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) |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:09:00 -
[181] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote: Not sure I agree with this at all.
Artillery is fine. If anything, it's worse than ACs with barrage.
Thrasher is, well, not exactly fine, but certainly not as rediculously OP as you are claiming. I've seen thrashers die to catalysts, rail corms and coercers. The coercers are usually nano/dps fit, and they beat the thrasher (if it doesn't just leave), because the only way for a thrasher to catch a speed coercer is to be shield tanked. And that makes it vulnerable to lasers.
But coercers are mostly bad and need another mid slot Big smile
Then you might explain me when Thrasher isn-¦t that much overpowered why I see Thrasher fleets consisting of six up to twelve and more Thrashers every day and never ever saw a catalyst, cormorant or coercer fleet?
I run cormorant fleets regularly because they **** all over thrashers in plexes. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
191
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:12:00 -
[182] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:Unfortunately some of us don't give a damn about (T1) destroyers. I haven't flown one in the last 3 years and don't intend to ever in the future.
I know why these changes are necessary: You think DUST players will want decent ships within the first 30 seconds of starting EVE, something they can get into a fight with and hope to kill something. While I can see why you want to satisfy them, have you considered that any DUST player that lacks the patience to wait a few weeks to get into decent ship won't become a long term EVE subscriber anyway?
I think you are spending too much time on balancing the beginner ships at the expense of leaving serious gameplay issues that affect older players completely unfixed. In particular, I would rather see a post about giving supercaps proper roles and abilities than about adding 6 CPU to a destroyer.
I use destroyers on an almost daily basis - they are a powerhouse for fw combat. I've probably got at least a thousand kills in a thrasher. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Catholic School for Boys A Point In Space
39
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:41:00 -
[183] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:much has changed since the beginning of crucible and "winmatar" has lost a lot of ground. I would like to know what you're basing this assertion on. I've been following http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 in the last six months and not much has actually changed in that timeframe. Hybrids are slightly better represented while lasers are slightly worse represented. HMLs are still on top and projectile weapons make up the bulk as always. Very few armor tankers as usual also.
im basing this on the use gallente and caldari frigs T2 and T1 seen in the alliance tournament and on the general praise these ships are getting lately. they are just scary now ;) eve-kill statistics are nice but heavily biased from fleet doctrines in 0.0 as well as habits of the average eve player. these statistics are influenced by a lot more factors then just the balance between the ships.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
95
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 21:40:00 -
[184] - Quote
Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance? |
Tarn Kugisa
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 23:37:00 -
[185] - Quote
I want the Cormorant to be a missile boat. I don't want to have to get a flimsy interdictor to get me some sweet rocket action. I Endorse this Product and/or Service Source Recorder-esque tool for EVE |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 00:04:00 -
[186] - Quote
Tarn Kugisa wrote:I want the Cormorant to be a missile boat. I don't want to have to get a flimsy interdictor to get me some sweet rocket action.
I hear they're adding some rocket destroyers to the game. And drone destroyers. Just sayin. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
185
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 11:23:00 -
[187] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Denidil wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: Small 10 Megawatt Pulse Laser Medium 50 Megawatt Pulse Laser Large 250 Megawatt Pulse Laser .
I approve of this naming scheme, thought it really should be in MJ or GJ not multiples of watt. watt is power/timer .. J is total energy. we can figure out the power/time by GJ/cycle time. Except they might be named by the peak power per pulse or somehing, and there are several pulses per "shot" Yea with watts we don't have to worry as much about the name making sense in respect to the actual capacitor consumption, which is indicated in joules. That said these lasers consume gigajoules of energy each cycle
Except that knowing the joules and the cycle time, you can calculate the watts. It'd be kind of silly if the numbers didn't match up. . |
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:39:00 -
[188] - Quote
everything seem to be in order except : thrasher still has the damage bonus,while other 3 destroyers dont. cormorant : slot layout is somehow better now,but whitout proper bonuses (usefull bonuses) it still cannot compete with the rest of desssies.
keep up the good work |
Recoil IV
Knights of the Posing Meat
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:41:00 -
[189] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance?
mate,next time think about what u say.
light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
402
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 16:54:00 -
[190] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth? How is this balance? mate,next time think about what u say. light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons. and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage Thrasher can fit a full rack of highest tier (200mm) autocannons and still sport a massive tank. The catalyst struggles with moderate tank and medium tier (ion) light blasters. How is that balance?
Current Thrasher is faster, longer range, more EHP*dps. Perhaps the changes in shield/armor/structure changes that equation - probably not.
Add in selectable damage type (more effective DPS especially against more Tech 2 ships), dps not susceptible to neuts (versus more vulnerable to ecm), and engagement envelope of the short range Thrasher completely covers the limited engagement envelope of the short range Catalyst. |
|
Alara IonStorm
2989
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 19:50:00 -
[191] - Quote
Honestly looking at you change I would have prefered you just + up the slot number.
+ 1 Mid Coercer + 1 Low Thrasher + 1 Mid Catalyst + 1 Low Cormorant
None of them tanking slots but they give all 3 underpowered destroyers what they need without seriously buffing the Thrasher. I:E Tackle for the Coercer, a Dmg Mod to go with the DCU for the Cormorant and a Web for the Catalyst.
Nerfing the Cormi and Coercers tank doesn't seem like the best way to balance them. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
33
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 20:13:00 -
[192] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Honestly looking at you change I would have prefered you just + up the slot number.
+ 1 Mid Coercer + 1 Low Thrasher + 1 Mid Catalyst + 1 Low Cormorant
None of them tanking slots but they give all 3 underpowered destroyers what they need without seriously buffing the Thrasher. I:E Tackle for the Coercer, a Dmg Mod to go with the DCU for the Cormorant and a Web for the Catalyst.
Nerfing the Cormi and Coercers tank doesn't seem like the best way to balance them.
I agree I think you could just add a slot to all the Destroyers with the changes your making to all the frigates and still not over power them, especially if you didn't increase the fittings more than you are. |
Whisperen
That's Not A Knife Flatline.
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 01:28:00 -
[193] - Quote
The coercer do not need a extra mid for a point most things die before they can warp away the extra low has far more value. If anything the only thing the coercer needs is more Cap capacity so it can run a prop mod and guns for longer. |
Lili Lu
342
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 02:10:00 -
[194] - Quote
I think you guys need to rethink the racial straightjackets you are only exagerating. In this regard you limit pg and cpu on gallente ships to force blasters and bless pg and cpu on caldari to allow rails. This has unintended consequences. Such as allowing viable tanky blaster fits on caldari ships while not allowing viable sniper kiter fits on gallente ships. This is not balanced.
Also, the cormorant range ability is creating the typical extreme Caldari fit problem. Here with destroyers it is around 100km sniping destroyers (this most often shows up with all ecm mod ecm boats and ridiculous particularly pve shield tanks). Knock that optimal bonus down to 5% or at most 7.5% please. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 10:37:00 -
[195] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Why in the world does the Catalyst have so ****** PG?
Thrasher, 70 PG. 125mm Gatling Autocannon: 1MW 3tf Catalyst, 60 PG. Electron Blaster: 4 MW 8tf 200mm Autocannon: 4MW 9tf wth?
How is this balance? mate,next time think about what u say. light blaster pg usage does not EQUAL the pg usage of small autocannons. and your comparison is ******** : light neutron blaster II 9 pg usage / / / 200mm acc II 4 pg usage
I did not compare the 200mm to anything, I just showed that the biggest of the small autocannons are as hard/easy to fit as the smallest of the small hybrid guns. You don't see a problem with that? Combined with the fact that Thrasher has 10 PG more to play around with...
The way I see it, it's a problem with the powerfulness of the blasters in big numbers. CCP limits the PG on the catalyst so we can't fit a full rack of Neutron blasters together with tank, and sport a Thrasher sized tank with 700 dps.
What they need to do, is to remove the drone, drop down to 6 turret hardpoints, add 2 missile hardpoints and add 5 powergrid and 10 cpu.
Then we can fit 6 of the biggest guns and a decent tank without going crazy with dps, and if we fit ion blasters, we can add 2 rocket launchers as well.
TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
161
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 11:38:00 -
[196] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints
Maybe. But it also has a split range bonus which is "bad mmkay"
Drop the fall off bonus for an optimal or maybe a MWD cap penalty bonus "a la Thorax" to let this thing MWD around a lot. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 11:57:00 -
[197] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: TL;DR: The problem with the Catalyst is that it has 8 turret hardpoints
Maybe. But it also has a split range bonus which is "bad mmkay" Drop the fall off bonus for an optimal or maybe a MWD cap penalty bonus "a la Thorax" to let this thing MWD around a lot. Nah, it works very well with Null IMO |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
410
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 15:54:00 -
[198] - Quote
I just think they need to give the Catalyst some engagement envelope where it can be "king" like they did with the hybrid rebalance last year for the other Gallente hulls. Unfortunately, the hybrid rebalance falls apart when you have 8 turrets on your ship.
Either range control, more damage, or more tank. It need something to make it a better extreme close range ship than the Thrasher. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
59
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 00:52:00 -
[199] - Quote
Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 11 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's. |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 01:34:00 -
[200] - Quote
Who needs a point in a coercer when you're with friends? Seems like it's a good spot for ewar or something of the like. -Rock is overpowered, Scissors is fine. |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
697
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 13:04:00 -
[201] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's.
Remember that cruisers and battlecruisers are in line for rebalancing too though, so the slot ratios that exist now may not be sticking around for ever. 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. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
59
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 13:18:00 -
[202] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Galphii wrote:Battlecruisers get 5 more slots over cruisers, whereas frigates like the rifter get 10 slots - destroyers currently get 13. Instead of moving slots around, it wouldn't hurt to add one mid or low slot to the current dessies, and that gives more room to move when making the tier 2's. Remember that cruisers and battlecruisers are in line for rebalancing too though, so the slot ratios that exist now may not be sticking around for ever. Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's. |
Lili Lu
344
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 14:08:00 -
[203] - Quote
Galphii wrote: Very good point - but I suspect that balancing may just be bringing the tier 1 and 2 cruisers in line with the tier 3's in terms of slot layout, and tier 1 BC's in line with the tier 2's. Would be better if that was the other way around. The slot and hp differentials between cruisers and BCs should not be so pronounced. There were the statements out of the dev team that they wanted to disuade the rush to tier 2 BC. Regardless, we will be waiting a long time before they do anything with BCs it seems. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
381
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 18:38:00 -
[204] - Quote
Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Lili Lu
346
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 20:59:00 -
[205] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
382
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 21:08:00 -
[206] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats.
I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. An analysis: fixing active tanking in a logical manner: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1693846 |
Lili Lu
346
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 21:57:00 -
[207] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: I'm skeptical about a drone based destroyer in general. If you recall, the Maulus had its drone speed bonus replaced because light drones would overshoot and fail to hit very small targets. Using drones also means committing to the fight, whereas the fragile destroyer hulls need to stay aligned and ready to warp out.
I would rather see a rocket based destroyer with a +50% rocket velocity bonus. With missile speed & flight duration rigs it can reach out to 30 km using javlin rockets. That's more than adequate range, offers selectable damage types like drones and suffers less from delayed damage. And, of course the Caldari one will have an additional 10% missile speed bonus so it won't need rigs to do that, and it will be faster than the gallente one and even possibly the amarr one.
I posted that not because I was necessarilly thrilled with a Minmatar, Amarr, or Gallente drone-based destroyer. It was just that your post did make sense pointing out the tech II amarr frigates where the skills would be directly transferable. And, it would be a kick to train some drone skills for a minmatar destroyer (one that might actually have some speed to combat kiting missile boats) that would not be wasted sp in view of the phoon (well pretty much any ship has some dronage anyway). |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
59
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 02:01:00 -
[208] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Since the Inquisitor is presumably not going to be a missile ship anymore, this means Amarr is going to lack a stepping stone for the Vengeance & Malediction.
How about making the new Amarr Destroyer rocket (instead of drone) based? Might actually make some sense because the Minmatar one could be drone based (--> typhoon). Essentially the Amarr and Minmatar ship classes would have frog jumping progression between missile and drone boats. It does seem to be happening that way - typically, Minmatar have had better drone ships than Amarr (arbitrator hulls not withstanding) so this is a very new direction. We might be seeing more Matari missile hulls than drone hulls. |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 04:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
The frigates have received replies to the feedback from CCP.
Why have we not heard anything from Yttribium besides the first page posts, don't tell me he's gone to vacation.
With the current state of how frigs are being adjusted and changed, I think it would be fairly reasonable to give destroyers an additional slot.
Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 18:45:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote: Destroyers should excel at a destroying frigates, keeping destroyers the way they are while making their prey much more stronger makes them pointless, unless used for suicide ganking.
They do excel at destroying frigates. |
|
|
|
|
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 |