EVE Search - Capital Ships in Dominion 1.1

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Capital Ships in Dominion 1.1

» 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 30 .. 34 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 23 post(s)
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:02:00 - [301] Originally by: Rodent Originally by: Marlona Sky But the remote ecm burst is kinda crap for a supper carrier (mom) exclusive module. You appear to be about as smart as Zeveron. This is not a good thing. Leave the Remote ECM burst as it is. It's awesome. If it was a giant multi-spec jammer then yeah. I am not saying it is not useful in its current form, I am saying it should be more powerful of a module.
NedFromAssembly Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:15:00 - [302] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Rodent Originally by: Marlona Sky But the remote ecm burst is kinda crap for a supper carrier (mom) exclusive module. You appear to be about as smart as Zeveron. This is not a good thing. Leave the Remote ECM burst as it is. It's awesome. If it was a giant multi-spec jammer then yeah. I am not saying it is not useful in its current form, I am saying it should be more powerful of a module. Yes when I think powerful module I think multispec
Jordan Musgrat H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:19:00 - [303] On the fighter bomber issue, if you'll give them an orbital range of say 12.5 or 15km, or possibly even more, you'll greatly reduce the problems associated with stealth bombers, somewhat reduce the problem with smartbombs, and there are very few negative consequences of doing so, though you'll need to maybe up the missile velocity of the fighter bomber's torps. You could also simply give them a faster orbit velocity, to the point where they'd need to be webbed in order to take meaningful damage from bombs. It wouldn't be a bad thing for only tackling class ships to be able to kill a mothership's main dps fighter. Bombs already ** regular fighters, let's not have them ** a 20bn isk ship's fighter bombers as well, or at least not without more than 2 or 3 random bomb runs. Also, I'm not convinced that smartbombs are in any way the problem, don't fall into the mindset of nerf this nerf that to balance everything. Stealth bombers are horrendously overpowered yes, but smartbombs are not. The answer to this may be a new type of capital sized sentry drone fighter, one that does dps in between a regular fighter and a fighter bomber, but with low enough tracking that it will only reliably hit immobile ships, and capitals for full damage. This would probably need to be limited to supercarriers, or possibly even another class of carrier (like an assault carrier, one with no SMA/corp hangar, just fighters, sentry fighters, and RR capability), because you do not want normal carriers doing anymore dps to structures than they already do, at least I think you don't, but on supercarriers it would not be a problem. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Iron Pride	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:34:00 - [304] Yeh the Leviathan needs to get its shield bonus instantly or crystals need to give hp bonus, as HP on Levi is much much less then that of an erebus.
glassmanipulator Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:54:00 - [305] Originally by: CCP Abathur Edited by: CCP Abathur on 22/12/2009 07:43:41 Originally by: DamienEx First, while happy that the Naglfar is getting its bonuses back, it seems that dropping the launchers for the third hard point seem to be popular amongst everyone. Can we address whether or not this is going to be looked into, considered, or if there is some reason that the Naglfar still has two weapon systems. This is not being looked into. Let me be very clear on this: the Naglfar is not getting a third turret. The Art reasons for this have been explained previously. Matari ships having split weapon systems is nothing new. With the 1.1 changes we are putting the focus back on the turrets and making the missile system supplementary. If you play with the setups you'll see that the Naglfar is a very flexible ship now in terms of what it can do and has excellent DPS compared to its counterparts. This sucks ! The models are already made, you can just throw one of them on a launcher spot like the models show up when you actually fit one.. would take the art department 10 mins to code this, come on give me a break. What a lame excuse for laziness.. I know making 10 new planets was probably pretty hard and all and they only had like 3 years to do it, but god forbid they actually have to tweak a ship for the better, instead of just ruining something like they usually do. ie; cyno effects. Having a split weapon system for a capital class ship that takes months to train the gunnery skills alone is just so stupid I don't understand why you cant see it. If your gonna keep it split weapon, but focus on the projectile, it should get 3 bonuses then to actually make all the extra training and gimped tank worth it. 5% rof turret 5% dmg turret 5% rof missle Make it a true dps dread if you wanna keep it broken with a gimp tank and less shield and armor hp/ehp than all the other dreads. It's OK if it does 300-400 more base dps than a rev. or just make it 3 turrets for the love of god. K thanks.
Misaki Yuuko	Posted - 2009.12.22 20:56:00 - [306] Originally by: Jordan Musgrat Stealth bombers are horrendously overpowered No they aren't, stop this bull**** before the nerf them. Just increase orbit radius and maybe velocity and it will be fine (indeed a little boost on normal fighters velocity wouldn't be horrible neither).
MeanG Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:06:00 - [307] Edited by: MeanG on 22/12/2009 21:10:33 Consider this please. Since your removing clone vat bay from construction and use in SC's causing current mom pilots to loose invested time/isk/deployment capability/roles and the training & mods purchased made most worthless you should at least do: Gift/seed to cargohold and or drone bay the fighter bomber skills to current mom holding accounts and fighter bombers in min value to offset what you are rendering useless. Might as well get these things docking already with the death of the MOM and theirs no easy way for us to buy the fighter bombers or skill in a ship that can't dock. Only seems fair with all the Mom's made useless for so long.
ByFstugan Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:11:00 - [308] Make the Fighter Bombers to XL Sentry Drones instead and with torpedoes that reach decent ranges. Just also make sure they are given some kind of thruster, so they can "Return to Dronebay" and perhaps even "Follow ship" so U can move on the grid and have them with you. But "Return to Ship" option is the only really important one - other options is maybe nice also, but not needed. I think it would look awesome also besides that it solves the problem with Fighter Bombers being unusable against enemy capital blobs du to the fact Bobby Atlas pointed out. But imagine the beauty when a Supercarrier lauches their swarm of FB's and start to fire torpedos from all around itself. Yummy mummy ^^ _______________________________ The wise knows what he knows not.
NedFromAssembly Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:21:00 - [309] If fighter bombers are put into the game as they were on SISI the first time, they will do fine against cap blobs for anyone paying attention.
LoveKebab Caldari Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:29:00 - [310] Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 22/12/2009 19:13:05 Originally by: LoveKebab Originally by: CCP Abathur The low sec DD thing - I'll ask. No promises. the lowsec DD was and will be fail if it gonna come back - titans as a part of 0.0 warfare should not be able to use their superweapon in lowsec ... So if a Titan gets hotdropped in low sec (Yes titans will be used in low sec no matter what), should it just die because it can't defent it self properly?. it should die cuz some ****** is using a titan without proper support xVid4PSP MKV Encoding Tutorial

Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:41:00 - [311] Originally by: NedFromAssembly Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: Rodent Originally by: Marlona Sky But the remote ecm burst is kinda crap for a supper carrier (mom) exclusive module. You appear to be about as smart as Zeveron. This is not a good thing. Leave the Remote ECM burst as it is. It's awesome. If it was a giant multi-spec jammer then yeah. I am not saying it is not useful in its current form, I am saying it should be more powerful of a module. Yes when I think powerful module I think multispec sigh Let me clarify for you. Remote ECM Burst should jam everything within the burst radius. So instead of just making people lose thier lock, they are jammed for 20 seconds as well. Does this clarify it for you?
NedFromAssembly Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.22 21:54:00 - [312] Originally by: Marlona Sky sigh Let me clarify for you. Remote ECM Burst should jam everything within the burst radius. So instead of just making people lose thier lock, they are jammed for 20 seconds as well. Does this clarify it for you? Yup, I already posted that exact request a few pages back. Thanks for taking the time to read the thread before posting.
Natasha Nikolaev	Posted - 2009.12.22 22:17:00 - [313] Originally by: RoCkEt X FB's vs Smartbombs: tbh fighters dont instapop to Smarties unless theres 5+ smarties going off. as a MS pilot myself, i feel it would be overpowered to have fighterbombers orbit outside of officer smartbomb range, i feel 7.5km is justified and balanced They don't need to orbit outside of officer SB range but they shouldn't be orbiting in range of mere faction emp smartbombs.

CCP Abathur C C P C C P Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:08:00 - [314] Edited by: CCP Abathur on 22/12/2009 23:11:41 Originally by: Ridjeck Thome One issue that Ive not seen addressed is that of Slaves V Crystals and the magnified effect that Slaves currently have on the strength of supercap armour tanks. In the original (pre-dominion) thread, there was some acknowledgment that this issue needed review - does CCP still acknowledge its an issue? Yes. Originally by: glassmanipulator Originally by: CCP Abathur Hey, like, you can't have a third turret on the Naglfar. This sucks ! The models are already made, you can just throw one of them on a launcher spot like the models show up when you actually fit one.. would take the art department 10 mins to code this, come on give me a break. I seem to remember this coming up before... Originally by: glassmanipulator Make it a true dps dread if you wanna keep it broken with a gimp tank and less shield and armor hp/ehp than all the other dreads. It's OK if it does 300-400 more base dps than a rev. Compared to a Rev? How about just under 300 more DPS long range and nearly 600 more DPS short range? Because that's about where it is with these changes. The damage gap narrows once you start adding damage mods on both ships but the Naglfar has much better base performance in terms of raw firepower, plus you can select your damage types.

SolarKnight Gallente ORIGIN SYSTEMS Shadows of Light	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:09:00 - [315] Originally by: ByFstugan Make the Fighter Bombers to XL Sentry Drones instead and with torpedoes that reach decent ranges. Just also make sure they are given some kind of thruster, so they can "Return to Dronebay" and perhaps even "Follow ship" so U can move on the grid and have them with you. But "Return to Ship" option is the only really important one - other options is maybe nice also, but not needed. I think it would look awesome also besides that it solves the problem with Fighter Bombers being unusable against enemy capital blobs du to the fact Bobby Atlas pointed out. But imagine the beauty when a Supercarrier lauches their swarm of FB's and start to fire torpedos from all around itself. Yummy mummy ^^ No thanks, leave POS sieges to the dreads please. The Light in the Darkness
Lord Zulu The Maverick Navy IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:31:00 - [316] well thank god i didn`t sell mine
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:39:00 - [317] Can you elaborate more on what you're looking at as far as the slave issue goes please? Are we talking slave nerfs, or are we talking having shield implants affect supercaps? With active tanking gimped, armor tanks don't stand much of a chance without the massive buffer that slaves offer us.
Greg DaimYo Caldari Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.12.22 23:47:00 - [318] Last words for me before my christmasbreak: I really had lost hope in you guys (meaning CCP). The modus operandi on how to handle stuff was really awful in the past few weeks. I did a lot of rageposting in this and various other related foums about how ****ed I am (yes, they were huge walls of WHAWHAWHA!). This thread actually gave me new hope in regard of the way about how CCP communicates with its customers. Great step in the right direction in my opinion. Keep it up. Merry christmas and Happy New Year, Greg P.S.: Abathur probably doesn't want my children, but he can have them anyways. They are whiny buggers after all.
Wiaf D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:17:00 - [319] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: DamienEx Bombers can be used in low sec. Playing dumb? Or are you just clueless? Hint: bombs. Playing dumb? Or are you just clueless? Hint: Compact Citadel Torps. LK im still waiting for that pic of deva and you doing naughty things. --------------------------------------------
Uskos	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:36:00 - [320] Happy to see that motherships are getting refreshed. Although will see a new cyno effect with dominion 1.1 or any time soon? If yes i hope it will be a more awsome light show then it was before. The current one doesen't represent the awsomness of capitals well enough

Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2009.12.23 00:59:00 - [321] Originally by: Wiaf Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: DamienEx Bombers can be used in low sec. Playing dumb? Or are you just clueless? Hint: bombs. Playing dumb? Or are you just clueless? Hint: Compact Citadel Torps. LK im still waiting for that pic of deva and you doing naughty things. Thanks for totally proving my point (from the post you quoted). But if you really want smack go to CAOD, you will find audience on your level there.
cpu939 Gallente Volatile Nature Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.12.23 02:14:00 - [322] Edited by: cpu939 on 23/12/2009 02:17:24 Edited by: cpu939 on 23/12/2009 02:16:06 1st of a big thanks to CCP Abathur and i hope santa brings you al kinda of cool toys lol ok a few more question 1 as the fighters are aprox 25% more cost to build will the bpo also be 25% high then a fighter bpo 2 will the fighter bomber skill book be 25% more then a fighter skill book 3 can you incress the size of the wyvern and nyx both of these ships are smaller then a moros that can dock why not make the minimum size of a super carrier 4500m 4 please don't change your minds again. 5 could you add a 5% boost to ammount of hp regain to the local rep for all super carrier pre level of carrier skill cos repairing 1m hp take a bit i'm not asking for a god tank but 20 minute not 40 minutes to say rep the shield from 0 to 100%. triage module i can see why you 1/2 its time http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Triage_Module_I Activation time / duration 300000 s (s= seconds m = minutes h= hours d= days) ok lets do some math 300000s/60s = 5000m/60m = 83.3h aprox/24h = 3.47d thats some activation time. so what about halfing the siege module as well i mean it's sitting at 600000s almost 7 days lol (i think there might be a typo just ike my posts) or how about linking it with fleet size it mind numming having to site in space where a pos use to be for 5 minute cos you fleet wiped it out i.e up to 40 dreads in fleet 0% reduction 40 - 55 a 15% reduction in the siege timer 55- 70 a 30% (inc the 15% from the 40-55) 70 - 80 50% ( inc the 2 15 minute reduction) could you even do this? any way once again merry christmas and a happy new year CCP Abathur 0101011 001101111 011011000 110000101110100 01101001011011000 1100101001000000 1001110011000010 11101000111010101 11001001100101
NedFromAssembly Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.12.23 03:08:00 - [323] That is not a divided by sign. It is an either/or
Ezekiel Sulastin Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.12.23 03:25:00 - [324] Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 23/12/2009 03:26:03 Originally by: CCP Abathur I seem to remember this coming up before... Originally by: CCP Art Dev And just for comedy value: When we asked the art department whether they couldn't just cut the Naglfar in half and use copy/paste to add a third turret bit, they threatened us with large rulers, scalpels and various other dangerous implements that artists like to surround themselves with in case someone from game design comes in and asks them a stupid question. I love my job. Really I do Why is that a stupid question? That's all they do to make most of their ships, if the crappy bumpmapped seams down the axis of symmetry of most of the symmetric ships and the silly copy-pasted camo bits are any indication. You can either tell them to get off their lazy train, or barring that, give the Naglfar a role bonus to projectiles similar to that given Marauders to bonus a third turret into existence ;) Anyways, thanks for coming back and looking at caps again - it's appreciated ^^
ByFstugan Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.23 03:33:00 - [325] Originally by: SolarKnight Originally by: ByFstugan Make the Fighter Bombers to XL Sentry Drones instead and with torpedoes that reach decent ranges. Just also make sure they are given some kind of thruster, so they can "Return to Dronebay" and perhaps even "Follow ship" so U can move on the grid and have them with you. But "Return to Ship" option is the only really important one - other options is maybe nice also, but not needed. I think it would look awesome also besides that it solves the problem with Fighter Bombers being unusable against enemy capital blobs du to the fact Bobby Atlas pointed out. But imagine the beauty when a Supercarrier lauches their swarm of FB's and start to fire torpedos from all around itself. Yummy mummy ^^ No thanks, leave POS sieges to the dreads please. First of all - there is no way that Supercarriers would ever compete with Dreads when it comes to POS-warfare. Very few in percentage can ever afford such ship. Second of all - the proposal isn't about POS-warfare, but instead about making Supercarriers possible to use in large capital fights where there's alot of regular carriers with smartbombs. And Third - if it would be concidered unwanted from CCP that they could engage POS's it's easily solved in same manner as for Titans - that they simply can't shoot them. Eventhough I don't think they should be stopped from that. It's quite a risk to put SC's outside a hostile POS in todays EVE - even with the EHP-buff they are not untackable or unkillable. _______________________________ The wise knows what he knows not.
Misanth Reaper Industries	Posted - 2009.12.23 03:35:00 - [326] The FB issues presented (dying to smartbombs, bombs) is same issues regular Fighters have. If anything should/would be changed about that, then the same should be done to fighters.. in my eyes. FB's are exclusive capital killers, Fighters for medium size, regular drones vs smaller. Smartbombs/bombs killing either is fine, that's a viable counter. What is a bigger issue is the supposed self-defence we have when using Fighters. "Smartbomb? Recall!" "Bomb? Recall!". That'd be fine, if recalling Fighters/FB actually worked. If we assume a non-laggy environment, they're slow as ***, but in laggy environment I've had situations where it takes over half an hour to recall one wave of Fighters, and at the end of the day only two comes back while the other eighteen are stuck in warp somewhere in limbo. And let's not even get started about trying to rep them.. I'd like to see this issue addressed separately, then Fighters would be fine as well. One example of a fix to this would be to possible give the Fighters/FB a 'nitro'-like boost when recalling, temporary speed increase for ten seconds, or similar. FB's are fine in their design, it's just Fighters/FB as a whole that is underwhelmingly poor vs what you get out of them. In many cases it's better using disposable flights of sentries.* - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen.
ByFstugan Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.23 03:52:00 - [327] Originally by: Misanth The FB issues presented (dying to smartbombs, bombs) is same issues regular Fighters have. If anything should/would be changed about that, then the same should be done to fighters.. in my eyes. FB's are exclusive capital killers, Fighters for medium size, regular drones vs smaller. Smartbombs/bombs killing either is fine, that's a viable counter. What is a bigger issue is the supposed self-defence we have when using Fighters. "Smartbomb? Recall!" "Bomb? Recall!". That'd be fine, if recalling Fighters/FB actually worked. If we assume a non-laggy environment, they're slow as ***, but in laggy environment I've had situations where it takes over half an hour to recall one wave of Fighters, and at the end of the day only two comes back while the other eighteen are stuck in warp somewhere in limbo. And let's not even get started about trying to rep them.. I'd like to see this issue addressed separately, then Fighters would be fine as well. One example of a fix to this would be to possible give the Fighters/FB a 'nitro'-like boost when recalling, temporary speed increase for ten seconds, or similar. FB's are fine in their design, it's just Fighters/FB as a whole that is underwhelmingly poor vs what you get out of them. In many cases it's better using disposable flights of sentries.* - FB's are only for capitals and most carriers has at least one smartbomb and all capitals can withstand smartbombs for a very very long time. Hence it's "suicide" to send FB's to enemy capital-blob, but almost no risk for enemy to stop them. So the new role for the capital-killer Supercarrier will not be possible in large scale nullsec fighting, but only in mostly impossible to find 1v1 supercarrier vs some other capital. - Fighters are mostly effective versus Battleships, even if they can be used towards both smaller and largers targets the DPS either has hard to hit (smaller) or doesn't do much very damage in targets total hitpoints (caps). BS's doesn't mostly have smartboms. And even if they did they can't withstand 5-10 smartbombs all over for to long. Hence there are less risk using the Fighters and if U send them into an hostile capital blob U'r not really doing what they was meant to do. - And once again what I think they should change to; if they become an XL Sentry Drone that fires torpedos it's not very strange that they can fly decent distances - and it would look awesome :p _______________________________ The wise knows what he knows not.
ByFstugan Big Shadows Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.23 04:50:00 - [328] Originally by: ByFstugan Originally by: CCP Abathur Motherships --> Supercarriers After careful consideration and further balancing, we will be reintroducing Supercarriers for Dominion 1.1. This will include: ò Fighter Bombers ò Hit Point boost ò Jump Range increase ò Removal of Triage usage ò Removal of Jump Clone usage A special comment on the Hel û we realize that among these ships, the HelÆs bonus to repair might be seen as a bit æmehÆ. The other school of thought is that considering how useful remote repair is, especially when it comes to carrier combat, perhaps the HelÆs bonus is not so bad. So, what would you like to see here? Would an additional boost to the current RR bonus be welcomed? Ponies? Hmmm, this feels like a job only half done to me, especially concidering the Hel bonus. U pulled back in this topic before dominion in order to find a more defined role for this ships, a role that didn't blend this behemots among the carriers and dreads. What I see is the exact opposite of that statement and nothing new at all - in fact it's the other way around and less of an inovative idea that fails with giving this ships a special role. Instead of removing the logistics bonus and giving it a battle-focused job U keep this crap to insure that U fail in your above mentioned intention. And to let Hel keep that bonus instead of giving it the very thought through bonus with Fighter Bomber torpedos explosion radius is very very lame. That is the bonus this ships need to not be mixed up with regular carriers. I think the role of this ships should be remade to a more complete sense so that it get's a more clear role as something new. My earlier suggestion, that is a work made from others suggestions in large, is that it's made to a Flagship with fighting and leadership boost capabilities and no logistics role. Read the suggestion here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1217073&page=61#1820 (there is a short version in PART III for the lazy) EDIT: Also - to remove the triage use possibility and at the same time keep their logistics bonus, how well thought though is that? Especially concidering the Hel that even get an extra bonus to that crap and still will be far worse than even a level 1 Nidhoggur in triage. Not even if the Hel had 25% per level to Shield/Armor boost it would be close. And as a final note again - the logistics bonuses should be removed from this ships and another one added (Leadership focus imo). This still. Make MS's to Flagships for the Battlefield - like a Capital Command Ship. _______________________________ The wise knows what he knows not.
Misanth Reaper Industries	Posted - 2009.12.23 06:33:00 - [329] Originally by: ByFstugan Originally by: Misanth The FB issues presented (dying to smartbombs, bombs) is same issues regular Fighters have. If anything should/would be changed about that, then the same should be done to fighters.. in my eyes. FB's are exclusive capital killers, Fighters for medium size, regular drones vs smaller. Smartbombs/bombs killing either is fine, that's a viable counter. What is a bigger issue is the supposed self-defence we have when using Fighters. "Smartbomb? Recall!" "Bomb? Recall!". That'd be fine, if recalling Fighters/FB actually worked. If we assume a non-laggy environment, they're slow as ***, but in laggy environment I've had situations where it takes over half an hour to recall one wave of Fighters, and at the end of the day only two comes back while the other eighteen are stuck in warp somewhere in limbo. And let's not even get started about trying to rep them.. I'd like to see this issue addressed separately, then Fighters would be fine as well. One example of a fix to this would be to possible give the Fighters/FB a 'nitro'-like boost when recalling, temporary speed increase for ten seconds, or similar. FB's are fine in their design, it's just Fighters/FB as a whole that is underwhelmingly poor vs what you get out of them. In many cases it's better using disposable flights of sentries.* 1) - FB's are only for capitals and most carriers has at least one smartbomb and all capitals can withstand smartbombs for a very very long time. Hence it's "suicide" to send FB's to enemy capital-blob, but almost no risk for enemy to stop them. So the new role for the capital-killer Supercarrier will not be possible in large scale nullsec fighting, but only in mostly impossible to find 1v1 supercarrier vs some other capital. 2) - Fighters are mostly effective versus Battleships, even if they can be used towards both smaller and largers targets the DPS either has hard to hit (smaller) or doesn't do much very damage in targets total hitpoints (caps). BS's doesn't mostly have smartboms. And even if they did they can't withstand 5-10 smartbombs all over for to long. Hence there are less risk using the Fighters and if U send them into an hostile capital blob U'r not really doing what they was meant to do. 3) - And once again what I think they should change to; if they become an XL Sentry Drone that fires torpedos it's not very strange that they can fly decent distances - and it would look awesome :p 1) Similar to how things are today. That's one major reason I barely used Fighters in capital ops. I've sent mine to Dreads, but if carriers has been on the field I used sentries. That's not gonna change with FB's around (if anything it might get worse). The problem is not the smartbombs (or bombs) in itself, it's how slow they are by default - and directly unresponsible in lag situations. I.e. CCP are adding a Fighter 2.0-concept, a concept that has a design flaw by default. There's no problem as per se in FB's itself, it's a problem with the Fighter family. 2) Yes, I already said that. 3) That would be 'cool', and it would solve their vulnerability vs smartbombs/bombs, and it would also solve the recall issues in laggy situations. But it goes against what CCP posted as a 'strength' with motherships (and carriers). They've been talking about how one of the defensive mechanisms carriers/motherships have is the mobility on the field (unlike sieged/triaged ships), so giving moms a "sentryfighter" would mean that suddenly we're immobile? I'm not sure that's what devs want. I could personally buy that concept, but I'd also want a fix to Fighters as they work today (they're too unresponsible, too slow).. and a fix to that would be a fix to FB's be default. - I'd tell you why but then I'll have to kill you. And to kill you I'd have to log in. And to log in I'd have to stop browsing these forums. Both you and me knows that'll never happen.
Terio Oni Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.23 07:12:00 - [330] As far as i understood - most powerful titan now - Ragnarok. It has nice DPS in front of others Erebus need some love too... It will be fair if add to it a drone and dronebay capacity bonus, making it true gallente ship... I dont know - damage or quantity of drones deployed. But now it really suxxx in front of others...



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: 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.