EVE Search - Gallente MkII

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Gallente MkII

» 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 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.12.08 00:43:00 - [31] Great layout and obviously a lot of thought has gone into the details of your Gallente boost. As a Gallente only spec'd pilot I can honestly say we're in dire need of some boost now. My only concern: And something I'd like you to answer honestly. How would this be abused? For example could 5 new Blaster BS overheated quickly kill 10 or 15 other BS if they warp in at blaster optimal range? DPS needs to be carefully proportioned so as not to completely overpower the race.
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2009.12.08 01:10:00 - [32] Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 08/12/2009 01:13:01 Quote: I went ahead and liked your topic on the Assembly hall. Also, could you review the caldari and make them more PvP oriented ? If you're having that much of a problem PVPing with Caldari that you think they need a rework, either your fits, skills or both are ****. I fly Caldari and have no complaints beyond the fairly sub-par railgun dps. (Well, that and rockets, but that's not just a Caldari problem) I'd also like to second that I would cross train Gallente right up to battleships in a flash if these changes went through. This is the race most in need of a boost right now.
Chi Quan Bibkor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.12.08 10:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Vyktor Abyss For example could 5 new Blaster BS overheated quickly kill 10 or 15 other BS if they warp in at blaster optimal range? DPS needs to be carefully proportioned so as not to completely overpower the race. that is actually the definition of inyourfacetotalhelldeath, this is the niche they (should) have. if one would for example balance the dps according to todays armor tanks (which was NOT suggested), you would boost it directly by 20%. the suggested tracking boost compensates for the now unsuitable webs and low _applied_ dps of blasters. btt: the dampeners need a greater optimal range, they are useless beyond 100km. one would think that "anti sniper" e-war reaches up to sniper ranges. so up that as well or have rigs and modules help with that. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.08 15:56:00 - [34] Edited by: The Djego on 08/12/2009 16:04:26 What are the speed numbers with a Brutix or Mega? I guessing something around 760m/s for the brutix and around 560m/s with a mega(after fitting -> plates&armor rigs) or I'm missing something? In general I'm not a fan of the AB bonus, since it slows the ship down what isn't this good in gangs or solo(easy to kite, takes to long to get in range). I'm also not a big fan of the armor HP bonus, not because it isn't good and will help a lot but because everything this will promote are dps less huge buffer tanks. So kind of meh in my opinion for a blaster ship design idea. Originally by: murder one As for the AB bonuses on the Brutix and Astarte etc., why not just give them a double damage bonus? I'd take that any day over an AB speed bonus. Is it a lot of DPS? Sure. But look at the tons of drawbacks these ships have with respect to their dependence on MWDs and their lack of range. They have a myriad of weaknesses and only one real strength. I vote we should maximize that strength. This, also it needs another med slot(all tier 1 bcs need a slot more actually). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Gabriel Karade Gallente Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2009.12.08 17:46:00 - [35] Dejgo, don't have the specific number for the Brutix to hand at the moment, but I can tell you the Megathron would go 638 m/sec with a 100mn AB II, 836 overloaded (just a bit less than normal MWD speed). This was with a single plate, and two Trimarks (all level V skills), and is based on measured speeds in-game. I spent a long time playing around with this, 25% is too much of a bonus, it pushes you too much towards MWD speeds, while 15% didn't really cut it on the bigger boats. I can understand you being worried about the HP bonus, but I think most blaster users aim to maximise damage first (killing the target quickly is preferential to getting bogged down) so I'm not sure you'd see the general proliferation of 'damage-less' Hyperions with nothing but armour plates. Bait ships? quite possibly. but that makes things more interesting: "Is he carrying a big stick or is he just a Brick?" ;-) Vyktor, with respect to the Blaster overload bonus, I don't believe this is excessive because it should be compared to the bonuses from, for example, armour repairers. You gain over 29% in terms of HPs/sec by overloading and, assuming you have active hardeners fitted, those can be overloaded too to perform truly Herculean feats of tanking. It was after looking into this in more detail I plumped for 50% rather than simply doubling it to 30%. This is a first iteration, albeit one I've spent quite a long time thinking about - so I thought it would be better to discuss here as an idea rather than a 'finished' CSM proposal ;-) -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.12.08 18:49:00 - [36] Edited by: The Djego on 08/12/2009 18:50:39 Originally by: Gabriel Karade Djego, don't have the specific number for the Brutix to hand at the moment, but I can tell you the Megathron would go 638 m/sec with a 100mn AB II, 836 overloaded (just a bit less than normal MWD speed). This was with a single plate, and two Trimarks (all level V skills), and is based on measured speeds in-game. I spent a long time playing around with this, 25% is too much of a bonus, it pushes you too much towards MWD speeds, while 15% didn't really cut it on the bigger boats. Thx for the answer, I did take around 66% of the MWD speed, since AB is speed is around 1/3 of the MWD speed so it would be about 2/3 with the bonus. Like I mentioned, I see huge issues drooping speed. Range/transversal control within web range is awesome but if the ship is to slow to catch a target or loses to much time moving to the target makes me feel it will very often be a huge drawback at the same time. Originally by: Gabriel Karade I can understand you being worried about the HP bonus, but I think most blaster users aim to maximise damage first (killing the target quickly is preferential to getting bogged down) so I'm not sure you'd see the general proliferation of 'damage-less' Hyperions with nothing but armour plates. Bait ships? quite possibly. but that makes things more interesting: "Is he carrying a big stick or is he just a Brick?" ;-) I didn't say it is a bad idea with the HP bonus, it just gears fitting to much in the tank direction, since you will never compensate the EHP lose with dps gains(mostly because of stacking). I basically see this already with people putting every low slot in tank on solo fits this days because with the rigs + combat booster + imps the advantage is a lot higher than dps would provide. 50-100k less buffer on a BS for only 100-300 dps is not really reasonable trade off this days. Similar thing like a setup that can tank 1.5k damage is a lot more powerful this days than a fit that can deal this kind of damage but ends up being a glass cannon at the same time, at least in small gang/solo. It is a solid idea itself. It is simply not my taste, because I would prefer something that is more geared to win fights by taking stuff down quick than fielding the more durable setup. But I guess this is mostly my old idea behind blaster pvp and a bit outdated in the EvE we play this days. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Maraugus	Posted - 2009.12.08 19:15:00 - [37] supported... totally.
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2009.12.09 10:57:00 - [38] What the hell is this doing on page 3?
Dannerkongen Lootex	Posted - 2009.12.10 00:19:00 - [39] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington What the hell is this doing on page 3? its not!
William Caldon Caldari Golden Cross Enterprises	Posted - 2009.12.10 03:48:00 - [40] Edited by: William Caldon on 10/12/2009 03:48:45 Your proposal was good up till you changed the Roleplay aspect of the game. You really cannot touch this, quite frankly, because that's how it was designed. Roden Shipyards favors missiles over blasters. Live with it, its what CCP stated. Amarr have the Khanid Navy. Seems to work for them...hmm. Your changing too much with this idea. While some of your ideas have merits, I wonder if your truly thinking of everyone, or just 0.0 players. I also hate the amount of AB bonuses on these ships. Gallente have always been stronger with MWDs for good reason. (Points at the Thorax). If your going to change speed, change how MWDs work for them. Otherwise, anyone with an MWD is going to laugh at the "up-in-the-face" (but with AB) ship. Overall, your changes to the EW is interesting. But I do not think your proposal is a good idea. Your changing the race in general and it doesn't fit in with it at all. I also do not agree that all those ships need changed.
Rhonnen Arctic Flying Penguins Consortium.	Posted - 2009.12.10 05:31:00 - [41] Let me start off with saying, Yes, I read the whole thing. (The first one of this length) Now, I am 100% behind you on this. Especially with the E-War attributes. Back in my noobier days I ask my corp about E-War and they said to go Caldari. (That ain't right!) Also I never got the reasoning behind the optimal range bonus on the Deimos. Supported... Now we just need a Dev to read it or a CSM to support it.
Iture Caldari Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.10 06:42:00 - [42] these changes are amazing. would actually give gallente some identity AND be useful. cause lets face it, lolz blasters are LOLZ
Direstorm	Posted - 2009.12.10 10:06:00 - [43] Excellent post, clearly well-thought-out. I wouldn't object to seeing it implemented as is (/signed). Having said that tho, I have to agree with the other people who've said that the 20% boost to afterburner might not be the best replacement ability. TBH, I'd rather have 5% base speed. Also, as a mission runner, you're lopping off 22.5% or more of my Hyperion's tank in exchange for a buffer tank which, let's face it, is going to be totally useless to a mission runner. Nix that! I don't want to have to train Amarr Battleship to retain my ability to tank. And please seriously reconsider altering the other armor repper bonuses.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.12.10 10:20:00 - [44] Don like for 1 reason. MWD are exaclty blaster centric module. Basically made fro blasters. THey are not supposed to be sued speed tankign or kiting, but to close in fast. Therefore AB bonuses are more Minmatar oriented while MWD would be more gallente oriented. Maybe blaster boats could get an increased MWD speed but with LOTS of agility reduction. So that for example a megatron would be very fast to close in a target with MWD, but basically unable to turn while doing so (avoiding gallente steppign om minmatar speed tanking grounds).
Nakupci	Posted - 2009.12.10 11:45:00 - [45] I dont like it...it is well writen,but kind of crap afterburner on Megathron is something you will be laughed for. Blaster ships uses MWD. Brutix and Hyperion as well as Myrm,are meant to be Tanks. And you would give them bonus to some strange stats. Besides that ,you only factor PvP not everyone play PvP and i personaly think that for example Hyperion is good in PvE with that bonus,but would be useless with your bonus
Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2009.12.10 12:12:00 - [46] Ya know, I don't really miss the days when all pvp was done in a gallente ship. The whole: "warp in, double click approach, activate MWD, target, lauch drones, activate scram/web/nos/blasters, win" thing never really did it for me. Gallente still work fine , and are actually decently balanced vs the other races now if you ask me. Sure a few ships need help, but what race doesn't have that problem? Amarr are the FOTM right now, but for how long did they suck in an armor tanking universe? Yeah Min got some love, but they aren't exactly top dog are they? Gallente are probably ahead of caldari, what with the shield tanking and the missile explosion velocity over nerf. How about we see how the minmatar thing changes the flavor of pvp, and then ajust a few things at a time, before we jump back to 2004? If yer having trouble with pvp, maybe you should try flying in a fleet. Find some other people with ships to supplement your weaknesses.
Pattern Clarc Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.12.10 13:31:00 - [47] Although I like the general direction Gabriel Karade, there needs to be a little sanity to the numbers. I'm not 100% sure that blasters should be able to kill ship classes of a lower size as easily as a 50%-75% tracking bonus would allow. And when fighting targets of the same size or larger, the velocities and transversal are usually low enough so that blasters remain the optimal weapons system at that range. I wouldn't disagrees with some tracking improvements (or a tracking nerf to ac's and lasers) but increasing the base damage mod along with a fall off reduction (as so blasters still do the same dps at 24km) would have the same effect, whilst allowing for smaller ships to effectively get under the guns of blasters... The overload boost isn't a bad idea, although I strongly dissagree with any increase to overload duration (especially at 50% more dps :O). The after burner bonuses aren't bad after looking at the carefully (it's a balance between being able to dictate range vs fittings/cap/tanking etc) although I don't think they should be implemented on the kronos (tracking is way too important) Signed on the Roden changes, although tracking bonuses for rails are more essential than most people realise on the Ares/Enyo. Infact, I would recommend that tracking bonuses should be the default roden bonus in replace of missile bonuses when so ever they exist. The deimos MWD sig reduction bonus doesn't really scan well when you compare it with the other HAC's, especially when snipe fitted although it wouldn't be game breaking if implementated. The main issue with the deimos is that HAC's are expensive and are generally flown at GTFO range of there targets (ie, beyond web/scam range) - This is impossible for a blaster deimos so.... In this instance, your armour bonus and/or alot more powergrid would make it a lot more viable although combined with blaster changes i'm not especially confident it would be balanced. In general, tier 1 and tier 2 battlecruisers should be merged into the same tier and given healthy improvements to fittings, HP, cap. For instance, the myrmidon is probably a better blaster ship than the brutix regardless of having 2.75 less turrets (more low slots, more fitting for ions/neutrons +tank, better EHP/Tank) all because it's tier 2. I wouldn't be against a HP bonus although you'll be fighting many flames from the amarrian wing, and the block of players who still believe active tanking is great in PvP so much luck. Also, the armour hp bonus, if used, should be 5% or 7.5% pl as they stack pretty well with plates and trimarks. All in all, not to bad, the principals are strong, just need to look at the numbers a little more carefully, especially with blasters. ____ New - Tempest/Maelstrom
Cheer Up	Posted - 2009.12.10 14:59:00 - [48] Awesome compilation of the current Gallente situation. Spot on. Buff 'em already!
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.12.10 16:09:00 - [49] In before NightmareX/Electric Universe. I love those ideas, yes please.
Gabriel Karade Gallente Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2009.12.10 18:02:00 - [50] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 10/12/2009 18:03:58 Hi guys, Just some quick replies while I have a moment, hopefully I can answer some queries: William, I can understand the desire to avoid changing the 'fluff' but it isn't without precedent: The Typhoon was completely changed from a rather poor, long-range Artillery platform, into a closer-range torpedo boat, both in terms of ship design and ship description. Khanid springs to mind too; they were initially described as shield tanking laser boats, and now after a (much needed) revision, they are armour tanking missile boats. Seishi/Nakupci, Currently MWD's are 'blaster-centric' as you put it, because AB's don't provide enough advantages to be put into use. The proposed 20% speed boost puts typical AB speeds on those blaster boats to roughly 75% MWD speeds with conventional plated fits. A change such as this would undoubtedly lead to a great deal of experimentation, and quite possibly a paradigm shift away from the current "stick as many plates on yer blasterthron as possible" mentality. There would also be nothing to stop you fitting a MWD, and this goes back to the part about confusing your opponent; is he using an MWD or is that an overloaded AB? (the speed boost is roughly similar). Pattern, When you consider the 50-75% tracking boost you have to put that into the context of pre-existing changes and the proposed removal of tracking bonuses: speeds within web range went up by 300% post-speed changes. In real terms on a Megathron for example, a 50-75% boost is actually only a 9-27% boost as the tracking bonus is no longer there. W.r.t the Deimos, a snipe fitted version would benefit greatly from the sig bonus, my thinking behind it for the blaster version was to allow it to manoeuvre from target to target at full MWD speeds without becoming moon-sized. As I mentioned, bit out on a limb for that one, but I think it is an interesting idea that nicely follows on as a development of the Thorax design, and has some merit I agree, you would have to spend a lot of real testing time playing around with the exact numbers for some of the bonuses, but I hope the whole 'doctrinal' approach makes sense, and you can see this isn't just a random mish-mash of bonuses pulled out of thin air :-) -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
James Tritanius	Posted - 2009.12.10 19:26:00 - [51] I support this product and/or service.
Regat Kozovv Caldari Alcothology	Posted - 2009.12.11 18:58:00 - [52] Just wanted to bump this a bit and lend my support. This sounds like a much better holistic approach as opposed to the "buff blasters" threads going around. This would keep the Gallente competitive without undoing the work done to balance the other races (lasers, artillery) that have finally been fixed as of late.
thoraxius demioses Gallente Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.11 19:41:00 - [53] wel i like a little boost in tracking etc. but i rather keep the 5% damage on the command and hac skill for deimos and astarte
Apollo Artemis Baptism oF Fire Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.12.11 21:23:00 - [54] Just fix hybrids and all will be well. Blaster range is way too short and Rail damage, tracking and alpha is pitiful compared to energy weapons and projectiles. No need to mess with ship bonuses, just fix the weapons. This way Caldari will get a much needed boost as well.
Gabriel Karade Gallente Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2009.12.12 10:18:00 - [55] Thoraxius, I wanted to give the Deimos a slight boost to overall DPS so it is better able to 'do the business' once it does get on a target. This somewhat applies to the Astarte too given the extreme short range on medium blasters. from a RP perspective: Duvolle engineers were not able to install bigger turret supports, but were able to fit more efficient cooling coils over those used in the Thorax, allowing for higher sustained rates of fire. On the Astarte, with more hull space to work with, larger stabilisers were also fitted to the turret mounts, allowing for increased accuracy with the same weapon. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
thoraxius demioses Gallente Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.12 10:42:00 - [56] thats nice and all but more ROF means more cpa usage. and what happens if you add magstabs, it would probaly, most likely give alot els damage bonus and the ROF bonus would be minimal. correct me if i'm wrong tho. i didn't dot he number crunching
Gabriel Karade Gallente Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2009.12.12 11:09:00 - [57] Ah I understand the query now; Ship bonuses don't stack against module bonuses, so you would get a definite increase in DPS. For sure, cap usage goes up, but again, it is another example of the link between time-cap-HPs. You 'buy' HP's at the expense of cap, by killing your opponent faster. To put the DPS boost into context; it would be roughly equivalent to the difference between fitting a full rack of Ions, and fitting a full rack of Neutrons. Hope that clears that up. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2009.12.12 21:14:00 - [58] I agree with alot of your ideas but I don't like a few too. Namely, the afterburner bonus. Not sure if I like it or not (trust me I've looked at your numbers and I fully understand the bonus) I just think that this could be different. I like the idea that there could be a MWD speed bonus however I think the MWD in its current form requires some kind of change (yes I mean nerf). I REALLY like the idea earlier in this post of the MWD causing a massive drop in agility. MWD I beleive is a "range dictation" module. Not an ultra high speed fly rings around everything module. You are using a form of warp drive to fly fast. You should not be able to manuever as well as you do whilst MWD'ing. High speed manuevering should be done with AB (welcome back the AB with open arms people) so give AB a slight increase in speed boost or a secondary skill that increases AB speed but make it a high level (like x8 or something). To that end.... >Make MWD's reduce agility so that they are used in a "close range" or "keep at range" function >interceptors/interdictors/HIC's are not affected by agility loss from MWD usage (before everyone cries) >your AB bonus to be switched to a smaller MWD speed bonus so that blaster boats can close range quickly (Some Gallante boats will be faster whilst under MWD than some minnie ships but meh. Minnie ships will retain enough agility to use the MWD in the old "nano" fashion) This is just one of your ideas I'm trying to offer an alternative to. There are other issues I think we need to discuss but mostly.... very good Any feedback on my alternative... please flame away
Aalu Aullard	Posted - 2009.12.13 01:21:00 - [59] I dont think that Gallente is this much broken... Fixing Dampeners and Hybrid ammos would be nice tho. Maybe look at the Gallente Recons and CS a bit too.
AshGear Minmatar British Legion	Posted - 2009.12.13 01:46:00 - [60] Gabriel Karade you are correct this would help fix the blaster problem and boost caldari aswell. Alot of good changes how ever i dont agree on the hyperion part

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: 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.