| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
   |
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:28:00 -
[1]
Drake = -1 hardpoint, -1 high, +1 low
Nighthawk = +1 hardpoint, +1 high, -1 low
Boost the Nighthawk's grid/cpu a bit and nerf the Drake's a bit. That kills two birds with one stone, balancing the Caldari HM platforms quite nicely among themselves, and within their respective ship classes.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:31:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/12/2010 21:31:28
I'm not a fan of this. I think it's because I'd rather see command ships as a whole fixed with regards to utility vs their Tier 2 cousins.
-Liang
Ed: I am also not such a huge fan of nerfing the Drake's launcher slots like that.
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
- Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:39:00 -
[3]
Drake is fine, NH needs more grid and an extra highslot/launcher or 2. Ditto for all the field CSs. Tier 2 BCs are well balanced enough as it is, the big problem with CSs is that they were created before (and not altered after) the introduction of these tier 2 BCs. As it stands a CS vs a BS is going to lose more often than not assuming similar pilots, and therein lies the big problem.
They don't outperform their t1 counterparts by a wide enough margin, and they don't outperform BSs (which take a similar amount of time to train properly for, have similar align times/speeds, and more DPS and EHP) at all, and as long as that continues to hold true it just wont be worth losing 10X the isk of a BS/BC to fly one. |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:08:00 -
[4]
The problem with the drake is not it's gank, but it's tank.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:39:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/12/2010 21:31:28
I'm not a fan of this. I think it's because I'd rather see command ships as a whole fixed with regards to utility vs their Tier 2 cousins.
-Liang
Ed: I am also not such a huge fan of nerfing the Drake's launcher slots like that.
This.
The entire lineup of field commands other than the sleip are in need of some serious reworking. Welcome to 2+ years ago (not directed at u Liang), glad to see things have been moveing forward
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:42:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ulstan on 08/12/2010 22:42:48
The Drake doesn't need a nerf. All the tier 2 Battlecruisers are superb ships that are fun to fly, powerful, and well balanced with each other.
Instead, let's buff the underappreciated tier 1 battlecruisers, especially prophecy and ferox.
The Nighthawk doesn't need more slots, it needs more powergrid. It is the only Command Ship that loses grid compared to the equivalent T1 hull.
|
Freyja Asynjur
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 00:36:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Freyja Asynjur on 09/12/2010 00:37:41
Edited by: Freyja Asynjur on 09/12/2010 00:36:07
I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing the drake trading tank for more speed and agility (you know, the caldari, the guys that designed the perfect kiting weapon system, but somehow thought it would be a good idea to make ships slow as snails (eg, drake, cerberus,...)).
The nighthawk needs to be thought again, from scratch. Add PG ? And here comes the insane XL shield boosting NH. Or something else ; whatever, it will get abused. That ship is trapped by the game design philosophy behind factions.
Off topic, CSs need a role boost. And fleet CSs need to be better than t3 at their own role, please, okay ? (why not a 100% reduction for fitting gang links, so they could still field their good pvp performance, while also applying their leadership bonuses ?)
|
Salpad
Caldari
Carebears with Attitude
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:48:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ulstan
The Nighthawk doesn't need more slots, it needs more powergrid. It is the only Command Ship that loses grid compared to the equivalent T1 hull.
Yes, the NH cannot fit a warfare module without spending several LOW slots on Reactor Control modules. It does need more powergrid.
Someone else suggested adding 1 or even 2 launcher hardpoints to the NH. That strikes me as silly; the ship is already very ganky. Adding just 1 tube hardpoint would probably make it overpowered. It's be like a Drake, except with a -25% RoF bonus.
Of course, I fly one. 2 more launcher hardpoints would be fun. But they're not needed at all. What's needed is more grid, and maybe 1 MID slot, since the NH, a T2 ship, has the exact same number of slots as the Drake, a T1 ship, they're just arranged a bit differently (1 more LOW slot, 1 less MID slot), which always looks wrong. T2 ships are supposed to have more slots than their T1 equivalents.
--
Salpad |
middel vrouw
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:26:00 -
[9]
i for one do not want them to touch the drake it is a good ship that young pilots can get in and learn without buying a new ship every other day. it teaches them the balance between tank and gank. it is a great ship
the nighthawk had its time in the sun tanking lvl5. and it did a good job but then came the rattlesnake a uber awsome ship. i agree the nh need a role bonus and more cpu but most of all i think it needs 1 or two more launchers.
|
Denuo Secus
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:38:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Denuo Secus on 09/12/2010 07:38:44
NH needs more grid + one additional medium slot. It should be possible to fit a gang link without crippling the whole fitting. I'd like to use this ship for anything else than PvE.
I don't see why the Drake would need a nerf. It's perfectly balanced. Damage-wise and tank-wise. Caldari and Amarr are the HP + resist races. The Harbinger can field the same EHPs as the Drake but with a lower sig. So why nerfing the Drake's tank then?
Imho: boost bommand ships, boost tier 1 BCs (by removing the tier system!), don't touch any tier 2 BC. Except the Myrm could need some more bandwith or a turret damage bonus maybe.
-
Save the missiles from the glowing blob :S
R ----------> *
A --------> *
V --------> *
E -------> *
N ---------> *
|
Carniflex
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:44:00 -
[11]
I dont think this proposal is good thing, as it would push nighthawk a bit too close to Raven damage wise. It would not make sense to fly Raven then if you can fly Nighthawk as only thing going for Raven would be either range (with cruise missiles) or damage against static big things (torps) with major difficulties applying that damage to anything smaller than itself while nighthawk would just not care (in practice) about the target size and to smaller extent it's speed as long it's missiles are faster than the target.
Granted, Raven is not tied to the kinetic damage only, but can apply it's damage in any damage type thats needed.
Current situation is
Drake at 470 dps; 60 dps; Nighthawk at 530 dps; 50 dps; Raven at 580 dps (+2 relatively useless turret slots).
So the step up from Drake is already meaningful enough to justify flying Nighthawk if you can do so. Then there is Cerberus as well sitting at 440 dps, so about 30 under Drake but having quite significant range advantage. Tengu can be considered to be direct competitor with Nighthawk in its 'ecological niche' in the EVE. I'm not so sure if Tengu being so close to Nighthawk is good thing or not, as as far as I understood T3 was supposed to be jack of all trades but master of none, while currently this jack of all trades is sitting practically on top of a ship that is supposed to be very specialized at that niche.
Dps numbers are with fury ammo and 4 damage mods, as thats whats usually used with heavy missiles. Raven is with fury as well, although it's not as universal ammo type at that level as it is with heavies.
|
Rastigan
Caldari
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 11:59:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Drake = -1 hardpoint, -1 high, +1 low
Nighthawk = +1 hardpoint, +1 high, -1 low
Boost the Nighthawk's grid/cpu a bit and nerf the Drake's a bit. That kills two birds with one stone, balancing the Caldari HM platforms quite nicely among themselves, and within their respective ship classes.
You know this only buffs the Drake and Nerfs the Nighthawk right ?
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari
draketrain
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 18:49:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/12/2010 21:31:28
I'm not a fan of this. I think it's because I'd rather see command ships as a whole fixed with regards to utility vs their Tier 2 cousins.
-Liang
Ed: I am also not such a huge fan of nerfing the Drake's launcher slots like that.
^I agree with most of this. Command ships dont seem to offer much more than thier t1 couterparts. Although, cost has come down recently making them more affordable imo.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:04:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Proxyyyy
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/12/2010 21:31:28
I'm not a fan of this. I think it's because I'd rather see command ships as a whole fixed with regards to utility vs their Tier 2 cousins.
-Liang
Ed: I am also not such a huge fan of nerfing the Drake's launcher slots like that.
^I agree with most of this. Command ships dont seem to offer much more than thier t1 couterparts. Although, cost has come down recently making them more affordable imo.
120+m is still way more than the 18m for tier 1 bc and maybee 27m for tier2s. Better than the 150m+ it was but still WAY overpriced for nerfed ships.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 22:32:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 09/12/2010 22:36:18
Originally by: Carniflex
I dont think this proposal is good thing, as it would push nighthawk a bit too close to Raven damage wise. It would not make sense to fly Raven then if you can fly Nighthawk as only thing going for Raven would be either range (with cruise missiles) or damage against static big things (torps) with major difficulties applying that damage to anything smaller than itself while nighthawk would just not care (in practice) about the target size and to smaller extent it's speed as long it's missiles are faster than the target.
Granted, Raven is not tied to the kinetic damage only, but can apply it's damage in any damage type thats needed.
Current situation is
Drake at 470 dps; 60 dps; Nighthawk at 530 dps; 50 dps; Raven at 580 dps (+2 relatively useless turret slots).
So the step up from Drake is already meaningful enough to justify flying Nighthawk if you can do so. Then there is Cerberus as well sitting at 440 dps, so about 30 under Drake but having quite significant range advantage. Tengu can be considered to be direct competitor with Nighthawk in its 'ecological niche' in the EVE. I'm not so sure if Tengu being so close to Nighthawk is good thing or not, as as far as I understood T3 was supposed to be jack of all trades but master of none, while currently this jack of all trades is sitting practically on top of a ship that is supposed to be very specialized at that niche.
Dps numbers are with fury ammo and 4 damage mods, as thats whats usually used with heavy missiles. Raven is with fury as well, although it's not as universal ammo type at that level as it is with heavies.
It's already pretty clear that cruise Raven makes very little sense and as for torp one, NH can't compete with it neither getting boosted it nor remaining the same. As for relatively useless hi-slots, they aren't useless at all, the extra utility they provide is extremelely handy at BS level.
You're right that damage boost isn't the way to go, though. NH is already pretty decent at damage dealing (considering how universal its damage is over range and target selection). What it doest need is an extra med-slot and at least 100 MWs more.
Also they might want to revise its explosion velocity bonus. Precision one (explosion radius to be exact) is much better and it's not like it's very much to ask for even if NH gets its PG finally fixed.
Btw, you shouldn't compare NH to a mere Raven. Sleipnir is what you want to look at.
Originally by: Freyja Asynjur
The nighthawk needs to be thought again, from scratch. Add PG ? And here comes the insane XL shield boosting NH. Or something else ; whatever, it will get abused.
LOL, how exactly XL booster is abusing? Sleip can easily fit one. So why XL-boosted NH will of a sudden become abusive?
---[center]
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Carniflex
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 12:03:00 -
[16]
I sure would like exp velocity bonus to be switched into exp precision one, as under current missile damage formula usually missile signature is better at negating damage reduction from target speed than exp velocity (up to some point). Another thing I would like to see would be making the Command Ship skill bonuses apply to HAM and Assault Missile launchers as well, instead of current bonus only to heavies (if I remember correct). Not that the ship is sensible option to fit HAM's with tight grid and lack of missile range bonuses, but Assault Launchers with those bonuses would make it interesting option for spanking frigates.
|
Diesel47
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 13:09:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Drake = -1 hardpoint, -1 high, +1 low
Nighthawk = +1 hardpoint, +1 high, -1 low
Boost the Nighthawk's grid/cpu a bit and nerf the Drake's a bit. That kills two birds with one stone, balancing the Caldari HM platforms quite nicely among themselves, and within their respective ship classes.
Drake needs no nerf.
|
Captain Blaubart
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 13:20:00 -
[18]
Drake needs definitly a nerv.
Their is no counter part against a massiv drake fleet at the moment. For an alliance a drake fleet with scimitars is unbeatable.
The drake is cheap (only 40 - 50mio isk with fitting)
The drake has a strong tank.
The drake makes very good damage.
The drake is flexible on short and medium range (0 - 90km)
Its senseless to fly any other ships against this ship in a massive fleetfight. In each way there is an disadvantage against the drake.
Plz think about a small nerv. And plz look at the big fleetfights in the south. Each party flying drakes at the moment.
The drake is definitly inbalanced!
|
Target Painter
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 14:10:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Drake needs definitly a nerv.
Their is no counter part against a massiv drake fleet at the moment. For an alliance a drake fleet with scimitars is unbeatable.
This is so utterly, laughably wrong. Drakes are countered by almost any battleship.
|
XxRTEKxX
|
Posted - 2010.12.10 14:31:00 -
[20]
Edited by: XxRTEKxX on 10/12/2010 14:33:47
Edited by: XxRTEKxX on 10/12/2010 14:32:00
I do not believe the Drake needs a nerf. If it is so powerful in pvp fleets, ccp should buff the other BC's.
Leave the Drake alone, boost up the other BC's, and if anything give the Drake a bit more baseline speed.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 01:50:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 13/12/2010 01:51:06
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Drake needs definitly a nerv.
No it doesn't. A nerf would make it useless.
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Their is no counter part against a massiv drake fleet at the moment. For an alliance a drake fleet with scimitars is unbeatable.
Yes there is counter and no, Drake fleet even with logistics is not unbeatable.
Once again, If Drake sucks as a solo ship, how come it's fantastic in blobs with logistics? Does that makes Drake broken or logistics?
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake is cheap (only 40 - 50mio isk with fitting)
Cyclone has the similar price and with proper fit and piloting skills, it will kill a Drake. Your point?
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake has a strong tank.
It has mediocre tank at best. Even a passive shield tanked Myrmidon have better tank than a Drake (not to mention dual armor rep Myrmidon). What makes Drake's tank strong in blobs are logistics.
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake makes very good damage.
 In which fairytale? EFT?
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake is flexible on short and medium range (0 - 90km)
Yep... it's flexible. Shoot the missile... wait... wait... wait... wait... target warped off. Without a fleet and dedicated tackle squad it can serve only one purpose - practical application of Darwinism.
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Its senseless to fly any other ships against this ship in a massive fleetfight. In each way there is an disadvantage against the drake.
Armor HACs, Firewall BSs,...
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Plz think about a small nerv. And plz look at the big fleetfights in the south. Each party flying drakes at the moment.
Just because some fleet composition is FOTM because some FC saw it could work and implemented it on TQ doesn't mean the ships involved needs to be nerfed. But, I guess it's easier for people like you to cry "that ship is OP" instead of using your brain to find a fleet composition that can counter it (Firewall BSs being the most original idea so far).
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake is definitly inbalanced!
No it's not. In fact, its usefulness (in PvP) goes just as far as logi-heavy blob fleets and bait in lowsec. For everything else, it's way worse than many other BCs.
On the other hand, if you want an imbalance, look at the Nighthawk. That's a ship with some serious issues and even God have forgotten about it.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 01:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/12/2010 21:31:28
I'm not a fan of this. I think it's because I'd rather see command ships as a whole fixed with regards to utility vs their Tier 2 cousins.
-Liang
Ed: I am also not such a huge fan of nerfing the Drake's launcher slots like that.
Agreed. Currently the Nighthawk is only marginally better than a Drake (extra low, but 1x less hardpoint). You get maybe a little extra DPS; but considering the pretty hefty requirements for Command Ships, we really ought to be getting more out of them.
--
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 02:50:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
No it doesn't. A nerf would make it useless.
There are usually degrees between "overpowered" and "useless". "Balanced" comes to mind.
Quote:
Once again, If Drake sucks as a solo ship, how come it's fantastic in blobs with logistics? Does that makes Drake broken or logistics?
This is a fallacy. Simply put: ships which do not solo well may well be overpowered in blobs. Also, the Drake solos pretty ****ing well.
Quote:
Cyclone has the similar price and with proper fit and piloting skills, it will kill a Drake. Your point?
A Cyclone that will kill a Drake is significantly more expensive than said Drake. Billions more expensive. But, it can be done.
Quote:
It has mediocre tank at best. Even a passive shield tanked Myrmidon have better tank than a Drake (not to mention dual armor rep Myrmidon). What makes Drake's tank strong in blobs are logistics.
The Drake outtanks a passive Myrm at BC 5, furthermore it more than double outtanks a dual rep Myrm. The Drake has a fantastic tank, and to say otherwise makes me think you're thinking of a Hurricane or something.
Quote:
In which fairytale? EFT?
In the fairytale where they fit "Ballistic Controls".
I'm gonna stop bothering to respond to all the outright rubbish you're saying. I may not be a fan of the proposed nerf, but holy **** - you can defend the Drake without outright lies.
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
- Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Cambarus
Trust Doesn't Rust
Supremacy.
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 04:41:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Cambarus on 13/12/2010 04:41:48
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Drake needs definitly a nerv.
No it doesn't. A nerf would make it useless.
Confirming that the drake is so well balanced that even a slight tweaking of its stats would instantly make it the worst of the tier 2 BCs.
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Their is no counter part against a massiv drake fleet at the moment. For an alliance a drake fleet with scimitars is unbeatable.
Yes there is counter and no, Drake fleet even with logistics is not unbeatable.
Once again, If Drake sucks as a solo ship, how come it's fantastic in blobs with logistics? Does that makes Drake broken or logistics?
Being "beatable" and being balanced are not the same thing. When you see whole fleets balanced around the idea of flying ONE ship (and it happens often) it's kind of hard to make the claim that said ship doesn't need to be looked at. As far as logis go, the reverse could also be said to be true. Logis suck solo, but they rock with drakes, I guess that makes drakes OP  (Seriously though, if you think the drake sucks for solo/small gang you're an idiot, it's arguably the best BC for it, only really competing with the cane)
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Cyclone has the similar price and with proper fit and piloting skills, it will kill a Drake. Your point?
It will not. There's no way you're going to get a clone to tank the DPS a drake can put out for any reasonable amount of time, and the damn thing has less DPS than a well fit cruiser.
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
It has mediocre tank at best. Even a passive shield tanked Myrmidon have better tank than a Drake (not to mention dual armor rep Myrmidon). What makes Drake's tank strong in blobs are logistics.
wha...
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake makes very good damage.
In which fairytale? EFT?
I think you'll find that the land of make-believe in which the drake puts out good DPS is called Tranquility.
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
The drake is flexible on short and medium range (0 - 90km)
Yep... it's flexible. Shoot the missile... wait... wait... wait... wait... target warped off. Without a fleet and dedicated tackle squad it can serve only one purpose - practical application of Darwinism.
You really seem to think the drake sucks, you must either really hate it or really not want it to get nerfed at all...
*has a quick look at battleclinic*
*gasp*
what a surprise! he flies drakes almost exclusively! (If I'm reading this right in the last 3 months he has about 30 kills, and 27 of them are with drakes)
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Plz think about a small nerv. And plz look at the big fleetfights in the south. Each party flying drakes at the moment.
Just because some fleet composition is FOTM because some FC saw it could work and implemented it on TQ doesn't mean the ships involved needs to be nerfed. But, I guess it's easier for people like you to cry "that ship is OP" instead of using your brain to find a fleet composition that can counter it (Firewall BSs being the most original idea so far).
When entire fleets are forming up, and being made around the idea of using ONE ship, said ship needs some tweaking. The answer to the insanely versitile drake fleets should NOT be "Hey let's set up a fleet that is 100% useless at killing anything that isn't a drake!" (for those who don't know firewall involves using BSs with smartbombs and logis to knock out incoming missiles)
|
Jan'z Kolna
Ore Mongers
BAT PHONE
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 05:37:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Target Painter
Originally by: Captain Blaubart
Drake needs definitly a nerv.
Their is no counter part against a massiv drake fleet at the moment. For an alliance a drake fleet with scimitars is unbeatable.
This is so utterly, laughably wrong. Drakes are countered by almost any battleship.
and you see nothing wrong in this statement?
that to counter drake you propose any ship of ONE CLASS UP?
shouldn't any BC gang be able to beat drake gang of similar size?
oh wait , there's no other BC gangs , drakes dominate.... why is that?
CETERUM CENSEO CALDARI NERFAM ESSE |
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 07:46:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 13/12/2010 07:55:40
Originally by: Cambarus
You really seem to think the drake sucks, you must either really hate it or really not want it to get nerfed at all...
Both, actually. I hate it because it's the only battlecruiser that uses missiles (what I'm trained for) and it's getting really boring to fly it. I don't want it nerfed for the same reason - that's the only battlecruiser that uses missiles as primary weapon system.
I'm totally against nerfing it, but I am for a change. How about the idea that Caldari finally get damn active shield tanked battlecruiser? I mean, come on... Almost exclusively shield tanked race that doesn't have an option to active tank any of its battlecruisers? That brings us to a default PG of 850 MW - Thorax has only 30 MW less . It's not only the lowest powergrid between tier 2 BCs, but the lowest powergrid of all BCs.
- Increase powergrid of a Drake so it can be fitted for active shield tanking.
- Remove resistance bonus and add active tanking bonus
Problem with blobs pretty much solved and you didn't nerf it in other situations (much) in the process.
edit: and for the OP's suggestion, Drake isn't famous for it's DPS, so it's really stupid to remove one of its launchers.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 07:58:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Problem with blobs pretty much solved and you didn't nerf it in other situations (much) in the process.
Hey cool, you nerfed the hell out of my solo Drake! Also, the Ferox active tanks just about as well as the Cyclone. ;-)
-Liang
--
Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
On Twitter
- Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Carniflex
StarHunt
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 08:12:00 -
[28]
One of the better ideas I have seen about that is getting rid of the tier system. The tier 2 BC's are stepping on the toes of tier 1 BC's in quite a significant manner. In the case of battleships the 'roles' are a bit better defined even within tier system (lets just say I love the cheapness of tier 1 hulls in BS class making them roughly equal to the cost of tier 2 BC's after insurance as number of slots and cost of the modules is roughly in the same ballpark).
For example Armageddon is in my opinion quite nice ship against drake blob. Scorpions are cheap enough and good at breaking the logistic ring of love. Both end up costing marginally more than Drake per ship. Cant mwd as well and are more vunerable to lag. Especially Armageddon if it fits lowest class large lasers as it ends with RoF of about 3 sec then. Can work with 1400 mm's as well but it's damn tight that way and requires some compromises in EHP. Scorpion works kinda well in lag, as it takes a while to relock a target and then in addition there will be module activation delay. Has enough room for 3 1400 mm guns as well or if it's laggy enough then cruise missiles work as well. Just have to have few 'bait' scorps at the first part of alphabet that are already locked by logis to give opposing fleet something to chew on. Full tank Scorp can have quite nice chunk of EHP. Especially if you have shield logistic squad as well mixed into armor BS fleet as seems to be the case of late.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 09:31:00 -
[29]
Why?
It seems that most commonly overlooked question. Drake is not OP by any definition of the word. The amount of readily available counters, even to swarms, are quite numerous.
Nighthawk might need a boost, but then so does the fail-CCs in general so can hardly be said to be a selling point.
Drake has mediocre damage, excellent range and excellent tank/EHP. Apart from fights between Drakes being one of the most boring spectacles known to man I cannot see why it should be nerfed.
CCP has identified some ancient code that when optimized minimizes the missile induced lag, take that out and the fat birds are sitting ducks.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 09:36:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Hey cool, you nerfed the hell out of my solo Drake!
No, if the attributes and bonuses get adjusted the proper way. The balance should aim for the same tank, only active. That would eliminate blob fleets (logistics can't repair what isn't there) and leave solo/small gang/PvE options intact (only changed to active tank).
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Also, the Ferox active tanks just about as well as the Cyclone. ;-)
Not exactly... Ferox has ~20% worse active tank than Cyclone and not as near DPS. BTW:
* Cyclone: 7.5% bonus to shield boosting per level
* Ferox: 5% bonus to all Shield resistances per level
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |