EVE Search - For people who think Gallente ships lack Cap...

All Channels

Ships and Modules

For people who think Gallente ships lack Cap...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
MAcheTT3	Posted - 2005.03.27 19:35:00 - [1] Just a random thought when I was bored... Since Gallente don't generally shield tank, how about switching the MWD bonus for Gallante? Instead of -25% Cap, maybe give us the old -25% Shield...? Gallente are supposed to be close range fighters, but we can't get close without draining Cap...
ExChange	Posted - 2005.03.27 19:52:00 - [2] think the gallentes should have the smallest sig... just look at the rax... shiny metal surfaces... perfect to reflect varius energies..
Noriath	Posted - 2005.03.27 19:58:00 - [3] Reflecting stuff is bad when you don't want to get detected... Anyways, the entire idea of close range fighting in Eve is stupid because kiting works so well... The main thing they have to change to make short range setups more viable is to make hitting stuff at extreme distances while moving at full speed, and possibly even under AB or MWD a lot harder...
JoeSomebody	Posted - 2005.03.27 20:20:00 - [4] Noriath kitting? well? I really hope u simply skipped "npc" word there... ____ When flying by Concord Customs Commander's Dominix I distinctly heard him saying "... world domination..."
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.27 21:30:00 - [5] ôInstead of -25% Cap, maybe give us the old -25% Shield...?ö No thanks, some Gallente ships make excellent shield tanks and some even holds shield records like the domi which holds the faster shield recharge record. I only ever fly Gallente ships and I always shield tank no matter the ship. That -25% shield cap would mess me up big time and all my skills are put into shield tanking. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
F4ze	Posted - 2005.03.27 21:52:00 - [6] He was talking about the MWD penalty, I take it you don't fit MWD on your passive shield recharge setups?
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.03.27 21:52:00 - [7] why not giving another 25% dmg to large blasters... this would solve any gallente problem.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.27 22:10:00 - [8] Edited by: Pottsey on 27/03/2005 22:15:50 Edited by: Pottsey on 27/03/2005 22:14:33 ôHe was talking about the MWD penalty, I take it you don't fit MWD on your passive shield recharge setups?ö Not on my passive setups but I tend to active shield tank my cargo ships and sometimes I fit an MWD to them. Sometimes I wish they gave us 2 versions of a module with different down sides. If would be good if there was a MK B version that swapped ûcap for ûshields. EDIT: I missed the bit where you said fighters. Perhaps if they change it for combat ships only. But that would still mess up the Domi pilots that MWD and active shield tank. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Noriath	Posted - 2005.03.27 22:15:00 - [9] Originally by: JoeSomebody Noriath kitting? well? I really hope u simply skipped "npc" word there... I have no idea what you are trying to tell me, but even against NPC kiting at long range is ten times more effective then close combat...
MAcheTT3	Posted - 2005.03.27 22:17:00 - [10] That would actually work... The way things are, Gallente are gimped once again...
Kaell Meynn	Posted - 2005.03.27 22:39:00 - [11] Originally by: Noriath Originally by: JoeSomebody Noriath kitting? well? I really hope u simply skipped "npc" word there... I have no idea what you are trying to tell me, but even against NPC kiting at long range is ten times more effective then close combat... I'm not sure that word means what I think you think that word means.
Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.03.27 22:49:00 - [12] Yes, please, change it to only a 25% shield bonus, so all the armour tanking ships can wear MWDs with effectively no penalty, and shield tankers take it like a champ! Or not. When the MWD was un-nerfed, it was left with the -25% cap instead of the -25% shield for a reason - because leaving it with a shield penalty only provides a HUGE penalty to the already-weak shield tankers, without affecting armour tankers at all.
MAcheTT3	Posted - 2005.03.27 22:56:00 - [13] Originally by: Darkwolf Yes, please, change it to only a 25% shield bonus, so all the armour tanking ships can wear MWDs with effectively no penalty, and shield tankers take it like a champ! Or not. When the MWD was un-nerfed, it was left with the -25% cap instead of the -25% shield for a reason - because leaving it with a shield penalty only provides a HUGE penalty to the already-weak shield tankers, without affecting armour tankers at all. Not actually what I was saying, which you might have noticed if you read the whole post. I said, give GALLENTE the -25% to shield instead of the -25% Capacitor.
Noriath	Posted - 2005.03.27 23:15:00 - [14] Edited by: Noriath on 27/03/2005 23:17:34 I say: Change MWD to 75% cap so nobody uses them in combat and let's play the game with some reasonable speeds again. Or make it so target locks are lost when you hit the MWD, that would make things more interesting...
Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.03.28 02:01:00 - [15] Originally by: Noriath I say: Change MWD to 75% cap so nobody uses them in combat and let's play the game with some reasonable speeds again. Or make it so target locks are lost when you hit the MWD, that would make things more interesting... Ironically, this ain't such a bad idea. If there's one module which the Devs have had to constantly f*ck about with game mechanics to stop abuse of, it's the microwarp drive. Biting the bullet, and making the microwarp non-viable for combat could go a long way to balancing things out. But I don't support making ships with MWD's easier to kill. I do support making the MWD non-viable to use in a fight. And dropping locks etc, just like a real warp does, seems like a good idea.
Birkir	Posted - 2005.03.28 02:02:00 - [16] Originally by: Noriath Edited by: Noriath on 27/03/2005 23:17:34 I say: Change MWD to 75% cap so nobody uses them in combat and let's play the game with some reasonable speeds again. Or make it so target locks are lost when you hit the MWD, that would make things more interesting... What a marvellous idea. No wait, the other thing. Stupid. Blasters need MWD.
Watanabe	Posted - 2005.03.28 02:21:00 - [17] Originally by: Birkir What a marvellous idea. No wait, the other thing. Stupid. Blasters need MWD. lol
Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.03.28 03:03:00 - [18] Originally by: Birkir What a marvellous idea. No wait, the other thing. Stupid. Blasters need MWD. Then fix blasters so they don't! Give Gallente ships a hefty bonus to afterburners, or extend the optimal range of blasters or something. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
MAcheTT3	Posted - 2005.03.28 03:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Darkwolf Originally by: Birkir What a marvellous idea. No wait, the other thing. Stupid. Blasters need MWD. Then fix blasters so they don't! Give Gallente ships a hefty bonus to afterburners, or extend the optimal range of blasters or something. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Unfortunately, if you gave Gallente an AB boost, that would un-balance things, since you don't get a Signature Radius increase with an AB. And if you extended the range of blasters, they wouldn't be blasters, they'd be Railguns... :) I still think the most simple and reasonable solution is to give Gallente -25% Shield instead of -25% Cap... It even makes sense from a role-playing perspective. You could say that the Gallente scientists discoverd a way to get rid of the negative influence on the Cap, but unfortunately they sacrificed 25% of their shields... Or some crap like that...
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.03.28 03:38:00 - [20] Originally by: MAcheTT3 Just a random thought when I was bored... Since Gallente don't generally shield tank, how about switching the MWD bonus for Gallante? Instead of -25% Cap, maybe give us the old -25% Shield...? Gallente are supposed to be close range fighters, but we can't get close without draining Cap... -25% Shields totally screws over ships that rely on shields.. such as Caldari ships, which have little armor/structure. and if you want to get technical, it was -25% shields AND cap, now it's just cap, no nerf took place. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Kashre	Posted - 2005.03.28 04:01:00 - [21] Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: MAcheTT3 Just a random thought when I was bored... Since Gallente don't generally shield tank, how about switching the MWD bonus for Gallante? Instead of -25% Cap, maybe give us the old -25% Shield...? Gallente are supposed to be close range fighters, but we can't get close without draining Cap... -25% Shields totally screws over ships that rely on shields.. such as Caldari ships, which have little armor/structure. and if you want to get technical, it was -25% shields AND cap, now it's just cap, no nerf took place. I think he meant that it should be switched only for Galentte, thus not screwing with other races. IMO if Galentte ships lack the cap to be competitive with other ships of the same class in a similar price range, the easiest thing is just boost their cap a little. +++ It's called "low security space" for a reason.
Tegar'in	Posted - 2005.03.28 04:14:00 - [22] I read somewhere that the ones supposed to make the most use of Microwarps were Minmatars. Because of the general lightness of their rigs. Now, like said above, to effectively use Blasters Microwarps are needed; because of the mass of their ship and overall sluggishness it makes sense Gally shouldn't use Microwarps in their combat configurations... Too heavy, their cap takes a nasty hit; but Blasters are supposed to be the traditionnal way of bashing for Caliente, and that module is the only way to use them properly. Conclusion: Caliente are so controversial
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.28 06:52:00 - [23] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 28/03/2005 07:13:33 Originally by: Noriath Edited by: Noriath on 27/03/2005 23:17:34 I say: Change MWD to 75% cap so nobody uses them in combat and let's play the game with some reasonable speeds again. Or make it so target locks are lost when you hit the MWD, that would make things more interesting... /me pulls his had back as far as he can, releases, and slaps Noriath. If you are joking, and I hope you are, that slap is for scaring blaster users If you aren't joking, that slap is for making a dumb comment. Dark, if you really agreee with him you get the slap as well. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.28 07:08:00 - [24] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 28/03/2005 07:12:03 Just change the thron bonuses to 5% dmg/5% reduced cap capacity reduction with MWD. Same as thorax. At lvl 5 BS you will take ~340 cap hit instead of ~1350. At the same time, large blaster (really I would fight for all blaster, but I'll go easy on this thread) tracking should be upped by 25%. This will keep the tracking the same for a person with lvl5 bs and he/she will be up ~1000 cap. That would solve (or at least greatly relieve) the blasterthron cap problems. On top of this, I feel the sig penalty for MWDs should be removed from cruiser and battleship microwarp drives, or at least cut to 1/2 on cruisers and 1/4 on battleships. The reasoning for adding the sig penalty pertained basically to MWD frigs, and so was compeltely unnecessary for MWD cruisers and battleships. I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.28 08:48:00 - [25] ôNot actually what I was saying, which you might have noticed if you read the whole post. I said, give GALLENTE the -25% to shield instead of the -25% Capacitor.ö But what about the Gallente ships like the Domi that use blasters MWD and active shield tank? DonÆt you think itÆs a little unfair on them? _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.03.28 10:26:00 - [26] well, what about rails on domi? what about jamming on domi?... most domi pvp setups are kinda jamma/vampa d(r)omi... Cap on mega is not all that problematic, cause injector is must have on that ship, but... dmg is way too low
Question2	Posted - 2005.03.28 10:40:00 - [27] IMHO caldari,NOT gallente,should have the best shield recharge rates in the game.I mean,cmon gallente already has more armor than shields,more low slots than mid slots,whats the point of giving them the best shield recharge rate in the game?Its like giving the best shield recharge rate in the game to -AMAAR- ships and nerfing something else on the basis of adv/dis-advantages. And close range?You know why pulses are a lot more used than blasters/ACs?Because you dont need a mwd to use pulses.You dont **** up your cap by doing that.You dont enjoy getting shot to HELL trying to close. This is why people stay away from close range setups in general. Now,its ounds really really perfect that gallente ships are close range damage dealers with drones/blasters,but blasters take the exact same grid as rails do....so its kinda hard to fit them.Then how the hell do you NPC with close range setups.I mean,can you imagine doing stuff like level 3 silence the informant with a close range setup.......killing the drones will be a pain by itself,then you get to enjoy the attention of wingmen with commanders and their uber high tracking turrets. In other words,you get shot to hell a lot and since you arent aligned to warp your chance to get out is near nil unless you start aligning REALLY early. Oh and have you tried getting a thorax to get within blaster range of a couple of intys?Its hell. And MWD bonus is useless with the many deadspace missions you get. I dont know.....it feels caldari is the PVE ship now what with missles(godlike vs NPCs,suck vs players) while gallente is great(well 2nd best really,if you got the skills) for PVP while being last in PVE,minmatar is somewhere inbetween,amaar is of course 1st in PVP and 2nd in PVE.
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.03.28 10:44:00 - [28] where did you read that about bigger armor? raven & MT have exactly same armor, but shields are different story.
Bad'Boy	Posted - 2005.03.28 10:49:00 - [29] Pottsey you'r probobly only one who use passive shieldtank in EVE, so get lost plz B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling "Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.03.28 10:50:00 - [30] Originally by: Bad'Boy Pottsey you'r probobly only one who use passive shieldtank in EVE, so get lost plz She said "ACTIVE" shield tank.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.28 11:28:00 - [31] Edited by: Pottsey on 28/03/2005 11:34:19 ôwell, what about rails on domi? what about jamming on domi?...ö Railguns donÆt tend to work to well as most Dominix pilots like to get close to use there drones. Which means you use blasters over rails. Jamming works but again you need to get close which is why a lot of pilots use MWD. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Lilane	Posted - 2005.03.28 11:29:00 - [32] Originally by: Bad'Boy Pottsey you'r probobly only one who use passive shieldtank in EVE, so get lost plz Oh man, if you only knew how wrong you are...
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.03.28 11:39:00 - [33] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 28/03/2005 11:34:19 ôwell, what about rails on domi? what about jamming on domi?...ö Railguns donÆt tend to work to well as most Dominix pilots like to get close to use there drones. Which means you use blasters over rails. Jamming works but again you need to get close which is why a lot of pilots use MWD. now project all that on MT... which ship need more boosting
Bad'Boy	Posted - 2005.03.28 11:40:00 - [34] Originally by: Darkwolf Originally by: Bad'Boy Pottsey you'r probobly only one who use passive shieldtank in EVE, so get lost plz She said "ACTIVE" shield tank. read all her replys B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling "Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.28 11:49:00 - [35] ôread all her replys ö I only mentioned passive tanking once when someone asked me if I passive tank with MWD and my response was no I donÆt. I use MWD with my active shield tank setup on cargo ships. Every other post I clearly said active shield tank. If one of my posts wasnÆt clear let me know which one and I will edit it. ônow project all that on MT... which ship need more boostingö Certainly not Gallente ships I think Gallente ships and the Dominix are prefect. They donÆt need boosting or nerfing. Changing MWD to -25% shield would mess up shield tanking for Gallente pilots. My main concern was a lot of Dominix pilots use MWD and active shield tank. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Bad'Boy	Posted - 2005.03.28 12:23:00 - [36] Originally by: Pottsey ôread all her replys ö I only mentioned passive tanking once when someone asked me if I passive tank with MWD and my response was no I donÆt. I use MWD with my active shield tank setup on cargo ships. Every other post I clearly said active shield tank. If one of my posts wasnÆt clear let me know which one and I will edit it. ônow project all that on MT... which ship need more boostingö Certainly not Gallente ships I think Gallente ships and the Dominix are prefect. They donÆt need boosting or nerfing. Changing MWD to -25% shield would mess up shield tanking for Gallente pilots. My main concern was a lot of Dominix pilots use MWD and active shield tank. well sry then...its cuz every time ic your post I can see "passive shieldtank" all over it B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling "Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
LUKEC	Posted - 2005.03.28 19:58:00 - [37] 1. you can tank as good as you want with 7 low slots 2. with 5 med slots you can fit injector 3. is Domi supposed to be better than Mega as blasterboat
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.28 20:07:00 - [38] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 28/03/2005 20:11:44 Originally by: LUKEC 1. you can tank as good as you want with 7 low slots 2. with 5 med slots you can fit injector 3. is Domi supposed to be better than Mega as blasterboat First off, Thron has 4 medium slots. Second, tanking blasterthrons is, in my opinion, dumb, and I will continue to say so until i find a tanking blasterthron that can beat mine and/or be more effective against other battleships. Edited by: Letifer Deus on 28/03/2005 20:08:35 Originally by: LUKEC Cap on mega is not all that problematic, cause injector is must have on that ship, but... dmg is way too low injector is not a must... Besides that, saying cap is not all that problemetic as long as the Megathron wastes 40 cpu, 1750 pg, a medium slot, and the entire cargo hold on a heavy cap injector and its charges is kind of silly I am the OG PIIIIIMP
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2005.03.28 20:19:00 - [39] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 28/03/2005 20:20:58 Originally by: MAcheTT3 Instead of -25% Cap, maybe give us the old -25% Shield...? Gallente are supposed to be close range fighters, but we can't get close without draining Cap... Because giving up 1200 shield hp in exchange for 1350 cap will make blasterthrons better. I am the OG PIIIIIMP

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.