Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Dro Nee
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:48:00 -
[271] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:@Dro All CSM member have a banner (see left). I don't think devs post on eve-o with their *actual* accounts as it's against the rules or something.
I asked because I am fully aware of both of these statements.
It was the polite way of pointing out that someone was answering the question who is not qualified to do so.... unless ofcourse they are an alt. The same goes for Zircon and Hirana. None of these three people have any factual input that is not purely a coincident.
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:The 4th bonus is universal, as are the extra slots, and they can be tweaked and adjusted. But the MWD bonus is the only one that seems to have struck a collective nerve. It doesn't force people to use them, and it's beneficial to those who choose to
You (and others) have done a good job of giving a well reasoned defense of the MWD bonus, but you have not treated the other bonuses with such care.
You have largely been ignoring the call by a number of people in this thread to put the breaks on +slots and +bonuses (other than MWD bloom) because of the effect this has on the existing balance. The fact that you don't defend against these larger concerns leaves the impression that either you dont agree with them, agree but admit they are unreasoned (or the reasons are embarrasing), or that there is no basis for concern about balance.
Here is the problem with the last option- if you cannot defend the changes then how are players (who have concerns) not expected to see this as another example of :AWESOME:
I am trying to see why the detractors of the +slot +bonus boost are not asking valid questions.
So again... why did all AF's need an extra slot? Why did they get the slots they did? Why did ships get the specific bonuses they did? |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 21:17:00 -
[272] - Quote
It should be pretty obvious why which slots were chosen. They are miniature HACs, and their bonuses reflect that notion (as well as the slots) when appropriate.
I for one am thrilled that the Hawk has another midslot. Now it can fit a tank to match its bonuses, AND actually do its dps to small targets (rockets with no web, lol). It doesn't take much to imagine what certain ships would be like with slots in other locations. IE: A Wolf with 3 mids would be insanely similar to the Jaguar, except outperform it in every way barring speed.
In regards to the complaints about the extra slots becoming overpowered, I invite those people to hop on the test server with a Cruiser or Destroyer. You'll find that you're still very much able to kill AFs if you've got a decent fit and/or understanding of EVE.
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Dro Nee
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 21:43:00 -
[273] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote: It should be pretty obvious why which slots were chosen. They are miniature HACs, and their bonuses reflect that notion (as well as the slots) when appropriate.
I for one am thrilled that the Hawk has another midslot. Now it can fit a tank to match its bonuses, AND actually do its dps to small targets (rockets with no web, lol). It doesn't take much to imagine what certain ships would be like with slots in other locations. IE: A Wolf with 3 mids would be insanely similar to the Jaguar, except outperform it in every way barring speed.
In regards to the complaints about the extra slots becoming overpowered, I invite those people to hop on the test server with a Cruiser or Destroyer. You'll find that you're still very much able to kill AFs if you've got a decent fit and/or understanding of EVE.
Ok given
1) AF's are still easily dispatched by cruisers and dessies 2) Slots and bonuses were distributed because of HACs
Doesnt this basically mean the bonuses were not based on functionality but fitting meta-philosophy?
Or were AF's not good enough versus t1/faction/pirate frigs? |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:01:00 -
[274] - Quote
AFs were not very good against a very wide majority of ships.
On TQ they are not very good because they offer very minimal amounts of flexibility. AB fits are too slow unless you have means to land on your target, and MWD fits are suicidal. The extra slots can be looked at as something that balances the AFs within their own circle. On TQ some AFs are absolutely awful without support, and others are significantly better (ie: Ishkur vs Retribution).
The bonuses benefit the ships intended weapons platforms/slot layouts. Compared to the turret boats, missile platforms were comparatively weak against larger targets. So they got a ROF bonus. Ships with 2 mid slots get a tracking bonus & range bonus to make up for their lack of range control.
The Hawk got a 5th mid because it's the only ship that uses its mids to propel, tank, tackle, and apply damage. Its currently impossible to do that without dropping a critical function. IE: Rockets suck against frigates/drones without a web.
And to answer the inevitable question of why not just copy HACs; Making pure 1/4th scale HACs doesn't really work because the bonuses don't always translate well to the frigate level. Smaller scale PVP is quite different from that of the larger ships.
There are some standouts, but my understanding is that faction ships are supposed to offer some aspects of T2 frigs, but with some drawbacks of T1. AFs on TQ are (typically) dwarfed by faction ships. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:10:00 -
[275] - Quote
Dinta Zembo wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:The Hawk is still broken. ... it's a ship that looks awesome in theory, until you try putting modules on it and realize that nothing fits. {failfits}
So your argument is a faction setup that nobody will ever fly, and an AB setup (suicide) with a named scram (short range) and a PDU (wasted slot). Did you miss the posts about how AB frigates don't work? Try fitting a setup that doesn't suck, with a MWD and the 5th mid slot.
Just to make the point clear, here's a setup for the Hawk's cruiser equivalent. Note that it can fit everything I want with a single grid rig (using the least valuable slot), including full T2 modules (except for the MWD and neut where named is better). And of course I can swap the HAMs for HMLs and it gets easier to fit, while the Hawk is pretty much worthless with light missiles.
(Cap booster is because the MWD time is too short IMO without one, there's plenty of CPU for a web/invuln/etc.)
[Cerberus, HAM] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 200 Large Shield Extender II Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Terror Rage Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I |
Ninevite
Shiva White Noise.
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:14:00 -
[276] - Quote
Wolf is OP by far. CCP, this is not Minmatar Wins Online. Seriously, wtf are you guys doing. STOP MAKING MINMATAR SO DAMN OP |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:40:00 -
[277] - Quote
Merin, comparing the Hawk to a bad HAC is not a good example I am not having any fitting issues with the Hawk. If I want the best possible layout, I fit named mods like I do on every other ship in the game. If you're complaining about your inability to fit T2 everything, then you haven't really flown many ships :psyduck:
And the Wolf is actually pretty good. OP & Wolf don't belong in the same sentence lol CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Dinta Zembo
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:45:00 -
[278] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:*snip*
I dont see many people fly cerberusses either but that could be me.
Dual prop hawk:
Quote:[Hawk, New Setup 1] Pseudoelectron Containment Field I Ballistic Control System II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters 1MN Afterburner II Gistii B-Type Small Shield Booster J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I +X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator
Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Bay Loading Accelerator I
Perhaps navy rockets to lower the sig radius. Still sucks because it's slow even with the mwd.
Yes I know the booster is expensive.
|
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:53:00 -
[279] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:AFs were not very good against a very wide majority of ships.
On TQ they are not very good because they offer very minimal amounts of flexibility. AB fits are too slow unless you have means to land on your target, and MWD fits are suicidal. The extra slots can be looked at as something that balances the AFs within their own circle. On TQ some AFs are absolutely awful without support, and others are significantly better (ie: Ishkur vs Retribution).
The bonuses benefit the ships intended weapons platforms/slot layouts. Compared to the turret boats, missile platforms were comparatively weak against larger targets. So they got a ROF bonus. Ships with 2 mid slots get a tracking bonus & range bonus to make up for their lack of range control.
The Hawk got a 5th mid because it's the only ship that uses its mids to propel, tank, tackle, and apply damage. Its currently impossible to do that without dropping a critical function. IE: Rockets suck against frigates/drones without a web.
And to answer the inevitable question of why not just copy HACs; Making pure 1/4th scale HACs doesn't really work because the bonuses don't always translate well to the frigate level. Smaller scale PVP is quite different from that of the larger ships.
There are some standouts, but my understanding is that faction ships are supposed to offer some aspects of T2 frigs, but with some drawbacks of T1. AFs on TQ are (typically) dwarfed by faction ships.
Although you seem to be awfuly proud of that whole AF boost idea iam afraid that it is not the same Eve we are playing. As had been mentioned many times before by many AF veterans, currently theres nothing wrong with AFs balance/effeciency or anything except frequently mentioned need for 2nd med slot for Retribution. That fitting slot tossing is unjustified, balance breaking and regardless what you are saying 5 meds for Hawk are over the top. Besides rockets are actually pretty good nowdays...
You did not balanced AFs within their circle - with those changes you have just changed the AF order of usability- Hawk will be arguably the best, and Jag will go somewhere to the end of the line... Besides these changes will be upsetting the balance between AFs, Destroyers, Faction figates and Interdictors a lot. As Wensley pointed out - you will have to buff destroyers again, what sense does it make?.
If AFs meed anything its simple addition of the 4th bonus. And yes maybe that MWD sig radius reduction will help AFs in 0.0. Honestly i dont know, you are obviously more experienced with 0.0 than iam. If so i have nothing against introducing it. But pls stop telling me about ineffeciency or uselesness of AFs in low sec, because in this case iam the one more experienced... |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 22:56:00 -
[280] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Merin, comparing the Hawk to a bad HAC is not a good example
Sure it is. The Cerberus, a ship which is notorious for being difficult to fit (CCP doesn't believe that Caldari cruisers need a MWD), can fit a good T2 setup easily. Despite the fact that both of them are T2 Caldari missile ships, the Hawk has MUCH worse fitting problems and needs to make huge sacrifices just to get all of its slots filled.
Quote:I am not having any fitting issues with the Hawk. If I want the best possible layout, I fit named mods like I do on every other ship in the game. If you're complaining about your inability to fit T2 everything, then you haven't really flown many ships
Err, no. Every ship I fly has a full T2 fit (with the exception of named stuff that's better than T2), and I very rarely have to use fitting mods or make difficult sacrifices. And I've also made EFT fits for any ship I might fly, and all of them are full T2 as well. Maybe there are some bad ships which are difficult to fit, but I don't care about ships that suck so badly that nobody even attempts to fit them.
Dinta Zembo wrote:I dont see many people fly cerberusses either but that could be me.
That's because, like most HACs, the comparable tier-2 BC makes it obsolete in a lot of roles. But that has nothing to do with fitting issues.
Quote:Yes I know the booster is expensive.
Which means it's a failfit. It doesn't matter if you can fit a 60 million ISK shield booster on a 15 million ISK frigate and have enough CPU, because very few people are ever going to do that. And despite using that expensive booster, you STILL have to fit low-quality named modules. |
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:06:00 -
[281] - Quote
AFs and Faction frigates offer different advantages/disadvantages.
Destoyers/Interdictors > AFs For Interdictors, they need balancing to begin with but I can assure you that they are still very capable of shredding AFs.
As for the Hawk, I'm not sure what planet you're living on where the Hawk is ridiculous. If you want to dump billions into it tank like a monster, go right ahead. You're still not invulnerable, not by a long shot. Yes rockets are decent now, but not on the Hawk. Try putting an AB Hawk against an AB Ishkur right now on TQ and see how far you get without a web or tank. Or maybe a Daredevil or Dramiel or Worm.
Are swarms of them going to shred a single target? Yes. Are swarms of them capable of killing targets on TQ right now? Yes.
So feel free to flesh out your reasoning behind slots balancing breaking. It's one thing to say that's what will happen, and it's something else entirely to actually prove it. My experience with them on sisi is that they are just fine. They are still quite killable by BCs & Cruisers.
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:36:00 -
[282] - Quote
[Prometheus Exenthal wrote:AFs and Faction frigates offer different advantages/disadvantages.
Destoyers/Interdictors > AFs For Interdictors, they need balancing to begin with but I can assure you that they are still very capable of shredding AFs.
As for the Hawk, I'm not sure what planet you're living on where the Hawk is ridiculous. If you want to dump billions into it tank like a monster, go right ahead. You're still not invulnerable, not by a long shot. Yes rockets are decent now, but not on the Hawk. Try putting an AB Hawk against an AB Ishkur right now on TQ and see how far you get without a web or tank. Or maybe a Daredevil or Dramiel or Worm.
Are swarms of them going to shred a single target? Yes. Are swarms of them capable of killing targets on TQ right now? Yes.
So feel free to flesh out your reasoning behind slots balancing breaking. It's one thing to say that's what will happen, and it's something else entirely to actually prove it. My experience with them on sisi is that they are just fine. They are still quite killable by BCs & Cruisers.
Thats your main problem - you are judging from several fights on sisi where not many people can actully fly AF well and even if they do they didnt have much time to think through their setups.
Iam not arguing with you about blobs and i am not arguing that AFs are becoming too strong in relation to Cruisers or BCs. What I see as a problem and you are still failing to realize is 1v1 AF balancing and blasncing the AFs as a class with Destroyers and faction frigs and other smaller vessels. You keep saying that those slot additions are not balance breaking but you have never explained why do you think they are nessesary at the first place (other than rocket are crap, and therefore Hawk needs 5th mid slot - statement iam stronghly disagree with)
Please keep in mind that tactics and fitting used in 0.0 and low-sec are quite different and 2double web hawk might not seem to be viable for 0.0 but its simply perfect choice against all AFs in 1v1 combat in low-sec(excluding the Wolf probably). Moreover iam not sure if any destroyer will be able to kill a boosted wolf, and on the other hand iam quite sure pasiive/active hawk is able to kill an iskhur nowadays.
But iam not interested in discussing what ship can or cannot kill what - iam saying that theres NO REASON for opening this can of worms (putting AF slots back and forth) |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 23:54:00 -
[283] - Quote
I'll be completely honest and say that I never suggested adding more slots, but now they are here and they aren't broken.
Yes, judging everything off sisi is not the best method. Yes, a large number of people there can't tell their face from their ass. The solution there is to get people testing the ships. TRY and break them. That's the whole point of testing. There's no reason complaining about the quality of testers when the so-called pros are just talking smack from the sidelines without pitching in.
In regard to rockets again, I never said they are crap. On TQ, the vengeance is the better ship not because of it's tank, but because you can apply your tank and dps without sacrifice. The Hawk cannot. And as for dual webs and such, yes there are some niche fits that work in particular situations. But you can't base that type of reasoning for blasting the extra slot. A huge number of ships can destroy that, including the new AFs.
Some fits won't be ideal anymore, so new ones will be made and some will be better than others. That's the way it goes.
edit: double web talos hurts like a ***** CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
seller1122
Viral Target
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 00:30:00 -
[284] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Yes, judging everything off sisi is not the best method. Yes, a large number of people there can't tell their face from their ass.
You realise a large number of the pilots who are actually supporting your ideas are the ones who are testing them on sisi >.<
So congrats at insulting a fair chunk of the people supporting you (myself included) .... |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 00:48:00 -
[285] - Quote
It's a double-edged sword. I'm not saying everyone is bad, but you have to work with the assumption.
If a monkey can slap together a ship and be nigh-immune to half the battlefield, then there is a problem (AB bonus). That problem has yet to rear its head on sisi, even with all the changes. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Kalaratiri
Teraa Matar
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 01:17:00 -
[286] - Quote
I'd just like to say, to the people trying to fit t2 scrams on everything, the j5b uses far less cpu for about 500m or so range. The tradeoff is both practical, and common. t2 =/= always better. Sometimes you have to drop a few hundred metres to make a fit work |
Plutonian
Intransigent
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 04:13:00 -
[287] - Quote
seller1122 wrote:So congrats at insulting a fair chunk of the people supporting you (myself included) .... Dude... are you surprised? He's insulted just about everyone here throughout the entire thread.
When I read his posts I hear them in Eric Cartman's voice in my head.
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 04:21:00 -
[288] - Quote
It's not personal or anything, I'm just telling it how it is It's mass testing, nobody is a special snowflake. Things either do or don't work. And on sisi, AFs work. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
PinkKnife
Garden Of The Gods Divinity.
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 06:09:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Hello
Vengance
* Added bonus: -5% bonus to Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level
Small but important part.
You can't, CAN NOT, have a negative bonus. A 5% bonus to rate of fire is a 5% reduction in cycle time. A -5% bonus, is a penalty. So, effectively you're saying a 5% penalty per level to launcher rate of fire.
CCP, please train English to V. |
Plutonian
Intransigent
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 07:42:00 -
[290] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:It's not personal or anything, I'm just telling it how it is It's mass testing, nobody is a special snowflake. Things either do or don't work. And on sisi, AFs work.
Relax. Just having some fun.
And you're quite wrong... I am a very special little snowflake. My mommie told me so... so I know it has to be true.
ITT: Empire, Lowsec, and Nullsec are forced to share ships but find they can't get along. |
|
Anna Liebert
Thunder Mercenary Army Stainwagon.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 11:06:00 -
[291] - Quote
25% bonus to AF is enough. In fact, all AF add 25% sounds good. |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 12:48:00 -
[292] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:AFs and Faction frigates offer different advantages/disadvantages.
Destoyers/Interdictors > AFs For Interdictors, they need balancing to begin with but I can assure you that they are still very capable of shredding AFs.
As for the Hawk, I'm not sure what planet you're living on where the Hawk is ridiculous. If you want to dump billions into it tank like a monster, go right ahead. You're still not invulnerable, not by a long shot. Yes rockets are decent now, but not on the Hawk. Try putting an AB Hawk against an AB Ishkur right now on TQ and see how far you get without a web or tank. Or maybe a Daredevil or Dramiel or Worm.
Are swarms of them going to shred a single target? Yes. Are swarms of them capable of killing targets on TQ right now? Yes.
So feel free to flesh out your reasoning behind slots balancing breaking. It's one thing to say that's what will happen, and it's something else entirely to actually prove it. My experience with them on sisi is that they are just fine. They are still quite killable by BCs & Cruisers.
A Flycatcher can kill these new AF? A Heretic? A Slicer?
Im sure larger class ships can still kill AF - im worrying about killing them in anything smaller than a cruiser. |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe R.E.P.O.
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 14:07:00 -
[293] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:
A Flycatcher can kill these new AF? A Heretic? A Slicer?
Im sure larger class ships can still kill AF - im worrying about killing them in anything smaller than a cruiser.
By Interdictor he meant Sabre, as thats the only one that puts out any reasonable amount of damage. |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 18:39:00 -
[294] - Quote
Flycatcher can, but it's a bit shoddy because of the Kinetic only. Sabre works, obviously. Eris works, but depends on the fit Heretic works pretty well because it's basically a Vengeance with MOAR ROCKETS.
My Slicers don't have too much trouble taking care of the non-Minmatar CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Plutonian
Intransigent
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 19:19:00 -
[295] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:As for the Hawk, I'm not sure what planet you're living on where the Hawk is ridiculous.
I, too, look forward to flying the new mini-Blackbird/assault Keres.
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 19:29:00 -
[296] - Quote
I don't know what you're going to disrupt with 1-2 unbonused damps/jammers, but I'd feel bad for the first person to do it who gets shredded by a Rifter. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
258
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 19:30:00 -
[297] - Quote
The Role Bonus to MWD is very poor.
It's usage for MWDs would only be used a minority of the time, not really a "defining element" or a ROLE Bonus.
The Role Bonus would be used to burn in really quickly to get the MWD turned off. Also, it piggy backs on the INTERCEPTOR bonus which is already being used MORE EFFECTIVELY than an AF bonus.
Assault Frigates shouldn't be "more interceptors" which is all this bonus will do. This bonus will only promote longer sniper fit Assault Frigate fits, rather than the close range support roles that they are currently the best at doing. Also, they are NEVER going to be as effective as Snipers across the board as ANY OTHER larger ship, including the Heavy Kiters such as the Vagabond - which IRONICALLY are the ONLY SHIPS this bonus really helps with, by being able to MWD into heavy kiter range more effectively to gain tackle, these ships are the only ships that would be effective against those kiters, again - a minority usage scenario.
The MWD Bonus is totally ineffectual as a ROLE BONUS. It doesn't DEFINE the role of an Assault Frigate anymore than any other ship. Unless of course you expect them to all become 20+km snipers (which other ships will and can do better in general)
THE MOST Dangerous Thing to an Assault Frigate are Neutralizers. Across the board, it doesn't matter what ship you're up against, the Neutralizer will disable an Assault Frigate IMMEDIATELY. So it doesn't matter if you can MWD or not - you're going to get it disabled because most ships fit neutralizers just to kill small ships easily!
I don't care what you think the Role Bonus will successfully accomplish - when you have 50 ships in Null Sec trying to shoot at you with a 50% bloom reduction, you are DEAD. Only interceptors with their speed and superior MWD bloom reduction have a CHANCE (chance) of even making it there in time. Not to mention, any competent FC who has an assault frigate squad would never tell them "MWD those 40km to get there".
You'd send your INTERCEPTOR over (which is faster) to get into warp in position, then warp in your AF fleet into close range. Alternately - you'd use Combat Scanner Probes.
This bonus does not help define AFs.
I recommend a resistance to Webifier effectiveness, a resistance to Neutralizers - a general reduction to signature radius, regardless of MWD or not. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Plutonian
Intransigent
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 19:46:00 -
[298] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:I don't know what you're going to disrupt with 1-2 unbonused damps/jammers, but I'd feel bad for the first person to do it who gets shredded by a Rifter.
Dude... took on a Merlin and never got a lock during the entire fight. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=14864691
(Can we post our own killmails? Guess CCP will pull it if not...)
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 19:59:00 -
[299] - Quote
That's more of an ECM issue than a "lolol this ship is so strong" type of thing. You're going to have a hard time chewing through AFs fast enough. You're really just making it easier for yourself to gank T1 frigates, which isn't a really a big deal when they already do that CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
Plutonian
Intransigent
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 20:07:00 -
[300] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:That's more of an ECM issue than a "lolol this ship is so strong" type of thing. You're going to have a hard time chewing through AFs fast enough. You're really just making it easier for yourself to gank T1 frigates, which isn't a really a big deal when they already do that
Point I'm attempting to make is that any midslot added over the magic number three on a frigate becomes a force multiplier. They should be added with caution.
And the fact that there exists an 'ECM issue' is not being debated. However, while this issue exists, the new Hawk is affected by it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |