Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 17:30:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
If you look at those times again you'll see the opposing gang can warp with time periods of 5, 5, 7 compared to 5, 2, 5 so there's more chance of the other gang leaving at the correct time period.
But its not in their best interest to do so, its in their best interest to attempt to get the other gang to stay as long as possible since that extends their advantage farther.
A lack of homogeneity hurts all gangs, its not an uncommon situation.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Jet Collins
Dynamic Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 18:13:00 -
[332]
As most have stated large artilary lost there appeal when ships got the HP bost. The only thing artilary every had going for them was Alpha and with ships have more HP there is little use in Alpha. It would be nice if clips where enlarged on Artilaries.
On a side note I got a new record with my 720's over 1400 damage Dynamic Endeavors is now Recuiting.!!
Contact me in game for deatails about the corp. Mostly a PvE corp, with Jump clones avaiale in Empire and 0.0. |
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 18:19:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 08/04/2008 18:19:36
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
If you look at those times again you'll see the opposing gang can warp with time periods of 5, 5, 7 compared to 5, 2, 5 so there's more chance of the other gang leaving at the correct time period.
But its not in their best interest to do so, its in their best interest to attempt to get the other gang to stay as long as possible since that extends their advantage farther.
A lack of homogeneity hurts all gangs, its not an uncommon situation.
It is not in their best interest because your tactic simply does not work. If it DID work, on the other hand, laser boats would be better than artillery boats doing the EXACT same tactic, though. That alone shows how unbalanced things are.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 18:23:00 -
[334]
No, its not in their best interest because the longer that combat lasts past that last advantage the more the DPS ships win.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 18:29:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 08/04/2008 18:29:27
Originally by: Goumindong No, its not in their best interest because the longer that combat lasts past that last advantage the more the DPS ships win.
Exactly. That much is obvious. If both stay for any reasonable amount of time shooting in each other, which WILL happen, the dps ships will easily will.
But if it was possible to hit and run successfully with minie, as you pretend it is, and which IS NOT, the laser boats could just do the same, to their advantage. The window of opportunity to get out on the top being always bigger and easier to pull off for the dps ships.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 18:44:00 -
[336]
Could try, but its a bad idea because the intervals of advantage are in bad spots for it to work.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 19:20:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Goumindong Could try, but its a bad idea because the intervals of advantage are in bad spots for it to work.
Lol. Better spots than they are for the poor artillery ships.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Everyone Dies
Lucky Tampon
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 20:30:00 -
[338]
ITT Goum > Liang
Artillery is fine, it doesn't need a boost. It's the only gun that doesn't need cap to fire for chrissake. If anything tachyons need their fitting and cap consumption lowered.
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention Reavers.
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 20:36:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Everyone Dies ITT Goum > Liang
Artillery is fine, it doesn't need a boost. It's the only gun that doesn't need cap to fire for chrissake. If anything tachyons need their fitting and cap consumption lowered.
Way to ignore everything and repeat a weak argument. Buhu our weapons use cap so we have to be overpowered in every other regard to compensate, eh? --- CEO
|
Marn Prestoc
The Black Mamba's
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 20:48:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Everyone Dies ITT Goum > Liang
Artillery is fine, it doesn't need a boost. It's the only gun that doesn't need cap to fire for chrissake. If anything tachyons need their fitting and cap consumption lowered.
ITT people list 1 strength without looking at it and without listing the weaknesses it has for that "strength". Hell I could use your method to counter your tach request: "lasers are the only weapon that don't need to reload so don't need fitting/cap consumption lowered". Taking 1 factor means nothing in the big picture.
So Arty has limited benifit of volley damage as shown by Goum and others. Cap use only has an effect after minutes of constant firing, that means no delay in firing between targets and no warping out, for this to happen arty has to of reloaded many times lowering its damage output. Care to find any other strengths ?
These are the two reasons that arty has rubbish range, tracking, poor damage compared to range and reloads lots. Sorry just not worth it hence my amarr character is gonna be always flying a Apoc for sniping rather than Marn in his pest or maelstrom (once they get blown up). -
|
|
Ath Amon
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 21:05:00 -
[341]
Edited by: Ath Amon on 08/04/2008 21:04:59
Originally by: Everyone Dies ITT Goum > Liang
Artillery is fine, it doesn't need a boost. It's the only gun that doesn't need cap to fire for chrissake. If anything tachyons need their fitting and cap consumption lowered.
ITT when you are cap stable, do 420dps at 150km with 67k EHP i dont see the cap consumption as a big issue
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 21:14:00 -
[342]
Originally by: Everyone Dies ITT Goum > Liang
I don't know either of them in person, to tell you the truth, so I can't really argue about their relative sizes.
Regardless of their sizes, though, Liang is right and Goum is very wrong on this subject.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 21:31:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Everyone Dies ITT Goum > Liang
Artillery is fine, it doesn't need a boost. It's the only gun that doesn't need cap to fire for chrissake. If anything tachyons need their fitting and cap consumption lowered.
ITT i don't actually think artillery are fine and is playing the part of devils advocate because without an other side you get ridiculous assertions put forward.
Granted its been better in this thread than most others but that doesn't mean that something shouldn't be changed, and if it should be changed whether it should be a ship thing or a weapon change.
E.G. you couldn't increase tracking much since that will change the anti-support dynamic which is fairly balanced.
The best idea is to increase clip size, but it might not be enough. Since clip size reduces damage as battles get longer, this, despite the DPS increase on arties, would still result in a DPS reduction over the hit point bonuses.[Ammo got smaller in guns, but so did the holding size so you would be reloading more in combat].
You would need roughly a 2.5x->3x increase in clip size to make up for the last two hit point boosts and rig changes that can increase hit points.
Then there is the option of changing the Maelstroms bonus from boost to either hit points or resists[Caldari should get size imho, but that is another topic] which would give it a lot more hit points. Or changing the bonus from RoF to Damage.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Liang Nuren
Black Sea Industries Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 22:36:00 -
[344]
Originally by: Goumindong
ITT i don't actually think artillery are fine and is playing the part of devils advocate because without an other side you get ridiculous assertions put forward.
Yeah, I'd gathered that right after the whole "simulation" part of the discussion. It doesn't mean you don't come off sounding silly - but this thread would have faded by now if it weren't for you.
I wonder sometimes if you didn't do that for the Eagle thread as well.
Oh, and if you cut the ROF bonus on the Mael to a damage bonus, you'd have to make up for it with a boost to artillery itself (because you'd lower DPS). It would literally kill all T1 battleship mission running in Matari ships.
Tracking and clip size are probably enough... though I wouldn't think it abnormal for Arties to have the highest tracking. Which is probably exactly the kind of "ridiculous assertion" you're here to prevent.
-Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance. |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 22:39:00 -
[345]
It is. If arties were running the highest tracking they would be way to good as anti-small ships weapons since the alpha is the most important aspect when shooting those.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Xia Xiou
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.04.08 23:26:00 -
[346]
I don't mind the low tracking and optimal of artillery. It doesn't strike me as a high precision weapon like a laser. But, it should be high DPS and high alpha. I mean, your shooting thermonuclear bombs the size of a Buick at people!
I think that arties need to have the natural ROF lowered to put their DPS in line with hybrids/lasers, perhaps a touch higher. Leave the alpha the way it is, not need to be instagibbing cruisers. It will still have a lower optimal range, worse tracking and the reload issue to keep it balanced. This would fit my opinion of what artillery should be. Loud, not so accurate, but god help you if it hits you squarely.
|
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 01:14:00 -
[347]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Tracking and clip size are probably enough... though I wouldn't think it abnormal for Arties to have the highest tracking. Which is probably exactly the kind of "ridiculous assertion" you're here to prevent.
-Liang
Tracking and clip size would be a good first attempt to fix arttilery, but really, something more must be done as improving optimum range or improving falloff even more. A maximum optimum of 150 km with 3 tracking computers with optimum range scripts is way to low, even with a falloff of 44 km.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 01:27:00 -
[348]
Would a falloff buff help? Or does shooting in falloff with a bad tracking, bad ROF, bad clipsize large weapon not have enough practical applications? * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 01:41:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Would a falloff buff help? Or does shooting in falloff with a bad tracking, bad ROF, bad clipsize large weapon not have enough practical applications?
Alone no, but improvements, within reason, in clip size, tracking and falloff would put it in league with other long range weapon systems. No change is necessary in RoF and Damage bonuses, as a decrease in dps would kill arties for good.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Marn Prestoc
The Black Mamba's
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 01:51:00 -
[350]
Edited by: Marn Prestoc on 09/04/2008 01:52:15 Totally stolen idea here, add a falloff bonus on Tremor.
Falloff is larger as it should be for projectiles but when optimal numbers are 150-200km the benifit an extra 10km of falloff gives is minimal.
Benifit of giving the falloff bonus to tremor and not the weapon or ship is the close range ammos arn't affected.
Personally i'd change the Maelstrom and Tempest hull designs but until then, specifically arty should get: 1. more volley damage = slow ROF and increase DMG. 2. bigger capacity = less reloading. Along with slower ROF the time between reloads is increased twice. 3. falloff bonus on tremor = more range in traditional minmatar way. -
|
|
Etho Demerzel
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 03:34:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
1. more volley damage = slow ROF and increase DMG. 2. bigger capacity = less reloading. Along with slower ROF the time between reloads is increased twice.
That will only work if the total dps is raised after this modifications. As it is now, if we simply replace the RoF bonuses from the Maelstrom and tempest for similar damage bonuses the total dps of those ships will go down, and, as we explained time and time again in this thread, that is a bad thing for any fleet battleship these days.
Similarly increasing reload time and decreasing clip size in the same proportion will keep dps exactly in the same point it is today. It would only mean that dps would drop dramatically after 20 volleys instead of droping less at 10. What needs to be done is to increase clip size and leave reload time alone.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Xia Xiou
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 05:25:00 -
[352]
Artillery fit Minnie ships already have the best volley damage. Its also been specualted that CCP isn't likely to increase it because you might start getting into the realm of 1 volley cruiser kills.
Instead of addressing something that isn't a problem, just increase base ROF on artillery a bit. I don't want to quote a number, but it probably wouldn't take a lot. That will keep the alpha sd id while also upping the DPS. Maybe increase the clip size a little bt also. That will help fleet ships and PvE fit boats.
|
Jeetah
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 09:42:00 -
[353]
I believe AAA killboard now displays the overall damage dealt in a battle by each ship. Go have a look, its like apoc > everything else. Tempest is somewhere at the very end of the queue. |
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention Reavers.
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 09:52:00 -
[354]
Edited by: Jin Entres on 09/04/2008 09:55:05
Originally by: Xia Xiou Artillery fit Minnie ships already have the best volley damage. Its also been specualted that CCP isn't likely to increase it because you might start getting into the realm of 1 volley cruiser kills.
That kind of speculation is faulty for two reasons:
1. Ships used to have less HP, yet alpha was as it is now and posed no problem whatsoever. Damage controls didn't exist either.
2. Alpha would have to be MORE than doubled to reach the 'realm' of 1 volleying cruisers. Take a regular Thorax for example which has 6,577 EHP without skills and 8,221 with Mechanic/Hull Upgrades/Shield Man. V. Add a damage control and the respective figures are 10,132 and 12,665 EHP. For a max skilled Tempest with 3 damage mods to kill it, it would take 2, 3, 3 and 4 volleys respectively where every gun would hit for average damage (which, given their tracking, is not very likely). And after you add a plate there (and resistance mods, possibly rigs) that amount is doubled. In other words, alpha is not even close to being able to dish out enough damage to make a difference in the first 4.7 seconds it takes for the apoc to get its second volley and race ahead in damage.
|
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar The Black Mamba's
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 13:13:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
1. more volley damage = slow ROF and increase DMG. 2. bigger capacity = less reloading. Along with slower ROF the time between reloads is increased twice.
That will only work if the total dps is raised after this modifications. As it is now, if we simply replace the RoF bonuses from the Maelstrom and tempest for similar damage bonuses the total dps of those ships will go down, and, as we explained time and time again in this thread, that is a bad thing for any fleet battleship these days.
Similarly increasing reload time and decreasing clip size in the same proportion will keep dps exactly in the same point it is today. It would only mean that dps would drop dramatically after 20 volleys instead of droping less at 10. What needs to be done is to increase clip size and leave reload time alone.
I don't want a DPS increase. I want less of a DPS loss from reloading. Hence bigger capacity and more time between reloads = less dps reduction.
I want bigger volley damage, I mean the Abaddon does nearly the same volley damage (while it can actually fire).
I want more range in a minmatar style not just throw more optimal at it because the others have that.
Remember to keep the DPS the same when slowing ROF the DMG mod goes up quite a lot. As Jim pointed out, the days of 1 volleying cruisers is long gone, the HP boosts were meant to increase fight times, well increasing fit times = screwed volley damage which is best for a short time. -
|
Msobe
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:02:00 -
[356]
I've been half following this thread with nothing to say. But I do have a question. Forgive my ignorance . . . . but why compare the Apoc to the Maelstrom as a sniper? Its fairly obvious (to me) that the Apoc should be performing better as a sniper, since it has a range bonus. If the point is to compare beams to art, wouldn't it make more sense to compare a non-sniper bonused ship to a non-sniper bonused ship?
I know that minmatar don't have a bs with sniper bonuses. I would see more logic comparing long range weaponry on ships that have similar bonuses though, if the point is to compare the turret types - say Maelstrom vs Abaddon. Unless the actual point is that the Apoc is a better sniper than the Maelstrom. Does anyone have a valid reason the Maelstrom should be a better sniper than a ship with a range bonus? In other words, if the Maelstrom, with its bonuses, performed as a better sniper than the new Apoc, that would be a horrible failure for the Apoc boost.
I'm not implying that artillery is fine and needs no changes . . . in fact, I think it needs attention. The reason I ask is that the difference should be evident when comparing apples to apples, there's no need to tilt the comparison by using a platform with a built in advantage.
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention Reavers.
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:22:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Msobe I've been half following this thread with nothing to say. But I do have a question. Forgive my ignorance . . . . but why compare the Apoc to the Maelstrom as a sniper? Its fairly obvious (to me) that the Apoc should be performing better as a sniper, since it has a range bonus. If the point is to compare beams to art, wouldn't it make more sense to compare a non-sniper bonused ship to a non-sniper bonused ship?
I know that minmatar don't have a bs with sniper bonuses. I would see more logic comparing long range weaponry on ships that have similar bonuses though, if the point is to compare the turret types - say Maelstrom vs Abaddon. Unless the actual point is that the Apoc is a better sniper than the Maelstrom. Does anyone have a valid reason the Maelstrom should be a better sniper than a ship with a range bonus? In other words, if the Maelstrom, with its bonuses, performed as a better sniper than the new Apoc, that would be a horrible failure for the Apoc boost.
I'm not implying that artillery is fine and needs no changes . . . in fact, I think it needs attention. The reason I ask is that the difference should be evident when comparing apples to apples, there's no need to tilt the comparison by using a platform with a built in advantage.
Megathron has been compared here aswell. Tierwise it makes most sense to compare Apoc, Mega and Tempest, and also because they are outperformed at short range by the other battleships of the races. In addition, all the three ships get bonuses that are useful in sniping: tracking, optimal range and damage.
In fact, range has not been much of a topic for this discussion as much as DPS and alpha. Even if apocalypse were more geared toward sniping than the other battleships in comparison, it does not get a bonus to damage (unlike Tempest) and still outdamages it.
Now, I don't think ships need to have identical performance, and certainly one can argue that Tempest is useful as a short range ship in a way that Apoc is not. But I think there are legitimate concerns for the competitiveness of artillery, which no longer has any significant advantage with alpha strike which it may have had before the tanking oriented changes to the game (namely hp boost, damage controls, rigs and the reduction of base damage of T2 long range ammo), and therefore fails to make up for its other shortcomings which could previously be forgiven.
In my opinion the most fitting change would be to re-introduce a meaningful alpha while maintaining the DPS and inferior range and tracking as a tradeoff. This would require a rather handsome increase, however, so I find it difficult to believe that the development team will do it. The other option is to leave alpha rather useless as it is and bring artillery on par with beams and rails in terms of clip size, range and tracking.
--- CEO
|
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar The Black Mamba's
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 14:35:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Msobe I've been half following this thread with nothing to say. But I do have a question. Forgive my ignorance . . . . but why compare the Apoc to the Maelstrom as a sniper? Its fairly obvious (to me) that the Apoc should be performing better as a sniper, since it has a range bonus. If the point is to compare beams to art, wouldn't it make more sense to compare a non-sniper bonused ship to a non-sniper bonused ship?
I know that minmatar don't have a bs with sniper bonuses. I would see more logic comparing long range weaponry on ships that have similar bonuses though, if the point is to compare the turret types - say Maelstrom vs Abaddon. Unless the actual point is that the Apoc is a better sniper than the Maelstrom. Does anyone have a valid reason the Maelstrom should be a better sniper than a ship with a range bonus? In other words, if the Maelstrom, with its bonuses, performed as a better sniper than the new Apoc, that would be a horrible failure for the Apoc boost.
I'm not implying that artillery is fine and needs no changes . . . in fact, I think it needs attention. The reason I ask is that the difference should be evident when comparing apples to apples, there's no need to tilt the comparison by using a platform with a built in advantage.
When CCP introduced the Maelstrom they said its a artillery boat hence was completely none-minmatar in speed, size and mass. While not obvious due to not having an optimal bonus it is meant to be the arty ship for minmatar. Why they gave it a bonus thats best over a long time when sniping usually mean die or warp makes me .
Maelstrom is the designed arty ship as much as the Apoc is for Amarr. -
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 15:33:00 -
[359]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 09/04/2008 15:33:48
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
I don't want a DPS increase. I want less of a DPS loss from reloading. Hence bigger capacity and more time between reloads = less dps reduction.
This is an indirect dps increase. Which I also think it is necessary, but not enough alone.
Quote:
I want bigger volley damage, I mean the Abaddon does nearly the same volley damage (while it can actually fire).
That is something that is irrelevant for the performance against battleships and bigger targets, which are the biggest problem, and could make small targets too easy to pick. If tracking stays as it is, it could help though, as artillery has problem actually hitting those smaller targets.
In conjunction with clip size decreasing (more capacity) it can help to bring the dps from 345 to something like 365-370, a value nearer the 401 from the Apocalypse.
Quote:
I want more range in a minmatar style not just throw more optimal at it because the others have that.
That I agree with.
But Artillery would still need something. 370 dps is a lot better than 345, and an increase in falloff would make this damage consistent, or near this, for a range similar to the one lasers and rail have, but, comparing the best Artillery boat with the Apocalypse, it would still have less dps, less tracking, less range and no real advantage.
Originally by: Msobe
I've been half following this thread with nothing to say. But I do have a question. Forgive my ignorance . . . . but why compare the Apoc to the Maelstrom as a sniper? Its fairly obvious (to me) that the Apoc should be performing better as a sniper, since it has a range bonus. If the point is to compare beams to art, wouldn't it make more sense to compare a non-sniper bonused ship to a non-sniper bonused ship?
I know that minmatar don't have a bs with sniper bonuses. I would see more logic comparing long range weaponry on ships that have similar bonuses though, if the point is to compare the turret types - say Maelstrom vs Abaddon. Unless the actual point is that the Apoc is a better sniper than the Maelstrom. Does anyone have a valid reason the Maelstrom should be a better sniper than a ship with a range bonus? In other words, if the Maelstrom, with its bonuses, performed as a better sniper than the new Apoc, that would be a horrible failure for the Apoc boost.
I'm not implying that artillery is fine and needs no changes . . . in fact, I think it needs attention. The reason I ask is that the difference should be evident when comparing apples to apples, there's no need to tilt the comparison by using a platform with a built in advantage.
We are comparing the Maelstrom to the Apocalypse, because both are the best snipers for each weapon system, currently. If the comparison was made with the other only option for large artillery, the Tempest, the results would be even worse to Large Artillery Turrets...
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2008.04.09 16:30:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Ath Amon on 09/04/2008 16:32:57
Originally by: Marn Prestoc
Originally by: Msobe I've been half following this thread with nothing to say. But I do have a question. Forgive my ignorance . . . . but why compare the Apoc to the Maelstrom as a sniper? Its fairly obvious (to me) that the Apoc should be performing better as a sniper, since it has a range bonus. If the point is to compare beams to art, wouldn't it make more sense to compare a non-sniper bonused ship to a non-sniper bonused ship?
I know that minmatar don't have a bs with sniper bonuses. I would see more logic comparing long range weaponry on ships that have similar bonuses though, if the point is to compare the turret types - say Maelstrom vs Abaddon. Unless the actual point is that the Apoc is a better sniper than the Maelstrom. Does anyone have a valid reason the Maelstrom should be a better sniper than a ship with a range bonus? In other words, if the Maelstrom, with its bonuses, performed as a better sniper than the new Apoc, that would be a horrible failure for the Apoc boost.
I'm not implying that artillery is fine and needs no changes . . . in fact, I think it needs attention. The reason I ask is that the difference should be evident when comparing apples to apples, there's no need to tilt the comparison by using a platform with a built in advantage.
When CCP introduced the Maelstrom they said its a artillery boat hence was completely none-minmatar in speed, size and mass. While not obvious due to not having an optimal bonus it is meant to be the arty ship for minmatar. Why they gave it a bonus thats best over a long time when sniping usually mean die or warp makes me .
Maelstrom is the designed arty ship as much as the Apoc is for Amarr.
mael actually was a fault as an arty platform, t3 ship by design had 1 dmg + 1 tank bonus with hype that had to be a fast close range ship while other 3 where supposed to be long range platforms.
the problem here is that shield boost bonus is useless in any situation cept small gang whitout logistic so its fail in its supposed role.
the description of mael so was changed from arty platform to "versatile ship" (read my sig) so i kinda agree with the other poster that minnies atm have no real dedicated fleet bs
about the comparsion, you can compare it even to an ab, and it still fall short behind it
edit and the comparsion between apoc and mael was made by goum trying to show that mael was superior to apoc, he asked for apoc setup to be able to mimic mael stats, and as we see by various post he got a lot of them :P
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |