| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Scandal Caulker
   |
Posted - 2011.07.01 21:04:00 -
[1]
Been looking at the Succubus and I've seen a really simple buff that would bring it in line.
+1 turret hard point.
No boost to any other stats. This would give a MSE fit 280 DPS (conflag) with 10.7k EHP (with fleet bonuses).
Looking at all the faction ships the Sansha line up seem to be gank boats. With an extra turret slot the succubus would be perfect. Obviously this is solely my opinion.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 15:45:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 02/07/2011 15:46:22
 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Scandal Caulker
Been looking at the Succubus and I've seen a really simple buff that would bring it in line...
Suck-a-bus is getting 107dps per mounted gun with a single heatsink (my skills), don't know how you only get 280dps after adding a slot.
Well if you want to keep those guns shooting you're gonna need a Nos which you can only fit if you use dual light lasers but I suppose a slight nerf to PG to prevent a triple medium pulse laser fit would work if you had three turret slots
Although, you're really gonna be struggling for CPU with 3 medium pulse II's
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.07.17 15:09:00 -
[3]
I know that the Tracking Link bonus can be quite helpful in some very specific situations where it would probably have been a better idea to bring a Guardian over the Oneiros due to constant repping capability from cap chaining however dropping it for a remote ECCM Bonus is perfect. I've been thinking about it for a while now. Long before this thread started and I'm glad I'm not alone.
The R-ECCM bonus gives fleets the option of either choosing the Guardian to be highly resistant to Neuts or the Oneiros to be highly resistant to ECM.
However switching slots around might not be a good idea for the Oneiros. Especially considering it looks like its going to get a base armour buff anyway. Plus a velocity buff too which all help towards tanking. The Scimitar however could probably drop a low or two for more mids so that it can actually fit a tank and still use its utility bonus.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.07.20 16:00:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lucas Quaan
[About a R-ECCM Bonus] The problem here is, as already noted, that you again become dependent on a logistics chain and unlike the redundant dual cap chain it cascades if you break a single link.
I don't see why this would be a problem. The Oneiros/Scimitar would be logi-chaining in a different way to the Guardian/Basilisk. You could even chain Oneiros' and Guardians together in a large fleet where one provides ECCM cover and the other helps with Cap stability.
Also, it is simply a choice to logi chain with a R-ECCM bonus. You can still fit a local ECCM and a R-ECCM with the high number of mid slots you have.
If you REALLY don't want the Oneiros to have a remote utility bonus then why not a Capacitor Booster boost amount bonus so it can get more out of a cap boosting setup.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 12:19:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 03/08/2011 12:31:34
I've been thinking about Super Carriers and how to rebalance them. At the minute SC's have a redicudunkulous amount of EHP due to the buff they received recently. This has made them nearly impossible to kill as the player can simply log off and unless you have a SupCap fleet you can't kill them in time.
So... Instead of playing with log off aggression timers and stuff why not nerf the EHP back but give the ships excellent active tanking abilities. Maybe remove their bonuses for Remote Repair (no one seems to fit for this anyway) and switch these to active tanking bonuses. Like a repair amount bonus or module duration bonus. These ships will still be very tough to kill if caught alone and with logistical support from other standard carriers tough as nails.
Edit: Oh and introduce X-Large rigs and X-Large Capacitor Boosters for capital ships.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 12:45:00 -
[6]
Been thinking about Dreadnoughts too. Currently they have a single purpose which is POS Bashing and requires them to be in Siege mode to be worth anything in this role. This seems to be fine but in any other situation (ie combat) Siege mode is undesirable. The drawbacks to entering Siege mode in combat make it near impossible to hit anything smaller than a moon if it has any form of transversal. The 10 minute timer is also horrid compared to 5 minute timer on a triage module.
The Siege module works well when in "Siege mode". What I'm suggesting is that the module has two different modes. "Siege mode" is how we know it right now but "Combat Mode" would not cripple the hull when fighting ship to ship. Combat mode would not give the ship the same offensive buff but would also not reduce the weapons tracking or immobilise the ship. Combat mode should also have a shorter timer. 5 minutes maximum maybe even shorter to improve survivability and encourage use of going in and out of "Combat Mode" to be able to receive logistical support.
Obviously the ship will not be able to jump or enter warp whilst in "Combat Mode".
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 13:28:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 03/08/2011 13:29:53
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Why would anyone use siege mode when combat mode offers all the benefits for none of the drawbacks?
Like I said:
Originally by: Scandal Caulker
"Combat Mode" would not cripple the hull when fighting ship to ship. Combat mode would not give the ship the same offensive buff but would also not reduce the weapons tracking or immobilise the ship.
The Idea is to give similar survivability but lower offensive capability without the tracking, Scan resolution or immobilising draw backs. You would still want to use "Siege Mode" when hitting structures. Combat mode could also use up a lot more fuel as a draw back.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2011.08.03 14:17:00 -
[8]
I don't know. This idea is in its infancy and could be number crunched to death. How much DPS do you think a Dread should be able to deal ship to ship while in this theoretical "Combat Mode" that uses 2 or 3 times more fuel per cycle?
|
| |
|