Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lugburz
Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:20:46 -
[1] - Quote
Missile love.. add (not change) some more missile cruiser users, at the very least one for amarr..
fill in ewar battleship and battlecruiser classes for gallente, amarr and minmatar (battlecruiser for caldari)
Gallente sensor damps Minmatar webs/tp Caldari ecm bc Amarr tracking disrupt bs and neut bc
cruiser/frigate command ships that can actually keep up with the gang they are with...
frigate can only use one warfare link regardless of skills or mods cruiser could fit upto 3 but the fit would be completely gimped
Orca mobile bases
Prospect/wh gas harvesting/mining support - basically the same but has the same cloak bonus as a blops bs and can ustalise blops cyno, the idea being that small mining crews can jump into areas and actually base out of them for a time. reduce ship maintenance bay or limit to mining type ships only.
SOE orca variant, similar to above but without the mining bonuses and ore bay; ship bay is not limited to shiptype; just take the ability to use links off
Combat support variant; strip off the ore bay and some fleet hanger space and give specific link bonuses; typical bonuses for each race or something; similar to bowhead but no, not the same..
Bowhead; why can these not use cyno's? make jf variant, not sure if gimping the ship bay would help.
also.. why are all the destroyers slower than their cruiser counterparts? why are bc's just as slow as bs? can u limit the medium microjump drives range to about 70 or 80k instead of 100?
so many questions, so few answers..
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7548
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:49:30 -
[2] - Quote
Ewar battleships I am apathetic to.
A Tech 2 Destroyer that can use up to two warfare links has been proposed and supported in the past... but most agree that won't happen until Warfare Links are "on-grid" only.
A Cruiser that can fit Warfare links already exists... Tech 3 cruisers. If you want a cheaper link ship for Tech 1 Cruiser roams... Combat Battlecruisers do the trick nicely (fit them for more mobility). If you want a super-tanking ship that can use Warfare Links... use Command Ships.
Gas harvesting Prospect I am apathetic to.
The rest of it... either... - I don't see a purpose/niche for (SOE Orca) - already exists (Jump capable Bowhead = Carrier... Combat Orca = Command Ships/Carrier)
Also... some Destroyers variants can be pretty fast... but yeah... Cruisers are insanely fast these days. I think the reasoning is that they hit very hard and are dirt cheap... so they need something besides lack-of-tank to compensate. Combat Battlecruisers are not as slow as Battleships... it is just that Cruisers are MUCH faster than both BCs and BSs.
Why do you want reduced range on the MJD? It is already pretty gimmicky to begin with.
"The Skillpoint System and You"
"How did you Veterans start?"
|
Lugburz
Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:09:17 -
[3] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Ewar battleships I am apathetic to.
A Tech 2 Destroyer that can use up to two warfare links has been proposed and supported in the past... but most agree that won't happen until Warfare Links are "on-grid" only.
A Cruiser that can fit Warfare links already exists... Tech 3 cruisers. If you want a cheaper link ship for Tech 1 Cruiser roams... Combat Battlecruisers do the trick nicely (fit them for more mobility). If you want a super-tanking ship that can use Warfare Links... use Command Ships.
Gas harvesting Prospect I am apathetic to.
The rest of it... either... - I don't see a purpose/niche for (SOE Orca) - already exists (Jump capable Bowhead = Carrier... Combat Orca = Command Ships/Carrier)
Also... some Destroyers variants can be pretty fast... but yeah... Cruisers are insanely fast these days. I think the reasoning is that they hit very hard and are dirt cheap... so they need something besides lack-of-tank to compensate. Combat Battlecruisers are not as slow as Battleships... it is just that Cruisers are MUCH faster than both BCs and BSs.
Why do you want reduced range on the MJD? It is already pretty gimmicky to begin with.
well destroyers wont keep up with a frigate gang and currently yes, t3 is pretty op for links unless you want to have an alt sit at a pos in a command ship.. but at 300 mil is it? this is the reason no one uses on grid links. Ive tried fitting links to nanofibre, inertia stabbed bc's.. they really cant keep up with a cruisr gang in align time or speed with maybe one or 2 exceptions (both severely gimped) soe orca would be a viable mobile operating base in a wh or deep nullsec with ship change available and thrusts out the need to live out of a pos; you ever lived in nullsec/wh? jf bowhead was an afterthought tbh but it still carries far more m3 than a carrier especially with skills.
Ive yet to see a t1/t2 destroyer break 2k m/s and my raven mwd speed is around 1k m/s.. my drake is around the same.. are we playing the same game?
MJD.. i cant see any use for it other than a fastish getaway, target range iof bc's in general wont allow for 100k lock so the lock mjd scram technique doesnt work so well.. what are the medium microjump things for?
|
Lugburz
Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:15:23 -
[4] - Quote
also im in dire need of a cheaper viable ship for depoloyments in sov space; ship changes mean jumping 5 to 6 jumps away and then the same back... means i miss out on a lot of fights and kills/losss
carriers are expensive and not exactly good at hiding, generally ok if i have a pos to put it in but other than that not ideal and though this is a game i do feel that in some ways at least these new eden scientists dont tend to think out side the box too much.. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
7552
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:08:52 -
[5] - Quote
First... use proper paragraphs, sentence structure, and formatting. Your text is hard to read.
Lugburz wrote:well destroyers wont keep up with a frigate gang....
... Ive yet to see a t1/t2 destroyer break 2k m/s and my raven mwd speed is around 1k m/s.. my drake is around the same.. are we playing the same game? The Heretic, Sabre, Flycatcher, and Eris (Tech 2 Destroyers) easily break 2000 m/sec... some going as fast as 2500+ m/sec (or 3000+ with implant and/or Warfare Link support).
Tech 1 destroyers in general go between 1300 to 1900 m/sec... again, not fast... but bear in mind that they can murder most frigates in a 1v1... and two or three of them can easily wipe out any single cruiser... all for less than 15 million ISK.
And if your frigate gang is SO FAST that not even destroyers can't keep up... then you probably don't need links in the first place. Nothing is going to catch you.
Lugburz wrote:currently yes, t3 is pretty op for links unless you want to have an alt sit at a pos in a command ship.. but at 300 mil is it? this is the reason no one uses on grid links. Ive tried fitting links to nanofibre, inertia stabbed bc's.. they really cant keep up with a cruisr gang in align time or speed with maybe one or 2 exceptions (both severely gimped) If you want to bring your Warfare Links on field, yes... I agree... Tech 3s are a poor choice. That is why you have Combat Battlecruisers and Command Ships!
Both CBCs and CSs can be made to be VERY tanky. Would you like to see my Damnation fit? 200,000+ effective hitpoints (I've seen people get stupid values like 400k to 500k ehp). My Eos isn't too bad either at about 150,000 to 200,000 ehp. Those are Battleship level tanks. And they can be repped.
With regards to Combat Battlecruisers not being as fast as cruisers or being able to keep up... dead wrong.
I'm looking at an unrigged Myrmidon fit similar to an armor brawling Vexor... but with 2 nanofibers (so it aligns as fast as a Vexor) and a single Warfare Link. Stat-wise... it is a slightly beefier Vexor with extra utility and a larger drone bay. Not a bad deal really for an extra 40 million ISK (especially if you were considering bringing out ships worth several hundred million ISK for the same job).
The Cyclone is no different. Neither is the Drake.
How do I put this... the trick behind them is to basically fit them as Cruisers and make the necessary adjustments for them to perform like Cruisers... not load down a ship with a whole bunch of Warfare Links (honestly... the Command Processor should be removed). It is a radical idea... I know. Paying 40 million extra JUST to fit a single Warfare Link. Then again... people are willing to pay lots of ISK for Faction Navy ships... which are pretty much mobile CBCs in their own right.
Lugburz wrote:soe orca would be a viable mobile operating base in a wh or deep nullsec with ship change available and thrusts out the need to live out of a pos; you ever lived in nullsec/wh? jf bowhead was an afterthought tbh but it still carries far more m3 than a carrier especially with skills. I do WH diving every once in awhile. My Orca can already set up a POS if I need it to (with room for Fuel Blocks, Strontium, and a whole bunch of other stuff). And theoretically it can do the same thing in null-sec if I so desired... though, I would probably prefer using a Rorqual as it is pretty much a souped up Orca with a Jump Drive.
As for the JF Bowhead... again, the Carrier is what you are looking for. Currently, the Bowhead (with max skills) can carry about 1.2 million cubic meters worth of assembled ships. If they follow the same paradigm that Freighters to Jump Freighters follow then that ship holding capacity will be DRASTICALLY reduced (by more than 50%). At that point... it becomes useless compared to what a Carrier can offer (which can carry 1 million cubic meters worth of assembled ships).
Quote:also im in dire need of a cheaper viable ship for depoloyments in sov space; ship changes mean jumping 5 to 6 jumps away and then the same back... means i miss out on a lot of fights and kills/losss Boo hoo. I live in low-sec. Sometimes I have to fly out 5 or 6 jumps looking for the chance to fight someone.
"The Skillpoint System and You"
"How did you Veterans start?"
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |