Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2405
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 22:06:29 -
[1] - Quote
The purpose of my thread is to explain how to make the Rapid Light and Rapid Heavy missile launchers into an auxiliary weapon system that is:
- easy to use
- effective when employed on your utility highs only
- not particularly good as a primary weapon system
The Niche The rapid launchers have long reloading times to offset their high burst DPS in order to reduce their sustained DPS, but the longer players are made to wait, the more difficult it gets to use the system. Currently, the RLML's sustained DPS is in the upper range of frigate weapons, while its burst DPS measures up alongside medium-sized long-range weaponry, beating even heavy missiles for sustained damage output--yet these have a tremendous advantage over heavies when it comes to making hits count. While heavy missiles have a much longer range, light missiles have a pretty strong range altogether and can easily be used against frigates. This gives the RLML a very strong niche, and the RHML figures are pretty similar compared to battleship weapons.
=======================
The Changes I propose making these niches even stronger by increasing the burst DPS, while reducing the sustained DPS even further. Now to prevent long wait times on reloading, I'm proposing a new system that lets you stop on a partial reload and either continue firing or swap ammo types: instead of locking the weapon system for the entire reload duration, it should cycle its reload, gaining one missile charge every cycle until full or cancelled. It would simply reload much slower than it fires.
I don't have exact numbers here, but I'm thinking the final burst DPS of these weapons should be higher than anything else the ship can load on, beating out even lasers. At the very least it should come with the consideration that the ships meant to fit it will not have any skill bonuses for the missiles it fires, meaning there will be a damage bonus rolled into the weapon itself--and that means removing it from ships that do have it, like the Caracal's light missile bonus.
As for the reload speed, it should be a lot slower than it is at current. It is very common in EVE that you get in a handful of brief fights, punctuated by several minutes without shooting in between. Players should feel the need to save their loaded missiles for when they are most needed, ie. when shooting down smaller ships. If the sustained DPS of the weapon were much lower than any frigate weapon, then players would feel incentivized to hold their missile fire through some fights and use just their turrets instead.
========================
So, to summarize changes: Make RLMLs have more burst damage than any other medium weapon system, but a lot less sustained damage than any small weapon system, and make it so you can pause reloading. RHMLs follow suit. Damage bonus rolled into weapon; no ship has damage bonus to undersized missiles.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4264
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:41:32 -
[2] - Quote
I actually like the rapid launchers the way they currently stand. If I were to make any improvements to them, it would be to reduce the reload/swap time from 35 seconds to 30 seconds and to buff the ammunition capacity by approximately 20%.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
991
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:43:32 -
[3] - Quote
.... You know not the power this would give the widow let alone a widow gang
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:48:20 -
[4] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I actually like the rapid launchers the way they currently stand. If I were to make any improvements to them, it would be to reduce the reload/swap time from 35 seconds to 30 seconds and to buff the ammunition capacity by approximately 20%. I'd have to agree, might be interested in switching the range on the Furies and Precisions but that's a whole different issue for a whole different thread...
Blobbing Explained
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4264
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:54:38 -
[5] - Quote
Juan Mileghere wrote:I'd have to agree, might be interested in switching the range on the Furies and Precisions but that's a whole different issue for a whole different thread... Cruise missiles are near perfectly balanced at this point, and I think your idea of switching the range between Furies and Precision is an interesting one, so it gets a +1 from me. The only change I think should happen is an overall reduction in range, compensated by an increase in velocity, ie: -50% flight time, +35% missile velocity.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2405
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:56:32 -
[6] - Quote
If you manage your shots well, you'll find the majority of the time you're not having any trouble firing the rapid launchers. That means they are mostly providing the ability to shoot frigates with higher DPS than you could shoot cruisers. I've used these weapon systems in a wide variety of combat scenarios and have rarely had difficulty with them.
I might agree to an increase in capacity but I would definitely not reduce the cooldown time. It's far too short already.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
994
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 02:57:21 -
[7] - Quote
Juan Mileghere wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:I actually like the rapid launchers the way they currently stand. If I were to make any improvements to them, it would be to reduce the reload/swap time from 35 seconds to 30 seconds and to buff the ammunition capacity by approximately 20%. I'd have to agree, might be interested in switching the range on the Furies and Precisions but that's a whole different issue for a whole different thread...
overall precisions will do more DPS when used correctly than fury this is why the ranges are the way they are so that the smaller ships they are meant to be shot at have a better chance of out ranging them
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Juan Mileghere
The Corporate Raiders
15
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:14:49 -
[8] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:If you manage your shots well, you'll find the majority of the time you're not having any trouble firing the rapid launchers. That means they are mostly providing the ability to shoot frigates with higher DPS than you could shoot cruisers. I've used these weapon systems in a wide variety of combat scenarios and have rarely had difficulty with them. I might agree to an increase in capacity but I would definitely not reduce the cooldown time. It's far too short already. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:.... You know not the power this would give the widow let alone a widow gang He's on to me! (I still wouldn't take a Widow into a gunfight, even after this change) If you were to have a method of reloading like that you'd need to do reload x missle per x time unit which might be an issue to code for, but if possible how about 1 missle per second/two seconds and a 30-40 missle count?
Regarding the point with furies that makes sense, my biggest thought was that usually DPS ammo has less range than application ammo just as a general pattern...
Blobbing Explained
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
996
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:22:48 -
[9] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:If you manage your shots well, you'll find the majority of the time you're not having any trouble firing the rapid launchers. That means they are mostly providing the ability to shoot frigates with higher DPS than you could shoot cruisers. I've used these weapon systems in a wide variety of combat scenarios and have rarely had difficulty with them. I might agree to an increase in capacity but I would definitely not reduce the cooldown time. It's far too short already. Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:.... You know not the power this would give the widow let alone a widow gang He's on to me! (I still wouldn't take a Widow into a gunfight, even after this change)
why not a Widow has one of the best tanks of all blops and with the current RHML the highest consistent DPS as well it can easily GTFO if things start to go **** up
this change doesn't seem necessary to start with anyway
Juan Mileghere wrote:
Regarding the point with furies that makes sense, my biggest thought was that usually DPS ammo has less range than application ammo just as a general pattern...
this is the normal misconception a lot of people have you just have to remember missiles don't work like guns so they are balanced different
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
66
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:29:42 -
[10] - Quote
At the inception of the game, I remember when missiles and drones were supposed to be secondary weapon systems. That didn't last long.
The proposal of anti-support utility launchers as a secondary damage system would take away from the value of mixed fleet comps. I think we already have too many modules which artlessly bridge the gaps between hull classes and between roles of different ships. That's looking at webs, and target painters, or anything that punishes light ships excessively for fighting at close range, or has equal benefit when applied to large ships as well as small ships (mainly webs). If webs had tracking, we'd all get a lot more fights. It would make sense to burn into scram range to negate their effect. Such a change wouldn't hinder their efficacy at gate camping, for good or ill.
Losing your anti-support screen should be a tipping point in a battle. That should be a point when your ability to control who stays on the battlefield goes away, and the erosion of your ability to reposition your fleet. I see nothing wrong with making heavy ships dependent upon a retinue of smaller ships.
I could support giving non-drone ships utility slots to compensate for their interclass vulnerability. Unbonused drones often represent a hindrance to unsupported light ships operating against heavier ships in small numbers, but at least they represent an opportunity cost, and you can chip away at them.
If it weren't for the fact that we live in an era of oversized tank fits, giving us frigates with 5-10k EHPs, then I might argue for a reduction in frigate dps. That would help to make them dependent upon heavier ships in turn for fire support.
I would agree with any sentiment that more missile ships should get bonuses that extended to rapid launchers though. I very much like the idea of heavy ships having fitting choices that allow them to specialize as anti-support. It would be nice to have a similar turret option. When's the last time you saw someone fitting quad beam lasers? They and their peers should be reformulated into anti-support fitting hardpoints with narrower targeting signatures, and damage application that conforms with the ship bonuses. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4265
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:31:36 -
[11] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:this is the normal misconception a lot of people have you just have to remember missiles don't work like guns so they are balanced different Not that it necessarily makes a huge difference. With V skills Precision hits out to 111km on my Golem and 25% further when in Bastion.
Lienzo wrote:At the inception of the game, I remember when missiles and drones were supposed to be secondary weapon systems. That didn't last long. It's hard for missiles to be considered a secondary weapon system when an entire Faction (Caldari) is more or less based on them. Minmatar have missiles as well to some extent, and Amarr dabbles with them as well. Drones are still somewhat secondary as we don't have a designated drone-only ship (no turrets) or drone implants.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2405
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:34:17 -
[12] - Quote
Juan Mileghere wrote:If you were to have a method of reloading like that you'd need to do reload x missle per x time unit which might be an issue to code for, but if possible how about 1 missle per second/two seconds and a 30-40 missle count?
Regarding the point with furies that makes sense, my biggest thought was that usually DPS ammo has less range than application ammo just as a general pattern... I was thinking one missile per five seconds. Make it actually take some time to reload. It's not like the weapon system will be locked out for 3 minutes, you can cancel it early and start firing before it's full, or when you have some time outside of battle you can quickly top it off if it's down a few. It really wouldn't be that difficult to manage, but it would make people prefer using it as an auxiliary weapon system.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
996
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:36:20 -
[13] - Quote
Lienzo wrote: I would agree with any sentiment that more missile ships should get bonuses that extended to rapid launchers though. I very much like the idea of heavy ships having fitting choices that allow them to specialize as anti-support. It would be nice to have a similar turret option. When's the last time you saw someone fitting quad beam lasers? They and their peers should be reformulated into anti-support fitting hardpoints with narrower targeting signatures, and damage application that conforms with the ship bonuses.
you have this in the amarrian line with their Energy nueting ships but rather than needing a bonus to them they are given a bonus to drones and allowed to fit a size smaller weapon system.
Drones + neuts + under classed guns = bad day for smaller ship
the gal line doesn't need this do to all of their drone bonuses that fill the role fine
(i do get what you mean i was just pointing this out if you were trying to make a none missile comp to do this sort of thing)
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4265
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:38:14 -
[14] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I was thinking one missile per five seconds. Make it actually take some time to reload. It's not like the weapon system will be locked out for 3 minutes, you can cancel it early and start firing before it's full, or when you have some time outside of battle you can quickly top it off if it's down a few. It really wouldn't be that difficult to manage, but it would make people prefer using it as an auxiliary weapon system. You're going in the wrong direction here. Contrary to popular belief (and your suggestion), sitting around waiting for things to reload is not fun. Like it or not, rapid launchers are part of the meta now - and they already have enough tradeoffs. When reload times are factored in, rapid launchers only deliver about two thirds the DPS of heavy or cruise missiles. Yes, they are more effective against smaller ships - but the caveat is they then become quite vulnerable to ships their own size.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2405
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:39:50 -
[15] - Quote
Lienzo wrote:I would agree with any sentiment that more missile ships should get bonuses that extended to rapid launchers though. Turret ships with 1-2 utility highs and a couple launcher hardpoints don't have missile bonuses. Doesn't it make more sense, as an auxiliary weapon system, to roll a damage bonus into the module and take it off the ships?
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
997
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 03:56:08 -
[16] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lienzo wrote:I would agree with any sentiment that more missile ships should get bonuses that extended to rapid launchers though. Turret ships with 1-2 utility highs and a couple launcher hardpoints don't have missile bonuses. Doesn't it make more sense, as an auxiliary weapon system, to roll a damage bonus into the module and take it off the ships?
for the same reason we don't do that with all weapon systems
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
67
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 04:38:33 -
[17] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Turret ships with 1-2 utility highs and a couple launcher hardpoints don't have missile bonuses. Doesn't it make more sense, as an auxiliary weapon system, to roll a damage bonus into the module and take it off the ships?
It just really goes strongly against specialization. In that vein, I would favor some limitations to drone systems. I don't think Gallente drone platforms should get drone damage bonuses to anything except thermal damage. Amarr droners should be limited to electromagnetic bonuses (hah, like that's specific). Caldari and Minmatar droners tend to be kinda flexible anyway without any bonuses. The Worm, Gila and Rattlesnake could be limited to either kinetic and thermal drone damage boosts since that matches the missile bonus. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
997
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 04:53:56 -
[18] - Quote
Lienzo wrote:
It just really goes strongly against specialization. In that vein, I would favor some limitations to drone systems. I don't think Gallente drone platforms should get drone damage bonuses to anything except thermal damage. Amarr droners should be limited to electromagnetic bonuses (hah, like that's specific). Caldari and Minmatar droners tend to be kinda flexible anyway without any bonuses. The Worm, Gila and Rattlesnake could be limited to either kinetic and thermal drone damage boosts since that matches the missile bonus.
this i don't agree with and i'm glad to see that caldari missile boats are moving away from just kin damae
when you limit the damage type a weapon system that is meant to be able to select its type of damage its like giving a reload penalty to amarr ships.
now that said the few missile ships that just give a little extra to kin damage as well as an over all boost to DPS of the weapon system i feel are in the best place giving a bonus to their racial damage type while not forcing them into it.
unlike with turrets drones and missiles only do 1 type of damage now when you can select that type it can be an advantage to a pilot with a lot of experience and understanding of common ship fittings. however when they are forced to only use one damage type that is extremely easy to tank against as opposed to tanking against a split damage type
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1300
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 06:18:00 -
[19] - Quote
I suggest you watch suitonia's latest Armageddon video. Should give you a nice example how RHMLs are indeed capable of being a primary weapon platform. And RLML are primary weapons on Caracals and Cerberuses since their introduction.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4269
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 06:45:21 -
[20] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I suggest you watch suitonia's latest Armageddon video. Should give you a nice example how RHMLs are indeed capable of being a primary weapon platform. And RLML are primary weapons on Caracals and Cerberuses since their introduction. In fairness, it also sports drones and two heavy, range-bonused neutralizers. Without the neuts it wouldn't be anywhere near as effective. It's the combination of all three that makes it particularly deadly, but the neuts especially since they force the engagement range.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1001
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 06:51:15 -
[21] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I suggest you watch suitonia's latest Armageddon video. Should give you a nice example how RHMLs are indeed capable of being a primary weapon platform. And RLML are primary weapons on Caracals and Cerberuses since their introduction. In fairness, it also sports drones and two heavy, range-bonused neutralizers. Without the neuts it wouldn't be anywhere near as effective. It's the combination of all three that makes it particularly deadly, but the neuts especially since they force the engagement range.
RHML are already great as a primary weapon system on ravens and have made golems viable in PvP
they are exceptionally excellent on widows and phoons
none of witch have bonuses to nuets
and I don't think anyone can say RLML can't be used as a primary weapon system
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4269
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 06:54:49 -
[22] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:RHML are already great as a primary weapon system on ravens and have made golems viable in PvP they are exceptionally excellent on widows and phoons none of witch have bonuses to nuets I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that the combination of all three is particularly vicious.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2406
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 16:57:54 -
[23] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:I suggest you watch suitonia's latest Armageddon video. Should give you a nice example how RHMLs are indeed capable of being a primary weapon platform. And RLML are primary weapons on Caracals and Cerberuses since their introduction. In fairness, it also sports drones and two heavy, range-bonused neutralizers. Without the neuts it wouldn't be anywhere near as effective. It's the combination of all three that makes it particularly deadly, but the neuts especially since they force the engagement range. Actually, it's more because the ship can only fit 5 launchers. If it could fit 7-8 and had a bonus to heavy missiles, a medium (battleship) drone bay, and no neut bonus, it'd also do quite well but it'd just be different.
The Caracal is extremely effective at shooting down small ships because it can fit a full rack of double-bonused rapid light missile launchers.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4275
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 20:10:15 -
[24] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Actually, it's more because the ship can only fit 5 launchers. If it could fit 7-8 and had a bonus to heavy missiles, a medium (battleship) drone bay, and no neut bonus, it'd also do quite well but it'd just be different. No, it wouldn't - and that's the point. You're basically describing the Barghest. While the RHMLs are reloading you can continue to apply damage with drones, all the while dictating range with the heavy neutralizers. There's also the issue of cost, this fit being under 200m ISK (and insurable). Try this with a Raven (which does get a bonus to heavy missiles) and see how far it takes you.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2406
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:09:51 -
[25] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:No, it wouldn't - and that's the point. You're basically describing the Barghest. While the RHMLs are reloading you can continue to apply damage with drones, all the while dictating range with the heavy neutralizers. You just have to use it differently. It'll be more bursty, which means less sustained DPS but more DPS short-term in an ambush. That boosted ambush power can mean the difference between letting an opponent last until you have to re-load, and finishing them off before that. You won't need the drones when the fight is over. Also, those neutralizers only help dictate range so long as capacitor lasts. They can help make up for not having a full rack of weapons and not having a weapon bonus, but having all bonused launchers instead would be just as effective. Different, but just as effective.
And don't compare the Raven to this, it only has 6 launcher hardpoints which is due to poor balancing of large missiles. It works fine with them but takes an unnecessary nerf to its ability to use RHMLs because the battleship missiles are slightly overpowered, forcing the decision to give the Raven 6 instead of 7 launchers. This is also why the Golem is the most powerful marauder and generally the best overall by a significant margin.
And don't compare the cost of the Armageddon vs. the Raven. It's pretty similar, with the primary difference being due only to demand and individual mineral cost variances. The fit, even T2, is about the same price either way as well, and the modules aren't much compared to the hull.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Albert Madullier
Pan Intergalactic Industries
18
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:26:44 -
[26] - Quote
yes because RLML ortherus's need a buff right? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2406
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 00:39:44 -
[27] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:yes because RLML ortherus's need a buff right? I'm advocating making the rapid launchers less useful as a primary weapon system, meaning fits using a full rack of them may be more potent in some situations but by and large would be lacking in good opportunities for engagement. It would be a lot easier to toss just one onto a turret ship with a leftover high slot and a launcher hardpoint, giving it a better chance at shooting down a small tackler by combining the rapid launcher with small drone fire.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4277
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 01:10:15 -
[28] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:You just have to use it differently. It'll be more bursty, which means less sustained DPS but more DPS short-term in an ambush. That boosted ambush power can mean the difference between letting an opponent last until you have to re-load, and finishing them off before that. You won't need the drones when the fight is over. Also, those neutralizers only help dictate range so long as capacitor lasts. They can help make up for not having a full rack of weapons and not having a weapon bonus, but having all bonused launchers instead would be just as effective. Different, but just as effective.
And don't compare the Raven to this, it only has 6 launcher hardpoints which is due to poor balancing of large missiles. It works fine with them but takes an unnecessary nerf to its ability to use RHMLs because the battleship missiles are slightly overpowered, forcing the decision to give the Raven 6 instead of 7 launchers. This is also why the Golem is the most powerful marauder and generally the best overall by a significant margin.
And don't compare the cost of the Armageddon vs. the Raven. It's pretty similar, with the primary difference being due only to demand and individual mineral cost variances. The fit, even T2, is about the same price either way as well, and the modules aren't much compared to the hull. You have this thing for 7 launchers on the Raven... It features 6 launchers because a 25% ROF bonus would give it the equivalent of 9.33 launchers (more than a Navy Raven, Golem or Barghest). The long-range neutralizers are the ticket on the Armageddon fit, in addition to being able to armor tank. Feel free to take your Raven and I'll take an Armageddon, and we can duel it out around Jita sometime.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1014
|
Posted - 2015.04.02 17:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I'm advocating making the rapid launchers less useful as a primary weapon system, meaning fits using a full rack of them may be more potent in some situations but by and large would be lacking in good opportunities for engagement. It would be a lot easier to toss just one onto a turret ship with a leftover high slot and a launcher hardpoint, giving it a better chance at shooting down a small tackler by combining the rapid launcher with small drone fire.
so rather than needing a dedicated ship to repel the tackle any ship with a utility launcher can manage it?
this just nerfs light tackle.
and strip a primary fleet role from many ships.
as it stands dealing with small ships is one of the only things in PvP that missile boats can do better than turret or even drone boats where in almost every other area they are simply anemic.
this sounds like an idea coming from some one who doesn't like missile boats but still wants the advantages of them
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2406
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 08:26:38 -
[30] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:You have this thing for 7 launchers on the Raven... It features 6 launchers because a 25% ROF bonus would give it the equivalent of 9.33 launchers (more than a Navy Raven, Golem or Barghest). That's a useless argument. The Navy Raven and Golem lack damage bonuses in favor of explosion radius reduction, so against subcapital ships they will still hit harder than a Raven with 7 launchers. The Barghest has a warp disruption bonus. But that's beside the point entirely: my point was that large missiles should be nerfed a bit so that the ships that fit them can get a small buff to compensate which in turn leaves their large missile power the same but makes fitting RHMLs more balanced.
Arthur Aihaken wrote:The long-range neutralizers are the ticket on the Armageddon fit, in addition to being able to armor tank. Feel free to take your Raven and I'll take an Armageddon, and we can duel it out around Jita sometime. Also a useless argument. Leaving aside the fact that I said nothing about ship balance, demonstrating that one ship can beat another in a one-on-one is not an indication that the winning ship isn't underpowered. But, provided you were not allowed to determine my Raven fit, I don't actually think you'd win with an Armageddon. It's not like I have to use a shield booster fit, you know.
A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |