EVE Search - The 4 mid Deimos revisited

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

The 4 mid Deimos revisited

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 10:07:00 - [1] Edited by: Raimo on 22/04/2009 10:13:37 I decided to bring this up here as it seems that CCP/ Nozh will be looking at blaster boats in the near future AND it has been toyed with by CCP in the past... So, I'd like some more discussion about the 4 mid Deimos. I know it was shot down by player uproar some time ago, but the game has changed since. Also I'm sure many just opposed the repping bonus and removal of a low slot but would have taken the 4th mid in a pinch. So, IMHO the Deimos is in need of all kinds of help, good ideas are welcome but IMO the 3 mids are one of its major drawbacks. With 4 mids it could sport MWD+Web+Scrambler+ either 2nd web, ECCM, cap booster, tracking computer OR the sorely-needed-in-solo 24km disruptor. Or a shield buffer. All of these fitting options would help delegate the Deimos to a better more versatile ship and atm they all are pretty much impossible. Shield buffer is doable but you have to drop webs or tackle alltogether, long point is doable but without a scrambler you're in trouble against many targets, without a cap booster active tanking (if you really want to) doesn't work etc. In my humble opinion straight addition of a mid would NOT be OP if no fitting was changed, but if you have to take it from somewhere for the love of god take the utility high, don't touch the lows... And don't give it a rep bonus please! ;) Whaddya think? ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:03:00 - [2] Originally by: Poldarn Joaq I'm all for another mid slot. The extra mid would be very very useful, maybe too useful, so I wonder whether a dev might even remove a turret point and make us fit more utility/nos? Well removing a turret point to "help" the Deimos is the worst idea I ever heard. It' supposed to be the facemelt-at-close-range- HAC and it has trouble doing that now with it's current DPS... The utility high is a different matter, sad to see it go if it does but its not essential to the ship.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:10:00 - [3] Edited by: Raimo on 22/04/2009 11:11:54 Originally by: TimMc Its a 100mil isk thorax. IMO its meant to be ignored and hated. Adding a midslot turns it into a Brutix. I would like an agility bonus or something to nullify the plates affects on the ship. Adding a midslot would not turn it in to a brutix, a midslot and an useless repping bonus would. Anyway, it's not that the brutix (and thorax) is not in need of help as well but the Deimos is the one I care much more about and it's the T2 ship that should have some edge and uniqueness to it. It being "just a 100mil Thorax" is one of it's core problems right now and that should be adressed. Anyway, the added mid without any added grid will still make fitting a cap booster a compromise (If you have that in mind) but would help nullify the crippling effects of the QR tackling changes OR facilitate shield buffering better. (there's yor agility boost btw) I don't mind a bit more agility but raising top speed at the same time would help more, but it's not my point here. IMO the 4th mid would give some much needed fitting flexibility which could turn out to be a big help, fixing blasters would do the rest I'd think. (Upping the DPS, fixing tracking, fixing Void, I dunno, anything)
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:45:00 - [4] Originally by: Incantare One issue with the four mid deimos: it makes the vigilant obsolete. I'm all for it as long as the vigi gets a new role. As far as I'm concerned, the Vigilant in its current state is obsolete and in a serious need of a buff or rework anyway... A bit of a moot point, ainnit? ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 13:28:00 - [5] Perry, exactly my point. Though I would prefer to see the utility high staying even with the added mid and identical lows. And actually the Deimos atm needs its dronebay to gain any dps advantage over the zealot at 1/10th of the range... ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 13:38:00 - [6] Originally by: Incantare I figure if they're going to change one ship might as well put up a reminder there's another very similar ship that needs looking at. I'm done derailing your thread. :) There's a couple of current threads about faction ships... ;) IMO the HACs are so much more widespread that it's a bigger issue even though Deimos has less problems than the Vigilant... ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:33:00 - [7] Edited by: Raimo on 22/04/2009 17:33:56 Originally by: Sera Ryskin Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 22/04/2009 17:26:32 High slot -> mid slot. MWD cap bonus -> medium hybrid damage bonus. Falloff bonus -> medium hybrid damage bonus. Problem solved. I hate to say it but I gotta agree on the general gist of this, except for the falloff bonus which is rather useful... Unless blaster ranges are tweaked a bit otherwise. TBH even the MWD bonus is fine with me and marginally useful (unless base cap was improved). They could just as well up both of the medium hybrid damage bonuses to 7,5% or even 10% per level. This combined with somewhat more base speed and agility would do wonders. - Though I still wish they could just add a mid slot and leave the lows and highs untouched. ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:49:00 - [8] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl did you forgot that deimos got 5 medium drones and zelot got none drones? Originally by: Raimo And actually the Deimos atm needs its dronebay to gain any dps advantage over the zealot at 1/10th of the range... Ok, 1/10th was exagerrating a bit but not much... ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.23 05:27:00 - [9] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Solomon XI Deimos fix: High-Slot ---> Mid-Slot After that, the Deimos is fixed. The problem lies in blasters presently. They NEED to be fixed. Pray tell, good sir, what exactly is wrong with blasters? I'd like to see the math and other evidence you may have. Uh, could you stop trolling, please? Oh well, atm the damage of medium and large blaster boats is not sufficiently high to warrant their much lower effective range, compared to other "close" weapon systems. This is especially a problem with the QR speed nerf as it is much harder to get in range. ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.25 06:29:00 - [10] Originally by: Bazman Deimos, more like lolmost, right. Too expensive for what it doesn't do, which is not blow up ships, because your spend most of your time running for your life or dying. Going with Digi here. It needs maximised turret DPS, a ROF bonus would help that alot. Not sure about losing the drones though. The ship should maintain 3 mid slots, and that crappy high should be moved to a low. Face melting blaster ships should never have more than 3 mids imo. Do or die. Do or die and get jammed or die and get neuted? Shieldtanking? Jeez, no use for a 4th mid... (Tho even gaining a low would help it somewhat I guess) ---

Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:55:00 - [11] Edited by: Raimo on 25/04/2009 08:55:40 Originally by: Verone Edited by: Verone on 25/04/2009 07:25:25 The Deimos is perfectly fine the way it is. It's the same as the Astarte, they're designed from the core to be nothing more than a massively destructive glass cannon. People who're whinging about them just need to learn to grow a pair and fly them to their full potential, instead of trying to tank AND gank with them. Too bad they're not massively destructive atm, especially compared to the Zealot and Abso who also boast vastly more survivability and instant damage in most engagements, thus often topping actual damage dealt over the blaster boats... I do own a pair and fly Deimoses gung ho, it's where my skills are but I do see the problems it has. Do you fly it these days? Originally by: Hiroshima Jita If you add another mid I don't think the problem will be significantly altered. Maybe it will lead to the rise of the shield tanked rail deimos. Maybe a cap booster will solve all of the deimos problems. I don't know. But is suspect not. Well the 4 mid shield tanked blaster Deimos with Null and falloff rigs (and long point) would be my fitting of choice for well rounded midsize gangs. (Actually, it already is... But I feel like a scumbag without a point) Plate, Fac AM and full tackle for small ones, where I'd probably put a long point in the 4th mid in addition to the necessary scrambler, fixing another near crippling flaw... ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.28 13:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Randgris Quote: Gallente cruiser bonus: 20% bonus to armor plate effectiveness per level this way a thorax/deimos can fit e.g. a 800mm plate which gives as much hp as a 1600 but without the extra mass penalty of the 1600. it needs something to set it apart from the brutix and as it is now, the buffertanked deimos is just an expensive brutix with nearly the same agility/speed TBH, if the Deimos had roughly the effect of 3 T2 Trimarks built- in to the ship bonii I at least would prolly just turtletank the poor bastard... 1600 plate, 2 real Trimarks etc. It would sport a silly buffer tank, could be fun I guess but not really what I see it doing. (And I like 800mm/ 400mm / shieldtanking the boat with maximum gank) ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.28 13:23:00 - [13] Originally by: 5pinDizzy I'd go with 15% reduction in mass addition penalty for armor plates per level. No please. Do not pigeonhole the ship bonuses to armor tanking. ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.05.09 17:48:00 - [14] ....And a bump! ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.05.10 06:55:00 - [15] Well that would certainly fix it Thenoran, tho the upping of damage would do the same as the 6th turret... ---
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.05.10 16:46:00 - [16] Originally by: Roemy Schneider railmos > eagle btw Not rangewise if you're talking sniping... ---

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.