|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 21:29:00 -
[1]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 25/02/2009 21:33:01 I like them but... I think it wouldn't be cool if they did things no other ships could do.
like salvage bonuses Adding damage to webs/damps/ECM/nuets fitting bonuses to weapons/shield systems heat bonuses for high/med low? 5% heat bonus to high slot per level sort of thing. massive warp speed increase bonuses. Cargo holding space increase bonus for wormhole space. structure resistance bonuses. Sleeper tech bonuses please :( New stuff, explain why this new tech is new.
Honetly these ships should outdo tech 2. But in honor or eve, not be able to kill 2 of them. But they SHOULD be better. Even if not as focused, and if not that, they should be different and wacky.
OK I'll keep ym ideas simple ebcuase I know you guys don't have much time.
I think a nice little bonus to make tech 3 ships a little different would be 10% Resistance bonus to structure per level of racial cruiser. This would give them a built in damage control unit. And be kinda cool.
also the heat bonus should be 7.5% per level :)
other than that, thanks for your hard work, I'm sure it will be awesome. Or something.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 01:28:00 -
[2]
Quote: Minmatar Def Subsystem 1 - Rez + 5% sheilds and armor per lvl Minmatar Def Subsystem 2 - Rez + 7.5% Armor Repair Bonus per lvl Minmatar Def Subsystem 3 - Rez + 7.5% Shield Boost Bonus per lvl
suggestion
those should be instead 10% cap amount for shield and armor repairers.
minmatar should be the masters of not needing cap imo.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 02:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Winterreign Edited by: Winterreign on 26/02/2009 01:57:15 Next up engineering space. I've added somthing a little new in so much that The Eng subsystem 3 adds an additional rigging slot.
Amarr Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output per lvl Amarr Eng Sub 2 - 5% Capacitor recharge + cargo space Amarr Eng Sub 3 - 5% cap capacity + bonus rig slot
Caldari Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output Caldari Eng Sub 2 - 5% Cap recharge + cargo space Caldari Eng Sub 3 - 5% Cap capacity + bonus rig slot
Gallente Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output Gallente Eng Sub 2 - 5% cap recharge + cargo space Gallente Eng Sub 3 - 5% cap capacity + bonus rig slot
Minmatar Eng Sub 1 - 5% Power Output Minmatar Eng Sub 2 - 5% cap recharge + Cargo space Minmatar Eng Sub 3 - 5% Cap capacity + Bonus rig slot
Last up is propulsion systems. I tweaked this a little bit to provide more flavor. The Sub system 3 does indeed add a one time +1 bonus to your warp strength for amarr, everyone else has a scale they can build up for warp disrupter scrambler immunities, giving you @ lvl1 a warp strenght of 1 and at lvl 5 giving you 2.5 warp strength. If we were to add more systems you could start adding in bonus's for immunity to Stasis Webs
Amarr Propulsion Sub 1 - 5% Afterburner cap/speed bonus Amarr Propulsion Sub 2 - 5% MWD sig/cap reduction bonus Amarr Propulsion Sub 3 - 5% cap capacity per lvl +1 warp str
Caldari Propulsion Sub 1 - 5% Agility Bonus Caldari Propulsion Sub 2 - 5% MWD Sig/cap reduct Bonus Caldari Propulsion Sub 3 - .5 warp str per lvl (ship starts with .5 warp strength so that at lvl 1 u have 1 warp str and at lvl2 u have 1.5 all the way up to 2.5 which means you can escape from scramblers)
Gallente Propulsion Sub 1 - 10% MWD Signature Radius Penalty Reduct Gallente Propulsion Sub 2 - 5% Afterburner / MWD Capacitor Use Reduction Gallente Propulsion Sub 3 - .5 warp str per lvl (ship starts with .5 warp strength so that at lvl 1 u have 1 warp str and at lvl2 u have 1.5 all the way up to 2.5 which means you can escape from scramblers)
Minmatar Propulsion Subsystem 1 - 10% Velocity Bonus Minmatar Propulsion Subsystem 2 - 5% Agility Bonus Minmatar Propulsion Subsystem 3 - .5 warp str per lvl (ship starts with .5 warp strength so that at lvl 1 u have 1 warp str and at lvl2 u have 1.5 all the way up to 2.5 which means you can escape from scramblers)
These are not the end all be all, mearly suggestions to get CCP think'n and cranking out. Tech3 should be better then Tech2 in just about every way, however like all things in Eve you have to train skillz to acheive this.
-W
your bonuses are better than ccps...
anyays, no worries, even they they "out stat" tech 2 ships, it doesn't matter.
I've killed Assault frigates in my rifter. stats are everything, they are just helpful.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 07:14:00 -
[4]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 26/02/2009 07:14:53 I don't get it, what kind of thinking is that ccp?
oh well I will try to get them because I'm old and bored :)
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 08:37:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Mica Swanhaven
to quote a famous person in the linked thread
Quote: 404: sense of humor not found
I can't find anything in your original post to have a sense of humor about. Nothing you said was funny, sarcastic or even facetious.
hugs bellum
don't worry it's ok if you don't get it, I do.
very colbert of you mica.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 10:03:00 -
[6]
agreed.
CCP do you really see the logic in...
you lose skills when you die they are more expensive they aren't better than tech 2 ships
I mean... honestly? They better be cheaper than tech 2 to build... in other words... 0% failure rating please on building pieces. Just make it so you might get doubles, which is kinda like failing.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 10:42:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Mioelnir
Originally by: MotherMoon they aren't better than tech 2 ships
That's the sole crux of T3.
When T2 was introduced, it was a success because T2 is plain better than T1. That was before my time. In the 2 years I play now, CCP is trying really hard not to introduce another technology tier/ship/... that is simply better. 'Same but different' seems to be desired.
Problem: when "should not be better than T2" is your main design criteria, the outcome will invariably suck, because you will always tone it down when you get the feeling one aspect might slightly surpass T2.
well that's just it, the whole "better onyl when overheated" was a cool idea.
I STILL think tech 3 ships should get double hull hp, and 10% structure resistance per level of racial frigate.
Then they should laser focus on the idea that better than tech 3 when overheating. a LOT better.
or else... jus think for a second.
a ship that is designed to costs more, that is designed to be worse. ]
huh? what now?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 23:57:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Sarin Adler At this stage I don't see major changes in the mechanics of T3 ships, unfortunatlly. I would put alot of emphasis on overheating I guess.
An other options left open for the future is have T3 modules which can be only mounted on the T3 hulls (-99% bonus to CPU use or somthing like that, like its allready doen on other modules), these T3 modules would perform similar to T1 (or meta4/T2) but have a bonus towards overheating or other weird effects.
But this would render T3 ships almost useless until the future when these modules are released.
simple
tech 3 mods are better than tech 2 ONLY when overheated. all ships can use tech 3 mods only tech 3 ships get a bonus to heat
thus tech 3 ships use it better.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 06:40:00 -
[9]
you know... you could bump up the epic again by releasing a few paint colors like you promised :P
less pieces, but 3-4 colors?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 10:25:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Virgo I'Platonicus @CCP and OP.
Don't you think EVE hass too many different ships already? Your sandbox is being overflowed by shiptypes ... where in fact a bit of balancing between classes could take place.
I Like the tech 3 mind you. I've only tried it with a couple of ships, I like the customizations and general idea, however i fail to see the motive behind it, other than "keep old players by giving them mroe to try out".
(tbh that reason is quite solid, but could you please take a look into black ops?)
V.
no way, we need way more ships.
like a whole line of blood raider tech 1 ships. Same cost as tech 1 ships.
basicly just simple bonuses that make them ok ships that you might use instead of an ammar frigate.
then let us play as a blood raider.
set up blood raider conchord (so you can't get killed in your own space without someone backing you up, I mean hell you'd have to give up empire space for this small bit of protection)
Now that would be cool.
MORE SHIPS. MORE IN-GAME VIDEOS! MORE SHINY!
make eve the truly massive beat it should be.
oh and then add tanks/planes/landers and make eve expand into the planets.
all in... 5 years time :P
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:07:00 -
[11]
one simple question.
if they won't be better than tech 2 (even when over heating) then why skill point loss?
I thought that was added risk for reward... can you explain your design goals with this? so far you've said nothing about how this fits in.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 21:42:00 -
[12]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 27/02/2009 21:42:30
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: MotherMoon one simple question.
if they won't be better than tech 2 (even when over heating) then why skill point loss?
I thought that was added risk for reward... can you explain your design goals with this? so far you've said nothing about how this fits in.
Since this doesn't seem to ever stop coming up, I thought I'd point out something.
SP loss, both real and theoretical (future based) currently exists in Eve.
yes, yes it does, good job pointing out eve has skill loss.
now like I was saying, what is the design goal to have skill loss on ship loss? This seems to me like you want to make the ships more valuable, as NO SHIPS IN EVE give you skill loss other than pods. Why this personal connection?
This isn't a whine, it's just you have not linked the ships role with this new mechanic.
I wouldn't honestly like to know what warrants it, or what you get in return for it. Please, tell me why Me and my ship are so close... IS this an unfinished feature? Some sort of... tech 3 ships will get bonuses from your attributes thing?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:23:00 -
[13]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 27/02/2009 22:25:06
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
And I'm pointing out why is this skill loss so much different than other skill loss?
And I do believe, like most other things, they get bonuses based on level.
because I can die 1000 times in my faction fitted CNR, or a rifter and never lose skill points out of skills that only pertains to that one single ship?
also I agree it's not a big deal.
I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY
I'm not whining, honest to god. And by your own arguement, eve allready has sp loss, so why would they change the way it works for one ship if it allready happens?
if you die in your tech 3 ships and THEN get podded.
no sp loss isn't a big deal, but there must be a reason for it. what is the reason. I want know what design it fullfills, what part in balancing they believed it would play.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 22:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Karrade Krise
Originally by: MotherMoon
I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY
So that T3 wont become Mainstream such as T2 and the like.
I don't believe you, I believe some dev somewhere had a reason for it.
and maybe that idea tied into something new like being able to change the paint, or attributes boosting each section of the ship.
I don't see the rp reason for "pod pilot and ship connection so tight it's the whole ship is a pod"
I mean that's an awesome idea, some on, our bonuses for the ship parts should muliple by .1 of our attributes.
so if it's below 10, you lose stats, if it's above 10 you gain stats on that piece. all included cha should be used. it fits, 5 and 5.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 23:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Sarin Adler Edited by: Sarin Adler on 27/02/2009 22:44:03 If you eject you don't lose SP, I'm doing it all the time. You won't have time against a blob though (more with lag), but these ships are not to be used in blob warfare.
...
let me reword...
hey noah, in this painting, why did you use blue?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 05:12:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Jack Jombardo Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 28/02/2009 01:39:48 Edited by: Jack Jombardo on 28/02/2009 01:38:17
Originally by: MotherMoon
because I can die 1000 times in my faction fitted CNR, or a rifter and never lose skill points out of skills that only pertains to that one single ship? .... I'm asking WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY
You got the problem allready. Buy GTC for real money, sell ingame for ISK, suizid gang without thinking about how to refinanz your ship.
You know this?: "EvE is all about risk vis reward!!" <- hear this all the time from wannabe PvP/Pirtas
Tell me where the "risk" is when suizid in a T1 ship? NOWHERE as you have 130% insurence! There is a bit of "risk" with T2 but who cares if you simplay can sell another GTC?
Now T3 provides a real "risk" for all you hauler-gangers or hot-drobbers ! Failed to gang? Failed to Hotdrob? take the RISK of losing SP! Next time you'll try it you might first think about YOUR "risk".
so the design choice was... for the lulz?
your saying in your opinion they went with skill lost as a flavor thing, and never took it into consideration as far as the ship abilities.
I still don't get it, why introduce something that isn't related to the design at all? my point is, subsystems and skill loss. why.
I mean I think skill loss is a good idea. let me repeat that because I keep getting these stupid replies. I THINK SKILL LOST ON DEATH OF TECH 3 SHIPS IS A GOOD IDEA.
I jsut want to know why they chose that color paint over another.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 05:15:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron The only difference amongst the propulsion subsystems is speed and there's no reason to not just pick the fastest one since there is another stat that is effected. Why would anyone pick the slower version when there's no penalty for picking the fastest version?
sith system one you have a higher base speed, (say 100m/s) and with an afterburn you get a bonus to... 200m/s
with the 3rd subsystem.. you get... base speed 90m/s, and with a bonused afterburner you get 180+45. 225m/s but slower MWD speed.
with the 2nd subsystem you get 90m/s, but because of your agility bonus you can move after while orbiting than using the other two systems.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.02.28 14:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc cpu's really been butchered on alot of these ships, particularily the loki, tengu, legion.
they are still pretty nasty :P consider it part of the flavor?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 09:58:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Bentula Its a bit ridiculous atm tbh.
The SP loss basicly means you may never use this shipclass anywhere you could meet a titan. Ofc you can only fly it with lvl 4 skills, which would mean that every of those great 5 subsystem boni you get is 20% weaker than on a HAC.
But even worse is that these ships are balanced to be weaker than HACs while having lvl 5 skills. Have fun with 10% less optimal/falloff, 7.5% weaker rep/shield boost, 5% less resistances/damage/rof and so on.
As tradeoff they are twice as hard to fit and trying to fit the ship after the boni you want usually results in absolutly silly slot combinations(dronebay without bandwith, shieldtanks with more lows than meds, double damage bonus ships with 3 turrets, etc pp).
Imho it was a wrong descision to bring t3 first in form of cruiser sized ships, if this shipclass was based on the BC hull we wouldnt need to have those cpu/pg problems(cause armortanks/shieldtanks/pvp setups mostly revolve around a fixed cost base fitting) and have more slots to built the ship we want. It would also have been the chance to bring ewar/logistic/proper droneboats/etc to the BC hull.
heres the issue, jsut because they are cruiser sized doesn't mean they have to be balnced with tech 2 cruisers.
they should of balanced them making them weaker than tech 2 battlecruisers.
Why does size matter? they should be balanced as if they were battlecruisers (they got the slots to be battlecruisers)
they can still be cruisers and be balanced againts something else than cruiser hulls.
ccp.. I don't see why I should fly these ships :(
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 10:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kytanos Termek Tech 3? I was hoping it would be expensive end all be all ships. True terrors to see on a battlefield. Called primary first because of what they can do to you.
Now. As a fleet commander. I wouldn't even bother primarying one. They just arent a threat from what ive seen on sisi.
CCP me and my corp both believe this. You dropped the ball.
right, there is a reason command ships are primiared, or a logtisics ship. CCP seems to have this idea that ships are primaried based on how expensive they are.
and apparently that the more expensive and risky the ship, the more players will just want to fly them.
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 12:23:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Dristra
Originally by: Bentula
Originally by: Dristra Given the current mood of the community i get the feeling that a tech 3 ship is about equal to a tech 2 ship in terms of power, right?
A bit tougher but usually with less firepower. Some T2 ships like ishtar or curse can really give you a run for your money. Also there is a heavy trend to passive setups on the shieldtanks, think drake.
Problem is that for pvp t2 ships are more focused(think falcon/curse/huginn, eagle/ishtar/vagabond or hics), and for pve its not really a choice between HAC or T3 cruiser but BS/CS vs T3 cruiser.
So the tech 2 ships are breed for a single purpose and excel at that, but the tech 3 ships are more like generalists, but not BETTER in any way?
right but NOT better.
which is fine, I mean we don't need the end all of ships.
but why so expensive? why so much risk?
the risk vs.reward is terrible, I don't need a ship that cost 3 to 5 times the cost of a tech 2 cruiser if it doesn't out perform it in some way.
right now they seem to have better tanks and some set ups are equal with tech 2. but equal with tech 2 should not mean 3 times the price.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 16:34:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ratchman There does seem to be far too much negativity in this thread, and not enough constructive criticism.
First, let me point out that I have not yet tested the T3 stuff, but don't shoot me down in flames straight away.
It does seem to me, from the posts I have read, that these Strategic Cruisers are built to be able to fill the roles of 2 or 3 T2 cruisers each, maybe sacrificing a little strength in one area to increase all round flexibility.
They could have made T3 just the next step up, but CCP decided to go down this interesting route of modular design. Perhaps they didn't want T2 to become instantly obsolete, but this was never going to be the case, as T1 never became obsolete, despite what people have said in this thread. I routinely fly T1, and see plenty of people flying around in Stabbers and Thoraxes. The T2 stuff only comes out only when I need it.
The way I see it, there are two things that need to be addressed: firstly, the 'cost' may need to be tweaked a little to make the risk v reward equation a little more balanced. Secondly, the CPU does sound a little low for a T3 ship. If CCP are worried about it being overpowered, they could put some other form of nerf on it, but only after observing it in live play for a while.
Let us all remember that this is the test server, and the version currently live was obsolete the second they loaded it onto the server. They will be several iterations ahead already, and the final version, even though it will be released next week, will still be different from the version on the test server.
And don't forget, there will undoubtedly be a patch before too long, as there always is with these things.
Right, I'm never not to be negative:)
tech 3 cruisers are awesome as is ship wise on SiSi. nothing just mkaing them better better is cool, and great.
but then, they can't cost more, they just can't.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 02:14:00 -
[23]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt
Originally by: MotherMoon right, there is a reason command ships are primiared, or a logtisics ship. CCP seems to have this idea that ships are primaried based on how expensive they are.
and apparently that the more expensive and risky the ship, the more players will just want to fly them.
Good idea, primary the ship with the biggest tank!
I don't know if you know this, but logistics ships are not the same price as Command Ships.
Sorry my typing sucks.
I was saying that most fleet commanders (at least me) call primaries based on WHAT a ship can do, not how expensive it is.
I would not primary a tech 3 ship if this is how powerful there are, they can get a point and be killed later.
Also the way it stands is CCP seem to think people will fly these ships just based on price.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 10:39:00 -
[24]
to ccp.
I just wanted to add, for future pieces of these ships, such as more in line with battleship strenght ones (tech 3 battleships) forget the idea of a new class and build off of these ships?
SO have maybe 7 pieces per subsystem,(4 cruiser strenght, 3 battleship strenght?) but with battleship level bonuses and junk. This way you don't need anything but "tech 3" and as the tech advances you get better tech 3.
but then wouldn't people just fit the better stuff?
not if you increase the price of these mods so the price to match. SO you could fit out a ship with 4 cruiser strenght subsystems and THEN fit a battleship system. The only issue I see is speed, which is why you add a new system in, where these new pieces at a TON of mass, and thus slow you down a LOT. NOw the new pieces are mostly bonuses + fitting.
So lets say you fit all battleship strength subsystems and then fit a cruiser strength propulsion subsystem. You get higher speed, because you can't fit a battleship sized afterburner. However the battleship sized propulsion subsystem has a bonus to fitting for battleship sized propulsion modules.
I don't don't if this is a good idea or not, but that's my idea. :)
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 14:08:00 -
[25]
Originally by: McDaddy Pimp Edited by: McDaddy Pimp on 04/03/2009 13:53:13
Originally by: CCP Nozh Small update:
We focused too much on having fewer slots with "preferred bonuses". Players chose subsystems based on bonuses and ended up with sub-par slot layouts. Players then started choosing subsystems based on slots and were unhappy with their bonuses. To fix this we reduced the slot amount "gap" (by adding slots) and boosted the less preferred bonuses.
CPU and Powergrid was revisited as promised. I'm hoping the fittings are pretty tight and that you have to downgrade some modules to be able to fit everything properly.
We've also now added names and descriptions to all subsystems, which should bring some ease to fitting. The description also holds bonus information.
Stuff that we're looking into:
- Tengu: Passive Tank, too uber.
- Legion: Capacitor might be a bit over the top
- Proteus: Might remove one hardpoint of the drone focused offensive system
Edit: Also added a remote repair bonus to all of the resistance based defensive subsystems. Only amount, so their limited in range and do consume quite a bit of cap.
u forgot one thing
the loki is awesome, what is your deal?
even though nozh tried to talk me out of it "I still think you should lose one less low for the 1st subsystem, but I'd rather them focus on finishing the expansion than changing things to give me 10% more dps, or some other nonsense.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 16:05:00 -
[26]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 04/03/2009 16:05:27 nozh, is that falloff only now? or 5% to fall off and optimal?
ether way, good change :)
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 16:30:00 -
[27]
hmmmm, apparently I got alittle bit of nozhs super uber tank on fraps.
Anyways here is another crazy idea for you nozh. TO balance passsive tanking with PvP, and PvS, what if your passive shield regen weaken by 50% when capped out?
Under normal circumstances this wouldn't be an issue as a passive shield tank uses no cap, but in PvP maybe nuets should have an effect on a passive tanked ship.
Just an idea, take it as you will.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 19:40:00 -
[28]
nozh, shouldn't the minmatar shield rep bonus instead be a cap ammount bonus?
The ammar don't need anymore cap to run thier junky armor tanks.
We minmatar need cap amount to compensate for our lower shield, but higher EM resistances. Plus with every active shield tank mod we use we lose a module we could use for tackling.
This is of course, nothing more than my opinion.
Also it would make the ship safer when fighting ships with nuets, which currently take our tiny cap, and well, destroy us.
another issue, The minmatar defensive module which allows for a boost in remote rep is great, but the minmatar cruisers CPU limits it to only being able to fit one remote rep.
just fyi
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 21:45:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 04/03/2009 20:15:25
Originally by: MotherMoon nozh, shouldn't the minmatar shield rep bonus instead be a cap ammount bonus?
The ammar don't need anymore cap to run thier junky armor tanks.
Engineering subsystem 1 gives decent capacitor, and engineering 2 gives cap recharge.
Quote:
another issue, The minmatar defensive module which allows for a boost in remote rep is great, but the minmatar cruisers CPU limits it to only being able to fit one remote rep.
Indeed, cpu output could be upped a bit, it is very tight, not only for remote reps but also to actually fit shield boosters.
basicly though, you only remote rep if you armor tank.
It seems like they want minmatar to both armor and shield tank. So those subsystems should augment powergrid and CPU accordingly.
currently there is no reason to shield tank over armor tank becuase of the CPU. maybe a new bonus with the shield boosting module?
-some% of pwergrid per level +some% of cpu per level?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 22:58:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Question: Will there be base stats associated with the Strategic Cruiser skill or is everything on the subsystems?
5% heat bonus per level. \o/
still wish nozh would consider my idea of having a 5% to structure resistances per level of racial cruiser skill, but oh well it's not like they need even more tank:P
|
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 06:47:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 04/03/2009 23:57:01
Originally by: MotherMoon
currently there is no reason to shield tank over armor tank becuase of the CPU. maybe a new bonus with the shield boosting module?
I'm actually shield tanking it (cant stand armor tanks), although its a passive buffer. With the shield module I get >10k buffer with ok-ish resist while only using 2 slots for extenders, leaving one for MWD and 3 for tackle.
Its ok in my book, but I'm more into versatile setups than just mindlessly boosting one stat into the sky, as this doesnt help you in pvp at all.
Give me a tad bit extra CPU (+50 maybe) and I'll be able to mount a X-Large booster tank just fine, or stick some dmg mods into lows instead of nanos.
Then the shield tanking bonus should be changed to a shield hp bonus.
my point was more about the bonus not actually being usable.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 06:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Schmell <angry minmatar corner>
I dont understand why gallente got 7.5% bonus to fallof along with 5% damage and minmatar got only 5% (on "internal server")?
I dont understand, why amarr got 3 (!!!) bonuses with one offence subsystem (10% cap use, 5% damage, 5% optimal; there is another one subsystem with 3 bonuses but i dont remember exactly), and minmatar got 2 all the way?
W T F?
Oh...
Thank god, there is no subsystem with stupid useless bonus to target painters.
true we get 5% Rof/ 2.5%damage
ammar get 10% cap use/5%damage/5% optimal range.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 11:19:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 04/03/2009 23:57:01
Originally by: MotherMoon
currently there is no reason to shield tank over armor tank becuase of the CPU. maybe a new bonus with the shield boosting module?
I'm actually shield tanking it (cant stand armor tanks), although its a passive buffer. With the shield module I get >10k buffer with ok-ish resist while only using 2 slots for extenders, leaving one for MWD and 3 for tackle.
Its ok in my book, but I'm more into versatile setups than just mindlessly boosting one stat into the sky, as this doesnt help you in pvp at all.
Give me a tad bit extra CPU (+50 maybe) and I'll be able to mount a X-Large booster tank just fine, or stick some dmg mods into lows instead of nanos.
Then the shield tanking bonus should be changed to a shield hp bonus.
my point was more about the bonus not actually being usable.
shield boost bonus is VERY VERY usable. And SUPERIOR to stick extenders if you know what you are doing. On ships on this price tag and that clearly wont be used on fleet warfare for a long time, using a crystal set is VERY doable. That sided with the new increaed importance of small signature radius sicne QR makes shield boosting ships work very well.
Shield boost bonus are OK and good on smaller ships. THey just suck at the maesltrom and vargur.
great, lets all shield tank with no cpu to fit guns!
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 09:05:00 -
[34]
Quote: drone MWD speed bonus rather useless, as any opponent at disruptor range could disengage at will. It locks the setup into the role of a strictly gang-dependant close range gankship. Basically the same lackluster ship it was before the change, just with its weaknesses shifted around. It can still be happily replaced with an Astarte.
well, wouldn't a MWD bonus be good for ECM drones or web drones?
not a big different in combat, but a decent one I would think.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:45:00 -
[35]
Originally by: IceAero
Originally by: Uzume Ame +Prenerf hammer (drop this "tactic" allready yo CCP)? At this stage I'm not allready sure what they are doing so let's just wait for the release tomorrow.
I don't get why they'd change them around so much.
They make changes, we give opinions, they make more changes, we give more opinions, they make things worse, we complain, they make things better, we say 'nice', they tweak them, we say 'ok fine', then they make them horrible again.
That is the last 3 weeks in a nutshell.
I have no idea, I can't really test them right now, and everything is different... like completely. and we can't buy and fit them.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 12:56:00 -
[36]
lokie, ofensive subsystem 3 give 3 missle hardpoints... 3 turrets hardpoints...
ok, that's cool, and I would love a mini-phone but... it only gives 5 high slots... what am I suppose to do with that? :(
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.12 02:20:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Tonto Auri How many points total you'll getting with complete setup? There should be some more hard points from other modules.
Well there are 2 other subsystems that give a high slot. One of them gives a remote rep bonus, in other words, it gives you room to put a remote rep, so I could use that one and throw away the remote repping bonus.
The other one gives 1 more high, but also give 1 more turret and one more missle hardpoint.
so that seems redundant too. I guess it's the only subsystem that can get 7 weapons it though. But I don't want 7, I want 6. I guess I have to use the powercore one jsut to fit an extra missile... wierd I'd rather have the split weapon system one be...
1 more high for one less low.
That way I get my 6 highs, 3missles and 3 turrets. but less lows to boost thier damage. And the excuse being that
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2009.03.13 14:17:00 -
[38]
hey, I love my phoon fool :(
|
|
|
|