EVE Search - Sansha ship line-up brought up to par with pirate faction frigates

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Sansha ship line-up brought up to par with pirate faction frigates

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Reply to Topic \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 282	Posted - 2012.01.16 23:51:00 - [1] - Quote tl;dr: Buff the damage and capacitor use of lasers on Sansha ships to levels acceptable out of pirate faction ships and so they are worth flying at all. Also I hate Kahega Amielden. Inspired by this thread. Edit: This was supposed to be a link to the other thread. CCP, please fix your forum to allow at links to different topics in the [url] tags at least. Geez. Edit again: Apparently plain URLs work, so have one: http://goo.gl/3mKew The Sansha ships (Succubus, Phantasm, and Nightmare) have been the runt of the litter in pirate faction ships. Each pirate ship lineup has a special quirk that makes it worth flying over T2 ships of its caliber: Angel - insanely fast and agile (the Machariel aligns 0.3 seconds faster than a Punisher with a 400mm plate!), good tracking and flexible falloff Serpentis - very fast, very agile, do all of the damage ever, plus 90% slowdown webs Blood Raider - decently tanky, 90% slowdown webs (except Bhaal, which has web range bonus), and great capacitor draining Guristas - insanely tanky (Drake taken to the max), and all of the drones ever granting wonderful versatility Sansha - better tracking and damage than equivalent laserboats, plus better speed/agility because of the shield tank. However, while the tracking of the lasers is beautiful, it is still a bit slower tracking than autocannons of the same size. That in and of itself is not the problem, because lasers have awesome range, but these lasers really don't do enough damage compared to T2 or empire faction ships of their own size (e.g. Phantasm = 534 DPS, Harbinger = 620 DPS, Zealot = 509 DPS, Omen Navy Issue = 512 DPS). Their tank is mediocre (Phantasm is outdone by ONI), and their speed/agility are not sufficient for kiting (Succubus and Phantasm). They also all have capacitor issues. They are sort of... poor excuses for pirate faction damage boats. As such, I am proposing a series of damage buffs. By ship, they are: Succubus Right now, the Succubus functions as a sub-par AF. It has comparable damage to AFs, but way less tank. Since it can't rely on special shiny bonuses abilities to support it like the other pirate faction frigates do, it will badly need a buff once the AF changes hit TQ. +1 turret hardpoint. Number of high slots remains the same. Remove 5% damage bonus per level of Caldari Frigate Add bonus: "Caldari Frigate: 15% bonus to Small Energy Turret capacitor usage per level" This creates a net 20% buff in damage at max skills (229 dps to 251 dps with two MPLs and two Heat Sinks). The cap bonus functions as a "special ability" of sorts, making Sansha ships "laser ships using little cap", a sweet spot they were already aiming for by having fewer turrets with a blanket damage bonus. This same bonus is present in the buffs of the Phantasm and Nightmare as well. Phantasm The Phantasm (as stated previously) functions as a poorly built short range HAC. Its tank is "ok" and its speed/agility is decent, and its damage is decent... but not excellent. Plus, I hear frequent complaints about its cap. That should be a non-issue for a ship with only 3 lasers! It has mediocre tank (outdone by ONI), decent speed/agility (but high sig radius), and mediocre damage. The latter should not be the case for a ship meant to be a laser damageboat. +1 turret hardpoint. Number of high slots remains the same. Remove 5% damage bonus per level of Caldari Cruiser Add bonus: "Caldari Cruiser: 15% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor usage per level" Change special ability to: "Special Ability: 150% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage" This creates a net 33% increase in damage. This would take the Phantasm from a crappy 534 DPS damage (with drones) to a commendable and worth-flying 696 DPS (793 overheated!). Now that's a ship I'd pay 120 mil to fly instead of a Harbinger or an ONI. Nightmare As is right now, the Nightmare is utterly unacceptable. It does damage similar to an Abaddon, and tanks way less. While the tank is excusable because the Abaddon is an uber-brick, the damage is simply not acceptable, and does not make the Nightmare worth flying at all. +1 turret hardpoint. Number of high slots remains the same. Remove 5% damage bonus per level of Caldari Battleship Add bonus: "Caldari Battleship: 15% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor usage per level" Change special ability to: "Special Ability: 250% bonus to Large Energy Turret damage" This creates a 75% increase in laser damage output. It means bringing a Nightmare that does 1126 DPS (with drones) to 1581 DPS. This may seem like a lot, but consider its damage output is the only thing the Nightmare has going for it. The Bhaalgorn caps out carriers and webs everything down, the Machariel is a giant Vagabond, the Vindicator does even more damage than this while webbing everything down, and the Rattlesnake is the king of PvE and has obnoxious tank even in PvP. The Nightmare needs a "niche" and being the king of lasers is quite a nice niche. Plus... you know... it costs upwards of a billion ISK. You get what you pay for. Thoughts? I will edit OP as needed based on discussion.
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings 79	Posted - 2012.01.16 23:56:00 - [2] - Quote A change to Sansha ships is common sense. They're just awful at the moment, especially the nightmare. The main thing is I don't think they generally go far enough. 1581 DPS isn't all that impressive when a Vindicator tanks harder and does way more damage, and has 90% webs...though I guess making the nightmare a damageboat would make it megapopular missionboat.
Iris Bravemount Airkio Mining Corp Bloodbound. 10	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:11:00 - [3] - Quote I like your ideas. Faction ships are damn expenisve, so they deserve a bit of oompf! Another approach would be to try to tweak their price a bit, but this would be much more complicated. Plus, my general policy is to promote buffs of what is underpowered rather than nerfs to what is overpowered. Avoids a lot of whining. However, here is another path to think about: How about giving Sansha ships jumpdrive equivalent artificial wormhole generators ? This would match the Incursion storyline and give them something really unique. This could either be a mere visual difference with jumpdrives, or even function without cyno field to lock on to. They could lock on stars and/or planets.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 282	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:16:00 - [4] - Quote Well... that doesn't entirely make lore sense. Being able to retrofit Sansha ships with wormhole generators implies we understand how their wormhole tech works, and we do not (or we'd be able to counter it and stop them permanently). Plus, the individual Sansha ships don't have wormhole generators themselves, but rather have some sort of "home ship" on the other side of the wormhole creating and maintaining it (Sansha titan?). In a balance sense, that would also be overpowered as hell. It's hard enough to keep a fleet from hotdropping you when they require a cyno, and this would just be hell for any 0.0 carebear.
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings 79	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:16:00 - [5] - Quote Quote: Plus, my general policy is to promote buffs of what is underpowered rather than nerfs to what is overpowered. Avoids a lot of whining. So? Why the hell should a few forum whiners determine game balance?
Goose99 679	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:18:00 - [6] - Quote Instead of that, nerf Angel down to Sansha levels.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 282	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:21:00 - [7] - Quote Goose99 wrote: Instead of that, nerf Angel down to Sansha levels. I, too, think that limited edition faction ships should just all be awful. Every single one.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Nation 593	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:24:00 - [8] - Quote I think the boost would be a lot more exciting with 20% cap reduction per level. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings 80	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:25:00 - [9] - Quote Cooler suggestion: Spikey ships should cause damage upon bumping. Add additional spikes and perhaps a per-battleship-level spike damage bonus to the nightmare. Problem solved.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 282	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:29:00 - [10] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: I think the boost would be a lot more exciting with 20% cap reduction per level. -Liang I think so too, but... From the other thread: Quote: Reduced the cap bonus to 15% rather than 20% because from what I know of CCP systems, capfree lasers would cause the buttons in station to appear upside down, and the overview to turn pink when you are being sensor disrupted. Or I'm just trying to avoid the "OMGWTF LASERS SHOULDNT BE IMMUNE TO NEUTING RAWRAWR". Kahega Amielden wrote: Cooler suggestion: Spikey ships should cause damage upon bumping. Add additional spikes and perhaps a per-battleship-level spike damage bonus to the nightmare. Problem solved. So what do obviously and exceedingly phallic ships like Thorax cause? Causing aggro to the faster-moving ship upon bumping would give an interesting new way to suicide gank people in hisec: bump them into gates/stations/etc and let Concord do the work!

Kahega Amielden Rifterlings 80	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:35:00 - [11] - Quote Quote: So what do obviously and exceedingly phallic ships like Thorax cause? The tip of the thorax is more rounded, can't imagine that actually causing pain. Maybe bumping something with a thorax at >1000 m/s causes them to lose all target locks due to a lapse in concentration from intense pleasure?
Iris Bravemount Airkio Mining Corp Bloodbound. 10	Posted - 2012.01.17 00:59:00 - [12] - Quote Petrus Blackshell wrote: Well... that doesn't entirely make lore sense. Being able to retrofit Sansha ships with wormhole generators implies we understand how their wormhole tech works, and we do not (or we'd be able to counter it and stop them permanently). Plus, the individual Sansha ships don't have wormhole generators themselves, but rather have some sort of "home ship" on the other side of the wormhole creating and maintaining it (Sansha titan?). In a balance sense, that would also be overpowered as hell. It's hard enough to keep a fleet from hotdropping you when they require a cyno, and this would just be hell for any 0.0 carebear. I didn't give this alot of thought, and I knew the background, but here is a walkaround : - Pod pilot gets Sansha ship. - Sees strange button with "wormhole" written on it. - Pushes button and travels a few systems far away. - " WTF just happened ? No clue, but it works ! " While actually the ships systems contacted the mothership via subspace and was remotely transported by the mothership. Not much to understand on the pod pilot side, bar a subspace emitter and maybe a few Sansha encryption codes. Just like the average EvE player doesn't need to (and can't) understand the workings of the server, but can still use the client. You could even say that Sansha is aware of this and allows it, hoping to enlist the capsuleer by luring him into trusting Sansha technology. Now to the gameplay aspect. First of all, WHs can spawn in 0.0 carebear's system and lead to invasion in pretty much the same unforeseen way. You could ad a recovery time of a minute or a bit less during which the freshly arrived Sansha ship remains incapacitated (and cloaked) to give 0.0 carebear some time to get away. Plus, fleets composed only of Sansha faction ships have very limited tactical possibilities and probably can be handled by the locals. Now, if this is too extreme (and I agree that it is extreme, not to say wormhole x-treme), you could also give Sansha ship something that makes them more suited to WH life and/or navigation than other faction ships. Reminder : I also like your original purposal. I merely try to inspire alternatives.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Nation 594	Posted - 2012.01.17 04:35:00 - [13] - Quote Iris Bravemount wrote: Now, if this is too extreme (and I agree that it is extreme, not to say wormhole x-treme), you could also give Sansha ship something that makes them more suited to WH life and/or navigation than other faction ships. Reminder : I also like your original purposal. I merely try to inspire alternatives. You know what would make the Sansha ships awesome at WH usage? Capless lasers. No, seriously, hear me out: - Sansha ships already have utility highs for core probe launcher + cloak/neut - WH rats neut like crazy. This is very bad for the cap guzzling sansha ships... not even being able to fire your guns because you're neuted out is just not ok. - WH space is actually pretty passable for the small gang combat where active tanks are best. Unfortunately, Sansha ships don't have the capacitor to power them..... because of the guns. Capless guns would go a long ways towards making Sansha ships actually pretty decent for WH space. +1 turret (choose between neut/cloak/probe launcher) and capless lasers would just make them awesome. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 510	Posted - 2012.01.17 04:41:00 - [14] - Quote That actually sounds nice Liang.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 282	Posted - 2012.01.17 05:02:00 - [15] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Iris Bravemount wrote: Now, if this is too extreme (and I agree that it is extreme, not to say wormhole x-treme), you could also give Sansha ship something that makes them more suited to WH life and/or navigation than other faction ships. Reminder : I also like your original purposal. I merely try to inspire alternatives. You know what would make the Sansha ships awesome at WH usage? Capless lasers. No, seriously, hear me out: - Sansha ships already have utility highs for core probe launcher + cloak/neut - WH rats neut like crazy. This is very bad for the cap guzzling sansha ships... not even being able to fire your guns because you're neuted out is just not ok. - WH space is actually pretty passable for the small gang combat where active tanks are best. Unfortunately, Sansha ships don't have the capacitor to power them..... because of the guns. Capless guns would go a long ways towards making Sansha ships actually pretty decent for WH space. +1 turret (choose between neut/cloak/probe launcher) and capless lasers would just make them awesome. -Liang It does sound nice, but it just feels wrong for lasers to not have at least a token amount of cap usage.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Nation 595	Posted - 2012.01.17 06:08:00 - [16] - Quote It would feel wrong for Amarr, I agree. This isn't Amarr. :D -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Iris Bravemount Airkio Mining Corp Bloodbound. 14	Posted - 2012.01.17 08:04:00 - [17] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Iris Bravemount wrote: Now, if this is too extreme (and I agree that it is extreme, not to say wormhole x-treme), you could also give Sansha ship something that makes them more suited to WH life and/or navigation than other faction ships. Reminder : I also like your original purposal. I merely try to inspire alternatives. You know what would make the Sansha ships awesome at WH usage? Capless lasers. No, seriously, hear me out: - Sansha ships already have utility highs for core probe launcher + cloak/neut - WH rats neut like crazy. This is very bad for the cap guzzling sansha ships... not even being able to fire your guns because you're neuted out is just not ok. - WH space is actually pretty passable for the small gang combat where active tanks are best. Unfortunately, Sansha ships don't have the capacitor to power them..... because of the guns. Capless guns would go a long ways towards making Sansha ships actually pretty decent for WH space. +1 turret (choose between neut/cloak/probe launcher) and capless lasers would just make them awesome. -Liang See, this is where my lack of WH experience fades in. But this seems reasonable. Machariels get insane agility and speed on top of their 80km-ish falloff on ACs. To me this doesn't sound more or less crazy than cap-free lasers. I am in favor of this.
Mr Floydy The Xenodus Initiative. 10	Posted - 2012.01.17 13:32:00 - [18] - Quote Would be nice to see them get some boosts to make them used in PvP a little more. At the moment the Nightmare gets used for Incursions/Missions/Wormholes and that's about it from what I've seen! I'd like to see a speed boost on the Phantasm in additon to any damage. A Big cap usage bonus (not the normal 10%) would be quite interesting on the ships, although I would prefer more base cap/recharge and maybe a better than 100% overall damage bonus?
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 283	Posted - 2012.01.17 14:53:00 - [19] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: Would be nice to see them get some boosts to make them used in PvP a little more. At the moment the Nightmare gets used for Incursions/Missions/Wormholes and that's about it from what I've seen! I'd like to see a speed boost on the Phantasm in additon to any damage. A Big cap usage bonus (not the normal 10%) would be quite interesting on the ships, although I would prefer more base cap/recharge and maybe a better than 100% overall damage bonus? The Phantasm already goes over 1500 m/s with a MWD, and it is shield tanked so won't lose that speed. It's speedier than both the Caldari and the Amarr cruisers it's based on, so I'm fine with it. Yes, it is slower than the Gila, Vigilant, and most importantly, the Cynabal, but they don't have quite as excellent damage projection as the Phantasm does (or that it would given the changes outlined here). The issue with Phantasm appearing "slow" is the class most likely to challenge it -- battlecruisers -- having a few absurdly fast entries, such as nano-cane, nano-drake, shield Brutix, etc. Those ships are far heavier but can reach higher speeds somehow, causing an imbalance that renders cruisers overall a bit outgunned. The solution to that would be to nerf nano battlecruisers, not to buff cruiser speeds. Nobody has had any egregious complaints about making the guns capless at max skills, and there has been plenty of positive feedback on that so I will change the OP to reflect that.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 283	Posted - 2012.01.17 15:12:00 - [20] - Quote A note on how I tried to balance damage: apart from using DPS figures to compare ships, I tried to use "effective turret count" to calculate how much damage ships are doing relative to each other. For example, a 4-turret ship receiving a 25% damage bonus (from a 5% per level skill maybe) is doing an effective 5 turrets of damage (4 * 1.25 = 5). Some comparisons with other faction frigates: Old Succubus = 5 effective turrets (2 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus, plus 25% multiplicative damage bonus on top of that) Cruor = 4 effective turrets (2 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus) Dramiel = 4 effective turrets (2 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus) Daredevil = 6 effective turrets (2 turrets, plus 200% damage bonus) New Succubus = 6 effective turrets (3 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus) Old Phantasm = 7.5 effective turrets (3 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus, plus 25% multiplicative damage bonus on top of that) Ashimmu = 6 effective turrets (3 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus) Cynabal = 7.5 effective turrets (4 turrets, plus 10% per level damage bonus, plus 25% RoF bonus) Vigilant = 8.75 effective turrets (5 turrets, plus 75% damage bonus) New Phantasm = 10 effective turrets (4 turrets, plus 150% damage bonus) Old Nightmare = 10 effective turrets (4 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus, plus 25% multiplicative damage bonus on top of that) Bhaalgorn = 8 effective turrets (4 turrets, plus 100% damage bonus) Machariel = ~11 effective turrets (7 turrets, plus 5% per level damage bonus, plus 25% RoF bonus = 10.9375) Vindicator = 11 effective turrets (8 turrets, plus 37.5% damage bonus) New Nightmare = 12.5 effective turrets (5 turrets, plus 250% damage bonus) Consider in all these cases that the Sansha ships always have few low slots to use for damage mods, and they are overall easier to counter due to tracking disruption still being able to break their range/tracking very easily. The changes puts them just under Serpentis level DPS, but at the somewhat longer range and poorer tracking of lasers.

Daneel Trevize The Scope Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2012.01.17 15:17:00 - [21] - Quote Petrus Blackshell wrote: The Phantasm already goes ... 1500 m/s with a MWD, and it is shield tanked so won't lose that speed. It's speedier than both the Caldari and the Amarr cruisers it's based on,.. Yes, it is slower than the Gila, Vigilant, and most importantly, the Cynabal, but they don't have quite as excellent damage projection as the Phantasm...would given the changes outlined here. The issue with Phantasm appearing "slow" is the class most likely to challenge it -- battlecruisers -- having a few absurdly fast entries, such as nano-cane, nano-drake, shield Brutix, etc. Those ships are far heavier but can reach higher speeds somehow, causing an imbalance that renders cruisers overall a bit outgunned. The solution to that would be to nerf nano battlecruisers, not to buff cruiser speeds Made your post more accurate, Cynabal speed & dps projection is huge. The new Tier3 BCs compound this speed issue even more, they have comparable tanks to the Phantasm but far more speed, range, dps and even agility in their shield+nano fits. Regular BCs of a similer style are also significantly more tanked than a Phantasm for the same speed, proposed dps, cap dependance. And again, they're all insurable. Make them all slower, relative to how OP they are atm, give T1 cruisers (and some battleships) some room to breath.
Fidelium Mortis Quantum Cats Syndicate 26	Posted - 2012.01.17 15:51:00 - [22] - Quote The biggest issue I have with the sansha ships is the lack of speed/agility, or atleast the lack of a slot layout to for speed modules without significantly decreasing the effectiveness of the ship. The cap and damage is an annoyance but is manageable at this point. It's frustrating since these ships are so close to being a viable alternative in PvP. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 283	Posted - 2012.01.17 16:39:00 - [23] - Quote Daneel Trevize wrote: Petrus Blackshell wrote: The Phantasm already goes ... 1500 m/s with a MWD, and it is shield tanked so won't lose that speed. It's speedier than both the Caldari and the Amarr cruisers it's based on,.. Yes, it is slower than the Gila, Vigilant, and most importantly, the Cynabal, but they don't have quite as excellent damage projection as the Phantasm...would given the changes outlined here. The issue with Phantasm appearing "slow" is the class most likely to challenge it -- battlecruisers -- having a few absurdly fast entries, such as nano-cane, nano-drake, shield Brutix, etc. Those ships are far heavier but can reach higher speeds somehow, causing an imbalance that renders cruisers overall a bit outgunned. The solution to that would be to nerf nano battlecruisers, not to buff cruiser speeds Made your post more accurate, Cynabal speed & dps projection is huge. The new Tier3 BCs compound this speed issue even more, they have comparable tanks to the Phantasm but far more speed, range, dps and even agility in their shield+nano fits. Regular BCs of a similer style are also significantly more tanked than a Phantasm for the same speed, proposed dps, cap dependance. And again, they're all insurable. Make them all slower, relative to how OP they are atm, give T1 cruisers (and some battleships) some room to breath. There's a different thread in which a friend of mine is championing the "nerf BCs" cause. You might want to check in there: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=57701
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 283	Posted - 2012.01.17 16:45:00 - [24] - Quote Fidelium Mortis wrote: The biggest issue I have with the sansha ships is the lack of speed/agility, or atleast the lack of a slot layout to for speed modules without significantly decreasing the effectiveness of the ship. The cap and damage is an annoyance but is manageable at this point. It's frustrating since these ships are so close to being a viable alternative in PvP. Laser ships only really need the speed/agility to keep range, or to keep transversal low. The Phantasm would never hit anything if it were to orbit at 20 km going 2 km/s. However, if it and an autocannon ship, both dealing 700 DPS "on paper" (EFT) were to shoot each other from 7 km away, the Phantasm would win out in damage due to its much higher optimal range. This is where the Harbinger excels, and if a Harbinger manages to get its double webs on any nano Hurricane, the Hurricane is guaranteed to die in a fire. The Phantasm can play a similar role, and can catch a Hurricane even more easily, as it moves 500-600 m/s faster than a plated Harbinger, and has better shield resists against the Hurricane's Barrage.
Fidelium Mortis Quantum Cats Syndicate 26	Posted - 2012.01.17 19:29:00 - [25] - Quote The bigger danger for the phantasm is the standard nano cane fitted with EMP. It has roughly the same speed and agility while sporting better dps and a bigger tank. Unfortunately, the 3 low slots makes it pretty difficult to fit a nano without seriously impacting performance. Honestly the nano zealot does the job quite a bit better than the phantasm since it can hit close to 2000 m/s before heat and hits out to 45km. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 289	Posted - 2012.01.17 19:40:00 - [26] - Quote Fidelium Mortis wrote: The bigger danger for the phantasm is the standard nano cane fitted with EMP. It has roughly the same speed and agility while sporting better dps and a bigger tank. Unfortunately, the 3 low slots makes it pretty difficult to fit a nano without seriously impacting performance. Honestly the nano zealot does the job quite a bit better than the phantasm since it can hit close to 2000 m/s before heat and hits out to 45km. And can't tank worth a crap, and has no frigate countermeasure, and poorer tracking at that. The Zealot and Phantasm don't serve the same role at all. The Hurricane problem will hopefully be solved, as the just released CSM Summit Minutes hint at fast battlecruisers getting the nerfbat pointed at their speed and agility so battlecruisers "are generally slower than cruisers". Just that part of the minutes made my day.
Averyia 6	Posted - 2012.01.17 20:59:00 - [27] - Quote so... guristas are balanced? I'm still wondering why a rattlesnake is closer to faction navy ships than other pirates ships in jita.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 291	Posted - 2012.01.17 21:07:00 - [28] - Quote Averyia wrote: so... guristas are balanced? I'm still wondering why a rattlesnake is closer to faction navy ships than other pirates ships in jita. Because Guristas ships don't get missile damage bonuses, and ships in general can only field a max of 5 drones. There's not much in the way of drone damage you can do to the Rattlesnake to make it have the damage of other pirate faction ships. However, outfitted with sentry drones and cruise missiles, the Rattlesnake can have a passive tank of somewhere in the vicinity of 1400 DPS and a buffer of 150k EHP without even using any faction/deadspace mods. Rattlesnake as is is not viable in PvP because of the limitations of drones, but it is the ultimate PvE ship. In that way, it is balanced. So far as its price, I have no idea why it is so low at how popular it is. Maybe people run a lot of Gurista missions? Edit: Also yes, Guristas are balanced. The Worm is an amazingly tanky frigate (more than most AFs) with amazing speed/agility, plus a bit of missile DPS. Its DPS is not spectacular, but it can take on a lot of things because of the versatility that the combination of missiles/speed/drones give it. It's like a super-Ishkur with a bit less damage. The Gila is a cruiser with a mega-Drake tank, faster and more agile than a Drake, and fielding a ton more damage because it can use a whole flight of heavy drones. It also has a bigger drone bay than a Dominix does. Completely worth the price. However, this is not a thread about Guristas, but about Sansha ships. Get your own thread to talk about the 'Snake, and I might even reply to it!
Xandralkus Morior Invictus. Velocitas Eradico 4	Posted - 2012.01.18 08:05:00 - [29] - Quote Iris Bravemount wrote: How about giving Sansha ships jumpdrive equivalent artificial wormhole generators ? This would match the Incursion storyline and give them something really unique. This could either be a mere visual difference with jumpdrives, or even function without cyno field to lock on to. They could lock on stars and/or planets. Oh wow! Yes please! Better yet, do only minor buffs to bring Sansha ships in line with normal pirate faction ships. Then, make the ship progression look like this: Tech 1 Tech 2 Navy Faction Pirate Faction (including current Sansha) Tech 3 Sansha Advanced (Tech 4?) The cynoless wormhole jumper Sansha ships with capless lasers, extra turrets, and massive DPS would come after the tech 3 ships. 15-20 billion ISK sounds about right. Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons.
Mars Theran EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance 66	Posted - 2012.01.18 08:26:00 - [30] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: It would feel wrong for Amarr, I agree. This isn't Amarr. :D -Liang ..but they're still lasers. Nightmare will function in a C6 wormhole just fine; provided it is not somewhere it will not suffer penalties to Capacitor and/or shields. Neuting is easily handled by having either very good Cap regen or allies with logistics. Mostly, it's good Cap, and you have to fit for it; which means compromising some dps.


	Reply to Topic
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.