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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

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? ---
Poldarn Joaq State Protectorate	Posted - 2009.04.22 10:55:00 - [2] 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?
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance Blackguard Coalition	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:01:00 - [3] 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.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:03:00 - [4] 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 - [5] 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)
Incantare	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:35:00 - [6] 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.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 11:45:00 - [7] 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? ---
Incantare	Posted - 2009.04.22 12:16:00 - [8] It's always difficult to compare HACs and faction cruisers because one was designed to be (more) cost inneficient but right now I consider it almost obsolete, it's saving grace is that one mid and the options it brings. 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. :)
Perry Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.22 12:27:00 - [9] The Deimos effectively looses a slot compared to the Zealot. Both have 5 Turretslots for their ultra violent Turrets. Zealot has 7 Lows, Deimos 6. This is fine because amarr shipps usually have +1 Low compared to similar gallente ships. But both have 3 Mids which is not fine! Gallente usually has +1 Med compared to similar role amarr ships. Where did the med slot go? Right, they put it to the Highslots to make shure its absolutely useless, nerfing Deimos with -1 effective Slot. So the "right" Deimos should have 5 Hi 4 Med and 6 Low, with enough Grid to fit a rack of Neutrons, a MWD and a 800mm Plate, like the Zealot can do with Heavy Pulse. The Dronebay of the Deimos may be the crux when comparing it to Zealot, but on the other side, Deimos must be right on top of its Targets while Zealot can be effective from 5-120km.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 13:28:00 - [10] 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 - [11] 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... ---
Mass'a Whipcracka	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:23:00 - [12] CCP had a good idea with how they were changing the diemos in previous attempts, the issue with it was removing a low slot for a mid slot that was the issue with the diemos community. lets review what they were doing right with there last attempts: removal of the MWD bonus and increased cap to make up for change. great idea addition on armor repair bonus. could be better , i think the best bonus the diemos could get in return is the 7.5% tracking so rails are useable in closer ranges. removing 1 low slot for additional mid slot. bad idea, low slots are much more important to a diemos than a extra utility mid. I would suggest moving a high to a mid and leaving the ows alone but that would take a way my much needed salvage slot improving blasters and rails could actually make the ship worthwhile on its own tbh, so just go over hybrids in general and fix them, then you dont need to worry about diemos changes
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:25:00 - [13] 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? I do not think they would do something so far fetched, remember the 4 turret zealot? /shudders
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:26:00 - [14] 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.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:33:00 - [15] 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. ---
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:34:00 - [16] 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. MWD cap bonus -> medium hybrid damage bonus, cool. Falloff bonus -> not cool too change, falloff is dps loss forgiveness for range shifting through fight and helps apply damage a little sooner. Agility and/or speed increase could help but that likely won't happen since agility nerf discussion is in swing I read the forums assuming there are no trolls, only really stupid people. Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:36:00 - [17] God no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Deimos on any level. Its got the perfect balance of firepower, tank, versatility and mobility without being flat out superior to other HACs. Right now, the Muninn is by far the most screwed up HAC in the game and Deimos one of the least. If I absolutely had to change it, I would move it in a direction most of you would stab me to death over. I would make it into a purer blaster boat at the expense of versatility. In other words: half the drones, increase in grid for Neutron IIs, move utility high to mid slot, change the HAC damage bonus to rof. About the same damage output, but more in kinetic/thermal and far less useful beyond 10km than before. In return, more deadly guns at close ranges.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:37:00 - [18] And as for the Zealot, its overpowered with 5 turrets. Of course, not a lot of people are gonna say it so bluntly but that was one of the stupider changes :V
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:39:00 - [19] Originally by: Perry The Deimos effectively looses a slot compared to the Zealot. Both have 5 Turretslots for their ultra violent Turrets. Zealot has 7 Lows, Deimos 6. This is fine because amarr shipps usually have +1 Low compared to similar gallente ships. But both have 3 Mids which is not fine! Gallente usually has +1 Med compared to similar role amarr ships. Where did the med slot go? Right, they put it to the Highslots to make shure its absolutely useless, nerfing Deimos with -1 effective Slot. So the "right" Deimos should have 5 Hi 4 Med and 6 Low, with enough Grid to fit a rack of Neutrons, a MWD and a 800mm Plate, like the Zealot can do with Heavy Pulse. The Dronebay of the Deimos may be the crux when comparing it to Zealot, but on the other side, Deimos must be right on top of its Targets while Zealot can be effective from 5-120km. did you forgot that deimos got 5 medium drones and zelot got none drones? 60D GTC - shattared link
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:40:00 - [20] Originally by: DigitalCommunist And as for the Zealot, its overpowered with 5 turrets. Of course, not a lot of people are gonna say it so bluntly but that was one of the stupider changes :V I disagree, zealot pre-5 turrets was abysmal. It is powerful now, but its not just a function of the 5th turret, its also the 10% reduction in base EM resists. I read the forums assuming there are no trolls, only really stupid people. Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?

DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:43:00 - [21] Grab a number and disagree all you want from the back of the line. But the ship was damn good with 4 turrets; supported by both math and TQ performance. Now its just absurd.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Mr Ignitious Falloff bonus -> not cool too change, falloff is dps loss forgiveness for range shifting through fight and helps apply damage a little sooner. Screw the falloff bonus. You've still got pathetic range, and are going to die uselessly if you can't get up close (and if you CAN get close enough to hit effectively with the falloff bonus, you can also get close enough to hit effectively without it). Trying to do it halfway is just pointless, the Deimos should be an all or nothing gank ship, OMGWTFWHEREDIDMYSHIPGO!?!?!?! dps if it gets in range, but dead otherwise. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:49:00 - [23] 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... ---
Doublemuff The Drips	Posted - 2009.04.22 17:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Perry The Deimos effectively looses a slot compared to the Zealot. Both have 5 Turretslots for their ultra violent Turrets. Zealot has 7 Lows, Deimos 6. This is fine because amarr shipps usually have +1 Low compared to similar gallente ships. But both have 3 Mids which is not fine! Gallente usually has +1 Med compared to similar role amarr ships. Where did the med slot go? Right, they put it to the Highslots to make shure its absolutely useless, nerfing Deimos with -1 effective Slot. So the "right" Deimos should have 5 Hi 4 Med and 6 Low, with enough Grid to fit a rack of Neutrons, a MWD and a 800mm Plate, like the Zealot can do with Heavy Pulse. The Dronebay of the Deimos may be the crux when comparing it to Zealot, but on the other side, Deimos must be right on top of its Targets while Zealot can be effective from 5-120km. that last idea was great :) really hope they do something like that.
Fistme	Posted - 2009.04.22 22:17:00 - [25] Imho you can't visit the Deimos issue w/o addressing the Astarte as well. Expensive 1 trick ships that live in the world of multiple webs while having low ehp means that any sig/agility advantage granted by a smaller hull is negated almost instantly. With the potential nerf to medium ECM drones coming these ships are really going to be having some issues in today's EVE.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.23 00:16:00 - [26] Deimos is more of a one-trick pony than Astarte. Astarte is the only Gallente ship that doesn't completely stink with medium railguns. As a blaster ship, its too close to a Megathron in terms of price, tank, firepower, mobility without being better in any area. But it still has the major advantage of tracking, and tears up frigs/cruisers far better than Megathron after the webifier nerf. Right now, both Deimos and Astarte are pretty fine. If I have an issue with the Astarte its the same one I have with all Field Command Ships. They're just bigger HACs. Nobody in their right mind would do any Gang Link related activities with one.
Solomon XI Kult of Kaos R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2009.04.23 00:51:00 - [27] Deimos fix: High-Slot ---> Mid-Slot After that, the Deimos is fixed. The problem lies in blasters presently. They NEED to be fixed.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists	Posted - 2009.04.23 03:05:00 - [28] Originally by: Raimo 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... Drones can be seen as a drawback, but in a 1vs1 the deimos clearly takes the cake for being able to carry a wave of ec-600, besides drones extend your range on the deimos quite a bit, it isnt outdamaged by the zealot as much as you might think with a wave of hammerheads. Both using their long-range ammo its advantage deimos 0-15km then zealot 15-45km. Both using short-range ammo its ca. 0-10km deimos, then 10-18km zealot. (Zealot fitting a 1x tracking computer /w optimal script in this comparison) When it comes to zealot people usually just see the decent damage up to 40km+ with scorch (imo scorch is just a bit too powerful, but thats another story) and the instant range adaption with crystals, but thats not the whole picture.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.23 03:42:00 - [29] 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.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.23 05:27:00 - [30] 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. ---



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.