|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
192
   |
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
Looking at what will be fairly standard fits for PvP I utterly approve of these changes.
Omen is no longer lame and has good damage and projection with a reasonable tank.
Caracal is an excellent kiter with a good tank.
Thorax is utterly terrifying in close range.
Stabber has excellent versatility and can operate as a kiter or a brawler and work as either a shield or a buffer tank.
TL;DR: Ship it |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 10:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:The tracking bonus along with 4 mids will make the thorax a bloody frig killing machine.. Which is important if you're roaming in low sec since getting killed by one frig is rather depressing.
The tracking bonus is great, and not just for rails. Stop being bad. If you fly Thorax with dps drones I understand your need for + tracking to kill the pesky frigate pointing you, however I'm not convinced you'll ever touch it when said frigate is orbiting your Thorax at +15 and over 2km sec. However if you had some ECM drones you would probably feel better  Just a different point of view, of course. Blasters being the highest tracking weapon system with T2 long range ammo adding +25% tracking tells me the tracking bonus on the hull makes it a rail platform. You will not hit better frigates at 15/20 pointing you, this tracking bonus is not what you need to get frigates, you need ecm drones or better drone skills.
You do realise that Ion Blasters + Null hit out to 5.3km + 7km and you can hit out to falloff x2 which means a total possible range of 19km. You could even put a Tracking Computer into that additional mid slot for 6km + 9km (total 24km with x2 fall off).
You also have the option of using web drones (yes lol, web drones. They really need to be more useful) or strapping the new OP mod which is the Tracking Disruptor on. Means no frig can hit you at 24 km even with missiles probably |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 23:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:3. Why do you retain the dual weapon system layout on the Stabber? Wouldnt a 5/1 configuration work even better without competing with the Vagabond? Especially since you choose to keep the anemic 1 light drone on this hull. I bet it's because they're planning to buff the effectiveness of missiles and make them a viable secondary weapon system. On a slightly less sarcastic note, does the Stabber have the grid to fit 2 HAMs without gimping the rest of its fit?
Fit Rapid Assault Launchers. They're getting a damage buff  |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
200
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dread Pirate Pete wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm... perhaps reducing the base mass of armour boats would help negate the speed/agility loss as-well as adding a little more speed, but i definitely think they need to sort out the use of over-sized mods in the game cruisers and bs shouldn't share the same tank/prop mods any day of the week. Introducing a wider variety of plate/extender sizes would probably be a good idea. Having a single viable size would not be much better than the current oversize meta.
A redesign of the plates overall needs to be considered really. For example, one plate should offer excellent hp's but be very heavy. Another should offer reasonable hp's without ruining your ships speed/agility. Another plate would be an all rounder (good hp's average decrease in speed/agility) etc. This way one plate (rolled tungstun) doesn't became the only plate in use.
Also, oversizing your tank should have far greater penalties to your ship. For example fitting large extenders on cruisers or medium extenders to frigates should blow your sig up a lot more than it does and fitting 1600mm plates to cruisers should really penalise their speed/agility |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dread Pirate Pete wrote:Harvey James wrote:nah the bs ones should be unfittable to cruisers.
So they need to buff the 200 and 400mm plates to be worthwhile on cruisers
and do the same for 50 and 100mm for frigs. Bah, just redesign the system entirely. Each class should have at least 3 viable sizes, different ones giving maluses to different combinations of top speed, acceleration or inertia. Not just Hp for mass. A frig could fit the smallest Cruiser plate with fitting mods/implants, but it would be silly/bait.
The variantion should come in different materials within the sizes. For Example:
Nanofibre plates should be lightweight and offer moderate HP
Steel plates should offer good HP but moderately heavy
Rolled Tungstun plates should be very heavy with excellent HP |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:One of the MOST SERIOUS problems in this game is uninformed players giving thier TERRIBUBBLE opinions about things they know next to nothing about. This has an issue for a long time now and I've watched it happen over and over again, ever since the "projectile/Winmatar boost".
Either way, whatever CCP decides to do is whatever to me.
Don't really care about most pilots opinions in this thread or forums, because they're TERRIBUBBLE. CCP's changes never really effect me because I always adapt and innovate and I'm not TERRIBUBBLE. These "changes/BOOST/NERF" are a hand holding excercise for TERRIBUBBLE's, who cry alot and want to get thier way because they FAIL and want things easier. So, yeah! I like Ruptures, Caracals and Osprey Navy Issue = / What of it?
After reading a few of your recent posts I realise you must be, or have a mental age of, five years old. Maybe five and three quarters. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
I was under the impression that MWD's were supposed to be used in short bursts not constantly burning them. Using a MWD constantly in order to kite is not really their inteded use. That's a byproduct of tactics and fits from the days of olde.
I think people are going to have to adapt or die. I'm sure there are modules and rigs and implants that can assist in the way you wish to fly your ship. But that means you will have to compromise something. Oh the shock. The horror. The horror |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
238
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 11:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Deena Amaj wrote:Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.
Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.
A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.
Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap. But then, what would be the counter to AB ?
I think the problem is that only one prop module can be active at any one time on your ship so being webbed by multiple webs makes the AB pointless. If you could have 2 afterburners working at the same time this would counter multiple webbing but that's not possible nor is it a good idea.
I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
238
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 09:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
I'm starting to like the idea of web resistant afterburners. It would actually mean people would start to choose AB's over MWD's.
Also; what if a web resistant AB used more cap if it was being webbed as a drawback to the buff? For example whilst a ship is webbed with one web the AB would cost 25% more cap per cycle. 2 webs 50% more cap per cycle etc etc |
|
|
| |
|