EVE Search - Tech 3: Strategic Cruiser Bonuses

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Tech 3: Strategic Cruiser Bonuses

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.03 22:19:00 - [331] I agree that t3 cruisers are suffering from an identity crisis. The effective fits are comparable to the racial HACs in concept, slightly better in some areas, slighty worse in others, but performing roughly the same role. No surprises here. The only real suprise I could think of was a passive shield tanking Legion, which sadly lacks CPU to put medium guns on it, although it can perform decently with small lasers. And a Tengu can be somewhat fit like a supertanked Drake. Passive peak tank on a Tengu can reach 1600-2000 dps with the added bonus of 125k-150k effective hit points. Nice bait ship. In general, effective setups are more geared towards tank then gank. The ships all seem to be strongly racially focused and while they do have slot flexibility, they lack grid, cpu and bonus flexibility to make them the truly versatile strategic cruisers I hoped they would be. I can finally have an Amarr ship with more than 4 mid slots, but lack the CPU and bonuses to make function as anything resembling an EW boat. There are effective Strategic Cruisers setups, no doubt. Just not able to build a lot of surprising but still reasonably effective Strategic Cruisers. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Jack Jombardo Amarr Alternative Realities	Posted - 2009.03.04 03:33:00 - [332] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/03/2009 03:46:05 Originally by: Mes Ren I'm sorry, but have you actually fitted a Legion? Looks good on paper, but you don't have enough CPU to fit the things you just talked about. I haven't tested any of the other ships, but I have tested the Legion. I like what I'm seeing EXCEPT the severe lack of CPU. Yes I did the fitting for the Legion and as you see, I even have some CPU and GRID left ;) PS: The hole "fill a rule" discusion reminds me to Druids in a common Game g. Tank, DPS, Heal? Nobody liked em in MC as Tanks or DPS ... but I got the changs to do the jobs and gus what? I was as good in tanking all the bosses (even Nefarian) as any Warrior - when right equiped/skilled! I was as good as Prists for healing - if right equiped/skilled! I did nearly as much DPS as Rougs/Mages (about 85% of em) - if right equiped/skilled! Same happens here with T3 ships. People fail to see the concept ... fail to rethink what they know ... fail to be flexible ... fail as they try to pre-rise the prise to even make more profit building/selling there stuff. For the next time I realy should change my signatur to the statement of CCP: "T3 should be around the price of T2 FOR THE HOLE SHIP" just to take the wind out of this price-driver-posts. Originally by: CCP Nozh Where do tech 3 ships fit in?The goal has always been to have them considerably cheap, around the price of tech 2 cruisers.
IceAero Amarr Shadow Company	Posted - 2009.03.04 04:02:00 - [333] Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/03/2009 03:46:05 Originally by: Mes Ren I'm sorry, but have you actually fitted a Legion? Looks good on paper, but you don't have enough CPU to fit the things you just talked about. I haven't tested any of the other ships, but I have tested the Legion. I like what I'm seeing EXCEPT the severe lack of CPU. Yes I did the fitting for the Legion and as you see, I even have some CPU and GRID left ;) PS: The hole "fill a rule" discusion reminds me to Druids in a common Game g. Tank, DPS, Heal? Nobody liked em in MC as Tanks or DPS ... but I got the changs to do the jobs and gus what? I was as good in tanking all the bosses (even Nefarian) as any Warrior - when right equiped/skilled! I was as good as Prists for healing - if right equiped/skilled! I did nearly as much DPS as Rougs/Mages (about 85% of em) - if right equiped/skilled! Same happens here with T3 ships. People fail to see the concept ... fail to rethink what they know ... fail to be flexible ... fail as they try to pre-rise the prise to even make more profit building/selling there stuff. For the next time I realy should change my signatur to the statement of CCP: "T3 should be around the price of T2 FOR THE HOLE SHIP" just to take the wind out of this price-driver-posts. ...are you drunk?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.03.04 04:19:00 - [334] Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/03/2009 03:46:05 Originally by: Mes Ren I'm sorry, but have you actually fitted a Legion? Looks good on paper, but you don't have enough CPU to fit the things you just talked about. I haven't tested any of the other ships, but I have tested the Legion. I like what I'm seeing EXCEPT the severe lack of CPU. Yes I did the fitting for the Legion and as you see, I even have some CPU and GRID left ;) PS: The hole "fill a rule" discusion reminds me to Druids in a common Game g. Tank, DPS, Heal? Nobody liked em in MC as Tanks or DPS ... but I got the changs to do the jobs and gus what? I was as good in tanking all the bosses (even Nefarian) as any Warrior - when right equiped/skilled! I was as good as Prists for healing - if right equiped/skilled! I did nearly as much DPS as Rougs/Mages (about 85% of em) - if right equiped/skilled! Same happens here with T3 ships. People fail to see the concept ... fail to rethink what they know ... fail to be flexible ... fail as they try to pre-rise the prise to even make more profit building/selling there stuff. For the next time I realy should change my signatur to the statement of CCP: "T3 should be around the price of T2 FOR THE HOLE SHIP" just to take the wind out of this price-driver-posts. Worst fit ever. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Kyvon Gallente 10045th Logistics Battalion	Posted - 2009.03.04 05:10:00 - [335] Edited by: Kyvon on 04/03/2009 05:13:01 lol no, he's german but why judge the fit...all you can tell are the general fittings, you cant tell what guns they are...or anything specific. except the resists...id up those a lil bit... p.s. all my fittings have been w/o using upgrades... so the fittings i find 'okay' im assuming would be even better. people need to stop trying to 'uber-fy' them and work WITH the bonuses you are picking. they complain theres only one or 2 bonuses...but when each module adds a NEW bonus for you to capitalize on you can get massive bonuses...think 5 sets of +50% to 5 areas of your ship... thats of course if bonuses end up 1. working, 2. stacking properly and not being penalized with modules/upgrades
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.03.04 06:45:00 - [336] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 04/03/2009 06:49:38 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 04/03/2009 06:46:23 Just tried out the new build, some things about the Loki: - offensive subsystem 2: really only a 2.5% bonus to optimal+falloff? Is it possible we can get a 5% there maybe (since when using ACs, the 2.5% optimal part isnt doing much at all)? Or even make it 7.5% falloff only - cpu output: its too low imho, maybe +25 would help out a great deal, especially since we need to shield-tank that thing somehow
Jack Jombardo Amarr Alternative Realities	Posted - 2009.03.04 08:26:00 - [337] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 04/03/2009 08:29:58 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Worst fit ever. Why? It's cool to throw in such a sentence without explaining why isn't it? PS: oh I know, you miss the 3 1600 plates and 4 HS ... yea, that mu¯t it be Originally by: CCP Nozh Where do tech 3 ships fit in?The goal has always been to have them considerably cheap, around the price of tech 2 cruisers.
Carniflex Caldari Schmoo Manufacturing Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.04 08:50:00 - [338] Went over current implementation of Tengu. If the price of those ships end in the ballpark of T2 cruisers as goal currently seems to be, then I think it would end up quite popular. My main focus was on level 4 missionrunning with those new ships. Have not done yet the test mission, but stats look okish for it. 7-5-4 slot layout currently, 7x Heavy II 1x auto target II (for extra targets), 5 slot tank (might need to use 2x Pithi B + 3x Hardener bcos of cap issues), 4x BCU and 2x Rigor II and 1x Rigor I rig. Have also some (cruise missile) hardwires in my head. 4.8 sec rof (offensive subsystem has kin damage + rof bonus), around 66 km range (fury), and Fury missiles have 87 m explosion radius and 145.5m exp velocity. Cosidering that we are talking about fury here thats pretty sweet for level 4's if one can find setup that can tank them with 5 midslots (there is also afterburner speed bonus, so might be speedtanking be one of the options ... 10 mn domination afterburners are not too pricy) Overall seems good from my viewpoint.
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.04 10:57:00 - [339] Hm... Now bonuses are written in description of subsystems... So i glad that CCP desided to make a Defensive Subsystem with logistic bonuses. T3 Ship Spider Tank will rock... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.03.04 12:19:00 - [340] Edited by: MotherMoon on 04/03/2009 12:19:29 Quote: Subsystem Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to medium projectile turret rate of fire, 2.5% bonus to medium projectile turret damage per level. I don't know if I should be mad or not. also give us back the left panel for the fitting window!!! I don't use cans I liked it :( interesting thing about the tech 3 remote rep booster bonus... even logtiiscs ships don't get a bonus to amount, or cap use. interesting... love it.

Pytria Le'Danness Placid Reborn	Posted - 2009.03.04 17:34:00 - [341] Does anyone plan to use the "Increased Warp Speed and Reduced Capacitor to start warp" modules? I cannot really see why any ship should chose these instead of the more useful ones, well, except maybe very expensive haulers. Corporation RP channel: "PlacidReborn"
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.03.04 18:33:00 - [342] Originally by: Pytria Le'Danness Does anyone plan to use the "Increased Warp Speed and Reduced Capacitor to start warp" modules? I cannot really see why any ship should chose these instead of the more useful ones, well, except maybe very expensive haulers. it needs to be something like 100% bonus to warp speed per level for it to be useful.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.03.04 18:41:00 - [343] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 04/03/2009 18:42:06 Originally by: MotherMoon Edited by: MotherMoon on 04/03/2009 12:19:29 Quote: Subsystem Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to medium projectile turret rate of fire, 2.5% bonus to medium projectile turret damage per level. I don't know if I should be mad or not. Well, given that projectiles usually need a double bonus to properly compete with other turrets it is kinda low. Quote: Subsystem Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to medium projectile turret rate of fire, 2.5% bonus to medium projectile turret optimal range and falloff per level. Also this bonus is somewhat odd, as the optimal part gives like 300m extra range on ACs which is almost nothing, more so if you compare to this: Quote: Subsystem Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to medium hybrid turret damage, 7.5% bonus to medium hybrid turret falloff per level. Imo, switch these two, in contrast to autocannons blasters can make use of combined optimal+falloff bonus, while falloff bonus is more the minmatar flavour.
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.03.04 23:07:00 - [344] Edited by: Captator on 04/03/2009 23:08:16 Having looked at the bonuses on the various ships: Legion: a) Defensive; 1 and 2 look good, why not a 10% armour bonus like the tengu gets for shield instead of the rep capacitor cost, given most amarr ships are plated with 1 or no reps, due to injector dependence and laser cap cost. b) Offensive; 1 and 2 look good, 5% optimal looks a little pointless, imo needs the 10% so that a beam fit with computers/enhancers can scrape 100km range. c) Electronic; all look good, the sig radius/scan res particularly good for a tackler, perhaps making use of halo set and the AB speed/mwd sig propulsion bonus. d) Engineering; a little boring, but solid, so no objections. e) Propulsion; as engineering Loki: a) Defensive; Flexible, fitting with racial philosophy, there needs to be enough cpu to fit a solid shield tank though b) Offensive; Much like the amarr 5% optimal, I fail to see the point in a 5% falloff bonus, I would increase it further to 7.5 or 10%. There is no subsystem favouring tracking or optimal which would be nice for arty users, this I assume will come later. c,d,e) Electronics, Engineering, Propulsion as above. Tengu: a) Defensive; Hitting the nail on the head imo. b) Offensive; 1 and 3 are okay, 2 is a bit poor for the same reason I don't like the other range bonusing subsystems: An eagle has 2x 10% optimal bonus for a 100% bonus overall, and it is still not a favourite ship for roaming, in blaster or rail config. I would like to know the reason for picking the 7.5% value here. c) Electronics; 1 and 2 look good, 3 (though I don't like the prevalence and power of ECM in the small gang scenario at the moment) seems weak, it is less than a blackbird , perhaps some bonus to ECM burst might be more interesting? (which it would be nice if bonused by ECM strength skills (including ship), so they were actually useful, i.e. fix this ) d) Engineering; boring but fine (as above) e) Propulsion; 1 and 3 are fine, I am agreed with others who say the warp speed/capacity bonus are pretty useless. There is already a problem with the warp speed rigs and ship warp speeds, as most of the time in most of the warps is spent accelerating and decelerating, which all ships do at the same rate. This means the gain in speed between points with this subsystem is infinitesimally small apart from on those few very long warps. I also don't understand the reasoning behind the cap cost reduction. Proteus: a) Defensive; I like these, though the drone HP bonus might be slanting t3 gallente too heavily towards drone based configurations. b) Offensive; look good to me c) Electronics; again, they look good d) Engineering; see previous e) Propulsion; again, the warp related one I think is weak, the other two look good.
Legionos McGuiros Caldari Catch Twenty Two	Posted - 2009.03.04 23:36:00 - [345] MY EYES!!!!
Breed Love FinFleet KenZoku	Posted - 2009.03.05 01:24:00 - [346] I think tengu damage bonus should be changed from kinetic to all dmg types, to make its capabilities broader (t3 are supposed to be broad, remember?) ----- Originally by: Zhulik I thought Premium graphics were supposed to fix that bug where people were trying to salvage Minmatar ships.
MenanceWhite Amarr SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.03.05 01:59:00 - [347] Drones. Where are my drones, besides gallente amarr would be 2nd in drone use with their arbitrator, etc. I wanted to make a drone cruiser for amarr using modular ships...
TimMc Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.03.05 02:32:00 - [348] Loki needs some love on the damage front, but the other t3 cruisers are awesome. I tried to make a sniper setup for my proteus today, and utterly failed. Only managed to get 95km optimal range with 250mm rails. Damage was good, optimal bad compared to eagle and likely the caldari t3.
Jack Jombardo Amarr Alternative Realities	Posted - 2009.03.05 03:27:00 - [349] Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 05/03/2009 03:28:20 Same range as sniper HAC => make sniper HAC useless. Simpel point. As it stands now T3 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T2 and sometimes much better then Command or BS. All you whiner got what you wanted, imba solo pwnage mobiles :(. Far to easy to fitt with extrem offens, high resitences, 1600 plates and whatever! Originally by: CCP Nozh Where do tech 3 ships fit in?The goal has always been to have them considerably cheap, around the price of tech 2 cruisers.
J Valkor R.U.S.T. BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.03.05 05:01:00 - [350] Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 05/03/2009 03:28:20 Same range as sniper HAC => make sniper HAC useless. Simpel point. As it stands now T3 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T2 and sometimes much better then Command or BS. All you whiner got what you wanted, imba solo pwnage mobiles :(. Far to easy to fitt with extrem offens, high resitences, 1600 plates and whatever! Good. Skill points loss from death and the high costs associated with wormhole exploration should give us ships worth flying. If they weren't better they wouldn't be used and all that WH space would be worthless.

Carniflex Caldari Schmoo Manufacturing Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.05 05:02:00 - [351] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Pytria Le'Danness Does anyone plan to use the "Increased Warp Speed and Reduced Capacitor to start warp" modules? I cannot really see why any ship should chose these instead of the more useful ones, well, except maybe very expensive haulers. it needs to be something like 100% bonus to warp speed per level for it to be useful. Even that would be rather useless. At least as far as warp speed goes as a result of warp acceleration and deacceleration times being constant for all ships in EVE regardless of their size. I have actually compared 'travel speeds' for regular frigate (6.0 au/s warp speed) and rigged inty (~20 au/s warp speed) and in real life time difference for anything under 40 Au is less than second bcos ships are not long in warp at max speed. On longer warps (max I have seen is long enough to sit in warp for ~3 minutes in freighter) might save you perhaps up to 10 seconds, but using ship slot bonus for that would not be justified in my opinion. If one would really need faster in warp speed there is rigs that do it. On ship hull it's quite 'meh' bonus and only reason to fit that subsystem is if you really need that particular slot layout. That is unless warp mechnaiks is changed in SiSi and at a glance it did not seem to.
FlameGlow Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.05 07:24:00 - [352] Tengu actually looks quite good in latest patch, although some subsystems bonuses aren't usefull: Warp speed/cap - don't see any reason for anyone to use this. Contrary to some ppl calling AB bonus bad, it is actually quite good in PVE. ECM strength - just too weak CPU/Targeting range subsystem - targeting range ends up something like 200km, where no weapons can reach the target. This second bonus is useless for anything but dampener protection. _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.03.05 10:47:00 - [353] The Bonuses are interesting. A few suggestions: Right now one Defense Module for each Ship has a Resistance and Remote Repair Bonus. I would move the Remove Repair Bonus to the Defense Module with with the Bonus to active tanking, to make this module a bit more interesting. The Hybrid Falloff Bonus from the first Gallente Module did not seem to work. I also noticed that the Drone/Hybrid damage offense module is more powerful then the other modules. To balance it a bit, please increase the Drone Bandwith for the Offensive Modules without Drone Bonus to at least 50m¦ Bandwith.
Gadrin Demarr Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.05 11:44:00 - [354] Originally by: J Valkor Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 05/03/2009 03:28:20 Same range as sniper HAC => make sniper HAC useless. Simpel point. As it stands now T3 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T2 and sometimes much better then Command or BS. All you whiner got what you wanted, imba solo pwnage mobiles :(. Far to easy to fitt with extrem offens, high resitences, 1600 plates and whatever! Good. Skill points loss from death and the high costs associated with wormhole exploration should give us ships worth flying. If they weren't better they wouldn't be used and all that WH space would be worthless. Actually, I'm with Jack here: If they are better than the specialized T2 ships at their jobs, then the T2 ships will not be worth flying and effectively obsolete. I don't think CCP have the intention to replace the entire T2 market and production with the equivalent T3. That would be a disaster. T3 must be an alternative, not the only sensible choice. If T3 >>>>> T2, everyone will want T3. If everyone wants T3 there will be a lot of money to be made from producing them. If all manufacturers move over to producing/farming T3, the supply will be plenty, prices will remain at reasonable levels (100-150 mil?) and most will be able to afford them. Result: Everyone who is not crap-poor or noob will be flying T3 against eachother and we can effectively remove T2 cruisers/BCs from the game. I.e. disaster. It seems pefectly clear to me: They can't be uber at the same things T2 are! They must either be delicately balanced or perform a different role if you want to avoid making T2 obsolete!
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.03.05 14:30:00 - [355] Originally by: Gadrin DemarrActually, I'm with Jack here: If they are better than the specialized T2 ships at their jobs, then the T2 ships will not be worth flying and effectively obsolete. I don't think CCP have the intention to replace the entire T2 market and production with the equivalent T3. That would be a disaster. T3 must be an alternative, not the only sensible choice. If T3 >>>>> T2, everyone will want T3. If everyone wants T3 there will be a lot of money to be made from producing them. If all manufacturers move over to producing/farming T3, the supply will be plenty, prices will remain at reasonable levels (100-150 mil?) and most will be able to afford them. Result: Everyone who is not crap-poor or noob will be flying T3 against eachother and we can effectively remove T2 cruisers/BCs from the game. I.e. disaster. It seems pefectly clear to me: They can't be uber at the same things T2 are! They must either be delicately balanced or perform a different role if you want to avoid making T2 obsolete![/quote I am disagreeing with you here. T2 will still have the higher specialisation and due to their Bonuses will be more useful than T3 in certain roles. With nerfed CPU and PG the T3 ships are not much more then overpriced T1 Cruisers. For their extra price and risk of SP loss they would be without a real benefit over Battlecruisers and only collecting dust in the hangars.
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.03.05 16:37:00 - [356] Originally by: Gadrin Demarr Actually, I'm with Jack here: If they are better than the specialized T2 ships at their jobs, then the T2 ships will not be worth flying and effectively obsolete. I don't think CCP have the intention to replace the entire T2 market and production with the equivalent T3. That would be a disaster. T3 must be an alternative, not the only sensible choice. If T3 >>>>> T2, everyone will want T3. If everyone wants T3 there will be a lot of money to be made from producing them. If all manufacturers move over to producing/farming T3, the supply will be plenty, prices will remain at reasonable levels (100-150 mil?) and most will be able to afford them. Result: Everyone who is not crap-poor or noob will be flying T3 against eachother and we can effectively remove T2 cruisers/BCs from the game. I.e. disaster. It seems pefectly clear to me: They can't be uber at the same things T2 are! They must either be delicately balanced or perform a different role if you want to avoid making T2 obsolete! FYI eagle gets 100% range bonus on its rails (90% with hac 4), all that is proposed is a 50-75% range bonus (ie: 10-15% per level, corresponding to 40-60% range bonus at lvl 4).
Lumy Minmatar eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.03.05 16:47:00 - [357] Originally by: Captator FYI eagle gets 100% range bonus on its rails (90% with hac 4), all that is proposed is a 50-75% range bonus (ie: 10-15% per level, corresponding to 40-60% range bonus at lvl 4). Actully, it should be 125% resp. 110% at HAC lvl 4. 1.5x1.5 = 2.25 (lvl 5) 1.5x1.4= 2.1 (lvl 4) Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS.
Pattern Clarc	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:12:00 - [358] Could you please try a 5% pl shield hp bonus on the loki or add 75cpu to the shield bonus defensive subsystem, as it stands, active shield tanking is pretty much impossible on the ship. Also, could you change the fall off bonus to a tracking bonus or just add one to that subsystem pretty please? ____ My Blog Is Awesome
Gadrin Demarr Gallente	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:20:00 - [359] Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Originally by: Gadrin Demarr Actually, I'm with Jack here: If they are better than the specialized T2 ships at their jobs, then the T2 ships will not be worth flying and effectively obsolete. I don't think CCP have the intention to replace the entire T2 market and production with the equivalent T3. That would be a disaster. T3 must be an alternative, not the only sensible choice. If T3 >>>>> T2, everyone will want T3. If everyone wants T3 there will be a lot of money to be made from producing them. If all manufacturers move over to producing/farming T3, the supply will be plenty, prices will remain at reasonable levels (100-150 mil?) and most will be able to afford them. Result: Everyone who is not crap-poor or noob will be flying T3 against eachother and we can effectively remove T2 cruisers/BCs from the game. I.e. disaster. It seems pefectly clear to me: They can't be uber at the same things T2 are! They must either be delicately balanced or perform a different role if you want to avoid making T2 obsolete! I am disagreeing with you here. T2 will still have the higher specialisation and due to their Bonuses will be more useful than T3 in certain roles. With nerfed CPU and PG the T3 ships are not much more then overpriced T1 Cruisers. For their extra price and risk of SP loss they would be without a real benefit over Battlecruisers and only collecting dust in the hangars. Well, if what you're saying turns out to be true: that T2 will still be more suited for their intended role, then there is no problem and I totally agree. But if they can both out-tank and out-gank a HAC, for example, then it will be the HAC which is collecting dust in the hangar. At the moment the stats seem more like BCs than cruisers and with slots like a battleship I fear that they'll be the bee all and end all of cruisers. Hell, they may even eclipse BCs. But in any case I'm hoping that CCP are aware of this and that they're remembering how T2 turned out. I don't think T2 was intended to replace T1 to become standard ships like they are today.
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.03.05 21:57:00 - [360] Originally by: Lumy Originally by: Captator FYI eagle gets 100% range bonus on its rails (90% with hac 4), all that is proposed is a 50-75% range bonus (ie: 10-15% per level, corresponding to 40-60% range bonus at lvl 4). Actully, it should be 125% resp. 110% at HAC lvl 4. 1.5x1.5 = 2.25 (lvl 5) 1.5x1.4= 2.1 (lvl 4) You are quite correct, so this means a 15-20% bonus is not inordinate?



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: 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.