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. ---

DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.23 05:40:00 - [31] How am I trolling? Blasters have been my main weapon since the goddamn Jurassic. Even if my credibility as a blaster connoisseur weren't supreme, its up to the person making broad claims to explain them. Baseless and vague claims are what kids? Yes, trolling. And for the record once more: Blaster Warfare has issues, but the guns themselves do not. And even then, its not the FOTM world rending cataclysm that some people are hoping to spin it into. I can point out more issues with drones warfare or turret warfare in general than blaster warfare. Feel free to threadnaught about it in the interest of equal opportunity.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.23 06:56:00 - [32] Hell, I hate blaster ships in their current state (pulses and missiles FTW), and even I can see that the problem isn't the guns themselves. On paper, blasters are fine, they could probably use a bit of a tracking boost to compensate for the web nerf, but they're much better off than most of the whiners claim. The problem is that the current metagame is heavily biased towards gangs, and blasters suck in gangs. Even if you're flying solo, you need the ability to disengage when a hostile gang shows up, which makes getting deep into web/scram range pretty suicidal. Even if blasters would give you a better chance of winning, you're forced to fly the 24km pulse ship and just give up on any target that your reduced dps can't break or that you can't keep from MWDing back to the gate/station thanks to your lack of web. Fix the metagame and give a boost to solo players, and blaster ships will reclaim a lot of their old role. And in the case of the Deimos, the problem isn't the guns, it's the fact that the Brutix does its job better and for a lot less ISK. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
SDragoon	Posted - 2009.04.23 07:32:00 - [33] High to mid and give it a tracking bonus. High dps is great, if you can actually hit something.. which it can have trouble doing as is verus same size targets, much less smaller ones.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.23 07:55:00 - [34] Originally by: Sera Ryskin The problem is that the current metagame is heavily biased towards gangs, and blasters suck in gangs. Current what? That's always how its been. Any weapon that works at absurdly low ranges will suffer from the same thing. If blasters suck in bigger gangs, then guess what? Pulse and torps suck in fleet battles. Oh teh noes. You can't fix this, because if you could then what is the point of using anything BUT blasters? The question isn't whether you can use blasters in gangs, but whether blaster ships can kill anything by themselves. And the answer to that is a big fat yes. Right now the most detrimental aspect is how you have 60 second aggression time on every ship. This is plenty of time to solo kill a frigate, but not nearly enough to solo kill a BS even with blasters. Originally by: Sera Ryskin And in the case of the Deimos, the problem isn't the guns, it's the fact that the Brutix does its job better and for a lot less ISK. You can have your opinion, but I would never fly a Brutix for as long as I could afford the Deimos. The differences are not small, and only people who place little value on mobility/speed would consider the Brutix some kind of pimp ship. Or they underestimate the relevance of a falloff bonus, active tank, or energy neutralizer.
Apollo Artemis Baptism oF Fire	Posted - 2009.04.24 21:12:00 - [35] An extra midslot would be nice but imo it's blasters that need fixing not just the deimos. See also: Is blaster tracking broken?
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.24 22:15:00 - [36] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Current what? That's always how its been. Any weapon that works at absurdly low ranges will suffer from the same thing. If blasters suck in bigger gangs, then guess what? Pulse and torps suck in fleet battles. Oh teh noes. Please, read more carefully. Blasters are best in solo PvP, and are dominated by pulses/missiles/ACs in gangs. The current metagame is heavily against solo PvP. Therefore the role of blasters is extremely limited. Quote: You can't fix this, because if you could then what is the point of using anything BUT blasters? The question isn't whether you can use blasters in gangs, but whether blaster ships can kill anything by themselves. And the answer to that is a big fat yes. Right now the most detrimental aspect is how you have 60 second aggression time on every ship. This is plenty of time to solo kill a frigate, but not nearly enough to solo kill a BS even with blasters. No, the question is whether you can kill anything and survive the inevitable counter-attack. Since you are deep in web/scram range, good luck escaping when it turns out that your nice easy target is a bait ship with a gang on the way, or when a rival pirate gang tries to jump your target at the same time. Quote: You can have your opinion, but I would never fly a Brutix for as long as I could afford the Deimos. The differences are not small, and only people who place little value on mobility/speed would consider the Brutix some kind of pimp ship. Or they underestimate the relevance of a falloff bonus, active tank, or energy neutralizer. Too bad your speed/mobility advantage disappears once you get in web/scram range. Maybe if you have so much money you can't even spend it all, the Deimos is a good choice, but for the rest of us, the Deimos simply doesn't have anywhere near enough of an advantage over the Brutix to justify 3x the cost. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:02:00 - [37] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Current what? That's always how its been. Any weapon that works at absurdly low ranges will suffer from the same thing. If blasters suck in bigger gangs, then guess what? Pulse and torps suck in fleet battles. Oh teh noes. You can't fix this, because if you could then what is the point of using anything BUT blasters? The question isn't whether you can use blasters in gangs, but whether blaster ships can kill anything by themselves. And the answer to that is a big fat yes. Right now the most detrimental aspect is how you have 60 second aggression time on every ship. This is plenty of time to solo kill a frigate, but not nearly enough to solo kill a BS even with blasters. You love to talk in absolutes, don't you? Does a very short range weapon system suffers unavoidably when numbers increase? Sure. That is obvious and mostly irrelevante to the discussion, as most things that come from you I must point. Now, the important questions here are: 1) How quickly does it happen? Blasters lose effectivity with numbers way too fast at current ranges. Five ships is more than enough to make a fight between blaster and pulse boats a massacre. It is obvious a better balance must be achieved between this two weapon systems. 2) How big must be the advantage in lower numbers to compensate for the big advantage as numbers increase? The curent damage of blasters is not higher enough to justify the extremelly short range. In comparison to pulses for example, you have 1/4 of the range for a 15% increase in damage. When you compute approaching times and misses, given the new web strength and the low ranges necessary for this weapon system, you end with a very subpar option compared to lasers. Under the current game mechanics, no matter the size of the gangs, the maximum you can achieve with a blaster boat is a situation where it is just as effective as a Pulse boat. Originally by: Sera Ryskin You can have your opinion, but I would never fly a Brutix for as long as I could afford the Deimos. The differences are not small, and only people who place little value on mobility/speed would consider the Brutix some kind of pimp ship. Or they underestimate the relevance of a falloff bonus, active tank, or energy neutralizer. You may fly whatever your tastes demand from you, but that does not mean it is worth doing so. There is no point whatsover to fly a demons over a thorax. You can do it if you have lots of ISK to throw away, but if you do, there are far better things to do with your virtual money, like for example financing a new capital fleet for your alliance. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Hellcore Minmatar Ex-Nihilo Fate Weavers	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:15:00 - [38] Edited by: Hellcore on 24/04/2009 23:15:36 Thread is becoming hilarious. If you think a Deimos has more worth than a Brutix in anything other than being able to flee a camp then you are pretty deluded. I used to think a Brutix was horrible and a Deimos , well actually, it has always been a liablity. I've been able to pick up Deimos a a stupidly low price for a very long time, still I would pick a Brutix over a Deimos until the Brutix was the more expensive ship or my main targets were frigates. --
Bazman Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:33:00 - [39] 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. -----
Davik Rendar NQX Innovations	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:40:00 - [40] High slot -> Mid slot Falloff Bonus -> Tracking Bonus +150 base powergrid IMHO Eve Online Ship Chart - Apocrypha Edition

DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.25 04:32:00 - [41] Originally by: Sera Ryskin Please, read more carefully. Blasters are best in solo PvP, and are dominated by pulses/missiles/ACs in gangs. The current metagame is heavily against solo PvP. Therefore the role of blasters is extremely limited. Hey, guess what? Yeah, that too is normal. There hasn't been a time when solo pvp was not relatively disadvantaged. There's nothing wrong with that, because solo pvp is as viable as it has ever been. If you think otherwise, then you either don't know how the game has evolved over time or you choose to remember it through nostalgia goggles. Originally by: Sera Ryskin No, the question is whether you can kill anything and survive the inevitable counter-attack. What does the range of your guns have to do with surviving a counterattack or trap? Unless you're sniping from beyond 100km, you're probably gonna get disrupted just as easily with pulse and torps. If you get disrupted by superior numbers, blasters are just as suited for coming out alive as any other weapon type. Maybe more, because the ships getting close enough to keep you webbed (and from mwding away) are asking for it. Originally by: Sera Ryskin Too bad your speed/mobility advantage disappears once you get in web/scram range. Maybe if you have so much money you can't even spend it all, the Deimos is a good choice, but for the rest of us, the Deimos simply doesn't have anywhere near enough of an advantage over the Brutix to justify 3x the cost. You make it sound like a blaster Brutix doesn't get screwed in the same exact manner. A Brutix is going to get scrambled and webbed too, the difference is I can get on top of an enemy far easier with Deimos, then I can also close the range far easier - a range that is larger and more practical because of the falloff bonus. Deimos is a superior on the vanguard because the majority of successful small scale PVP is engaging people who don't want to fight at that instance. If that weren't true, I wouldn't have any reason to keep flying Taranis so much.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:04:00 - [42] Originally by: Etho Demerzel You love to talk in absolutes, don't you? Does a very short range weapon system suffers unavoidably when numbers increase? Sure. That is obvious and mostly irrelevante to the discussion, as most things that come from you I must point. When I say something I bother to back it up with an explanation. This slapfest only happens when people are asked to explain and justify their grievances with logic. Insisting something is wrong doesn't make it so. Insisting more loudly and in numbers doesn't make it so. Originally by: Etho Demerzel Now, the important questions here are: 1) How quickly does it happen? Blasters lose effectivity with numbers way too fast at current ranges. Five ships is more than enough to make a fight between blaster and pulse boats a massacre. It is obvious a better balance must be achieved between this two weapon systems. That's a pretty flaccid argument, since numbers have nothing to do with it. Ranges do. A blaster ship landing on top of five people is going to fare better than one engaging only 2 people but having to mwd between each one. And guess what, most blaster pilots who die in those situations aren't dying because they couldn't reach the enemy and kill them, but because they can't tank that much damage. Even if a developer got super high right now and doubled all blaster DPS, that wouldn't do anything to change the scenario. Pulse/torps would still be more efficient in numbered engagements because you don't need ultra DPS to break a ship when there are 5 or 10 of you. Originally by: Etho Demerzel 2) How big must be the advantage in lower numbers to compensate for the big advantage as numbers increase? The curent damage of blasters is not higher enough to justify the extremelly short range. In comparison to pulses for example, you have 1/4 of the range for a 15% increase in damage. When you compute approaching times and misses, given the new web strength and the low ranges necessary for this weapon system, you end with a very subpar option compared to lasers. Right, now look at the absolute range differences blasters and pulse with high damage ammo. - frigates ~3-5km - cruisers ~5-9km - battleship ~10-18km The absolute ranges are almost inconsequential on the smaller ships, and their higher speed also negates it easier. The advantage of pulse over blasters on frigates is not at high damage ammo, but their ability to do something at long ranges. Above 5km and you can evade smartbombs where a blaster frig is useless. Above 10km with scorch and you might be able to stay out of web range. On cruisers, its their ability to once again switch in medium or long range ammo and do something at 15-30km where cruiser blasters do nothing. Coupled with their high tracking, pulse with long range ammo are terrifyingly effective against support. Even in the worst case scenario on large ships where the absolute differences are highest and speeds lowest, the fight is still in disruptor and neutralizer ranges for pulse and torp users. If I'm flying a Geddon, my immediate thought isn't how badass I am at killing other BS because I don't have to close that extra 10km. It's "oh thank god I can hit that bastard keeping me pinned from 24km". Although Null mitigates that scenario considerably, and many others. Originally by: Etho Demerzel Under the current game mechanics, no matter the size of the gangs, the maximum you can achieve with a blaster boat is a situation where it is just as effective as a Pulse boat. Except that's not true since blasters do more damage.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:11:00 - [43] Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 25/04/2009 05:11:20 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Hey, guess what? Yeah, that too is normal. There hasn't been a time when solo pvp was not relatively disadvantaged. There's nothing wrong with that, because solo pvp is as viable as it has ever been. If you think otherwise, then you either don't know how the game has evolved over time or you choose to remember it through nostalgia goggles. There's disadvantaged, and then there's crippled and dying. Solo piracy (hint: Gallente ships are ideal for piracy) used to be FAR more common, now you see rival pirate gangs are much more frequently, and FW blobs only add to the problem. And even if it has been a problem for a long time, that's hardly a reason not to fix it! Quote: What does the range of your guns have to do with surviving a counterattack or trap? Unless you're sniping from beyond 100km, you're probably gonna get disrupted just as easily with pulse and torps. If you get disrupted by superior numbers, blasters are just as suited for coming out alive as any other weapon type. Maybe more, because the ships getting close enough to keep you webbed (and from mwding away) are asking for it. Hint to the clueless: a Zealot with a RF point can simply MWD away from anything larger than a cruiser and instantly warp off, and can probably escape with a quick overload from anything larger than a frigate. Since you're engaging from maximum scramble range, you can escape very quickly as soon as trouble appears on scan. Now what does a Deimos do in that situation? Die. Web + scram = you aren't getting away before the blob arrives. Quote: You make it sound like a blaster Brutix doesn't get screwed in the same exact manner. A Brutix is going to get scrambled and webbed too, the difference is I can get on top of an enemy far easier with Deimos, then I can also close the range far easier - a range that is larger and more practical because of the falloff bonus. Sure the Brutix gets screwed, and it's the reason why a Hurricane, Harbinger or Drake is almost always a better choice. But there's a key difference: *the Brutix costs a third as much as a Deimos. I'll gladly accept the rare lost fight because of the speed difference in exchange for more dps and tank once in range, and a much cheaper price tag when I die. Quote:* Deimos is a superior on the vanguard because the majority of successful small scale PVP is engaging people who don't want to fight at that instance. If that weren't true, I wouldn't have any reason to keep flying Taranis so much. Too bad a Zealot or Vagabond does that job, and does it much better. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:14:00 - [44] Originally by: Sera Ryskin You may fly whatever your tastes demand from you, but that does not mean it is worth doing so. There is no point whatsover to fly a demons over a thorax. You can do it if you have lots of ISK to throw away, but if you do, there are far better things to do with your virtual money, like for example financing a new capital fleet for your alliance. Wow, and I get called out for trolling. Tech 1 has a lot more value in general, but that doesn't mean value equals competitiveness and capability. You can fly a Megathron for roughly the same money as Deimos, doesn't mean you're going to get as many fights. If that were true, I would be flying one 24/7. You can fly a bunch of great-value-discount Thoraxes that do almost the same thing at considerably less cost, but it's pretty pointless if you end up getting shredded on a regular basis by those with T2. If you take the number of kills obtained, the number of times you died, the amount of corpmates you got killed because you died in the long run.. you'll find tech 1 isn't as valuable as you think. For the ISK, all tech 2 ships have diminishing returns and diminishing value. But even at their current prices, they're hardly expensive. The value of ISK is the time it takes to acquire it. Buying every sub-cap ship in the game isn't even a remote challenge.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:47:00 - [45] Please do not be confused by the incorrect name on that quote, I didn't say that, the other guy did. I understand perfectly well the role of T2 cruisers, I just don't think the Deimos fills that role very well. And the proper comparison is with the Brutix, not the Thorax, the Thorax is obsolete newbie junk. ========== 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 - 2009.04.25 06:29:00 - [46] 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) ---
Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.25 07:24:00 - [47] 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. \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2009.04.25 07:36:00 - [48] Originally by: DigitalCommunist 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. I agree with you on almost everything. The one difference being that compared to the astarte, the sleipnir actually has the powergrid to comfortably fit a gangmod, although it does have some cpu issues. Thats beside the point. The point is that the diemos and the astarte are horribly expensive ships to take into that short a range. I beleive that hacs at short range do have some purpose. I fit a scrambler on my sleipnir and vagabond. It lets me kill tacklers. It lets me stop nanoships for the rest of the gang to shoot at. It helps make getting back to the gate more difficult for my victims. But at any time if it gets too hot in the heart of the battle I can choose to load up barrage, orbit at 16, and let one of my gang mates with a long point do his thing. Blasterboats can't do that last thing. And theyre not as fast. Especially if you go with an armor tank. Theres a reason the ishtar is the more popular hac, and its shield tanked most of the time. Blasterboats end up being meatshield. Meatshield is supposed to be expendable and durable. The phobos with its massive tanks and ability to provide an area of impediment to the enemy makes good meatshield. The deimos with its glass cannon approach does not. 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.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:55:00 - [49] 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... ---
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.04.25 10:24:00 - [50] Isn't the biggest issue for the Thorax et al. tracking, or the lack thereof, when in blaster range? Swapping the MWD bonus for a tracking bonus might be more valuable than damage. Or maybe even make up a brand new bonus that gives a bonus to medium hybrid signature resolution, opens the door for rail sniping as well. If you move the utility slot something else has to be gimped or you end up with an pwn-mobile. That was the reason why CCP did the low-slot swap to begin with. The fourth mid under the current mechanics would be more valuable than the extra Magstab: Injector to feed neutraliser, second web, TD etc. If the utility slot is taken, I would propose a reduction of dronebay and bandwidth by 50% to balance it out. Off Topic: The Zealots biggest boon is range, no other cruiser hull, sans the Ishtar can deliver 400dps at 30km+. The 5th gun and the grid requirements of the HPII can actually work against the Zealot limiting the options you have when fitting (cue the FMPII Zealots)

Randgris The Bastards	Posted - 2009.04.25 11:28:00 - [51] Edited by: Randgris on 25/04/2009 11:28:54 Edited by: Randgris on 25/04/2009 11:28:34 how about dropping the mwd cap bonus and slightly boosting base cap, and replace it with this 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 ------------------------------------------ Yes I know how my face looks like :D
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.04.25 16:32:00 - [52] Originally by: Verone 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. The "glass cannons" as you refer to them are far from "massivly destructive" relative to the other races same class of ships. Not only are they forced operate at the most vulnerable range in the game and well withing every other races high DMG range while having a pitiful relative tanking ability but with the games DMG nerfs and armour buffs they are utterly lacking in any real usefulness compared to the gallente drone ships.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.04.25 19:14:00 - [53] remove the utilty slot and give it another low slot imo
Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.04.25 19:42:00 - [54] The EFT warrioring is strong in this thread... \o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/ >>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<<
Requiescat Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.04.25 20:40:00 - [55] Originally by: Raimo It's supposed to be the facemelt-at-close-range- HAC and it has trouble doing that now with it's current DPS no it doesn't. -+- let's break out the shotguns, we're going to town
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.04.25 20:53:00 - [56] Originally by: Requiescat Originally by: Raimo It's supposed to be the facemelt-at-close-range- HAC and it has trouble doing that now with it's current DPS no it doesn't. As a HAC is is no where near as good or useful as the ishy. As well as being a very expensive and poor choice for a close range med class pwnage mobile compared to the brutix that has more dps at a fraction of the cost.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.04.27 20:02:00 - [57] 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. Agreed. Blasters all around need 20% better base tracking, the the deimos should have one more mid than the zealot. Only thing you can put in that utility high anyhow is a salvager, and who wants one of those?
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.04.27 21:18:00 - [58] 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. Just looking over the Deimos and I came to the same solution as you before I read your post. I'd go with 15% reduction in mass addition penalty for armor plates per level. if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.04.28 13:22:00 - [59] 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 - [60] 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 - [61] ....And a bump! ---
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.05.09 18:15:00 - [62] What the Deimos really needs: +1 Turret The main for reason this is that it's supposed to be the highest DPS HAC. Currently it can only do that in theory, and even then, a Brutix is a better option. Having a sixth blaster properly allows it to overcome the Brutix when it comes to damage. It also ensures the Deimos will really hurt when up close, as it's meant to. +1 Midslot Cap Booster would make a world of difference. A single neut can completely kill a Deimos, its MWD bonus won't help much. +250 Powergrid (+450 if sixth turret is granted) Give the ship the proper amount of Powergrid so it can fit Ions/Neutrons and still have a decent sized plate on it. Currently the Glass in Glass Cannon is all that really applies for the Deimos. Let it have some of buffer tank, and maybe do some repping with the above Cap Booster. Additional considerations: Increased base speed or mass reduction, as the Deimos needs to get in close, it can't afford to be slow, especially with that shiny MWD bonus. Swap MWD bonus for another fall-off bonus, increasing the effective range to outside 3-4km with Antimatter. Currentely at point-blank range, tracking is horribly broken, gimping the DPS of the Deimos even further. Things to keep in mind: It should have a clear and proper use over the Thorax as a gank ship. Brutix should be able to out-tank it and remain insurable, but DPS should remain the Deimos' territory. It's a blaster boat, pure and simple, it should bloody well hurt if it gets to you, period. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.05.10 06:55:00 - [63] Well that would certainly fix it Thenoran, tho the upping of damage would do the same as the 6th turret... ---
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.05.10 09:27:00 - [64] Originally by: Raimo Well that would certainly fix it Thenoran, tho the upping of damage would do the same as the 6th turret... 6th Turret would be more balanced (consumes Cap, Ammo, PG and High-slot) and would avoid having to break the standard of 5% damage bonuses like most other ships. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.05.10 12:41:00 - [65] railmos > eagle btw - putting the gist back into logistics
Terra Mikael SRIUS BISNIS	Posted - 2009.05.10 14:49:00 - [66] 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 Yeah, but packs a ** tank. great in gangs, but gets primaried a lot. I think its a fair trade off. ________________________________ Originally by:** Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.05.10 15:50:00 - [67] Originally by: Terra Mikael 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 Yeah, but packs a **** tank. great in gangs, but gets primaried a lot. I think its a fair trade off. I have seen quite a few zealot gang fits and their tank is not what i would consider thin when you factor in that it can do 450+ dps out to 34+km. In gang combat it can easily fit a shield extender or two and along with its range buffer. The reason it gets primaried so much is because it is so OP.
Raimo Gallente Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.05.10 16:46:00 - [68] Originally by: Roemy Schneider railmos > eagle btw Not rangewise if you're talking sniping... ---


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.