etc etc cause it gives enough dps and hitpoints vs. cruisers. And BC's are cheaper vs. faction cruisers.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
1005
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:05:57 -
[16] - Quote
Aye, I once crafted a Drake fit specifically for CS-in-training Leadership 5 pilots that had not yet made it to the absolutely required all level 5 T2 links CS5 point. Basically a combat-fit CBC with one link.
I don't think it was a bad fit. But the current meta (bombs/sigRad/Ishtars), slow speed, and short range makes all T1 CBCs rather useless. The below ships are with all level 5s and no links/boosters/etc. 2x LSE (meta 4 on Drake because fitting), 3x BCS II, DCII, 1x EM and Inv Fld hardeners, 2x CDFE I, 1x Anti-Thermal SR, max T2 launchers using faction ammo.
HML Drake:
- dps: 384
- Range: 62.9km
- EHP: 79,527
- Max Velocity: 175m/s, 1003m/s w/MWD on
- SigRad: 380m, 2201m w/MWD on
RLML Caracal:
- dps: 335
- Range: 63.3km
- EHP: 41,620
- Max Velocity: 288m/s, 1881m/s w/MWD on
- SigRad: 197m, 1143m w/MWD on
On offense, they had practically identical range. The Drake does only marginally better dps mostly due to having 6 launchers as opposed to the Caracal's 5. If I shut down one launcher, the Drake actually gets less paper dps than the Caracal. The Caracal will apply more of its dps due to using light missiles. I don't consider this balanced.
The Drake has twice the tank of an identically fit (tank modules) Caracal. But it also has twice the signature radius. So it will take a lot more damage from larger weapon systems. The Drake is also about 40% slower than the Caracal. So that will contribute to it taking more damage as well as having more trouble keep up with targets.
So I agree with OP. CBCs have no role in the current meta. If we're going to have this big fat slow target, it needs to at least be able to project its damage, or do really good damage within its range. An MMJD helps with jumping on targets or getting out. But then you have to gimp the fit to get it on there, and you will need tackle, which further gimps the fit to the point where one asks whether or not you would be better off with a Caracal. But then no MMJD.
Also Caracals are cheaper and require less SP to fly.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
630
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:12:50 -
[17] - Quote
Drake is also blessed with the 'feature' of kinetic only damage bonuses. |
Utari Onzo
13. Enigma Project
95
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:15:22 -
[18] - Quote
Myrmidon is a solid boat. Brutix is a solid boat. Most of the others are a bit 'meh' outside of the navy ones.
Drake's kinetic damage bonus is stupid, CCP please get rid of all these one damage type bonuses... Atleast the gila/rattle/worm has a kin/therm bonus
New York, Paris, Peckham, Jita
13. is recruiting
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15906
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 22:10:14 -
[19] - Quote
Utari Onzo wrote:Myrmidon is a solid boat. Brutix is a solid boat. Most of the others are a bit 'meh' outside of the navy ones.
Drake's kinetic damage bonus is stupid, CCP please get rid of all these one damage type bonuses... Atleast the gila/rattle/worm has a kin/therm bonus
Apparently making Caldari missile ships do eff all damage unless they shoot kinetic ammo makes them "interesting".
Oddly enough, the same increase in interestingness doesn't seem to work with Amarr missile boats only getting a damage bonus to EM missiles or Gallente missile boats only getting a damage bonus to Thermal missiles. For non-Caldari missile platforms, it seems that RoF and application bonuses are needed to get the girls.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
462
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 03:22:55 -
[20] - Quote
Personally like them as a ship to fc cruiser roams from, as a single warp speed rig and a nano putsvyou about on par for strategic mobility. Could definately use a rework of their avionics. Would be nice to see them unique in having better scan res than cruisers and the lock range to use an mjd offensively with a bit of work and one mod at most if you have good targeting skills.
Making battleships worth the warp
Tech 3 battleships.
Moar battleships
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
774
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 04:31:55 -
[21] - Quote
I've been working on trying out various armor BC's for small gang (10-20) action, hoping for medium range (~50km) but apart from the Navy versions, they all just seem so uninspiring. It's like they were redesigned and rebalanced for Level 3 missions, rather than actually being good contributors to a fleet. I'm not looking for a return to multiple 250-man Drake fleets or roaming gangs of 50 Hurricanes, but it would be nice to see BC's be a really viable option in the 30-70km engagement range.
If the MMJD could jump you only 50km, that would be more synergistic with most BC's than the current 100km jump. It would give you a realistic chance to get on top of kiters and brawl with them, while not completely leaving behind your logistics and other support.
Another option would be to make it easier for them to do damage while still sporting gang links. This would make them more viable as on-grid contributors. I'd go so far as to suggest something like the ability to fit three gang links without command processors. Then I would consider giving each seven high slots total, with five weapon slots with 50% damage bonus built in. Command ships would still be strictly speaking better for boosting, due to the 3% warfare link effectiveness bonus per level. Of course, for those who chose to forgo the links, the utility highs would open up a lot of versatility, particularly for close-range brawler fits. I'd give them decent damage projection bonuses, so that BC's could reliably engage at 50km with long range weapons using high damage ammo. I'd steer clear of damage application bonuses, as these would make them potentially OP. They would need proper support from gang members, or would need to fit the ship to apply damage better, at a cost somewhere else.
The goal would be to have ships that are roughly 50% more EHP and DPS than T1 cruisers, but have worse damage application. It might even be best to make them all use large weapons, like the ABC's. Unlike the ABC's, however, BC's should not be helpless at close range - they still have the option to fit medium neuts to deter tacklers inside of scram range, MMJD's to escape to 50km off if not scrammed, and each one would have at least a flight of light drones.
Perhaps I'll post more later...
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2164
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 05:08:15 -
[22] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:HML Drake:
- dps: 384
- Range: 62.9km
- EHP: 79,527
- Max Velocity: 175m/s, 1003m/s w/MWD on
- SigRad: 380m, 2201m w/MWD on
RLML Caracal:
- dps: 335
- Range: 63.3km
- EHP: 41,620
- Max Velocity: 288m/s, 1881m/s w/MWD on
- SigRad: 197m, 1143m w/MWD on
Try comparing to HML Caracal:
- dps: 277
- Range: 94.3km
- EHP: 32,568 (multiple downgrades to meta variants to make everything fit)
- Max Velocity: 288m/s, 1881m/s w/MWD on
- SigRad: 187m, 1101m w/MWD on
Much less DPS with more range. Also maintains damage flexibility. More difficult to fit, had to change fitting a bit: * 1x BCS II downgraded to Cross-linked Bolt Array (meta 1) * DC II downgraded to Internal Force Field Array (meta 4--expensive!) * 1x LSE II downgraded to F-S9 Regolith (meta 4) * EM Ward II downgraded to Limited * AIF II downgraded to Limited * 1x CDFE I removed and replaced with Ancillary Current Router I
Drake might still be a little weak, especially considering it only receives that damage bonus for kinetic. Could fix it by giving it 15% kinetic damage bonus and 5% damage bonus to other missile types, or 10% across the board, or 20% to kinetic only. But more to the point, it is not the Caracal which beats the Drake, but the Rapid Light Missile Launcher. The RLML is in dire need of a heavy nerf. It is absolutely mind-numbingly overpowered.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
634
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:00:17 -
[23] - Quote
RLML is the ONLY reason caracals are even flown. The other options are disgracefully bad.
Try adding reload time to the RLML dps...... |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2165
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:04:22 -
[24] - Quote
I don't know about that. Caracal is a better sniper than Moa, especially now that the Moa lost its range bonus. No other T1 cruisers have a range anything like the HM Caracal. The missiles are a bit slow but it's not too bad really.
T3 Strategic Shuttle | T3 Flexible Battleship
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
634
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 11:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I don't know about that. Caracal is a better sniper than Moa, especially now that the Moa lost its range bonus. No other T1 cruisers have a range anything like the HM Caracal. The missiles are a bit slow but it's not too bad really.
Perhaps on paper, vs a stationary target at useless ranges.
At worst possible transversal, it's actually nearly even out to ~38km, inside that range the moa eats it alive. Caracal will edge out at like 50km, but that's not a workable engagement range for any length of time because caracals will be caught and can't clear tackle.
It also has 40k ehp vs a caracals 28k for the fits I used plus you also need to remember that the caracal cant even target as far as it can shoot so without mods the effective range is only 71km.
On paper it sounds alright, but in reality, not so much. There's also the minor detail of the first volley taking so long to a land there is zero issues for logis to target swap, even armor ones.
Fits were 2 damage mods, MWD, point, tank. 200mm rails. As tank is traded for mods (say, sebos/TCs) the moa starts to pass it quite handily.
To be fair, maybe is sniping wasn't garbage and actually usable as a tactic they would add more value, but that's already a crippling handicap on top of a complete pathetic weapon system.
HML have literally no good use in the game at this stage (maybe PvE?). None, zero. Maybe if they rolled back the damage and application nerfs that would help since they jacked up all the other weapons since then. They're like a ball and chain around the drakes legs, caracals at least get RLML which see them fielded (and eaten alive by real cruisers, which amusingly also kill frigates just fine) |
Gregor Parud
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 12:39:50 -
[26] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago.
The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed.
The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to be reverted. The basis for this in the first place was pretty shaky; with the long range medium turrets getting a fat buff almost straight after, whatever grounds there were for this ill conceived change were completely removed.
The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS.
HML nerf reverted? No, their damage is in line with their range and missile overall damage design. If you want HML to gain dps they will have to lose range.
And if someone wants to use a Drake to show this amazing perceived balance issue then don't forget to mention the imbalanced EHP it has. |
Ix Method
Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery
372
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 13:25:00 -
[27] - Quote
Bo Rothrock wrote:Gang links are tough because the ships' fittings are balanced around their exclusion, which is kind of funny seeing as how the modules are strictly limited to certain hull classes. We have a winner. Most of the points about Mobility, HML, relation to ABC/BS/Cruisers are true enough but not having to nerf fits to perform this role should be nailed to the top of the list.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
635
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 14:08:11 -
[28] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Malcanis wrote:Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago.
The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed.
The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to be reverted. The basis for this in the first place was pretty shaky; with the long range medium turrets getting a fat buff almost straight after, whatever grounds there were for this ill conceived change were completely removed.
The final thing is they need a little more warp speed to make them perceptibly more mobile than BS. HML nerf reverted? No, their damage is in line with their range and missile overall damage design. If you want HML to gain dps they will have to lose range. And if someone wants to use a Drake to show this amazing perceived balance issue then don't forget to mention the imbalanced EHP it has.
hahahahahahahahaha.
No.
Don't make me find the graphs again. |
Gregor Parud
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 14:08:34 -
[29] - Quote
Go for it, show us how a weapon system as versatile as heavy missiles should have more/comparable dps while having massively more range. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
635
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 14:18:43 -
[30] - Quote
A rail thorax will outdamage a caracal from 5-60km.
At maximum transversal.
Shooting a MWD shield crusier.
If you think those extra 11km range are worth that, I dont know what to tell you.
spike http://imgur.com/5plH1Zp
iron http://imgur.com/g2pBFT5
tungsten http://imgur.com/o6GYXuT
antimatter http://imgur.com/y2TyTx6
javelin http://imgur.com/Vl8SYsQ
Fits: [Caracal, HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Overdrive Injector System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Warp Disruptor I
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
[Thorax, Thorax Rails] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Faint Warp Disruptor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M 200mm Railgun II, Javelin M
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |