| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
   |
Posted - 2009.10.07 13:51:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: A Ingus
Which just points out what is wrong with these Gurista designs. The missiles should be the damage, not the drones. It's a Guristas ship ffs.
No. We already have a line of missile-focused shield-tanking faction ships, the CN series. We don't need another.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:08:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: A Ingus
Which just points out what is wrong with these Gurista designs. The missiles should be the damage, not the drones. It's a Guristas ship ffs.
No. We already have a line of missile-focused shield-tanking faction ships, the CN series. We don't need another.
Using that logic, do you propose to get rid of the hybrid, projectile, and laser using Pirate ships, and replace them with what?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 14:58:00 -
[153]
No, silly. I propose that the Guristas ships not be copies of the CN line. 
|
Stealthbug
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 15:05:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Gypsio III
No, silly. I propose that the Guristas ships not be copies of the CN line.
Guristas got their technology from fusing the Caldari Navy with the Gallente ships. They are primarily Caldari. Why shouldn't they be missile ships?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 15:21:00 -
[155]
Because we already have a line of shield-tanking missile ships and we don't need another. Anyway, there's no Gallente influence in a shield-tanked missile boat, so they wouldn't be "Guristas", they would just be "Caldari".
I having nothing against making them missile boats, it's the combination of missiles and shields that would be pointless. I'd quite happily see a line of armour-tanked missile boats, for example.
Obsessing about RP and game "lore" is stupid. It's there for flavour, not to constrain game design. No-one cares that Sansha's are now shield-tanked.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 15:37:00 -
[156]
Edited by: A Ingus on 07/10/2009 15:38:00
Originally by: Gypsio III
Because we already have a line of shield-tanking missile ships and we don't need another. Anyway, there's no Gallente influence in a shield-tanked missile boat, so they wouldn't be "Guristas", they would just be "Caldari".
Are not angel ships primarilly Minmatar, are not Serpentis primarilly Gallente? THey are and should be that way through the major weapon system they use. Guristas should not be primarilly drone boats.
Originally by: Gypsio III
I having nothing against making them missile boats, it's the combination of missiles and shields that would be pointless. I'd quite happily see a line of armour-tanked missile boats, for example.
There is already the Khanid ships. But I suppose Guristas could have Gallente armor tanks with missiles and what other Caldari bonus, oh how about ecm, where have i seen that? There are only so many combinations in the game. Are Serp and Angel ships really radically different? No.
Originally by: Gypsio III
Obsessing about RP and game "lore" is stupid. It's there for flavour, not to constrain game design. No-one cares that Sansha's are now shield-tanked.
Sansha's design makes sense. I see nothing wrong with a drone bonus to Guristas ships. It just should not be the primary damage bonus that defines the ship. And if the RP and game lore is stupid, then we should just chuck it all. Then there wouldn't really be a game but an odd simulator of not yet existent war vehicles.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 15:48:00 -
[157]
I'm baffled as to why you want yet another group of shield-tanking missile boats when we already have the CN line, and the T1 Caldari line. What role or niche do you see them filling? What's the point? All the niches have been filled - hell, look at the trouble making the Navy Scorp relevant.
Stating "RP" isn't good enough. "RP" does not demand, and is not an excuse for, boring, pointless ships - and Guristas ships that are shield-tanking missile boats would be boring, pointless ships - as their current TQ iteration is.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 16:14:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Gypsio III
I'm baffled as to why you want yet another group of shield-tanking missile boats when we already have the CN line, and the T1 Caldari line. What role or niche do you see them filling? What's the point? All the niches have been filled - hell, look at the trouble making the Navy Scorp relevant.
Stating "RP" isn't good enough. "RP" does not demand, and is not an excuse for, boring, pointless ships - and Guristas ships that are shield-tanking missile boats would be boring, pointless ships - as their current TQ iteration is.
How is basically another Domi, but a better afk mission runner any better? And if they want a shield tanking Domi frankly it should be a Serpentis ship, Gallente bonused drones with a Minmatar active shield tanking bonus, not a Guristas Scorpion hull that makes no sense.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 16:36:00 -
[159]
It's no better than a Domi at AFK mission running, as they both have the same drone bonus. Yes, you can load FOFs, but not only do they mainly shoot structures, you still have to hit F1 every time they reload, so you're not actually afk at all.
Yes, giving Serpentis a drone bonus would make more sense. But RP should never be used to force the creation of pointless ships, which is what missile-shield Guristas are. The only way that missile-shield Guristas would be worthwhile would be if the CN line was redefined as railboats, which would not only make no sense itself for RP reasons (Raven is missiles, but CNR is rails? Wat?), but would also cause a million-decibel cacophony of carebear mission-runner whining.
I'd be perfectly happy to see the Guristas as a line of armour-tanked missile boats, as that's a combination that's barely seen in game. But would you object to armoured Guristas for RP reasons as well?
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 16:50:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Gypsio III
I'd be perfectly happy to see the Guristas as a line of armour-tanked missile boats, as that's a combination that's barely seen in game. But would you object to armoured Guristas for RP reasons as well?
Isnt that niche taken by t2 amarr = khanids?
|
Stealthbug
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:06:00 -
[161]
I dont mind the idea of Guristas armor tanking. What annoys me is the use of drones as their primary weapon.
An armor tanked missile boat with drone support would be cool.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:16:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Gypsio III
I'd be perfectly happy to see the Guristas as a line of armour-tanked missile boats, as that's a combination that's barely seen in game. But would you object to armoured Guristas for RP reasons as well?
Aside from Khanid ship and some Minmatar ships (see Typhoon) already being in game I suppose it would make more sense than what is currently being proposed.
If it shot missiles and had a Gallente active armor bonus maybe better, just don't use a Scorpion hull. How about missiles and shield with a warp disrupter range bonus? There's plenty of mids for that. Also better than what is currently being proposed. I do not see missile and shield as pointless unless you are prepared to also see all the many turret and armor ships pointless as well.
Anyway, we're probably wasting our time with this. Some higher up dev thought it made sense to propose this dramatic change for Guristas and no dramatic change for Serpentis. Group think led to noone pointing out backstory or gameplay (new best afk passive shield mission runner) flaws. It went on the test server, and once there it will not be radically re-examined.
|
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 02:28:00 -
[163]
To me as a Gallente the new Gurista ships make sense.
Gurista ships traditionally take Gallente and Caldari skills to fly.
Gallente main speciality: Drones
Caldari main speciality: Missiles
New gurista ships use drones and missiles.
|
Xing Fey
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 02:42:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Soulita
To me as a Gallente the new Gurista ships make sense.
Gurista ships traditionally take Gallente and Caldari skills to fly.
Gallente main speciality: Drones
Caldari main speciality: Missiles
New gurista ships use drones and missiles.
New guristas ships can use missiles, but drones+neuts or drones+nos is really more optimal.
If you really want a drone boat with an additional damage source, fit a domi with rails or blasters. You'l go much further...
If you want to use missiles navyScorp >>> rattlesnake
|
Sol ExAstris
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 05:57:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Sol ExAstris on 08/10/2009 05:58:01
Fleet Issue Tempest needs the 7th turret slot back. Instant volley damage from the turrets is what will make this ship valuable, not turning it into an easier to fit jackofalltrades masterofnone. Currently, only the solo autocannon/torp version is truely useful, as a gang ship the gun volley damage will need that 7th turret to really shine. Even taking back the extra slot for it is a great change in my book.
Without it, I can't see myself using the ship.
Rest seem solid, but I haven't tested too many others.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 17:52:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Ulstan on 08/10/2009 17:56:29
Originally by: A Ingus
Which just points out what is wrong with these Gurista designs. The missiles should be the damage, not the drones.
Why not both?
Originally by: A Ingus
It's a Guristas ship ffs. The pirate and Caldari bonuses should be missiles and shield
The pirate bonus is missile. The caldari bonus is shield. The gallente bonus is drones. So far, we're exactly on track. The only issue is the pirate bonus is very weak. My 2 unbonused launchers on the worm have 50% greater range? Tremble in fear!!!!
Originally by: A Ingus
THe missiles should be doing most the damage. The Gallente drone bonus could be one of the lesser ones.
The gallente drone bonus is perfect. It's the only bonus on these ships that is spot on. I agree the missiles could be doing 'more' damage, but the most? We already have spades of shield/missiles ships where the missiles do most of the damage. The guristas ships need to be something different than caldari ships with slightly larger drone bays.
The current mix of caldari missiles with gallente drone damage is perfect for guristas ships, and explores a new and exciting philosophy of ship design.
RP is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It should not be used to justify redundant and useless ships. We already have a ton of missile/shield only BS: raven, caldari navy raven, navy scorpion. If the rattlesnake was yet another missile/shield only BS it would be very dull.
Quote:
But please not another set of ships designed to become the best afk mission runners in the game.
This is an absurd objection. Asking a ships PvP performance to be nerfed because you're afraid it might be too strong in afk missions is astoundingly wrong headed. WTF cares about afk missions?
And the new rattlesnake is no better at doing afk missions than the current or navy dominix.
The guristas are, in my opinion, already the weakest of the new pirate ships (given their rather weak pirate bonus) and you want to make them even weaker? Replacing the drone damage with an m3 bonus would make them utter trash.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 19:00:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Ulstan
Why not both?
because damage bonused missiles, and damage bonused drones, with a shield resist bonus and 7 mids to set up the passive regen tank from hell would be overpowered maybe?
Originally by: Ulstan
The pirate bonus is missile. The caldari bonus is shield. The gallente bonus is drones. So far, we're exactly on track. The only issue is the pirate bonus is very weak. My 2 unbonused launchers on the worm have 50% greater range? Tremble in fear!!!!
Yes we sorta agree here. It is a matter of the emphasis on each bonue and how it affects the whole ship. A bonused drone ship no matter what else you do to it has a Gallente center of gravity. Guristas are primarilly Caldari with gallente influence secondary. A Serpentis ship with a drone damage bonus might be appropriate because they are primarilly Gallente in origin.
Originally by: Ulstan
The gallente drone bonus is perfect. It's the only bonus on these ships that is spot on. I agree the missiles could be doing 'more' damage, but the most? We already have spades of shield/missiles ships where the missiles do most of the damage. The guristas ships need to be something different than caldari ships with slightly larger drone bays. The current mix of caldari missiles with gallente drone damage is perfect for guristas ships, and explores a new and exciting philosophy of ship design.
Ok then, I want a rework of the many more turret and armor ships. We have are positively drowning in armor/turret ships (and turrets of each kind). Correct, we don't have a faction bonused drone ship. One would be nice. However, It should be a Serpentis ship. BTW, nothing wrong with a Guristas ship that would be shield/missiles(bonused) with a larger (but unbonused) drone bay. I've seen plenty of Caldari pilots moaning for a ship with a larger dronebay. However, is it right to have a ship that gets it's majority of damage from drones come from Guristas?(see below)
Originally by: Ulstan
RP is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It should not be used to justify redundant and useless ships. We already have a ton of missile/shield only BS: raven, caldari navy raven, navy scorpion. If the rattlesnake was yet another missile/shield only BS it would be very dull.
Again, we already have many tons of laser/armor, hybrid/armor, and projectile/armor. Your argument carries no weight in light of this. We do not have a pirate drone ship. RP can fill that gap. How is it an end in itself if you ask for consistency by having that pirate drone ship be a Serp and not a Gurista. Hell, the damn Domi hull is used by them in missions, belts, and plexes. Now we are gonna get a Scorpion magically converted to a drone carrier (and with the Domi's damage bonus)! And, a Moa hull with a better than an Ishtar dronebay and hugely better than a Navy Vexor dronebay! Not even a means to an end here, this redesign of Guristas ships basically shat all over the existing backstory.
Originally by: Ulstan
This is an absurd objection. Asking a ships PvP performance to be nerfed because you're afraid it might be too strong in afk missions is astoundingly wrong headed. WTF cares about afk missions? And the new rattlesnake is no better at doing afk missions than the current or navy dominix. The guristas are, in my opinion, already the weakest of the new pirate ships (given their rather weak pirate bonus) and you want to make them even weaker? Replacing the drone damage with an m3 bonus would make them utter trash.
The rattlesnake will be better afk Set up a passive shield tank much better than a Domi's because of the resist bonus, get room aggro, release bonused drones on aggressive, and click some FoF in highs as a supplement. Is enabling bot and isk farming/selling through no thinking game mechanics what CCP wants? I guess so, with this design. Swapping the strong drone bonus with a strong missile bonus would not make these ships weaker, only consistent.
|
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 04:10:00 -
[168]
unless the drone AI is improved so that the NPCs switch targets then it might be more challanging
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.11 09:48:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 11/10/2009 09:48:34
Originally by: A Ingus
The rattlesnake will be better afk Set up a passive shield tank much better than a Domi's because of the resist bonus, get room aggro, release bonused drones on aggressive, and click some FoF in highs as a supplement. Is enabling bot and isk farming/selling through no thinking game mechanics what CCP wants? I guess so, with this design. Swapping the strong drone bonus with a strong missile bonus would not make these ships weaker, only consistent.
The Rattler will not be a quiker AFK missioner. It will be the same as the Navy Domi, which will be the same as the Domi itself. The extra tank is unnecessary and does not lead to quicker missions. The FOFs will fire one magazine, hitting structures and orbiting frigates and basically have no effect.
|
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 00:59:00 -
[170]
wont lead to quicker missions but with the slightly better targetting range and better tank it wil be able to tank more.
|
ZigZag Joe
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 02:37:00 -
[171]
But the existing tank is already enough, so...
|
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 03:20:00 -
[172]
so its a point for a and a point for b and evening itself out
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |