Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1063
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 06:03:11 -
[511] - Quote
Lili Andedare wrote:bullshit Care to elaborate?
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6382
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 06:41:40 -
[512] - Quote
Removed some profanity.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
557
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 12:50:10 -
[513] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Test server feedback: The agility and mobility buff is a gift from god, thank you fozzie. Navy drake and Navy cane finally good ships.
I took the navy drake out and fit my current fleet cane up to the new setup and.. yea, things are going to be awesome. The cane feels more agile and is a bit faster (1600-1700m/s cold, compared to 1500m/s), and i can drop an ACR with my current fit for a different rig.
Drake feels agile and is decently fast with a single nano (1500m/s cold). I think it will fill a good fleet role, being able to be semi fast and project with HML w/ application bonus.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
910
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 15:22:54 -
[514] - Quote
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.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2236
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 17:00:22 -
[515] - 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. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
523
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 22:53:14 -
[516] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I guess navy vexor online for god know all long was ok but navy drake online would be bad... Yes. Considering there was a never a vexor navy online. The navy vexor is a good ship, but it does not and never has constituted a complete fleet comp. 3 years though of Drakes Online, with that ship at the top of the pvp kill stats by at least double the second place ship, was very very bad. Any time of Navy Drakes Online would just be adding insult to injury.
Stitch Kaneland wrote: Tiericide also happened in that 4 year window after drakes got dropped/nerfed. The meta is not the same and almost every other ship has been rebalanced for the better. A navy drake MWD'n around will have the sig of a moon. Hop in a BS and shoot it down. You will have the range/tracking/utility to handle it without much issue. Apoc maybe? Will it have a role? The anti-drake.
Now if you take a cruiser to a BC fight, then id say working as intended. Same way you dont take a frig gang into a destroyer/t3d gang, unless you have the right gang comp. We shall see. Since judging by past performance, at this point the proposed changes will become the changes. Wonder if Fozzie is even still reading this thread.
Funny you should mention different ship classes since you appear to have no problem with the Navy Drake counter requiring an upship to a BS Apoc or Napoc. Btw, Apocs were used as a counter to the regular T1 drake blobs of 3 years ago or whenever.
Fourteen Maken wrote: A pve ship can be bought and sold ten times over before it gets destroyed - that doesn't help calmil flush their lp. The same way the game needs ISK sinks to get rid of all the new ISK coming into the game, LP markets need LP sinks. It's pretty obvious that in the long run ship losses most definitely drive the demand for faction LP, and at the minute that equates to roughly 3 times as much demand for Gallente LP as there is for Caldari LP. It was my biggest gripe about faction war but not many people understood what I was talking about so I gave up - but ultimately it has a big impact on the warzone: It makes Calmil corps and pilots poorer, it makes it harder for them to attract players and new corps to their side, and it makes it harder to get people to sit in the plexes.
I wish the Navy Drake was OP because calmil need something stupidly OP to balance things out, but it's clearly not. Overall it's in a far better place than it was before because it has the speed to dictate range better but they're not about to darken the skies!
Overall I think the Fleet Cane looks best and hardly anyone is talking about it. It will be good in small gangs where the tracking bonus and the bigger alpha will help arty fits one shot smaller ships off the field - should be popular in the current meta, and it will work well with Autocannons too.
The Navy Brutix just got more hull tank, mobility bufs and the 25% range bonus. People shouldn't write off the 25% range bonus on blasters either because it helps close range ammo apply better in scram range and with long range ammo it allows the blasters to do damage further into disruptor range, along with the mobillity buffs and some decent manual piloting that should make them harder for small ships to kite - so it was already a solid pvp ship and it just got better.
In terms of pvp it's a close between Navy Brutix and Navy Drake for second imo, the Drake should be able to keep range if the fight starts at range so the New Navy Drake will be strong. It's got the speed to keep away from better brawlers but it needs that because it doesn't have cap warfare or dps to live with them in scram range, it has more dps from the drones but it's still got the weakest overall dps. It has a decent tank now (awesome tank for pve fits and gang fits without tackle or ewar) but it's lost a big range bonus while all the others gained range.
The Navy Harbinger is last imo, even though it's got nice buffs to mobility everything I see it do one of the others, or one of the t1 BC's can do better. You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has.
Also, I think you underestimate the pve market. As I said it is healthy in a different manner than pvp ships are due to pvp losses. Pve favored ships find a continuing stream of buyers. Some of these are new casual highsec missioners. This is how Navy Ravens continue to sell even as they are rarely used in pvp and suffer very few pvp losses. Likewise Drakes and Navy Drakes will continue to sell extremely well for wormhole pve due to the ridiculous passive tanking abilities. An ability few other ships can match and those that can match or exceed in this all have a larger pricetag.
Lastly, BCs are not soloing ships. So to talk about hypothetical one on one battles between these ships to miss the point. It is all about whether a ship can make a fleet comp, or whether it can stupidly sit like a tanking brick and missile spew in pve content, that will determine the number of sales. Navy Drakes will do both and too well.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
319
|
Posted - 2015.09.23 23:26:50 -
[517] - Quote
Is CCP still monitoring this thread? seeing lots of good points.
For myself IGÇÖd like to say a big thank you for the upcoming BC buff. It is most welcome and needed. As part of the battlecruiser rebalance and in the spirit of CCP looking at past changes that may not have worked out well and revising them where applicable I would like to humbly ask for the warp speed of BCGÇÖs and BBGÇÖs be re-examined. I believe that most of us welcomed the increased warp speed of the smaller ships in the game, and the addition of warp faster clones, rigs and low slot warp speed modules was a nice addition to the depth that EVE has. It did however come at a cost of a speed nerf to many of the most enjoyed and frequently flown ship classes in the game namely battlecruisers and battleships. I would therefore like to suggest that BC (and BB) warp speeds are returned to a base of 3.0 I have no issue with smaller ships going faster, all power to them but please un nerf / buff the warp speeds to these classes of ships. It is a giant pain in the arse when you are on a roam when half of your fleet is getting left behind. It discourages mixed ship composition of fleets. This is part of the reason why fleets have become so generic. Thanks |
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
419
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 01:54:11 -
[518] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has.
I am unconvinced that any faction battle cruiser would ever make a decent large scale fleet concept, especially the fleet cane.
The cost of faction battle cruisers puts them in competition with battleships and hacs. I think if you compared navy canes to muninns they would be embarrassed as a fleet concept. I don't think that navy drakes would do so much better than normal drakes to justify the huge price increase, and I still think they would get their teeth kicked in by any of the more standard fleets that sport 200m line ships.
So no, I don't see any of these becoming the next new fleet concept. The benefit of faction battle cruisers is in small gang work where they take advantage of their large tanks and good damage application to push through other small gangs, not putting them in max sized fleets where damage application takes a back seat to range.
Not a professional fleet designer though, so what do I know. |
Jed Airtech
Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now.
0
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 04:23:37 -
[519] - Quote
Nerfing something because it is popular to use is such a ill-thought idea.
Here's how I imagine the people at CCP think things through:
Quote:"Let's see now... what do people like to do in our game? OK YES, let's nerf that"
"Next item for discussion: Why are we losing subscriptions?"
If all of your development time is spent destroying the things people like to do, then do not be surprised when people do not like to play. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 05:42:38 -
[520] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:
Funny you should mention different ship classes since you appear to have no problem with the Navy Drake counter requiring an upship to a BS Apoc or Napoc. Btw, Apocs were used as a counter to the regular T1 drake blobs of 3 years ago or whenever.
Battleships have always been the proper counter to BC's, its just BC's have been outclassed for so long, people stopped flying them. Hence the lull in BS activity outside of specific doctrine fits. Cruisers countered BC's far more effectively since they had range/projection/speed to stay outside of a BC's range and still apply damage (not to mention far cheaper than a BS). Or they could out brawl them in the case of a deimos/vaga/sac etc.
So if Apoc's countered them years ago, does it not make sense they will still continue to counter them? A BS countering a BC, seems to working as intended like i mentioned. Apoc and navy drake prices are comparable, but a BS will insure far better than a faction BC. I can't see how having more BC's on field is a bad thing. It will bring cruiser blobs in line, and when BC blobs start happening, then BS can come out and stretch their legs. Heavy neuts, high dps, good projection, MJD, there are plenty of tools there to counter these ships.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 05:52:49 -
[521] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:You are correct that Navy Drakes and Fleet Canes will be the big demand ships because they can make valid fleet comps for pvp. The Navy Brutix and Navy Harb are **** in comparison I agree. You complain though about Comets and Navy Vexors. They don't make large fleet comps though and so even if they sell better for solo or small gang pvp they cannot equal the demand a large fleet comp capable ship has. I am unconvinced that any faction battle cruiser would ever make a decent large scale fleet concept, especially the fleet cane. The cost of faction battle cruisers puts them in competition with battleships and hacs. I think if you compared navy canes to muninns they would be embarrassed as a fleet concept. I don't think that navy drakes would do so much better than normal drakes to justify the huge price increase, and I still think they would get their teeth kicked in by any of the more standard fleets that sport 200m line ships. So no, I don't see any of these becoming the next new fleet concept. The benefit of faction battle cruisers is in small gang work where they take advantage of their large tanks and good damage application to push through other small gangs, not putting them in max sized fleets where damage application takes a back seat to range. Not a professional fleet designer though, so what do I know.
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 T1. 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.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Jed Airtech
Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now.
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 06:46:41 -
[522] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:[quote=Ersahi Kir][quote=Deacon Abox]
Cry more. This is a thread about BC buffs, no nerfs. Not to mention CCP isn't nerfing ships because they're popular, its because they are overpowered and breaking ship balance/variety. Pull your head out of your ass and understand there is more going on than your Level 4 mission runner and your isk/hr ratio. Please direct your self-entitled whine somewhere else.
Hey calm down dude, please direct your aggression somewhere else. By admission in this thread, CCP does in fact balance ships so that popular ones are used less. When you buff everything more than something else, I would say you have effectively nerfed the thing that got less buffed (but I can see how that is totally debatable). |
Yngvar ayShorn
Einheit X-6
477
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 06:50:35 -
[523] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, do you look at this thread anymore?
Maybe, could you give us some feedback about the requestet "Cyclone needs some more love"-thing?
Cyclone wasn't used much, checked. After rebalance, Cyclone won't be used much. Incomming check.
By design?
30 Tage EVE testen! -->> Klick mich <<--
|
widgetman
Widgetland
9
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 07:06:50 -
[524] - Quote
I do not see any changes to the Gnosis? They state that all Battlecrusiers are being buffed?
This BC is very slow compared to the others.....just my Two Penneth worth :) |
Jezza McWaffle
Isogen 5
248
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 07:44:14 -
[525] - Quote
I've looked at some of these changes now in Pyfa so I can get an idea of what is viable and what isn't. The tank on the Navy Drake (shield) and the Navy Brutix (hull) is insane, and I think the other ships need to be buffed slightly in base HP to compensate, when you can easily hit the 100K mark on the Navy Drake yet the Harb for instance lacks behind massively it feels at odd ends.
The Fleet Cane needs more PG and especially CPU in my opinion, I had trouble getting an arty fit to work that included any tank, and thats without putting anything in the 2 spare highs, and with an armour auto fit I had exactly the same problem.
The regular Harb feels like it could do with a slight PG buff (maybe by +60) to make beams viable, it can get a semi decent fit with Pulses but it doesn't feel like any difference before the buffs.
Edit: Just to add, I do think more PG and CPU buffs to all the ships would increase the viability and flexibility. Obviously some ships need more buffs than others.
EVE's worst badass
|
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
420
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 07:54:01 -
[526] - Quote
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. |
Alek Row
Silent Step
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 11:17:39 -
[527] - Quote
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.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
561
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:09:06 -
[528] - Quote
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).
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2237
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 13:24:28 -
[529] - 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 -
[530] - 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. |
|
Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
420
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 14:12:47 -
[531] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: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).
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.
In fleet fights the EHP is nice, but if you're resists aren't good the logi support isn't going to catch reps on you. Battle cruisers also have a large sig radius which makes them far more vulnerable to bombs. The cane has a 50% tracking bonus, but the muninn has 37.5% bonus so it's not like it's getting blown out of the water there. The alpha fleet doctrine has also been out of style since medium rails and sentry drones took over.
I don't know why you got into the FW farm part. Large alliances don't care if you farmed for the ship or not, they're going to pay SRP based on the difference between the hull cost and the insurance payout. For battleships this cost difference is easy to cover, for T2 and faction ships it's harder. If a titans worth of SRP goes into the field you had better believe that it better outperform what it may come up against.
If a fleet cane doctrine did come up I can guarantee that they wouldn't remain at 150m. We're talking about thousands of ships to get the doctrine up with hundreds of replacements for losses a week. I know that when the tempest fleet issue was a doctrine ship the cost went significantly up, and that was a doctrine that was held in reserve and not used much. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
249
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 16:09:36 -
[532] - Quote
patch notes are out, soo.... what can i say, another great example of using player feedback? op success? |
Alek Row
Silent Step
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 16:10:06 -
[533] - Quote
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 |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
151
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 16:42:42 -
[534] - Quote
gascanu wrote:patch notes are out, soo.... what can i say, another great example of using player feedback? op success?
I saw the patch notes and just facepalmed......lets hope nothing ends up being too strong otherwise it will be another few years before its fixed
also why is it I need fitting mods to fit beams and arty's
So Much Space
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2239
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 16:51:53 -
[535] - 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. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1743
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 17:53:26 -
[536] - Quote
Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Gramps Pljugi
Fragile Mortality
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 19:32:31 -
[537] - Quote
Feels like talking to a wall, CCP please do consider reiterating the buffs on prophecy and myrmidon, they are frontline brawlers and tanks, they engage in close range, the mwd bonus on drone speed is useless 95% of the fights that will happen.. I fly prophecy and myrm a lot and considering the other ships, their main buff is useless... While I do understand you do not want to overpower the boats please do reconsider and give them something they can actually use in a role they are most used in..
|
Alek Row
Silent Step
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.24 21:17:49 -
[538] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead.
I really don't agree that they are well-balanced. With time this may be a topic to be reviewed (or not).
The other question: mwd + arties = fitting mods mwd + railguns = still lots of powergrid to play with mwd + beams = ? In the arties case, the alpha is big, but it have lower dps, isn't that enough to keep it in check?
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1379
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 01:50:21 -
[539] - Quote
I had a chance to play around with the DNI today. It's a little light on CPU with HMLs. Needs 2x Overclocker rigs and perfect fitting skills just to fit it with 8 launchers, long point, Quad-LiF MWD, MGC, 2x hardeners, L-ASB, 3x BCS, and meta 4 DC. Leaves only 1 rigging slot available. So I put medium aux thruster I rig in to make it faster.
Fit was actually more than viable. Decent range (locking range was limited because no links available at the time. Could run the MWD pretty much continuously. Did decent damage with good application. Could tank well enough to kite for a bit then close in for the finish. (Barring any surprise hull tanks.) The enlarged drone bay was a big help in the dps department since it lacks any dps bonuses. But it heats the launchers like no tomorrow. Burned them out twice.
I was also able to 1-shot an orbitting whiptail using MGC with precision script and precision mjolnir heavies. Application on this thing is really good. And it has the option of swapping to fury ammo for bigger targets. The resist bonus is a big help for survivability. And the improved manuverability/agility allowed me to slingshot out of tackle easily.
Cap is an issue if you are running everything. But running just the MWD and hardeners is not a problem. It can MWD around for quite a while. But turn on that long point and ouch. Like most Caldari ships it is vulnerable to neuts. But you shouldn't be running into neut range with this right off the bat anyway. And you can exchange the MGC for a cap booster. But the added application from the MGC is really strong on top of the hull application bonus.
Its a pretty solid ship now if you have the skills to fit it.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Mario Putzo
1518
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 04:12:08 -
[540] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Hull tanking is well-balanced at the moment. It really only works for the all-or-nothing brawler. If it catches you with web and scram, you are probably dead. If it doesn't, then it is dead.
No its not really comparable at all to shield or armor. To hull tank you have to pretty much give up your lows and rigs. EHP bonuses from hull boosting modules are not on the same level of Shield or Armor, especially considering the Resist boosting options available to these other tanks...sure DC is nice, but it also boost Shield and Armor independent of other resist mods so...
Adding on to the fact its already providing a reduced raw HP, and reduced EHP from additional mods (while sacrificing Damage modules, or utility modules) hull repair is well below the threshold of Shield or Armor repair...and non existent in Remote Logistics Repair and it is clearly inferior to armor or shield tanking by a very very large margin in any sort of group play. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |