EVE Search - Naglfar, Captial Projectile Turrets and Citadel Torpedos

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Naglfar, Captial Projectile Turrets and Citadel Torpedos

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Grez Minmatar Core Contingency	Posted - 2009.05.01 10:38:00 - [361] Edited by: Grez on 01/05/2009 10:38:42 Why does everyone moan about the Rev when it's made obvious by Blaze's research that it does the lesser DPS of the dreads after this fix at certain ranges? All of the dreads need looking at tbh :(. --- Grez: I shot the sheriff Kalazar: But I could not lock the Deputy BECAUSE OF FALCON
Dan Brimstone THORN Syndicate Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:05:00 - [362] Any chance of dropping a low slot and adding a mid slot so the ship can have a viable tank?

CCP Abathur	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:07:00 - [363] Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/05/2009 11:08:48 Just to reiterate: Originally by: CCP Chronotis At this point, we are gathering feedback and nothing is set in stone at all. As mentioned at the start, we realize that there are more fundamental issues with dreadnoughts and specific focuses on their anti-capital ship abilities. Feedback is most welcome! We are following this thread. Several of the ideas suggested here mirror discussions the dev team has had in the office, out of the office, over beer, etc... It's good to know that many of our thoughts mirror your own. Yes, we've also considered a 'Marauder'-like bonus to the guns, changing slot layouts and a variety of other things to achieve a good end result. However, we do not just look at the numbers and make a decision; we adjust the ships on our internal development server and play test them. This takes time, and it is time well spent as we often find that something awesome in theory is horrid in reality. There have been a lot of tweaks and play testing done over the past few days and we want to make sure whatever fix is implemented is one that provides the most balance possible. Fixing the Naglfar is part of a broader look at capitals in general that goes beyond just making sure their current incarnations are balanced. Upcoming features that we want to implement such as Jump Fuel Bays and looking into the usefulness (or lack thereof) of current short range Dread weaponry are being taken into account as well. Changes will not appear overnight, but we are working on it. We understand that some of you have very strong emotions about this, but please try to keep your comments constructive and helpful. Thank you!

Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:11:00 - [364] Originally by: T2Ibis Originally by: ImmortalKalo Originally by: Yorda 2 gun slots 100% damage role bonus 5% shield boost amount instead of missile RoF 3/6/5 +15% cpu There I did your job for you. FO SHO 3rded! I like this idea best even if it's only 50% dmg bonus ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Blazde 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:13:00 - [365] Edited by: Blazde on 01/05/2009 11:19:41 Originally by: Grez Edited by: Grez on 01/05/2009 10:38:42 Why does everyone moan about the Rev when it's made obvious by Blaze's research that it does the lesser DPS of the dreads after this fix at certain ranges? All of the dreads need looking at tbh :(. Don'y pay too much attention to the extreme ranges. Noone is picking dread fights much above 220km, and when they do it intentionally it's with at least two range mods (which makes the turrets perform at 220km as if they were at ~165km for instance). No doubt the Moros is the king of sniping (and the Nag could be good too with projectile focused bonuses) but the Rev is just a great all round work horse. The Rev is also by far the commonest in a three damage mod setup by vitue of it's low slot advantage, especially when it hits level 5 and needs much less cap for guns. The Moros is fine too, works at all ranges but shines at sniping, and that awesome drone bonus which don't forget works out of seige mode. The Phoenix desperately needs that torp velocity bonus, maybe a bit faster still but I guess it's debateable. Phoenix has a wicked tank so it's okay it has some issues delivering damage. It could also use a CPU boost particularly to give better options when fitting missile rigs. It's noticeable that it's the only dread currently with tight fitting requirements. _
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:15:00 - [366] really though i think your doing this in the wrong order, one of the most asked for things in the thread before this is an artillery rework. So why are you planning a massive change to one of the ships that relies heavily on arty before you have a look at arty themselves? ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
TheMailman GreenSwarm Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:16:00 - [367] blah, just cut the price by 50% and everything is ok...(except the current builders get f'd off, but its not like it has not happened before...)
something somethingdark	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:34:00 - [368] Originally by: CCP Whisper stuff oh boy ... where to start ... 10098 polygons sounds like allot at first but if you look at it in more detail ... no its not... its just not How long does it take to make a ship model or modify an existing one? Anywhere from six months to a year yes thats actualy true!... if your the only concept artist, model designer, texture guy, import to game guy, last but not least QA and you spend about 30 minutes a day on it here is how it should look 1 week for the concept artist to come up with a couple of preliminary designs 1-2 days to settle on one another few days for idk ... management type of things 2 weeks for the model crew to do the changes (srsly they work 8 hours a day not 5 minutes) 1 week for tweak and testing 1 week as a buffer for misc things an aditional week if your scared and another 2 months till the changes are actualy unleashed onto sisi because the other departments still twiddle their thumbs or do something completly diffrent do the arty changes and give it another medslot + some cpu done everybodys happy and your ar**** can sit arround designing stunning new faction variants (read : we play with the hue of a texture)
c0rn1 Seraphin Technologies KrautbreaK	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:40:00 - [369] Why don't we use a different approach to the Naglfar as to other Dreads? Just leave it as it is, BUT change it's role completely. Say we have the 2/2/1 layout in highslots. 2 turret, 2 missile, 1 siege module. BUT give this ship a role like the following: A Capital Killer: This requires the following upgrades to Eve: A Capital Energy Neutralizer: Power Grid: 125,000MW CPU Need: 100tf Activation Cost: 1600 Energy Energy Neutralized: 2000 Energy Activation time: 24s Special Abilities to the Naglfar: + 5% ROF and Damage to Capital Projectiles per skill level + 20% to Energy Destabilizers range and amount per skill level (Siege mode affects this as well as the damage above) 99% reduction in CPU need for Siege Module Screw the torp bonus completely and make it an even more than sup-par Dread to siege POSs but let its time come when capitals are to be killed! I think we don't need 4 dreads in line with each other. Give them certain roles what they are good at. At least do it to the Nag since that one has no character as of now. This would solve the solution of a redesign and it would make it invincible in the role it has. Just kill another capital better than any other dread but basically suck at shooting POSs. The above mentioned characteristica are just taken out of my mind and do not reflect a 100% thought through solution. I just want to show a different way to go with the naglfar. Cheers c0rn1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Life's a waste of time ...
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2009.05.01 11:50:00 - [370] My suggestion: allow pilot to focus on either type of weapons, leaving the model untouched: 1. 2 turret hardpoints, 3 launcher hardpoints. 2. 7.5% RoF + 10% damage bonuses for projectiles, 5% RoF for launchers. 3. -1 high slot, +1 med. slot. 4. A bit more CPU. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule

ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.05.01 12:05:00 - [371] Originally by: CCP Abathur Changes will not appear overnight, but we are working on it. its been freaking broken since it came out, so its more like changes doesnt happen over years with you guys. im pretty damn sure ccp have known this ship have needed a fix for quite some time, still you have been more busy pushing out new content then actually fixing whats already in game
Clark Manson	Posted - 2009.05.01 12:22:00 - [372] Why not drop the citadels altogether, give it a bonus similar to marauders to make up the difference, and either lose the 2 launcher hardpoints or convert them to utility only slots like the marauders.
D0INK Minmatar Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2009.05.01 12:51:00 - [373] In all honesty, the pure projectile Naglfar would be the best fix. Currently the naglfar can be taken down the quickest, and have pretty **** poor DPS compared to any other dread. Phoenix - Great Burst tank, obscene volley damage at close range (Fail at mid to long range) Moros - Drones. It carriers a support fleet in it's drone bay. Revelation - Excellent tank, good DPS output and relatively flexible range. Naglfar - What's a tank? BRB, training caldari shield skills and missile skills, amarr/gallente armor tanking, guns, and drones. I understand the naglfar is supposed to stand out, but does it have to stand out as the "loldread"? It needs to be focused as projectiles being the primary DPS output. __________________________________________________ D0INK [V-H-I] <MLTOV> Contract Manager Alliance Co-Diplomat
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.01 13:49:00 - [374] Originally by: Sleyn Peade Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Sleyn Peade Originally by: CCP Chronotis A bunch of sentences lacking any grasp in reality Are you kidding???? That's like trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower. That makes the following idea look realistic: Originally by: SHC Remove the high slots, make it perfectly clear that the Nag is eye candy in a cap fight. I'll have to admit that this comes from someone who likes the naglfar for all the crazy that it is, rusty, vertical, extra-high, split-weapon and all, and I keep seing people look to the extra high (or the lack of a med/low it causes) as the tank-problem, but I think the best way to fix the ship is to fix damage and tank seperately: The damage: ->Change the projectile RoF-bonus to 10% (that'll beef up the damage nicely enough) ->Capital projectile-gunz change: Ca. +20% dmg-modifier and +15% RoF (as higher RoF means less shooting it wouldn't be the biggest dps-change, but it'll mean a bigger alpha and less reloading) ->Optimal on the capital arty changed to 72.000m, more hits, more usefull ->Change drone capacity to 375 m3 (Room for 3 handfulls of sentry-drones. The fact that it can't carry 2 right now is just meh) The tank: -> +120.000 shield hp -> (shield recharge on caps may need to get looked at) -> +80.000 structure hp It's always going to have a worse active tank than anything else, no way around that, even if it got its low/med back it's just the minmatar-style. Giving it a huge shieldbuffer, which is pretty minmatar-characteristic last I checked, and a large structurebuffer, which goes with the ships looks, will make up for the lack of the low/med that was stolen to the highslots. -> +120 CPU. Even with that it won't be able to fit too good a shield-tank (do the damn math, +70 is just lol), but it'll bring it close enough that named mods and thinking the setup through and passing on the T2-ballistic controls that use 40 ****ing cpu will mean that you can fit the ship without a cpu-enhancer. That way the ship will be where it belongs, in the minmatar-style wtf-crazy category. errr you proposed to increase arti range to a SMALLER range that ccp proposed? what? Yes, since 80 km optimal is the same as capital energy-beams, and giving arties the same optimal as beams doesn't seem right. mega beams and 1400mm DO have same base range.. and those are the weapons upon wich the XL ones are based.
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.05.01 15:06:00 - [375] Originally by: CCP Abathur We understand that some of you have very strong emotions about this Please understand that this is an issue that has been complained about for quite some time by a broad range of people, so don't get too offended that what appeared to be a half-baked proposal that did not adequately address the failings of the ship was flamed to a crisp. And once again: people calling for a model change, give it up. I expect the result of this to be a quick-and-dirty balance change for the short to medium term while they ponder the more underlying dread and capital warfare issues, and with their long art pipeline and what I expect will be a strong management desire for a lot of the art team that worked on Apocrypha to get back to making Ambulation and World of Darkness, I can't see there being any real motivation on CCP's part to make changes to what is currently a perfectly fine model. Originally by: Loki Evil <stuff to do with calculating balance> From what little information that has escaped CCP with regards to their balancing methods, it appears that training time and cost of construction are not factors. It's entirely based on role and relative racial balance. Finally, I would like to see the Naglfar balanced with just normal-sized dynamic bonuses (ie, those that scale with the relevant ship skill, like 5% ROF).
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.05.01 15:11:00 - [376] Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 01/05/2009 11:08:48 Just to reiterate: Originally by: CCP Chronotis At this point, we are gathering feedback and nothing is set in stone at all. As mentioned at the start, we realize that there are more fundamental issues with dreadnoughts and specific focuses on their anti-capital ship abilities. Feedback is most welcome! We are following this thread. Several of the ideas suggested here mirror discussions the dev team has had in the office, out of the office, over beer, etc... It's good to know that many of our thoughts mirror your own. Yes, we've also considered a 'Marauder'-like bonus to the guns, changing slot layouts and a variety of other things to achieve a good end result. However, we do not just look at the numbers and make a decision; we adjust the ships on our internal development server and play test them. This takes time, and it is time well spent as we often find that something awesome in theory is horrid in reality. There have been a lot of tweaks and play testing done over the past few days and we want to make sure whatever fix is implemented is one that provides the most balance possible. Fixing the Naglfar is part of a broader look at capitals in general that goes beyond just making sure their current incarnations are balanced. Upcoming features that we want to implement such as Jump Fuel Bays and looking into the usefulness (or lack thereof) of current short range Dread weaponry are being taken into account as well. Changes will not appear overnight, but we are working on it. We understand that some of you have very strong emotions about this, but please try to keep your comments constructive and helpful. Thank you! Well you sound like the most useful dev i've ever seen post in these forums lets hope you do indeed get it right.
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.05.01 15:49:00 - [377] Off topic, but while you're looking at capital ships in general how about adding small corp hangars and/or ship maintenence bays to dreads? No more than 1/2 of a carrier one, probably less. Not enough to have people start using dreads for logistics, but enough that dread pilots can carry a few small ships around with them without having to rely on carriers. Please? -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Sbl Dark Glitter Inc	Posted - 2009.05.01 15:56:00 - [378] why do people want to make the dread a shield tanker? add a low, remove a mid and its a perfectly fine armor tanker just like the carrier counterpart. Having to train for two tanking systems at the non-super cap level, and two weapon systems is out of order.
TimGascoigne The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.05.01 16:01:00 - [379] Edited by: TimGascoigne on 01/05/2009 16:04:22 The current proposals are terrible as they will reduce both damage and tank despite the fact that the nag is already lacking in these areas. The nag need 2 turret slots and no Missile hard points thus 3 high slots in total. It needs to lose 2 lows and gain 2 med slots and have a complete rethink as to bonuses. my naglfar. 3 high (2 turret slots) 7 med 4 low 100% role improvement on damage modifier of capital projectiles. 10% bonus to capital projectile damage per Minmatar dreadnought level. I would then change capital artillery with 10% lengthening to rate of fire with 10% improvement in damage to compensate. As for the nags role in fleets (special ability) I would love to see this dreadnought being a cap ship killer ( maybe less so for sub-caps ). This would be achieved with the scan resolution improved and the signature resolution on capital projectiles reduced. I would keep the improved optimal range as stated in the OP (80km Optimal maybe more). This would make the naglfar the most efficient dreadnought at killing other capital ships. leave the game with two shield thanked dreads and two amror tanked dreads. Make the naglfar more effective at POS sieges whilst not being the best. Remember Dev's the description says "the Naglfar is capable of holding its own against opponents of all sizes and shapes. While its defenses don't go to extremes" a statement which needs some truth added to it. This is also a good way to make use of projectile turrets ability to use all 4 damage types.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.01 16:25:00 - [380] Originally by: Sbl why do people want to make the dread a shield tanker? add a low, remove a mid and its a perfectly fine armor tanker just like the carrier counterpart. Having to train for two tanking systems at the non-super cap level, and two weapon systems is out of order. No its not. The nidhogur was a shield tanker up to not so long ago. Also if you fly minamtar ships you do have all shiedl tanking skills except the capital one. Also a shield tanked dread turns intoa more gank focused ship, and taht si what the naglfar has always been presented as. Also if you just make it ANOTHER 7 low slots dreads would be just another of same other things we have. 6 mids 6 lows and you can do BOTH.. easy painless and interesting. Split weapon systems do not work on armor tankers that is somethign everybody understands. So or the citatels go away or it becomes a viable shield tanker.

Succubine Caldari Succubine Dynasty Technologies	Posted - 2009.05.01 16:29:00 - [381] Originally by: Typhado3 really though i think your doing this in the wrong order, one of the most asked for things in the thread before this is an artillery rework. So why are you planning a massive change to one of the ships that relies heavily on arty before you have a look at arty themselves? Perhaps they are afraid people will fit artillery to other capitals because cap stability is so much more important than dps for dreadnoughts.
Psyflame ZiTek Deepspace Explorations	Posted - 2009.05.01 16:49:00 - [382] Edited by: Psyflame on 01/05/2009 16:50:57 Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 01/05/2009 01:30:11 Originally by: 5pinDizzy Originally by: pyraX Sg Originally by: Yorda 2 gun slots 100% damage role bonus 5% shield boost amount instead of missile RoF 3/6/5 +15% cpu Yes, I want this. Yeah is there an argument against this yet? Originally by: isdisco3 - It's got one less low+mid than every other dread. Arbitrary numbers... ftw? Naglfar would not need low + mid so very much with proposed changes. Originally by: isdisco3 - It shield tanks, which is the opposite of the carrier. Hel shield tanks. Tempest shield or armor tanks. Nanophoons were shield tanked. The entire Matar ship line has evidence of split tank. Originally by: isdisco3 - It will tick off people who trained the month+ or so for citadel torps. Perhaps you missed the nano nerf? This argument is particularly hilarious. CCP has stated repeatedly that balancing will occur regardless of player isk or SP investment. Originally by: isdisco3 - No need for shield tank because 1 weapon type means there's no need for dual weapon modifiers in lows. No need for armor tank because it would get a shield boost bonus. Originally by: isdisco3 - The slots don't allow for either a decent shield or armor tank. It will have a worse shield tank than the phoenix and won't be able to fit a good armor tank like the rev / moros. The slot layout is complimented by the shield boost bonus. In addition: CCP has already stated that they have no intention of changing the model. Yorda's solution leaves the model as-is AND fixes the ship. Double win. Next. Originally by: Typhado3 I like this idea best even if it's only 50% dmg bonus, also if it goes with the 2 high slots for guns but 2 of each hardpoint so you can fit one or teh other but not both that would work as wel.. This has been covered... Originally by: Psyflame Four guns that do hilariously pathetic damage. Damage so low that a 3 gun revelation still exceeds them. Revelation: 3x Dual Giga Beam Laser I - 2469dps. Proposed Naglfar: 2x 100% bonus Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery I - 2388dps Revelation, 3 heatsinks: 3x Dual Giga Beam Laser I - 4083dps Proposed Naglfar, 3 gyros: 2x 100% bonus Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery I - 3508dps Exactly where are you going with this?
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:00:00 - [383] Thanks for the feedback CCP. Unlike many of the armchair-designers here, I won't be telling you how to run your internal business. I do think that my proposal is full of merit, and is better than the other popular proposal for the reasons I've already listed, most notably because the slot layout blows and will make the nag still be primaried in every fleet fight due to bad tank. To make sure my proposal doesn't get lost, I'm copying it again. Quote: - 3 highs (2 turret, 2 missile hardpoints) - 5 meds - 7 lows Bonus: - XL- Projectile damage per level (40%), Capital Launcher Damage per level (40%) - XL- Projectile fall off per level (5%) Citadel Torpedo velocity per level (5%) - 99% CPU requirement for siege modules per level *easily replacable with a role bonus of 100%
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:04:00 - [384] This isn't specific to the Naglfar, but since you're probably working on the issue right now I'll say it anyway. All capital ships need an overhaul that does two things: 1. Refines capital and related mechanics to be more interesting and tactical. Examples: jumpdrive mechanics, siege mechanics, hangars & ship bays.. etc. 2. Differentiates them using capital stats, and not just common everyday racial stats. Examples: fuel cost, jump range, hangar/bay capacity. Note, I'm only talking about standard capitals. Supercapitals are, in my opinion, not going to be balanced without a completely separate set of mechanics. Here are some examples of changes.. Jumpdrive Spooling - To hamper login traps, easy escapes, and give enemies a bigger window to interfere during travel/undock. Spooling would stop all capacitor recharge and count down. If at the end of the countdown, you don't have enough cap, jump is cancelled. And whether a jump is successful or not, the drive goes into a cooldown period. Siege Mode Options - Longer cycle time for higher damage output and fuel efficiency, but that means you're vulnerable for hotdrop for longer periods. It would be a nice option to clean up POS that are no longer defended. Ships like Naglfar and Nidhoggur can have half the duration with all the benefits because <obligatory Minmatar hit and run reference>. In other words, have 10 minute and 20 minute cycle times. For Naglfar it would be 5 minutes and 10 minutes respectively. Fuel Resupply - When you manage to put this into the game, allow for friendlies in gang to open, view and resupply them in space. Right now, the most practical way to refuel is in station via trade window, followed by slowboating to a carrier or hangar array at POS. During combat, the only viable option is jettison cans which is crap. So capitals that run out of fuel during deployment are pretty much screwed. Doing this means both sides can keep the fight going if their resupply ships can survive. Locking & Range - Only as a start, give all dreads a default 250km lock range. Without this, sensor boosters are pretty much a mandatory fitting. Because of that, their cap suffers and damage+buffer setups become the standard fitting even in smaller engagements. Yet, dreads have the most powerful rep with the most powerful repair bonuses. Ideally though, all Dread and POS weapon ranges need to be multiplied by a factor of three. This would mean dreads can hit (and be hit by) POS at up to 400-500km. By increasing the distance, they become viable as long range artillery support in fleet battles - assuming they can get a lock on enemy battleships. It also increases the distance between fleets to a point where you can't defend your own dreads AND attack enemy dreads from one position. Weapons - Let citadels warp at ranges above 150km and give them a logarithmic speed curve for shorter distances. That way, hitting something is never 'instant' at any range, but it's also not painfully long either. Cyno Changes - Like jumpdrive, give it a slight delay before it can be used. If the duration is 300 seconds, it should go active halfway through. However, a friendly jumpdrive should be able to lock onto it immediately for spooling. If the cyno gets destroyed, the capital ship should be able to jump anyway - but it would get dumped into a random location within 1au of the cyno. Cyno Jammer Changes - Does not block cyno activation or jumpdrive, merely scrambles it. So if you get a perfect lock on an active cyno you'd end up within 1au of it in some random direction. If the cyno gets destroyed in a cyno jammed system, you'll jump into a completely random position within 200au of the system. For single ships traveling, this isn't too much of an issue. For fleets trying to siege a defended system, or hotdrop something, you're giving the enemy potentially dozens of targets to scan down and gank - and making regroup slow and painful. One more thing.. dreads in siege act as a cyno.
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:09:00 - [385] Originally by: Psyflame Arbitrary numbers... ftw? Naglfar would not need low + mid so very much with proposed changes. The lack of equality with regards to low + mid slots directly affects the nag's ability to tank and gank. Removing one automatically puts it at a disadvantage, even with a 5% shield-boosting increase. Originally by: Psyflame Hel shield tanks. Tempest shield or armor tanks. Nanophoons were shield tanked. The entire Matar ship line has evidence of split tank. Nobody shield tanks a tempest, unless its an extremely specific-role tempest. Nanophoons are dead, and weren't shield 'tanked', they just had LSE's because they didn't have grid for anything else. Those are two extreme examples that are far from the 'normal' type of fit they use. Yes, the matar line has split tanks. Originally by: Psyflame Perhaps you missed the nano nerf? This argument is particularly hilarious. CCP has stated repeatedly that balancing will occur regardless of player isk or SP investment. This is true, but I'm saying my proposal doesn't require those people to get ticked off. Why ** them off if you can come up with an equally good solution that doesn't have to? Originally by:** Psyflame No need for armor tank because it would get a shield boost bonus. Yes, but we wouldn't have the option, and the shield tank would still be very sub-par due to the poor slot layout. Originally by: Psyflame The slot layout is complimented by the shield boost bonus. At level 5, you've got a 25% boost to shield amount. That's less than a shield boost amp, which would go in one of the mids which we, according to the argument, "don't need." Originally by: Psyflame In addition: CCP has already stated that they have no intention of changing the model. Yorda's solution leaves the model as-is AND fixes the ship. Double win. Next. Mine doesn't require re-making the model either, at all. Originally by: Psyflame Four guns that do hilariously pathetic damage. Damage so low that a 3 gun revelation still exceeds them. Revelation: 3x Dual Giga Beam Laser I - 2469dps. Proposed Naglfar: 2x 100% bonus Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery I - 2388dps Revelation, 3 heatsinks: 3x Dual Giga Beam Laser I - 4083dps Proposed Naglfar, 3 gyros: 2x 100% bonus Quad 3500mm Siege Artillery I - 3508dps That's a balancing issue with the siege artilleries.
Vasili Z Pyre of Gods	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:23:00 - [386] Why the **** would you want more volley damage on a dread? What are you gonna insta-pop? 3rd turret, more dps. All we ask for is a REASON to train the worst-tanked dread in space by far, making it do more volley damage is completely useless. ------- P0GS is recruiting; no fatties
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:26:00 - [387] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Stuff All of these ideas/suggestions make captial combat even more labours then is already is and its terribly long and boring already how about no.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.01 17:33:00 - [388] Originally by: Vasili Z Why the **** would you want more volley damage on a dread? What are you gonna insta-pop? 3rd turret, more dps. All we ask for is a REASON to train the worst-tanked dread in space by far, making it do more volley damage is completely useless. altpough woudl be funny if they removed the citatel bonus and introduced a 40% trackign bonus per level on its place

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.05.01 18:12:00 - [389] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Good Post Certainly in the longer term as we have hinted at previously, we are looking at deeper more complex changes and overhauls which open up the variety of possible strategies in cap ship warfare. Siege module variations is definitely one of those which has a lot of potential for example and your other suggestions are interesting and have been discussed before internally as possible ideas. Spooling is quite an old one for example when hot dropping started to become widespread or in the first days of titans. It would definitely be good to open a thread in the Features and Ideas forum to discuss longer term and larger scale high level ideas like yours and the subject of 0.0 warfare as a whole which is being pursued internally and with the CSM aggressively (pretty much every CSM has covered some aspect of it to some degree with more recent indepth high level discussions), and here on the open forums. In the short term, we are looking at making a very specific focused set of changes to the Naglfar and citadel torps with as we said an acknowledgement that there is definitely a lot more that needs to be done. For those naysayers who think this will be the only pass at a possible change to the Naglfar, we can only say that we are hoping to change that perception now and in the future though the proof will be the pudding as they say. As Abathur said, we are currently playtesting a variety of possible changes and approaches to the Naglfar and citadel torps. The feedback here, especially the good constructive feedback and in depth work by Blazde amongst others has been very useful and it is great to see such passion and interest from you all whilst keeping it largely constructive. Next week, we will update on the changes we would like to push to Sisi for testing. In the meantime, please continue with the constructive feedback.

Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.05.01 18:20:00 - [390] When you and the rest of game balance teams make an overhaul to the dreads as a whole. May I suggest give a look on the concept of short range guns for the dreadnaughts that clearly are not working very well (since static deployment of the dread make range issues more prevalent)



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: 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.