Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Majin82
Caldari g guild
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 22:51:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Majin82 on 22/11/2006 22:54:35 Edited by: Majin82 on 22/11/2006 22:52:50 Revelations BC, Community Agreed Changes Needed.
When Kail was first announced everyone saw seriously powerful ships being added to the BC tier 2. After some usage on Sisi, some obvious problems showed up.
The lack of drones on the Myrmidon The DrakeÆs insane Tank Ect.
Tuxford made some changes and the BCÆs all went from Gank to Tank. The changes he made were not the right ones in the minds of everyone. In particular, the double nerf on the Drake which really disappointed the Caldari players. There has been a lot of idea pooling going on since the changes were made and this seems to be the most agreed upon way to balance out the Tier 2 BCs. Sadly with Revelations coming up very soon, we will not see these changes made in time for release.
Drake Remove The Kinetic Bonus Remove Resists Per Level Bonus Re-Add the 7th Launcher Re-Add the ROF Bonus
Myrmidon Remove 2 Turrets Increase Drone bay to 150 m3
Hurricane Re-Add 7th Turret
Harbinger Increase Capacitor Volume to deal with Cap problems
I have taken these from a few threads and everyone seems to agree that this should be done to give the new BCÆs a purpose.
DRAKE HISTORY The DrakeÆs Resists bonus allowed for players to create insane Tanks on Sisi that had amazing resists without having to add a lot of hardeners. People were flying around with 18k shields and enough resists that the tank was very hard to break. Coupled with the impressive (and long over due) missile firepower this combo of Tank and Gank made the Drake a superior BC in even lower SP players hands.
A lot of Caldari players were very happy about the Drake was. It was a promising Solo PVP Missile Boat (something we lack), but we knew it was too powerful and it needed a small nerf to the tank. Tuxford made a needed change to the Drake, but instead of holding true to his idea that the Tier 2 BCÆs would be Offensive ships; he took away the gank and left the tank. Removing the ROF Bonus and the 7th Launcher, while giving a Kinetic Bonus instead.
This left us with a ship that is basically a Ferox with a Kinetic Bonus, and an extra launcher slot costing 20+ mil more ISK. Kinetic is great to use in PVE since it gives a HUGE advantage when fighting NPCÆs like Guristas. But in PVP one of the most protected against damages is Kinetic. Tux has pointed out to us, ôYou donÆt need to use Kinetic, you can use any **** type you want!ö While true, thatÆs like saying, ôHereÆs a bonus you WONT be using in PVP situations all of the time.ö The Drake is currently an overpriced Ferox and in the eyes of many useless. We donÆt need another Mission Own Boat.
Everyone agrees that the Drakes problem on Sisi was itÆs Defensive abilities, not the Offensive ones. Tux, please make the above changes to the Drake so it can be the ship we all thought it would be.
I am not as informed about the other 3 BCÆs since I have mainly been following the Drake, please follow suit and create a recap and why you think the changes are needed.
Thanks Majin
------------------------------------- Proud member of G Guild! |
Butter Dog
ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 23:06:00 -
[2]
The community certainly does NOT agree that changes are needed.
The 125m3 drone bay on the Myrm is fine (you cant safely use heavies but thats not a problem really). The Hurricane is fine, really nice ship. The Harbinger is great. The Drake... personally I'm in favour of giving it back the ROF bonus, but thats it, and Tux has already said they are considering that.
So, please don't assume the rest of us agree with you. We don't.
|
Kateryne
Minmatar Steel Frontier Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 23:19:00 -
[3]
Some of you may not but a lot more of us do! New BC were supposed to be ganky over tanky, and yet half of them tank harder than the existing ones and, 1 of them is bugged to hell and not too great and the last 1 is nice (that is all i shall say about the harbinger - if i big it up too much it may get nerfed) The biggest issue in revelations is being able to kill ships without running out of ammo/capacitor/drones/getting bored. The drake just makes you want to go put on the kettle and come back in 15, cause you know you won't have gotten it's hp down more than a few more %. It NEEDS to have it's tanking bonus changed to something offensive, like missile rof or missile velocity, to augment the kinetic bonus and actually make the ship killable.
If you refute this fact, then you sir, are a caldari mission running whorum farrior.
|
Adeptus Malkavius
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 23:32:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Adeptus Malkavius on 22/11/2006 23:34:23 or a Gallente pilot who's too used to his overpowered ships...
Originally by: Butter Dog The community certainly does NOT agree that changes are needed.
The 125m3 drone bay on the Myrm is fine (you cant safely use heavies but thats not a problem really). The Hurricane is fine, really nice ship. The Harbinger is great. The Drake... personally I'm in favour of giving it back the ROF bonus, but thats it, and Tux has already said they are considering that.
So, please don't assume the rest of us agree with you. We don't.
yes, of course you agree with a boost to your precious gallente pwnboat and "balance" to everything else
|
Pattern Clarc
The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 23:36:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Majin82
Drake Remove The Kinetic Bonus yes Remove Resists Per Level Bonus yes Re-Add the 7th Launcher hmmmm Re-Add the ROF Bonus yes
Myrmidon Remove 2 Turrets no Increase Drone bay to 150 m3 hell no the myrmidon can carry 2 waves of mediums and a wave of lights, or 5 heavies, this is great adds diversity and options, with risks (eg losing lots of dps) if you go gank over tank.
Hurricane Re-Add 7th Turret only if they reduce further the grid
Harbinger Increase Capacitor Volume to deal with Cap problems didn't the damage bonus solve that? anyway, tux said he "wanted the harbinger to have cap problems"
Sig removed lacks EVE content, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus |
Butter Dog
ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 23:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Adeptus Malkavius Edited by: Adeptus Malkavius on 22/11/2006 23:34:23 or a Gallente pilot who's too used to his overpowered ships...
Originally by: Butter Dog The community certainly does NOT agree that changes are needed.
The 125m3 drone bay on the Myrm is fine (you cant safely use heavies but thats not a problem really). The Hurricane is fine, really nice ship. The Harbinger is great. The Drake... personally I'm in favour of giving it back the ROF bonus, but thats it, and Tux has already said they are considering that.
So, please don't assume the rest of us agree with you. We don't.
yes, of course you agree with a boost to your precious gallente pwnboat and "balance" to everything else
Of course you would know, with your vast experience of PvP, Mr Exlamation Mark.
|
Griever Takkow
|
Posted - 2006.11.22 23:56:00 -
[7]
Why is no-one ever specific about the Drakes second bonus.?
Remove the kinetic bonus, remove the shield resist bonus,add the 7th launcher, add RoF bonus.
That leaves an empty bonus.
What do you want?
Flight time or speed just so the HAM javs can really take the ****?
Or what about RoF AND kinetic damage, to ensure higher dps than everything in the universe? And not forgetting that even without the resist bonus the Drake would still outtank every other tier 2 BC.
So heres the challenge.
Design a " Gank " Drake that doesnt have a monster passive tank and doesnt have more dps than every other BC by a factor of 10.
|
Zeknichov
Amarr Black Avatar Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 00:04:00 -
[8]
Why does Gallante need a drone boat in every category of ship classes. Give me my bigger Celestis. 7 mid slots, 5 high, 5 low. Increase Sensor Dampener Strength, Increase Sensor Dampener Range.
|
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm Eternal Rangers of Terror
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 00:28:00 -
[9]
Community is more than the people that agree with you. Community is more than the people that will whine in every thread they see w/ the same crap.
BC's are fine. not over powered, not underpowered. In their roles and not stepping on any other ships's toes (if you wonder why cycl and ferox resemble drake and hurricane, you can start by realizing they are BOTH TECH 1 BC'S w/ SIMILAR ROLES)
"DRAKE HISTORY" ??!! wtf dont you understand about TEST SERVER and NON-PRODUCTION? This ship has no history because it hasn't even hit tranq yet.
I think CCP has hit the nail on the head w/ latest changes, i cant wait for ALL the new ships.
90% of you have no clue about pvp or you would realize the potential of these new ships in the field is awsome, and good pilots are looking forward to these ships as they are.
stfu please and thankyou,
regardless of what you think you know, the devs better. IF, and thats IF any rebalancing needs done, it will be done. Revelations/Kali has two more releases before complete after this upcoming one. Inbetween there will be various patches.
If you think you need yet ANOTHER thread to say the same crap over and over that CCP has already heard (and ignored), your most likely a lost cause and have already started writing your reply w/o reading this far.
a little more- sit back and enjoy the ride a little less- back seat driving
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 00:30:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Kateryne It NEEDS to have it's tanking bonus changed to something offensive, like missile rof or missile velocity, to augment the kinetic bonus and actually make the ship killable.
If you refute this fact, then you sir, are a caldari mission running whorum farrior.
But us 'caldari mission running whorum farriors' do agree that the Drake needs to be made more offensive and less tanky.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
|
Malthros Zenobia
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 00:49:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Griever Takkow So heres the challenge.
Design a " Gank " Drake that doesnt have a monster passive tank and doesnt have more dps than every other BC by a factor of 10.
8 highs 7 launcher slots 6 mids 4 lows
The PG/CPU to allow say, 7 heavy missile launchers, 3 large extenders, 2-3 hardeners, 3 BCUs, 1 SPR? Pretty much what it had to begin with would work imo.
If you want to use HAMs, then you're going to be fitting at least a PDU if not an RCU. If you want T2, you'd better have good fitting skills, otherwise you're looking at at least 2 RCUs, possibly a CPU as well, leaving you a killer *1* lowslot for a SPR or BCU, if that.
Then:
Drop the resists bonus Drop the Kinetic bonus
Give back the 7th launcher Give back the ROF bonus Give the 2nd bonus as either missile velocity, or missile explosion velocity/radius (aka tracking, but velocity for range makes the most sense on a caldari ship)
Reduce armor/hull/shields by 15%.
By giving back the 7th launcher and giving back ROF, you're upping its DPS from kinetic by about 26%, with the others being significantly higher(49%?) since they lack the 25% bonus kinetic now has. The cost of this boost is they are instantly 25% easier to break due to the loss of the resistance bonuses, and then they are hurt another 15% by the loss to armor/shields/hull, making their tank even weaker.
It would have considerably high DPS for a missile boat, but due to its high mass, bad agility, low speed, and weak tank, it'd go down under fire pretty fast.
Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
|
Sorja
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 01:46:00 -
[12]
A gank Drake can't have 6 meds.
It's those 6 meds that caused the nerf, even more than the resist bonus (which could go for what I care).
Nobody mentioned that the Drake could have only 6 highs and an ECM bonus. We don't have an ECM BC while we have frig, cruiser, recon and BS. I wouldn't fly it, TBH, ECM got the shaft with Kali, but it's a possibility. ____________________ A gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipe, but who does not. |
Xaildaine
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 02:39:00 -
[13]
The drake is done .. end... fin
No changes incomming for that boat... See tux
In any case id rather they reworked the Ferox than spent more time working on the Drake.
The drake aint that bad... It will fill teh roll the Ferox had as a Missile mission boat. The Ferox is Awfull. Outclassed by in every way by every other BC in the game.
I mean sure ..Someone has to have the worst BC but dose it have to be the worst by such a large amount?
|
murder one
Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 02:44:00 -
[14]
To the OP: the only thing the community agrees upon is that we are definitely not in agreement with your ideas.
Because I said so...
|
Quilan Ziller
Gallente Children of Azathoth Brotherhood Of Steel
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Adeptus Malkavius Edited by: Adeptus Malkavius on 22/11/2006 23:34:23 or a Gallente pilot who's too used to his overpowered ships...
Overpowered? How so? Rabble rabble rabble. Why is more than 50% of EVE population flying... Ravens and Caracals? And if you think Gallente = I-Win, why don't you just learn the skills yourself? Not that I agree with the OP (I think that Tier 3 BCs are fine - except maybe for Drake, which needs a small boost). But all the anti-Gallente whiners like you should just go away. Anything that YOU don't use alweays seems overpowered, and you just whine.
______________________________________________________________ Of course the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you--if you don't play, you can't win. - Robert Heinlein |
Kalhystia
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:15:00 -
[16]
As said before, Myrmidon is fine now. With the HP boost in Kali (not applied to drones and fighters) you have to seriously if the extra DPS brought by 5 heavies is worth it, as they can be popped fast.
And no sorry, recalling them is not that fast without to say only shields get healed, not armor or structure. |
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:49:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Butter Dog The community certainly does NOT agree that changes are needed.
Nor will they ever, that is a fact.
Oh btw, it seems that I rather messed up the shield extender / plates increase. Its 60% instead of 50%.
Drakes problem wasn't only with its great tanking abilities. It has great tanking abilities but once you start using some of your med slots for stuff you'd likely to need in a fight its not that awesome. Its still pretty good ship though. _______________ |
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter.
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:53:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Cadiz on 23/11/2006 08:57:57
Originally by: Griever Takkow Design a " Gank " Drake that doesnt have a monster passive tank and doesnt have more dps than every other BC by a factor of 10.
Replace the resist bonus with an explosion velocity bonus. It'll improve the performance of the Drake's weapons against high-speed ships - basically a missile equivalent of a tracking bonus, I suppose (and nobody seems to complain about tracking bonuses). Considering the insane capabilities for speed the new inertial stabilizers open up, something like this might actually be really useful. ------ Quartermaster, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:57:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Butter Dog The community certainly does NOT agree that changes are needed.
Nor will they ever, that is a fact.
Aha! I can disprove you.
The community does agree that the Chimera ship model as it is on TQ at the moment needs adjustments in terms of size and centerpoint location!
...well, at least the part of the community that cares about the topic
|
Jim McGregor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:01:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 23/11/2006 09:02:23
I hate when people say "This is what the community wants". You are so wrong. What you did is pick something people want (like adding the 7:th turret to the Hurricane), but then you have added lots of stuff to Drake for example, which would make it unbalanced to the Hurricane even with the 7:th turret. Also the Harbinger doesnt need more help, its already overpowered (just my opinion though, people dont agree with me).
So no, I dont agree. Bad post. BAD. No candy for YOU.
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune | Eve Pirate |
|
Zeknichov
Amarr Black Avatar Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:07:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Butter Dog The community certainly does NOT agree that changes are needed.
Nor will they ever, that is a fact.
Oh btw, it seems that I rather messed up the shield extender / plates increase. Its 60% instead of 50%.
Drakes problem wasn't only with its great tanking abilities. It has great tanking abilities but once you start using some of your med slots for stuff you'd likely to need in a fight its not that awesome. Its still pretty good ship though.
Deimos.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:26:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Quilan Ziller
Originally by: Adeptus Malkavius Edited by: Adeptus Malkavius on 22/11/2006 23:34:23 or a Gallente pilot who's too used to his overpowered ships...
Overpowered? How so? Rabble rabble rabble. Why is more than 50% of EVE population flying... Ravens and Caracals? And if you think Gallente = I-Win, why don't you just learn the skills yourself? Not that I agree with the OP (I think that Tier 3 BCs are fine - except maybe for Drake, which needs a small boost). But all the anti-Gallente whiners like you should just go away. Anything that YOU don't use alweays seems overpowered, and you just whine.
Not wanting to get into the flamewar, but I have to dispute your figures a little. Lots of people, like myself, fly caldari. I chose caldari based on the race description right at the start of the game. Nothing to do with ships.
I can tell you that whilst 'most people fly caldari' this is really not the case in PvP. In fact, it's actually quite unusual to see caldari ships in use for PvPing. The Raven and the Crow are perhaps exceptions, but the major representatives are Gallente and Minmatar.
I expect the Rohk to change this, since it's a usable long range ship. I also hope that heavy assault missiles will serve to make the caracal a viable PvP platform.
Now, I'm really thinking your figures are being skewed by the fact that the Raven is an excellent mission running/ratting ship. I agree, it is. It's strengths play exactly to the weaknesses of NPCs.
I don't think you'd be denying that at the moment Nos-EWAR-Dominix is 'flavour of the month' pwnmobile. Myrmidon is cut from the same cloth. *shrug* I couldn't really care less about the drone bay size. 850dps peak does seem a little extreme to me - I'm not sure I can actually manage that in _any_ of the ships I can fly. (Full gank on my Raven starts to scratch up against 600-700, although admittedly that's not using rage torps).
Then again, I've never really flown a drone boat. My only yardstick is the number of nos-ewar-drone-tank dominixes I keep running into when going out PvPing, especially in empire. Not forgetting of course the continual 'how do I beat this combo' discussion on the ships and modules forum.
Drake's looking promising. Losing a launcher IMO was necessary - I want a fun ship, not a button marked 'pwn' that I press occasionally - I leave that to the devs :), but I'd still like to see that RoF bonus back, because it'll make the Drake a versatile and effective PvP ship.
I know it can passive tank really well, but realistically if you fill all your mids with a passive tank, it's only the very stupid who will then proceed to charge into range of your heavy assault missiles, and stay there whilst you kill them. (OK, so that does include NPCs)
Actually, I'm somewhat more suprised that I've not seen 'OMG ROHK PASSIVE TANK' moans. 50k shields 50% resists and 933s recharge time is quite doable, and you can still fit rails to it.
|
Xaildaine
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:54:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Quilan Ziller
Overpowered? How so? Rabble rabble rabble. Why is more than 50% of EVE population flying... Ravens and Caracals? And if you think Gallente = I-Win, why don't you just learn the skills yourself? Not that I agree with the OP (I think that Tier 3 BCs are fine - except maybe for Drake, which needs a small boost). But all the anti-Gallente whiners like you should just go away. Anything that YOU don't use alweays seems overpowered, and you just whine.
People choose Caldari for the stat point lay out .. not their ships. Once they get past grinding missions most train other race ships And strangely enough alot of them pick Gallente.
Im mean if going to all the trouble of traing another races ships isnt a sure sign they may be above par then i dont know what is.
Kali is making the Gap less at the top end and im glad for that
O and Tux i feel that the player base generaly agree that the Ferox needs another Turret and PG to fit ^_^ I mean .. im just saying... sometimes we do agree
|
Xiliath
JUDGE DREAD Inc. Forces of Freedom
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:25:00 -
[24]
I personally wasn't too happy with the hurrican loosing a turret, but I see it as a small tempest now, instead of a Slepnir with lower resist, I think it's good as it.
I think the Myrmidion with the 125m3 is good as it.
The Harbinger I have flown and thought it was good as is.
And the Drake, I must say this is the only ship I see a problem with, I've flown it both pre/post nerf, and I think it should recieve it's ROF bonus back at least, with that it's like a small raven with resist bonus. Or maybe a ROF and Kinetic damage bonus. It seriously needs looked at, I can fly all these ships and have and think the Drake falls far behind.
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:25:00 -
[25]
Regarding the hurricane:
It got nerfed in two ways: - 1 turret slot and less grid.
Imho one of the two nerfs should go, either have a 7 turret boat with not much grid left to fit any decent tank or have a 6 turret boat with enough grid to actually fit anything useful in the two remaining highs plus a decent tank.
Actually I would prefer the 6 turret/more grid variant cause then the sleipnir is unchallenged damage wise, but taking away 1 turret slot and taking away grid thats needed to fill the new opened missile slot with anything useful (its only a stupid bonus-less missile slot minni ships are known for after all) is over the top.
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:31:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Xaildaine
O and Tux i feel that the player base generaly agree that the Ferox needs another Turret and PG to fit ^_^ I mean .. im just saying... sometimes we do agree
I kind of agree to that as well, means abusing a graphic guy. We'll look into it post revelation, meaning I'll whine to other devs until they cave in _______________ |
|
skillbuyer
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:38:00 -
[27]
Ow, good point. I think many of the people who wish for another turret on the Ferox forget that the 3D model actually needs another spot to display one too...
|
Taran Blake
De Re Metallica
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:04:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tuxford Its still pretty good ship though.
Not it isn't. Its a ship looking for a role that is already filled by another sub-par ship.
|
Kassidus
Gallente Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:33:00 -
[29]
Please read my thread on my opinion of this thread http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=430108
|
MOS DEF
Devils Rejects
|
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:49:00 -
[30]
Most people ingame are cladari. That is a fact. Least are Minmatar i think. There were stats released about this a while ago.
Now if a totally and ridiculously overpowered caldari ship is nerfed the whnage is overwhelming. It's not the amount of whining that should lead to changes. Ships need to be balanced.
I can see the reasoning behind the tanknerf and dmg boost you want but isn't it just a cheap cerberus then basically?
If they add the ROF bonus again they better kill that tank or the ship breaks the game. I fought it on SiSi when it had both boni and it was not just overpowered but plain broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |