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) |
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 01:35:00 -
[661]
Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 11/05/2009 01:40:19 Good news on the citadel torps, makes me want to train for a Phoneix after all, since i am currently very much Caldari specced and concidering going into capital ships.
But imo the explison velocity fix is more importent then addind Capital cruises, that would just make it more cumbersom to tweak and balance.
Right now the Phoneix got good range, and can deliver its dps across that range decently. Thats the main advantage a missile boat got over the instant damage turret boats, dot take that away by forcing Caldari players to use low damage cruises (then we might as well use tops?).
Take a look at Raven for fleet PvP, Cruise Raven is a no go there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 06:40:00 -
[662]
Originally by: Incantare
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
\o/
That said I do have one comment: those solutions aren't mutally exclusive. Ideally you should both fix citadels against moving caps and introduce capital cruise as a long range option.
Citadel torps already have 150km range 0_o. Cruise wouldn't be that helpful.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 07:09:00 -
[663]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
Man, I can't troll this post, it's impossible. Wtf am I supposed to do all day if the Devs start making competent posts and listen to player feedback?
Oh yeah and I suggest you just make TSM (tactical shield manipulation) a rank 2 skill and be done with it. You've fiddled with skill ranks and pre-reqs before so why stop now.
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Muschiu
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 07:13:00 -
[664]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
lol it's not about emo, it's about comon sense: i'm a nag pilot and i really trained allot for this ship already, but another 30 days of training for capital shield booster... meh, i'll just choose to go for revelation, train 60 days and jump in the best dread available, and have some very nice bs also like a bonus, not that crap called minmatar bs
|
Xelios
Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 08:25:00 -
[665]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
Shield Management 5 would make more sense as a pre-req, but I'd also be ok with TSM being redone to give a different more useful bonus. Or maybe both? That way people who've spent the time training it to 5 still get some advantage, and people who haven't trained it yet don't have to add another 20 days to an already loonnnngggg skill plan for a Nag.
I like the idea of TSM moving the peak shield recharge area up a bit, or maybe making the peak wider.
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 09:14:00 -
[666]
Edited by: Incantare on 11/05/2009 09:22:33
Originally by: TimMc
Citadel torps already have 150km range 0_o. Cruise wouldn't be that helpful.
It's not the range as much as the missile velocity.
That and the lack of a choice between short range/high damage and long range/low damage that every other weapon system has.
|
Muschiu
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 12:27:00 -
[667]
Edited by: ******u on 11/05/2009 12:29:15
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
increasing expl velocity it could be a bit tricky becose the risc of siege dreads killing bs and smaller; that's becose now carriers and bs/bcs have @same speed or close(yea 'lo good made nano nerf). another solution can be increassing torpedo dmg/rofx2, so the pheonixes can become best dmg dealler when it come to poses; also having an insane dmg at close/very close range will allow them to be hotdroped at point blank range on a hostile snipping sieged dread gang for example and wipe the floor with them.
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 13:55:00 -
[668]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
But don't capital armor guys need to train armor compensations to V? So time spent is pretty much equal with the shields as they don't.
|
Juliette DuBois
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 14:01:00 -
[669]
Originally by: Dibsi Dei
But don't capital armor guys need to train armor compensations to V? So time spent is pretty much equal with the shields as they don't.
Not really, I bet there are many cap pilots that have those at level 4 yet. Active hardeners are also used more often in caps than in small ships and comps do nothing for that. Not to mention that these skills are actually useful unlike TSM V.
|
prefectro
Minmatar Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 16:53:00 -
[670]
Originally by: Dibsi Dei
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
But don't capital armor guys need to train armor compensations to V? So time spent is pretty much equal with the shields as they don't.
The Nidhoggur (Matar Carrier) is an armor tanker. By making the Dread a shield tanker you now have to train both.
|
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 17:36:00 -
[671]
Originally by: Dibsi Dei
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
But don't capital armor guys need to train armor compensations to V? So time spent is pretty much equal with the shields as they don't.
We dont need to. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
Frodo Teabaggins
Minmatar 101st Space Marine Force
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 17:41:00 -
[672]
as for the split weapons...
make it 3 missiles and 3 guns. you decide which you use.
increase the durability of citadel torpedoes because a smartbomb kills them. thats bull just say GG to caldari already CCP i think you got em... theyre nerfed most everywhere as it is.
Dont forget T2 capital mods. ______________________________ How big is ur pvpness? |
Khefron
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 17:47:00 -
[673]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
Allow me to make a different suggestion. Citadel torps are also largely ineffective against pos modules. Perhaps the thing to do would be to leave the explosion velocity unchanged, but instead reduce the explosion radius from 1000 meters to 800 meters. This would have the torps do half damage against large guns and large pos mods, but with the current velocity numbers, not appreciably improve damage against Battleship and smaller sized targets. Also, due to how sig radius is a multiplier for velocity, it would also improve citadel torpedo performance against moving capital ships.
|
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 20:07:00 -
[674]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
You would make many Minny and Gallente cap ship pilots happy by doing this. Minny because they already require both kinds of capital tanking, Gallente because they can potentially use either kind on the Thanny and, to a lesser extent, Moros.
Originally by: TimMc
Citadel torps already have 150km range 0_o. Cruise wouldn't be that helpful.
Citadel torps were introduced in the days when battleship torps had base ranges that were much higher than currently. If CCP went the route of introducing Capital Cruise Missiles, they'd likely tweak the stats on Citadel torps to make them shorter range weapons. -------------------- "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 |
JonnyKay
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 23:33:00 -
[675]
I am an up and coming minny Cap pilot myself and am happy that the nag is getting some lovin ;D
Although it's still kind of ridiculous how Minmatar cap pilots need to train Shields, Armor, Projectiles, Missiles and Drones.
I have 7 days remaining on my tactical shield manipulation level 5 skill, so if they decide to change the requirements ill be annoyed.
Also, with the idea of making Capital Cruise missiles... there seems to be no need at all, its just yet another skill to train up, and with the state of normal cruise missiles, the capital cruise missiles will be crap! The explosion velocity and possibly explosion radius on the citadel torps should be altered to balance them
|
Orb Lati
Minmatar ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 23:44:00 -
[676]
I would prefer that TSM actually be boosted to a useful skill rather than switching CSO prerequisite to SM5.
Mainly because those who already have TSM trained to lvl5 shouldn't be penalized for training, what in effect becomes a useless 20+ day lvl5 skill, because others think its to much effort for them to train.
Even is you do switch CSO prereq to SM, you still need to address TSM (make effect the optimal passive/active recharge zone like suggested earlier)
"We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible" |
Mistmare
Heavy Influence Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 23:50:00 -
[677]
/signed and I'm really looking forward to the changes stated by CCP Chronotis as I'm a naglfar pilot and I feel like they really need something changed :)
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 06:29:00 -
[678]
Originally by: ******u increasing expl velocity it could be a bit tricky becose the risc of siege dreads killing bs and smaller; that's becose now carriers and bs/bcs have @same speed or close(yea 'lo good made nano nerf). another solution can be increassing torpedo dmg/rofx2, so the pheonixes can become best dmg dealler when it come to poses; also having an insane dmg at close/very close range will allow them to be hotdroped at point blank range on a hostile snipping sieged dread gang for example and wipe the floor with them.
The solution IMO would be to make the larger sig radius of the cap ships be more effective at negating speed tanking for citadel torps.
Though I'm actually more of a supporter of making the phoenix a real pos-basher, with better DPS than the other dreads when shooting at stationary targets. It would give it an unique role that would be in-line with it's current state (as a dread only useful for pos bashing).
|
SeerinDarkness
Minmatar An Tir Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 06:35:00 -
[679]
I personally think te whole concept of changing this ship is useless and time wasteing of course it required more skills just like the typhoon BS requires more skills to make it work properly as for citadel torps i see a lot of griping aboput those being useles for whatever reason but the calderi dread is based entierly on them and there are plenty of those around. Tanking enuff said choos to tankt it however u trained for..do Not be screwing over half of the matari pilots that specced in training tanking the other way...armor or shield or do you people care at all u may be jacking people on 4-5 months training time by making the naglfar tank type specific? Seer
|
Zanquis
Caldari Universal Exports Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 08:14:00 -
[680]
Edited by: Zanquis on 12/05/2009 08:16:37
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
Citidel Torps
I am not sure how much good adding another type of longer range/lower damage missile launchers will do for capital class weapons. I think your better off tweaking the explosion velocity/radius penalties associated with using the Siege modules and putting your energy into the capital ship revamp which is coming since I would assume dreads will change considerably along with the changes in sovereignty. Right now citidel torps just seem to do less damage, can be killed by smartbomb shields, and have trouble against smaller targets such as POS modules. You need to make citidel torps better at something then gunnery even if it carries some of these weakness. Right now its just a second class weapon system, and even Nag pilots hated the fact hey had to use the things. Part of the reason they are so happy their ships will have more dps loaded to their turrets.
Tactical Shield Manipulation Skill
This skill definitely needs to be changed, and here are a few ideas...
- 5% EM Shield EM resistances per level (Increases base 0 EM resistance to 25% at rank V)
- 3% Reduction in CPU requirements of Shield modules per level (could be restricted to shield boost amplifiers and shield transfers)
- 5% Reduction in Signature Radius penalties associated with shield modules per level (Useful for Passive tanks using shield extenders)
- 10% Bonus to activation costs of shield hardeners per level (Pretty minor bonus, but helps with smaller ships using Invulnerably Fields)
---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
|
|
Savasta
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 09:08:00 -
[681]
Originally by: Zanquis Edited by: Zanquis on 12/05/2009 08:16:37
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
Tactical shield manipulation V pre-req makes us emo
It is true that this skill is not so useful and pretty much the only reason to train this skill to 5 is so you can use capital shield boosters. We are open to possibly changing this to shield management 5 (a skill most of you should have and find more useful) but this does not help those of you who have gone through the pain already, only potential future naglfar pilots or those who specifically armour tanked their ships only and might be branching towards the phoenix for example.
Citidel Torps
I am not sure how much good adding another type of longer range/lower damage missile launchers will do for capital class weapons. I think your better off tweaking the explosion velocity/radius penalties associated with using the Siege modules and putting your energy into the capital ship revamp which is coming since I would assume dreads will change considerably along with the changes in sovereignty. Right now citidel torps just seem to do less damage, can be killed by smartbomb shields, and have trouble against smaller targets such as POS modules. You need to make citidel torps better at something then gunnery even if it carries some of these weakness. Right now its just a second class weapon system, and even Nag pilots hated the fact hey had to use the things. Part of the reason they are so happy their ships will have more dps loaded to their turrets.
Tactical Shield Manipulation Skill
This skill definitely needs to be changed, and here are a few ideas...
- 5% EM Shield EM resistances per level (Increases base 0 EM resistance to 25% at rank V)
- 3% Reduction in CPU requirements of Shield modules per level (could be restricted to shield boost amplifiers and shield transfers)
- 5% Reduction in Signature Radius penalties associated with shield modules per level (Useful for Passive tanks using shield extenders)
- 10% Bonus to activation costs of shield hardeners per level (Pretty minor bonus, but helps with smaller ships using Invulnerably Fields)
1. I like this, but it might be too strong for some ships. Something like 3% per level or 2% to all resistances per level might be more balanced.
2. Also good.
3. Not so useful if it only applies to shield modules, very useful if it applies to all ships.
4. Not really all that useful for smaller ships, since active shield hardeners take a lot of CPU to fit, and don't use a significant amount of cap in the first place.
|
Verlokiraptor
All Around Research Inc Onslaught.
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 09:13:00 -
[682]
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 10/05/2009 22:48:36 Make TSM increase the peak recharge zone (which is currently about 35-25%?) go all the way from 0%-35% at level 5. (20%-35% at one, 15%-35% at two, 10%-35% at three, 5%-35% at four, 0%-35% at five)
This effectively means a Passive shield tanked ship can regenerate just as well at 0% as an active tanked ship could, instead of the current "Past 30% all is lost"
And then you can rebalance Passive shield tanked ships while you're at it so that they tank on-par (or a little more/less as you see fit) with active tanked ships.
While I will admit I haven't flown passive shield tanked ships, I would suggest a variation of this idea: at level 1, peak recharge = 20-30% shields level 2, 15-25% shields level 3, 10-20% shields level 4, 5-15% shields level 5, 0-10% shields
The problem with Blane's suggestion is that then you have to chew through 35% of their shields at max recharge as opposed to 10% now! This solution avoids that problem, although it does somewhat the time you'll take to die after shields are down.
Presumably either the old effect would be maintained or bleedthrough would be removed altogether. If so, it would be a very desirable level 5 skill for passive tanking.
|
Relyen
Foundation Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 13:53:00 -
[683]
Originally by: Verlokiraptor
While I will admit I haven't flown passive shield tanked ships, I would suggest a variation of this idea: at level 1, peak recharge = 20-30% shields level 2, 15-25% shields level 3, 10-20% shields level 4, 5-15% shields level 5, 0-10% shields
The problem with Blane's suggestion is that then you have to chew through 35% of their shields at max recharge as opposed to 10% now! This solution avoids that problem, although it does somewhat the time you'll take to die after shields are down.
Presumably either the old effect would be maintained or bleedthrough would be removed altogether. If so, it would be a very desirable level 5 skill for passive tanking.
Why would any shield tanking pilot want to move their peak shield recharge closer to the point of failure? Thats worse then it's current form :P ________________________________
I am own. |
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 14:21:00 -
[684]
Originally by: Verlokiraptor
Originally by: Blane Xero Edited by: Blane Xero on 10/05/2009 22:48:36 Make TSM increase the peak recharge zone (which is currently about 35-25%?) go all the way from 0%-35% at level 5. (20%-35% at one, 15%-35% at two, 10%-35% at three, 5%-35% at four, 0%-35% at five)
This effectively means a Passive shield tanked ship can regenerate just as well at 0% as an active tanked ship could, instead of the current "Past 30% all is lost"
And then you can rebalance Passive shield tanked ships while you're at it so that they tank on-par (or a little more/less as you see fit) with active tanked ships.
While I will admit I haven't flown passive shield tanked ships, I would suggest a variation of this idea: at level 1, peak recharge = 20-30% shields level 2, 15-25% shields level 3, 10-20% shields level 4, 5-15% shields level 5, 0-10% shields
The problem with Blane's suggestion is that then you have to chew through 35% of their shields at max recharge as opposed to 10% now! This solution avoids that problem, although it does somewhat the time you'll take to die after shields are down.
Presumably either the old effect would be maintained or bleedthrough would be removed altogether. If so, it would be a very desirable level 5 skill for passive tanking.
Like i said. Overhaul the passive shield tanking ships is a bit of a "to do" as it is.
more random figures; Level I Peak recharge = 35-23% Level II Peak Recharge = 35% - 21% Level III Peak Recharge = 35% - 19% Level IV Peak Recharge = 35% - 17% Level V Peak Recharge = 35% - 15%.
Or for a different spin;
Level I - Increased peak recharge amount by 20% (or 10-15%) Level II - Increased peak recharge amount by 40% (or 20-30%) Level III - Increased peak recharge amount by 60% (or 30-45%) Level IV - Increased Peak Recharge amount by 80% (or 40-60%) Level V - Increased Peak Recharge Amount by 100% (or 50-75%)
Again, balancing passive shield tanked ships would be vital. But this would also mean that passive regen is somewhat more of a playing factor in active tanking -aswell- as full blown passive tanking. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
Verlokiraptor
All Around Research Inc Onslaught.
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 15:30:00 -
[685]
Edited by: Verlokiraptor on 12/05/2009 15:31:42
Originally by: Relyen
Originally by: Verlokiraptor
While I will admit I haven't flown passive shield tanked ships, I would suggest a variation of this idea: at level 1, peak recharge = 20-30% shields level 2, 15-25% shields level 3, 10-20% shields level 4, 5-15% shields level 5, 0-10% shields
The problem with Blane's suggestion is that then you have to chew through 35% of their shields at max recharge as opposed to 10% now! This solution avoids that problem, although it does somewhat the time you'll take to die after shields are down.
Presumably either the old effect would be maintained or bleedthrough would be removed altogether. If so, it would be a very desirable level 5 skill for passive tanking.
Why would any shield tanking pilot want to move their peak shield recharge closer to the point of failure? Thats worse then it's current form :P
Well, obviously balance it so that the average recharge stays the same. Basically the advantage is that once it does fail, it will recharge much faster than it currently does. Like I said, I don't have first hand experience of passive tanked ships, but it certaintly seems like it would be an advantage.
Admittedly, your shields will get low faster and you might panic a little, but you won't actually explode any sooner
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 15:50:00 -
[686]
TSM: 2%/level to shield resist of your racial enemy's damage type.
All races get an armour resist bonus that reflects their racial enemy's damage type: e.g., Gallente get 35% kinetic armour resist, rather than base 25%. This is a nice bit of flavour... but it's a bit worthless for shield tankers because it only applies to armour.
So with TSM V, the Maelstrom would find its base EM shield resist at 10%, rather than 0%. A shield-buffer neutron gank Brutix would have a 50% kinetic shield resist, rather than current 40%.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 16:49:00 -
[687]
seeing the deacrease of replies in this thread i assume most of the forum ppl are fine with thew naglfar.
next issue CCP gogo!
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 17:18:00 -
[688]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 12/05/2009 17:20:07 6 mids is not enough to adequately tank shields. 6 lows is not enough to adequately tank armor. what we're going to end up with is a dread with middle to 2nd-best dps, the worst tank, and still the default insta-primary in any fleet engagement.
there's still absolutely no reason anyone who'se not already minmatar would train for this ship. it does nothing that other ships don't do, better.
allow me to list the niches:
1. moros - drones, great against bs 2. rev - insane tracking, great dps 3. phoenix - great tank, good range 4. 'new' nag - ???
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 17:47:00 -
[689]
Originally by: Verlokiraptor
Well, obviously balance it so that the average recharge stays the same. Basically the advantage is that once it does fail, it will recharge much faster than it currently does. Like I said, I don't have first hand experience of passive tanked ships, but it certaintly seems like it would be an advantage.
Admittedly, your shields will get low faster and you might panic a little, but you won't actually explode any sooner
That, I think, is your problem. You don't have experience in PST ships, and the ship would explode faster if it went down to 10% before shield recharge really kicked in. This would be a huge nerf to PST ships, and I would probably pod myself in hopes that the skill would untrain from level 5.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 18:04:00 -
[690]
Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 12/05/2009 17:20:07 6 mids is not enough to adequately tank shields. 6 lows is not enough to adequately tank armor. what we're going to end up with is a dread with middle to 2nd-best dps, the worst tank, and still the default insta-primary in any fleet engagement.
there's still absolutely no reason anyone who'se not already minmatar would train for this ship. it does nothing that other ships don't do, better.
allow me to list the niches:
1. moros - drones, great against bs 2. rev - insane tracking, great dps 3. phoenix - great tank, good range 4. 'new' nag - ???
Wrong.
Many Phoenix fits use a cap recharger in their mids, which leaves them with 6 mids for tank/sensor boosters/whatever. The Naglfar has the same 6 midslots along with an extra low so it can fit another CPR. (If you don't understand why you should use CPRs on active shield tanks, just stop reading) This means that the new Naglfar will potentially tank better than the Phoenix (at least on CPR active fits, not buffer fits) because it'll have nearly the same tank (a tiny bit less shield boost from that 5th CPR) but it'll be able to run it longer because its cap recharge will be higher.
What the new Naglfar provides pilots with is the strongest active shield-tanked Dread while the Phoenix remains king of the shield buffer tank. Which is exactly how it should be when you compare other Minny and Caldari ships.
And did you miss the part where the new Naglfar does the most damage from the edge of drone control range out to the edge of citadel torp range?
So, it's got a great active tank and great damage potential. What else do you want in a dread? -------------------- "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 |
|
|
|
|
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 |