Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [80] 90 100 |
1581. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Baltec1 doesn't really troll much, not at first anyway. Occasionally blunt perhaps, but far as I've seen in forums like this and around tactics/fittings he speaks from personal experience most of the time. I've disagreed with him many times, but ...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.05 14:21:03
|
1582. Improving the Fitting Experience - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: Why are you spending Dev time on functionality that we already have multiple, perfectly adequate tools for? Please spend dev time fixing problems the player base has not already independently fixed - there are f...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.05 12:33:09
|
1583. Improving the Fitting Experience - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Toggle module state active/inactive so we can see cap use that isn't "all or nothing" Overheat lifetime Copy paste a text list of mods a-la existing tools without needing to import export Drone control range Checkboxes on what drones to activate f...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.05 11:54:16
|
1584. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Remember the DNI has rigors built into the hull, much like the CNI I mentioned. Also doesnt it have range bonuses, 40km should be well shootable with faction missiles. I've tried and tried to get a satisfactory DNI fit and come up with fitting mo...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.05 11:13:12
|
1585. Time to Warp Calculation in the Ship Fitting Window - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Rowells wrote: Altrue wrote: No basic information like this one should require us to go check outside the client to get an answer. What? Similar to how all other data has to be calculated outside of station? Weapon damage, ship speed, and ...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.05 10:23:42
|
1586. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
So did you feel they were worthwhile trades? Compared to say RLML or a gunship? I never did. I actually made a mistake before, there is one ship quite nifty with HML - Navy caracals. Rigor on that starts to be worth it, for me personally (rainb...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.05 09:20:57
|
1587. Exequror Navy Issue - Rebalance - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
It's a lethal rail kiter (think ONI but with way more DPS) and it has disgusting DPS if you blaster it. Being able to get a 1600mm plate on a ship capable of over 900DPS would be....questionable at best. Standard blaster fit being 31k ehp, 187...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 18:54:45
|
1588. Suggestion - Approved Watchlisting only - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
EVE is a big place, it doesnt tell you where they are. I'm broadly ok with it. Let's face it, it's mainly only supers that care and they're not at enough risk as it is. -1 for MORE super safety.
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 17:17:42
|
1589. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Caleb Seremshur wrote: This debate is certainly interesting. I'm going to investigate it further. Obviously as you begin swapping defensive rigs out for application rigs you need to get further away and move faster. It still doesn't remove the ...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 16:42:14
|
1590. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Still waiting on credible evidence that they are fine, perhaps a usable fit or some charts. But I don't think so, in spite of the fact that almost the entire Eve community doesn't use them, they are virtually extinct in game you're pretty much st...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 11:41:03
|
1591. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Those 2011 drakes really cut you deep huh?
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 10:38:11
|
1592. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Shooting down sizes, yes. General application generally yes - but heavies are too poor (and lights too good). Like I say it was all fine until the guns got a 15-30% DPS hike barely 6 months after HML were 'brought into line' with them. Turn on p...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 10:27:52
|
1593. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Just as soon as my manual piloting can address the shortfalls of missiles you can compare them to turrets like that.
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 10:14:49
|
1594. Heavy Missiles, lets make them interesting - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
You fix them by adding new launcher "sizes" which modify ammo properties. Shorter range ones with better DPS/application, longer range ones like they are today. But it's too much like hard work.
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.04 09:32:37
|
1595. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
It's not 2010 any more, post some fits and charts or quit trolling.
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.03 19:26:30
|
1596. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Thorax has significantly more, >20%. 'Similar' indeed.... Missile advantages are not offset enough in HML because of the utterly trash performance. They WERE up until medium guns were strongly buffed. See, HML were brought into line, then a sh...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.03 18:52:30
|
1597. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Gregor Parud wrote: It's sad that this needs to be explained to people who claim to understand how things work enough (lol) to make statements about how it should be changed but I'll happily put in that effort. Since the missile changes missi...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.03 17:39:22
|
1598. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Actually it's a shield MWD cruiser because that's best case scenario for the HML. The deck is stacked to the caracal and it still loses. Favouring guns would be an AB armor ship. And thank god the thorax doesn't have not one but TWO flights of li...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.03 15:07:29
|
1599. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
A rail thorax will outdamage a caracal from 5-60km. At maximum transversal. Shooting a MWD shield crusier. If you think those extra 11km range are worth that, I dont know what to tell you. spike http://imgur.com/5plH1Zp iron http://im...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.03 14:18:43
|
1600. Battlecruisers -- Lost because they're not different enough - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Gregor Parud wrote: Malcanis wrote: Battlecruisers were absolutely fine with "not being different enough" a couple of years ago. The thing they most urgently need is for bombs to be nerfed. The next thing is for the ridiculous HML nerf to ...
- by afkalt - at 2015.01.03 14:08:11
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 [80] 90 100 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |