|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
288
   |
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Still not convinced that axing grid and reducing arty requirement is the way to make sure auto boats are not free-to-fit-anything + max dps.
Yes, ships designed for artillery has a massive surplus when fitting autos, but wouldn't increasing auto fittings solve that just as well without making artillery a lot more viable on other races hulls?
Thorax is going to be the new FoTM. Dual prop it and abuse that tracking bonus .. holy mother of the sacred hot potato .. hope you nerf/remove ECM drones before that goes live or space risks being very bland (more than now) indeed  |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Svennig wrote:The thorax got more CPU, not more PG. That extra mid is so you can fit an ASB (see increased cargo hold as well), the new FOTM. I doubt many will dual-prop it.
As things are now certainly, but ASB's are getting changed so I chose to ignore that broken POS in my comment
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Gelvina wrote:...Am I making sense?
Not really no. It will only, as in exclusively, require more skills than the other races if the aim to maximize dps .. but if that is the case then why not argue that it needs double damage bonus or more lows for damage mods.
Minmatar were not designed to go toe-to-toe with equal hulls from the other races, they strike fast and reposition ad nauseum until the enemy is in ruin. Sadly the past few years, have due to balancing only now getting under way, Mims have grown accustomed to getting cake, eating cake and still have cake to sell on .. something has to give .. revised Stabber fits with the original racial dogma.
If I were to ask for a change it would be to make it 4/4 Gun-/Missile slot. Versatility out the wazoo and completely immune to the geriatric 'mah skills!' arguments as the choice of which way to go is not made by CCP.
Spugg Galdon wrote:... Thorax is utterly terrifying in close range...
With a whopping 7.5%/lvl tracking bonus I'd bet it will also be rather nasty from range .. for the longest time (way back when) the Megathron was the go-to fleet sniper ship as tracking is by far the biggest downside to rails, fully expect the new Rax to dominate LR cruiser fights especially now that HM range is brought in line.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:...No no no.... HMLs, sitting at range applying four link-Proteus-boosted tracking disruptors.  Actually that'll work with HAMs too. TDs on everything!
Sadly the TD part appears to be the way ... unless ... TDs are given the same treatment as ECM was back in the day, reduce the module stats and increase modifier on the relevant hulls.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Get serious :)
Almost no one is using the HML Caracal today, and for bloody good reason. Now they are talking a 20% damage nerf plus the addition of added damage reduction in the form of TD's...
Fixed that for you. The Caracal is the supreme anti-frigate cruiser platform only challenged by the RF Stabber .. if some tweaks are made, in particular to HAM fittings, the Caracal of tomorrow will indeed be a wolf among sheep and will have unsurpassed flexibility (RoF bonus description).
TD spam has been on the increase for some time, especially in low-sec/FW, and missile user will need to compensate for that .. but we gun toting maniacs have been living with TDs since birth and are still around and still flying our gunships.
That said: Suggested TD changes will hurt solo/small-gang to no end so something has to be done to soften the blow. Not sure when/what the eWar revision is but in the meantime I think that giving TDs the ECM treatment (reduce mod effect, increase hull bonus) is the only way to make it work as is .. the spam will be horrendous and the cries for help will equal that of 'becauseoffalcon' as combat becomes boring to the extreme with winning hulls all having minimum of 4 mids (prop, tackle, TD  ) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Take it you are not very experienced with using Heavy Pulse Dr. Sheng? Have great range and damage against large'ish or static targets, once it begins to move though you NEED to be able to move with it or the horrible tracking (for a shortrange hammer) will bite your balls off.
Zealot works somewhat due to almost having the necessary mobility and superb range, Nomen works partly due to almost having the necessary mobility but also due to normally using FocPulse rather than Heavies so tracking is better.
Now combine that with the fact that everyone you meet will be sporting at least one TD and being slow but with awesome projection/dps suddenly got you dead. These are 'attack cruisers', to be used for skirmishing .. the face-to-face crap is the domain of the coming Assault Cruisers (assuming that will be the name) Maller (gonna be awesome!), Rupture, Moa and Vexor.
Big chunk of the issue is the age old armour system where you take an insane mobility hit by buffering and with active armour being novelty at best you have Amarr sitting pretty waiting to die to all the mid-slot endowed. The value of mids compared to lows has skyrocketed in recent years (post nano nerf) ..
- Take that +1 low and make it a mid.
- Decrease mass and/or increase speed.
- Lose the horrid laser cap bonus already; swap for range, tracking, nos/neut .. anything other than the geriatric cap use really.
- Introduce the third medium pulse .. break out the gatlings dammit!
But as the kids say nowadays "whatever *pfft*" .. between the Abadonification of the Maller and the boosted Arbitrator with new TDs Amarr does not actually need any other cruiser  |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
291
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 13:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Well, we are more than happy to pay 50+x the cost for a few percentage points or a few extra meters (gotta have Da Bling!), goes for PvE as well as PvP so by all means fly the Stabber over the Vagabond if you want but say a 50/50 win/loss ratio might have been 80/20 instead if you had chosen to fork out the cash
Either way, the argument and indeed the entire scenario is fubar as logic dictates that the derived T2 hulls will get a bump when Fozzie/Ytterbium get that far .. in the meantime I suggest you enjoy some high performance and dirt cheap (comparatively) pew. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 05:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
sonny2dap wrote:Don't know if this was asked elsewhere in the thread but, what are the plans for Faction cruisers?...
Since faction logistics are probably not a good idea, considering the arguments over the proposed T1 version, my guess is that they will be somewhere in between HAC and T1 or maybe even at HAC level only lacking the T2 specific bonuses and resists.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
299
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 16:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Roime wrote:
So instead of banging my head to the wall, I adapt and fit shield tank. Even on the Myrm :S
Shield Myrm, best Myrm. Always has been. Nano Shield Laser, Shield Gank Blaster, Passive Shield AC, Dual XL ASB, man the list just keeps going on! -Liang Ed: To keep things on target here: the Omen is the only Attack cruiser pigeon holed into armor tanking. This fact by itself makes the ship total ******* garbage. IMO it really needs the cap bonus internalized and replaced by an optimal bonus! :)
Would be lovely, fits nicely with Zealot bonuses .. but .. what about the Nomen's then, as is or internalize and swap for tracking to not only suit the zone they are meant for but to set them apart from Zeal/Omen?
Omnathious Deninard wrote:But what is the worse issue, armor tanking is crap, of shield tanking is op?
Armour tanking is not crap, just outdated. It is perfectly suited for Eve of 4-5 years ago when the largest fleets around were the size of big gangs of today .. cycle times on active reps and delay on RR makes armour scale really badly.
On the small scale however, armour rules supreme. Frees up the desirable mids and damage thrown around is generally low enough for reps/rr to keep on top of things.
Question is how to make armour 'better' without breaking it for either large or small scale.
PS: Armour is still the preferred type for fleet slugfests due to free mids and the fact that most gunboats can get higher EHP out of lows than mids .. just so damn easy to outflank trimark fatties |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
307
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 10:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:...Also, the thorax needs more base speed. ...
Check the mass on it, a single heated MWD cycle and it will probably be able to catch the faster Stabber. It shouldn't be fast as such, but primarily when under thrust which the lower mass achieves.
|
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
367
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 10:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
It is a choice to fit a MWD, a choice. The fact that it is close to being mandatory to be competitive does not mean hulls should be balanced to allow for it with marginal detriment .. as Amarr only I fully understand the sacrifices involved and often opt for an AB instead knowing full well that my target pool dwindles .. cap is life and there are plenty of ways in which to ensure it.
Not saying a general cap increase is heresy, just that it removes a lot of tactical diversity (read: balance) when choices, hard or otherwise, are axed. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
374
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 13:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:...I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming.
Been thinking the same, but not in the traditional buff sense more in the vein of "recommended" usage pattern .. adding some additional deliberations to the AB/MWD choice (not all at once mind you, just examples):
- Partial eWar immunity. Especially valuable when/if TDs become anti-missile and eWar in general is buffed/rebalanced.
- Local/Remote rep amount modifier.
- Weapon tracking/explosion radius bonus.
- More agility, better inertia.
- Etc.
Basically apply one or more to one drive type and the opposite (or near) to the other drive type. That way DP fits primarily get the current benefit of always being able to be at speed while 'pure-breds' get something different yet beneficial to their operation.
Example (numbers irrelevant, its the concep/idea):
- AB gets local/remote rep bonus of 50% applied to it eWar affects it 20% more severely than normal.
* AB fits are often reliant on local/remote for survival and due to close quarter fighting not as hard hit by 'ranged' eWar, potentially crippled by correctly used tracking script TD but can be mitigated by the clever pilot.
- MWD is affected 25% less by eWar but overall powerdrain reduces any repair by 40%.
* MWD fits are most often pure buffer tanks. Adding an AB (DP) will increase active repair slightly at expense of mass-fitting, partial eWar immunity gives them a slight protection against the soft measures most frewuently used to foil their plans. |
|
|
| |
|