|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2202
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 16:31:53 -
[1] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
HAMs = 20km HML = 60km
rockets = 10km LML = 42km
Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km
One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.
Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.
If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2202
|
Posted - 2015.09.15 17:01:41 -
[2] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
HAMs = 20km HML = 60km
rockets = 10km LML = 42km
Torps = 20km Cruise = 148km
One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.
Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.
If torp applied better than cruise like short range weapon are technically supposed to, it would not be that big of a problem. Right now, any non bomber torp boat need so much med slot/rig support it's funny to look at. Also having higher fitting costs than its long range weapon system. Torp/cruise relations are just derpy as hell. I agree with you though. I was merely pointing out that because HAMs have the same range as torps, does not mean HAM range needs to be nerfed.
Yeah the range are all over the place. There is no progression scheme. LML to HML is close to a 50% gain while HML to cruise is over 100% gain. Rocket to HAM is 100% gain and then 0 from HAM to torp. I have no idea where those numbers come from. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2218
|
Posted - 2015.09.18 17:45:10 -
[3] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Harvey James wrote:not a fan of more drones being added too ships, i think we need less drones myself, especially making caldari and minmatar have the same capability of fielding drones as the brutix is plain wrong and kills off gallente strengths and uniqueness Except that the brutix isnt bonused to drones, and still does more damage than any other BC before drones (670ish with AM, 750 with void). Brutix is a hybrid boat, not a drone boat. If the drake got bonuses to hybrids then id tend to agree with you, but it didnt. Giving BCs a better drone bay is a way to increase overall dps of the hull without changing slot layouts or traits. Probably why they went this route with the navy drake, instead of dropping a launcher and giving a RoF bonus. Since its launchers are unbonused via damage, they increased potential dps by giving it more dronebay/bandwidth. Same with the navy cane as it technically lost dps compared to t1 cane, so they are compensating with more drone bay/bandwidth. i know why they are doing it that's quite obvious, however that doesn't justify it, navy drake will have huge tank on top the bizzare mobility buff, it doesn't need too go out of caldari lore just too buff its dps slightly.
The balance is more important than lolore. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2224
|
Posted - 2015.09.21 14:26:16 -
[4] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote: stuff about number of navy ships destroyed per month. All well and good but this does not tell you about demand. It tells you something about how many ships were probably used for pvp. But pvp losses are not equal to number of ships sold. It does not tell you about the pve demand and sales which are probably huge if we are to go by the CCP estimates of how many players stay in highsec running missions or want their passive Drakes and Tengus for wormhole pve stuff. Many of those level 4 highsec players start out thirsting for the Navy Raven in my experience, having played this game since 06. And a huge number of those, again anecdotally in my experience got a passive, and soon will get a navy, Drake. Drakes were everywhere in huge numbers about 4 years ago. And the Navy Drake will be basically an improved version. I don't think the game will become Drakes Online again. But I certainly don't want anything close either, which I worry will happen with the proposed stats on the Navy Drake.
I guess navy vexor online for god know all long was ok but navy drake online would be bad... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2236
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 17:00:22 -
[5] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:My initial feedback stands by the way, if command ships are supposed to be something more than overtanked FC boats without guns or station hugging offgrid boosters then they need a rework done. As it is now the t1 Battlecruisers (especially navy BCs) will obsolete them as combat ships. Not as much due to raw stats and bonuses, but navy BCs are a much more well rounded package than command ships are. Offensive wise navy BCs are almost as good as command ships with for example the Harbinger Navy Issue being clearly superior to the Absolution as it has a projection AND application bonus while the Absolution just gets a tiny bit of more raw damage on top. However the Harbinger Navy Issue gets much better mobility which isnt just good in combat but also makes travelling a lot more bearable.
EDIT We had this happen with the t1 Cruiser rebalance before, when t1 Cruisers obsoleted HACs in the meta, not being superior in direct comparison but being the better overall package.
I'm in support of this but care should be used because I don't think anyone want any Ishtar like situation where a ship from a changed class just outshine many different class all by itself. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2237
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:24:28 -
[6] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Ersahi Kir wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Actually the new fleet cane will blow a muninn out of the water as a doctrine fit. Shield fit cane will have double the EHP of shield fit Muninn (which is the last doctrine i saw for alpha muninns). The fleet cane will have more tracking than the muninn and with a combined 25% optimal/falloff bonus, will have very similar projection, but much larger alpha.
The cane has 6 turrets + 50% alpha, whereas the Muninn has 5 turrets + 25% alpha and RoF. DPS will be less on the cane, but alpha will be considerably more.
Navy drakes can utilize omni damage, where as T1 drakes are stuck with kinetic damage. A drake fleet would get murdered by an ishtar/vulture/tengu doctrine. Not saying a navy drake would fair better, but at least it could shoot into their resist holes. Small gang would have a role for it as well, since its fairly quick/agile, and paired with MJD + HML, could be decent with proper support. I understand the points you're trying to make, but I disagree with your conclusion. I don't see enough additional performance in the fleet ships over the tech 1 battle cruisers to justify the additional cost. I see tracking bonuses as mostly wasted as fleet engagements tend to happen at ranges where tracking isn't going to be a major issue. I would agree with what some people said earlier about the ship that's going to come out of this as a fleet concept being the ferox, but it's not going to be the go to sov war fleet. So the 25% more alpha, 50% more tracking, and more EHP over t1 doesn't add up to "additional performance" for you? Combine those bonuses with the 25% optimal/fall-off. It will already knock the muninn out for being the better alpha doctrine, and is about the same price. Muninn is around 130m, and fleet cane is about 150m. The thing with the fleet cane though, is if an alliance has members in FW who farm LP, they can get them even cheaper (around 80m).
How cheaper you can get them might rely a lot on how much more used it gets and that is valid for all the navy BC receiving a buff right now. Feeding the soon to be increased market will drive LP demand up unless something else's demand drop. Unless you make your member "farm it for free"... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:28:21 -
[7] - Quote
Alek Row wrote:I know this problem is not new - the low/high fitting costs of acs/arties There are lots of minmatar ships where an arty fit is very difficult to achieve without too many fitting mods.
Also, everybody needs a tank, some races have to install fitting mods just to install guns and a mwd, the race that benefits the most with hull rigs doesn't need ONE fitting mod to get their guns and mwd running, not one, and they are not only sporting a 60% tank across the board but also also have all mids and lows to play with whatever they want. Pretty please, think of a penalty for those hull rigs.
Hull tanking require less modules but also offer less options. You can't self rep worth **** and logi support is also impossible. It's good for short term engagement with repair facility available close by. It's bad for other stuff like roaming in space where you can't dock or long engagement where the DPS will end up eating that large buffer over time anyway. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2239
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 16:51:53 -
[8] - Quote
Alek Row wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Hull tanking require less modules but also offer less options. You can't self rep worth **** and logi support is also impossible. It's good for short term engagement with repair facility available close by. It's bad for other stuff like roaming in space where you can't dock or long engagement where the DPS will end up eating that large buffer over time anyway.
In reality, thanks to better pg/cpu, a secondary tank is also possible. I understand the problems in fleet/null but I think it is a bit to much. Maybe it made sense when nobody used railguns, now it looks more like the cherry on top. If you take into account not only null sec and fleet work, does the arty alpha justifies the heavy fiting costs? And is the cargo space an enough drawback to hull rigs? Honest question, I may be wrong and not seeing the whole picture. o7
I think part of the issue comes from how many ship fot the hull tank module (DCU) anyway because of how good it is which then make the hull tanking ships feel a bit like they didn't even take that slot because there would be a DCU there anyway. The tank gain to fitting cost ratio is rather high. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2260
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 17:02:05 -
[9] - Quote
Tiddle Jr wrote:Sorry if it was already said but could we have 5 turrets slots (bonusless) on Cyclone please. Adding Rapids to ships HAM & HM would be also great.
It's not meant to use guns so no. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2281
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 14:14:24 -
[10] - Quote
Devil Seven wrote:elitatwo wrote:Devil Seven wrote:Can you look at giving the ferox a 5th low slot it will give it more fitting options and make it more useful in the proposed update otherwise the rest of them look good just not sure how I like the ferox atm looks like a huge nerf to the thing 7/6/5 is a good number too You would have to remove one slot from somewhere else for that. With your layout the Ferox would one more slot that all the other battlcruisers. As far as I have seen the Ferox is okay. You really don't have to remove a slot from somewhere but anyways atm the way it will be the ferox is so out classed by the other BCs it already is a unfavorable ship for most the 7/6/5 would have more useful uses with the bonuses they have planned with the new bonuses it will be a sniper and a weak one at that as the attack bc already has that role and is better at it
BC are supposed to have 17 slots (apply drone ship -1 slots when applicable), not 18 so yes the ferox would have to lose either a high or a mid to get an extra low. |
|
|
|
|