Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 09:50:00 -
[91] - Quote
Quote:The catalyst is annoying in many different ways. It's power grid is horribly tight. It has three precious lows to try to fit MFS, TE, and a tank. It's DPS, it's most endearing feature, takes a nose dive if you try to fit even the most light of tanks on it. It has an optimal AND a falloff bonus. It is trying to compete with the Thrasher, which very easily as an AC platform puts out 450ish DPS with a 7.5k EHP buffer tank. The catalyst simply can't match that. I've given up on it as a blaster platform and only use it with rails. It honestly thrives in that kind of role. So damage, optimal, and tracking - three things a rail platform needs.
true enough, but It seems to me that the problems here are much the same ones that the cormorant suffers, poor fitting. much like the cormorant the catalyst is simply unable to match up to the phenominal fitting prowess of the thrasher which can not only fit 200mm autocannons but a micro warp drive, a medium shield extender AND still have CPU and grid spare to add a small neut, 2 low slot damage modules and a scrambler before even looking at rigging. in comparision the cormorant can't even fit ion blasters to a comparative afterburner layout such is its massive CPU to powergrid imbalance. lemmie just show a screenshot in here to explain what I mean.
http://i.imgur.com/qbS8l.jpg
as you can see I'm not trying to fit anything outlandish here, its a fairly tanky layout, compariable to the average AC thrasher with a MSE, shield rigs and a damage control it gets around 500 extra EHP but to be fair, its caldari and has around 20% less speed and 50 less paper dps (which can only be applied at ranges the thrasher has no damage loss at either). unlike the similar thrasher I'm completely out of PG the moment i slap on some weapons, the only way I can compensate is to either trade my lowslot damage control for an MAPC (weakening tank, and still resulting in less dps than the thrasher) or chance down to electron blasters (80-100 less dps with CNAM vs AC's with RF phased plasma). now as I've said before, I don't want the cormorant to just be a caldari thrasher, but what I think this illustrates is just how much redundant CPU there is on this thing. not only am I over powergrid by a whopping 20% I'm under CPU by the same again. swapping down to an afterburner doesn't solve the problem either as I'm still over by around 12pg units. the thrasher by comparison?
http://i.imgur.com/dKipM.jpg
fitting to spare on both PG and CPU, fair bit extra grid available but that can be exploited by fitting projectile weapon rigs or swapping out the rocket launcher in favour of a neut or nos. and of course permitting the fitting room for the artillery thrasher layout.
This is, I feel the problem with the cormorant in the current situation. the slot layout is fine, awesome even. as it lets the cormorant stand to one side of its otehr destroyer bretheren with less firepower but the advantage of a utility mid for a web or tracking disruptor or hell, even a sebo.
at the moment I can get by on my double web, scram, afterburner mids and damage control low layout and honestly i'm quite happy at the moment with it but if there has to be changes for the cormorant (which I believe there is) I don't believe it should be to turn it into a blaster thrasher which i feel the 8/3/2 layout most certainly will. nor do I particularly see the need for the cormorant to recieve extra slots or have its 8th highslot moved (which in my mind seems overkill to solving the problems with the hull.
Alternately, there is the medium ancillery shield booster, which at first impressions seems like a good interm solution for the pilots but should we shackle the effectiveness of a hull to one specific way of flying it? its a problem which thankfully is being addressed with the frigate rebalances but should, in my mind, be something we don't fall into with the destroyers.
swing the cormorant's PG and CPU around a bit, maybe a 10-15% swing both ways, give us the option to fit half way decent weapons along side Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:15:00 -
[92] - Quote
The new Cormorant will be able to fit this:
[Cormorant, New] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Scrambler II (or Warp Disruptor II)
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S [empty high slot]
Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Core Defense Field Extender I Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer
308 dps with navy AM, 246 dps with Null, 8703 HP. Fitting 125mm Railguns is also possible with a 4% PG implant or by adding an ACR.
Is it as good as an AC Thrasher? Not quite, but it's much closer. It could certainly use a bit more powergrid and another turret hardpoint.
The real complaint by many people here is that they want a blaster Cormorant optimized for close range combat. Would people be happier with losing the 10% optimal bonus for a 5% damage bonus? An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:25:00 -
[93] - Quote
I'm sorry takeshi, I'm going to have to disagree with you, at least from my own perspective. Its not that i want the cormorant optimised for short range combat, its more that i don't want it to be a carbon copy of the thrasher, which sad to say as your fitting of the new proposed layout clearly demonstrates.
lows:
damage control damage mod
mids
medium shield extender microwarp drive warp scrambler/disruptor
highs
7 turrets + utility slot
rigs
3X shield rig
its essentially a carbon copy of the thrasher just with less speed, range, HP, damage selection options, overall damage and what looks at face value to be fitting issues to attach the medium shield extender II. Its for this reason I believe that it's important we maintain the cormorant's 8/4/1 layout and adjust the CPU and powergrid values and not the slot layout. I'm happy to accept less dps if it means that I can compensate for it through more versitile midslot options. Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
289
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 11:40:00 -
[94] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:its essentially a carbon copy of the thrasher just with less speed, range, HP, damage selection options, overall damage and what looks at face value to be fitting issues to attach the medium shield extender II. Its for this reason I believe that it's important we maintain the cormorant's 8/4/1 layout and adjust the CPU and powergrid values and not the slot layout. I'm happy to accept less dps if it means that I can compensate for it through more versitile midslot options. as for the optimal bonus, I ADORE the double optimal bonuses, it allows the cormorant to fight at the edge of scram range as a counter to the rawr dps of the thrasher and the catalyst. encouraging people to fight smarter than just turning it into a raw "orbit at 500" dps race.
Okay, you have convinced me that changing the slot layout would be bad.
Why are you making the comparison with a blaster fit Cormorant though? Fitting a blaster Cormorant means trying to emulate the Thrasher (and failing because it's meant to use railguns). An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 13:14:00 -
[95] - Quote
i guess we all want 4 mids on the cormorant and have it balanced through fittings. concerning the catalyst. maybe it needs to be bonused more around its brawling nature. falloff will not help there in my opinion. maybe give it a bonus to speed or armor hp. so lvl destroyer would equal something like an 200mm plate, without the speed reduction?
EDIT: is there a reason for the intaki, quafe, interbus.... catalyst which are currently registered in the market on TQ? |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 17:17:00 -
[96] - Quote
takeshi: at first impressions aye, but there is distinct advantages to a blaster cormorant over the thrasher gentlemen and possible ladies I give you, the Wundercorm.
[Cormorant, Wundercorm] Damage Control II
Experimental 1MN Afterburner I J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Stasis Webifier II Stasis Webifier II
Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S Light Neutron Blaster II, Null S [empty high slot]
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Hybrid Locus Coordinator I
web and scram target, hold range at 7-8km and unleash Thorium Tungsten plasma bolts into the opposition :D
This is the distinction the 4 midslot layout makes for the blaster cormorant over the thrasher, admittedly a VERY specialised fit it goes a long way to show how you can approach the same kind of situation (scram range destroyer combat) while featuring a drastically different play style to its counterparts :D
the 4 mids does a lot to alter how the cormorant wants to fight in my opinion differening from the catalyst and thrasher by being a hull which WANT to hold range but rather than using 20km death lazors like the coercer it uses Ewar to hold distance and deal with foes and I really hope CCP keeps the cormorant as the hip and trendy cool kids boat it is and not turn it into a conforming hipster dessie :> Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
499
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 18:40:00 -
[97] - Quote
No reason that empty high slot couldn't or shouldn't be moved to a low though. |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:25:00 -
[98] - Quote
true, but all told we don't want another merlin situation where it becomes the top dog and that extra high has some uses in other fits and can always be filled with a rocket launcher. or small neut, particularly once we get the PG and CPU fixed. I also think its important that the cormorant STAYS with less dps overall than the thrasher and catalyst, giving it room for a magstab on top of a damage control would be taking the micky I reckon :S Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
290
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:33:00 -
[99] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:takeshi: at first impressions aye, but there is distinct advantages to a blaster cormorant over the thrasher gentlemen and possible ladies I give you, the Wundercorm.
I'm not convinced by this. Rails give you a better ship overall. Trying to use blasters for kiting in web range is counterproductive. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:42:00 -
[100] - Quote
You'd be suprised, I actually used to use a 75mm rail CNAM layout for the same job but I found the null blasters with a single locus rig do the job a bit better, 8.2km optimal is pretty damn snazzy for 233ish dps :>
feel free to check my killboard Takeshi, all my recent cormorant kills have been in that layout and I'm still going strong ^_^ Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
188
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 19:44:00 -
[101] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I have an open mind to any suggestions or ideas posted here. Having said that, the Thrasher really is the golden standard that all the other dessies get compared to - and come in lacking against. The Thrasher is the only destroyer with a damage bonus. This is huge. If you really wanted to balance the playing field while keeping racial flavour you should:
Coercer: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 2 Mid 4 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Cap Use(?)
Catalyst: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 3 Mid 3 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Damage, Tracking
Cormorant: 7 High/ 7 Turrets 4 Mid 2 Low Bonuses - Optimal, Optimal, Damage
Thrasher: As is.
This in effect gives each destroyer an effective 8.75 turrets (more DPS then before) and allows them to be competitive in their own right. Losing a turret on the catalyst and coercer frees up alot of grid. Trasher 7 high/ 7 turrets 3 mid 3 low then we have balance ! anyway why not just add one slot for all, all newly rebalanced frigates have enough slots and fitting to make those usable, no need to stick on old with destroyers, ADD ONE SLOT FOR DESTROYERS. Those will not come overpower but usable and easier to fit. You can sure find some good balance by adding one slot and nerfing some other stats.
+1
|
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
213
|
Posted - 2012.08.11 23:18:00 -
[102] - Quote
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. DO NOT CHANGE THE COERCER FOR F*CKS SAKE.
This is literally one of the best ships in teh game, precicesly because it has one mid. Dont change it. Please! what can i do to change your minds on this? Low-sec Best-sec |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
370
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:19:00 -
[103] - Quote
chatgris wrote: Catalyst - will remain subpar since it's got the worst damage projection, and only 2 mids.
Catalyst needs a third mid for a web. It currently sucks in almost every fight with the exception of suiciding hulks in high sec belts. These changes do nothing to make it approach the effectiveness of the Thrasher in any real combat scenario. The only advantage it had over the current coercer was the ability to fit a point. That advantage is now gone too. |
Aurum Gallente
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:43:00 -
[104] - Quote
This destroyer's rebalance will change nothing. Just useless westing of time and resources. They need new role bonuses like mwd\ab boost, middle-range webifieres, long-range small neutralizers for effective fight against frigates-tacklers or good boost of target painting.
Just give them all that frigates hate. |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
129
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 04:58:00 -
[105] - Quote
My opinion is that all destroyers should be changed to this base off the previous posts. I agree on the idea of a removal of a high and turret slow in exchange for a damage bonus would be better and relocating that high to a low or mid:
Catalyst: 7 hi/ 7 turret 3 mid 3 low
CPU: 195 PG: 80
Drone Bay: 25 m3 Bandwidth: 15 m3
Role: 50% falloff and tracking
Bonus: 5% small hybrid damage and 10% falloff per level
This will turn the catalyst into brawling anti-frigate blasterboat and not infringe on the cormorant's rail sniping abilities.
Coercer: 7 hi/ 7 turret 2 mid 4 low
Role: 50% optimal and tracking
Drone Bay: 10 m3 Bandwidth: 5 m3
Bonus: 5% small energy rof and 10% reduction in capacitor usage per level.
CPU: 180 PG: 90
This will make the coercer the way it is but an additional mid to tackle.
Cormorant: 7 hi/7 turret 4 mid 2 low
CPU: 215 PG: 77
Role: 50% optimal and tracking
Bonus: 5% hybrid damage and 10% optimal range per level.
This will make cormorant more on par with other destroyers, but inferior to the catalyst for close range blasters.
Thrasher: 7 hi/ 7 turret 3 mid 3 low
CPU: 205 PG: 82
Role: 50% optimal and tracking
Bonus: 5% projectile damage and 10% falloff per level.
I am not sure about whether the thrasher should have double falloff or double optimal since it can fly with either artillery or autocannons. |
Hrett
Justified Chaos
147
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 05:45:00 -
[106] - Quote
Im no massive experts on Dessies, but I fly them on occasion and you see a lot of them in FW.
Here are the common fits you see in FW and why people fly them:
Corm ( awesome sniper) Coercer (brick or sniper or cockbag (insta-lock alpha)) Thrasher (OP, Cockbag, AC kiter, AC in your face, awesome slot layout). Catalyst (because some crazies (like myself) like to fly Gallente ships just because - really no other reason).
Cat is the worst dessie already. These suggested changes make it even worse.. Cat is a gallente ship that needs to be able to fit full tackle. Other than for suicide ganking an unmoving hauler, people just rarely fit blasters on them because of the lack of tackle. If it needs to be balanced in other ways, that is fine, but give it a third mid. It is outclassed as a Rail ship by the Corm, and blaster fits dont work because there is a lack of web. Thus, there is really no reason to use it.
Basically, just because the Catalyst is a good high-sec suicide gank blaster boat doesnt mean it is balanced for normal pvp. :)
I'm probably typing on an iPad, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 07:32:00 -
[107] - Quote
Cat needs more power grid for a start.
How woud swapping the optimal bonus for another fall off bonus or even split 25% of both would this improve DPS projection enough to make a web less needed? |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 07:50:00 -
[108] - Quote
Removing the fourth mid on the cormorant for a low is a huuuuuuuuuuge nerf to an already suck-y destroyer.
Its slot layout is honestly fine. In general, its a fine ship |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 09:02:00 -
[109] - Quote
I was flying the Coercer some time. Main problem is that CCP had done good work with Incursus and Merlin (okay Punisher is a joke) . Rifter was op in comparison to the others. Waht CCP maybe not sees is that Thrasher is actually completely op in comparison to the other dessies. Minus one low slot on Coercer will hurt but okay it is amarr, it simply has to suck. Coercer would need more CPU and Capacitor. An arty Thrasher can fire 10 mins and longer, Coercer not. What CCP does also not see is the cost aspect. With 8 turrets you need to get minimum 4 mil ammo in a coercer that it works (4 crystals). Putting ammo for close and long range hurts much more with minimum 6 or 8m. An Arty Thrasher for fast skirmish maybe needs 0,8m in ammo and it works. Total imbalance here. TBH Coercer should even be better than the others BECAUSE the loss in ammo alone is HORRIBLY higher than in other ships and hurts much more. It should be: Better ship=higher risk and not equal ship but higher risk because of laser ammo. I agree that Cormorant sucks and would really need mor buff. Catalyst probably too and Coercer would need more cap and cpu. We need an end of these 20 Thrasher gangs. I would be happy to see a 20cormorant gang for example. Actually Thrasher can do everything and is total overpowered. The other 3 dessies need more buff. Especially the cormorant.
|
Dorah Hawkwing
Old Galactic Earth Regiment
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 09:03:00 -
[110] - Quote
Removing the 4rth low on the coerer defenitely takes away it's ability to tank and gank at the same time.
I was able to fit it with 6000 ehp tank + 2 HS II and an engagement range out to 38 km's :) Now I will ahve to either sacrifice a HS or tank.. in either case, it looses uniqueness. I was able to sucessfully deal with any other destroyer out there. Either by warping out when they sniped, or by simply outlasting them while delivering 280 dps on target. Usually by the time they realised my tank wasn't breaking and ther glasscannon was going down, they didn't have the time anymore to align and warp. Tanky designs on the other hand got out-dpsed.
No need for scram.
Removing one low wil reduce this aspect, by either taking away tank or dps, in both cases making the performance mediocre and taking away the uniqueness of the coercer. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
292
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 11:06:00 -
[111] - Quote
The main reason why Thrashers are so popular is artillery. It's just a notch above railguns and beam lasers.
It does low dps on paper, but in reality against the targets destroyers are meant to engage, it actually tends to do higher effective dps because the first shot is free damage. This concept is graphically explained here: http://i.imgur.com/NvtEG.png
It's also has the lowest fitting requirements, selectable damage types and doesn't need cap. Too many advantages. The fact that Thrashers have the equivalent of 8.75 guns vs the other destroyers having 8 or 7 certainly doesn't help either. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
243
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 14:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
Personally I'm in favour of removing the utility high from the Cormorant and moving it to a low. That or just giving another slot to destroyers in general.
|
VR Highfive
Hayabusa Hikotai
78
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 17:08:00 -
[113] - Quote
I am joining the 'Keep the 4 mids on the Cormorant!' club.
I am a big Cormorant fan. <3 The 4 mids is what makes this little ship unique and versatile. I'd hate to see that changed and have the Thrasher slot layout. 4 mids allows a decent shield tank or plenty or ewar or dual prop and full tackle etc. This is the advantage it has over its competitors who generally have more dps and or speed.
Personally I like I like the slot layout on the Cormy the way it is and I don't think an exchanging of high to a low slot is neccesary or giving it 8 turret hardpoints for more dps. As it is it can field 7 turrets AND 1 launcher which is great . I don't hear people mention that in this thread.
I do like the extra tank proposed, it is lacking in that regard compared to the Thrasher (dunno how that compares to the Cat or the Coercer).
Cormy love <3!
I like the extra mid on the Coercer - 1 low.
Haven;'t flow the Cat at all so can't really comment
Make the Thrasher better than it already is hmmm.... not sure about that. It is already head and shoulders above the rest. But we'll see how they fly when the changes hit SiSi.
http://haykilogs.blogspot.com/ Learning solo PvP, one explosion at a time. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2012.08.12 23:11:00 -
[114] - Quote
The catalyst is still an unfocused mess after this change - falloff and optimal bonuses leave it in a confused position compared to the other three. One solution might be to split the class in half by swapping out the optimal role bonuses on the catalyst and thrasher for falloff bonuses to make them more dedicated close-range ships compared to the sniper-focused cormorant and coercer. That would leave the catalyst in an unusual position of having a double-falloff bonus, but I'm not familiar enough with small blasters to guess if that would be a good thing, or whether the Destroyer skill falloff bonus would then need switching to something else. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
500
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 00:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:The main reason why Thrashers are so popular is artillery. It's just a notch above railguns and beam lasers. It does lower dps on paper, but in reality against the targets destroyers are meant to engage, it actually tends to do higher effective dps because the first shot is free damage and it has high alpha. This concept is graphically explained here: http://i.imgur.com/NvtEG.pngIt's also has the lowest fitting requirements, selectable damage types and doesn't need cap. Too many advantages. The fact that Thrashers have the equivalent of 8.75 guns vs the other destroyers having 8 or 7 certainly doesn't help either.
Destroyer vs. Destroyer is like two midgets shooting bazookas at eachother. Artillery is very nice and I cut my pvp teeth on arty thrashers. They are also VERY susceptible to AB frigates or Dual prop frigates. Their massive alpha only goes out every 6 seconds or so. If you time your shot wrong or need to change ammo types you can easily be screwed. The 125mm rail Catalyst sends a salvo downrange every 1.53 seconds. A gank fit Coercer can shoot in 2 seconds or less. The challenge is placed more on the frigate to get into position before it is obliterated off of the field. |
Lunaleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 09:08:00 -
[116] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium,
I am concerned that ships undergoing re-balancing are starting to look a bit too.....standardized. While standardization makes balancing easier, it saps uniqueness and variation from the different races and ships within the same class.
The slot layouts for destroyers....8/2/3 or 8/3/2. You did this also for the EAFs.....2/4/3 or 2/5/2.
Where's the variation? Why are there only 2 slot layouts per class instead of 3 or 4? I don't want to jump in a Caldari destroyer after flying an Minni destroyer, and feel like I'm flying the same ship but with different guns.
Can you take some time to explain your philosophy on keeping ships within the same class unique, while making them balanced?
(And the cormorant needs to keep it's 4th midslot....thanks :)) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
248
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 09:29:00 -
[117] - Quote
Lunaleil Fournier wrote: .. legitimate concern .. Spot on. If we wanted 'more of the same' Eve Online wouldn't be our addiction in the first place .. Give us variety! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
689
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 12:17:00 -
[118] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Lunaleil Fournier wrote: .. legitimate concern .. Spot on. If we wanted 'more of the same' Eve Online wouldn't be our addiction in the first place .. Give us variety! See my comments above about splitting the role bonus to create 2 short range ships and 2 snipers. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Sophie Cry
Saltatio Vita AAA Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:00:00 -
[119] - Quote
WTB A DESTROYER CLASS THAT IS USED TO FIND LIKE RECONS OR BOMBERS ANYTHING WITH A CLOAK
MAYBE SOME SORT OF DEPTH CHARGE OR DIRECTION BASED SCANNER (LIKE A BOMBER HAS TO BE POINTED AT THE TARGET) or even use it like a cyno or something something with poor tank that cant move but lights up a say 20k area or something
i think its gay how one dude in a bomber can keep 10 guys trying to mine or run plex at bay while he goes to taco bell
btw i dont mean keep them visable maybe show position for 3 seconds or something like that
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Marquie-X Corp Ewoks
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.13 17:11:00 -
[120] - Quote
T2 Version: Corvette
A cloak-ship hunter. A bit out-of-the-box Ideas.....
Corvettes have special equipment to hunt down cloaked ships.
High-Energy Flashlight: This high intensive light beam overloads the light bending cloaking technique that keeps stealth ships invisible. Also it cannot defeat the sensor cloaking of a stealth ship. Function: All 20 Seconds a beam with 30 degrees is emitted up to 100km. In this beam a cloak ship becomes visibile, but not targetable via Overview or right-click onto it. Also it is only visible for Corvette Class ships. The beam is emittet into the viewing area of the pilot, similar to the directional scanner.
Light, Medium and Heavy Plasma-Mortar These weapons firing a contained plasma field similiar to Blasters. A small cartridge containing the field generator are fired from the barrel, emitting a force field containing the plasma, dragging the field behind the cartridge. After the battery charge of the cartridge runs dry, the plasma is no longer containted and a violent explosion errupts. Function: The Plasma-Mortar fires in the direction of the viewing area, similiar to a directional scanner. The Mortar has fixed ranges and area effects, the splash damage becomes weaker every 100m. Light Mortars have the shortest range, but a big radius, while heavy mortars firing a longer distance but with less area effect.
Stardust-Cruise Missile System: The Stardust Cruise Missile System is the combination of Scanner Probes and a warp-cable Cruise Missile System. A cloaked ship in space leaves a shadow, an anomaly into gravity and starlight. Blankness, perfect void space were normally something shoul be. It is the silence, in an Ocean full of noise. This hole in space becomes easier to detect the longer a ship remains in place or moving with sub-warp speed in the same area. In the first hour it is impossible to find an cloaked ship as long as you don't put the probes on the same grid as the cloaked ship. With every hour afterwards, the area to detect increases. The Stardust-Cruise Missile locks on the probes, travels by warp speed in the vincinity of the target and explodes. The nuclear charge creates a small area damage effect, but more importantly, the strong EMP weakens the cloak and a full hit deactivated it. Afterwards a conventional scanning-ship can detect the hidden raider. Function: Probes with an special probe launcher. Works like conventional scanning. Detection range is deternined by cloak duration and starts after one hour. Stardust Missiles weakens the cloak and can make it possible to warp on the same grid or to decloak. Startdust Missiles are fired from the same launcher as the probes.
Maybe as an direction a new way to install a cloak vs. counter cloak with modification of implemented features. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |