Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
353
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:16:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Last thing we need is 1500 dps ishtar...
Like c'mon people, lets try and not be ******** with our suggestions.
|
Catherine Laartii
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:42:00 -
[1172] - Quote
These are COMBAT battlecruisers, CCP Fozzie! The caldari already have a sniping boat, and it's called the Naga! Please, PLEASE do 6 mids on the ferox and swap range for damage! The moa and merlin have worked; you have no reason not to continue that line! :<
If you're dropping a highslot on the myrmidon, I hope you're ready to change the model to accommodate that...
Brutix doesn't need that rep bonus. Swap for tracking or firing rate, and we'll finally get our gallente blaster bc we've always tried to fit it out to be.
Prophecy is GORGEOUS. It's perfect. No touchy.
Harb is ok...should actually do more dps with less fitting hassles.
Drake is...the same. Firing rate bonus would be a good substitute for kin damage; it'll help go the same route as the harbe with doing more with less.
Cane is fine; needed nerf.
Cyclone is...interesting. Should be a better brawler boat now, and a little more flexible on offense in general.
Ferox, drake, and brutix still need their bonuses changed to be viable with cruiser and bc updates. Ferox especially; a ship that good looking needs good bonuses to go along with it. |
Catherine Laartii
Dark Circle Enforcement Templis Dragonaors
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 21:49:00 -
[1173] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Why is the Ferox keeping the optimal range bonus? A damage bonus would be stronger for blasters and nobody snipes with a Ferox!
There's a couple of things going on here. I completely think that PVP Ferox fits will continue to be mostly blaster fit after these changes, I want to be clear that we are not trying to force people into rails with the optimal bonus. However there are a few reasons we decided on keeping the optimal bonus: 1) The Blaster Ferox works quite well with the current stats, and the optimal bonus is in fact useful with blasters (especially with Null or Void ammo, as well as alongside a TE module) and creates a nice (if subtle) gameplay distinction between the Ferox and other blaster ships. We were weighing the option of switching the bonus to damage, but chose to add the extra turret instead. This way the blaster Ferox fits get more DPS while also keeping their range benefit (at the expense of tighter fittings). 2) We have metrics on how people are fitting their ships, and many of you may be surprised to know that the most common highslot modules fit to Ferox in the game are named 250mm rails. There is actually a significant number of people using the Ferox for turret based PVE that many veteran players can easily overlook. 3) The issue of balance between long range fit Combat BCs and Tier 3 BCs is an important one. In the end the solution will likely revolve around making sniping with medium weapons and sniping with large weapons more distinct. I'm not expecting people to use RailFerox fleets in pvp after this point release, but while also keeping a strong BlasterFerox alive I want to put the ship in a place where it can benefit from any changes we make to both help medium rails specifically, and the balance between medium and large long-range weapons in general.
It may be true that more people use rails on the ferox than blasters, but that's because the ferox is one of the only ships where medium rails can ever effectively be used. If you gave ALL railguns a 50% optimal bonus and swapped the ships' range bonuses for a related gun bonus for damage or tracking, you'd simultaneously fix railguns and the ships that use them. It would ACTUALLY allow caldari and gallente hybrid boats to use blasters and rails interchangeably, and provide them with comparable dps to arty and beam lasers. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4266
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:44:00 -
[1174] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie, I'm glad to see that you addressed the general concerns around the Brutix, Cyclone, and Ferox... but there's been quite a lot of angst over the Prophecy/Myrm appearing dominant and the Harbinger getting quad nerfed (likely worse than the other Tier 2s) when it was already the worst Tier 2 BC.
I know your goal is to make Tier 2 BCs much less attractive than they currently are, but I'm not sure why you want to make the Harbinger go from exceedingly rare to almost wholly nonexistent. Making the ship even more of a whale, nerfing fittings, and nerfing tank all at the same time makes it trivially the worst option of all the BCs.
-Liang Yup that's a piece of feedback I've been getting from a lot of sources I consider weighty, and it's something I'm looking closely at. you shouldn't make fun of people's weight problem
people are no less people because they have crumbs orbiting them |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 01:53:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD. |
Mund Richard
276
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 02:16:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD. What I don't get though, is why not multitudes of 200 instead, that leads to the n*250-s.
After a skill of 5 in the appropriate skill, 250 becomes 312,5, which is almost as bad as 937,5 for and ending of 750. Compared to these, 625 from 500 sounds nice.
And of course, after the first shield extender or armor plate, you can forget about the whole thing. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 02:46:00 -
[1177] - Quote
[NEW Prophecy]
800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Armor Layering Membrane II
Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Warp Disruptor II Remote Sensor Dampener II, Targeting Range Dampening Script
Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Prototype 'Arbalest' Heavy Assault Missile Launcher I, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Hammerhead II x 22
130k EHP with 2 CPU to spare and 30 PG for ~45M ISK
363 DPS w/ Hammerhead IIs, 410 DPS with 3 Ogre IIs, or 273 w/ Hobgoblin IIs |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
45
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 03:07:00 -
[1178] - Quote
These changes are horrid... what teh ****. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
571
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 03:13:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:One thing I don't understand is though why the buff to armour and hull on a shield tanking ship.
"Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4250(+344)"
It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
It's not enough to make any real difference when you are into armour or hull in anycase and I've never seen an armour/hull tanked ferox. Other than that the other changes are really good. Look at the "after" numbers to see why; it's just their new design doctrine to have everything here be multiples of 250. So they rounded up as needed. No reason for it other than somebody's runaway case of spreadsheet OCD. What I don't get though, is why not multitudes of 200 instead, that leads to the n*250-s. After a skill of 5 in the appropriate skill, 250 becomes 312,5, which is almost as bad as 937,5 for and ending of 750. Compared to these, 625 from 500 sounds nice. And of course, after the first shield extender or armor plate, you can forget about the whole thing. Only you would never have a 500 when moving in 200 increments. That said it would provide a much cleaner multiplier. |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 03:19:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! I think there's some sleight of hand happening with the harby's bonuses.
Basically, the harby has 2 "standard" bonuses: a 5% bonus to gun damage and a second 5% bonus to gun damage, that stack additively ('cane's bonuses stack multiplicatively). Harby also has a cap-use pseudo-bonus. Effectively, it gets a double-strength bonus and a weak bonus rather than two normal bonuses. Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
|
Daniel Whateley
17
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 04:06:00 -
[1181] - Quote
Survey the situation more carefully for the extra low slots on ferox, it used to only have 4 lows, if this change comes out youll be able to fit a damage control and 2 tracking enhancers and mags, and they're not buffing, they're balancing, but it seems like most of the ships i've been flying are getting buffed and the drake needed that, its tank was far too powerful (1200dps tank passive?) now it'll be around 960ish, more in par with the other races. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1423
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 05:46:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Bienator II wrote:you still sell cap use bonus as second bonus for amar ships :(
It should be a role bonus that you can use a weapon, ship bonus gives specialization. Other ships receive tracking, range, whatever bonus and amarr ships like harb or oracle have a "yey you can actually fire this weapon" bonus. THIS. I hate this dang laser cap use bonus that amarr ships are mostly required to have just to function. No other race has to put up with a silly bonus like that. It would be like minmatar having a 'ammo loader bonus' that allows them to reload their guns. Because of this silly laser bonus, almost every amarr ship has 1 less useful bonus than any other race! I think there's some sleight of hand happening with the harby's bonuses. Basically, the harby has 2 "standard" bonuses: a 5% bonus to gun damage and a second 5% bonus to gun damage, that stack additively ('cane's bonuses stack multiplicatively). Harby also has a cap-use pseudo-bonus. Effectively, it gets a double-strength bonus and a weak bonus rather than two normal bonuses.
the cap bonus should be IMO integrated into the ship capacitor by default. Cap dependent ships have enough problems already. Caldari/Minmatar can just burn till the cap is (almost) empty and shoot while doing it. Amarr ships are disabled if you fly them the same way. ASBs made the situation worse and made capacitor even less important for min/caldari. Not to mention that the medium slot count of amarr ships is very limited so you often can't fit cap boosters.
i am curious how CCP wants to tackle the active local tank issue without introducing something like a ASB for armor. (e.g ancillary resistance boost module) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
177
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:27:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga? Caldari have two range bonused hybrid platforms. One gets outfitted with eight guns that I dare say are pretty quality, and also has a damage bonus on top of that. The other gets seven, either of guns in the 'they're ok I guess' range, or the 'competing with HMLs for worst weapon system in EVE' ones. And it's also slower and only kind of tougher. I see no point in the Ferox existing as it is because the Naga outperforms it. I guess the addition of a lowslot to the Ferox might let some more damage oriented fits happen for close range setups, but really, will it pull through?
Is there going to be any incentive for using Drakes over Cyclones? Like... Ever? I do see that there's a resistance bonus versus a shield boost one, but IMO what just breaks the Drake compared to the Cyclone is the lack of being able to choose damage types. Basically if you're expecting Drakes to be anywhere at all, fit kinetic hardeners and they just flounder because their DPS with any other missile type is kind of really poor given the lack of any kind of bonus whatsoever.
The other thing that perpetually confuses me is why Gallente ships keep getting far more structure than any other faction. What purpose does this serve? Do people actually hull tank? In real fights?
At least you succeeded in bringing sub-BC Caldari ships into the usability zone. Ferox doesn't look like it's gone in, Drake's on uneven territory. Maybe it'll actually be ok with HAMs and have a role as a semi-tough short range missile brawler type thing or something, I dunno. But what I am sure of is that that kinetic only damage bonus is not helping it. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:35:00 -
[1184] - Quote
How come the harbingers second bonus only partly counters their favored weapons inherent weakness? That is stupid, minmatar get a second bonus to their guns range instead of rate of fire and they still use less cap. Give the harbinger a 3rd bonus. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1635
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 06:59:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Aglais wrote: The other thing that perpetually confuses me is why Gallente ships keep getting far more structure than any other faction. What purpose does this serve? Do people actually hull tank? In real fights?
Certain Gallente frigates people do indeed hull tank, as a decent tank is possible only with a Damage Control on them. However the reason is the nature of active tanking- you'll be likely to dip multiple times into structure when running active armor tank. Just like active shield tank dips into armor. Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:21:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga? Caldari have two range bonused hybrid platforms. One gets outfitted with eight guns that I dare say are pretty quality, and also has a damage bonus on top of that. The other gets seven, either of guns in the 'they're ok I guess' range, or the 'competing with HMLs for worst weapon system in EVE' ones. And it's also slower and only kind of tougher. I see no point in the Ferox existing as it is because the Naga outperforms it. I guess the addition of a lowslot to the Ferox might let some more damage oriented fits happen for close range setups, but really, will it pull through?
Is there going to be any incentive for using Drakes over Cyclones? Like... Ever? I do see that there's a resistance bonus versus a shield boost one, but IMO what just breaks the Drake compared to the Cyclone is the lack of being able to choose damage types. Basically if you're expecting Drakes to be anywhere at all, fit kinetic hardeners and they just flounder because their DPS with any other missile type is kind of really poor given the lack of any kind of bonus whatsoever.
The other thing that perpetually confuses me is why Gallente ships keep getting far more structure than any other faction. What purpose does this serve? Do people actually hull tank? In real fights?
At least you succeeded in bringing sub-BC Caldari ships into the usability zone. Ferox doesn't look like it's gone in, Drake's on uneven territory. Maybe it'll actually be ok with HAMs and have a role as a semi-tough short range missile brawler type thing or something, I dunno. But what I am sure of is that that kinetic only damage bonus is not helping it. Ferox is a blaster boat, and range bonus is good in bigger fights so you can project that damage with less need to waste time flying into range. And if there is logi support you should use Drake instead of Cyclone, dont forget how tanky that hull is. And more hull is always useful even if you dont hull tank, bigger buffer = more time to gtfo or get repped. |
Raavi Arda
Solaris Project Border World Enterprises
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:49:00 -
[1187] - Quote
So... TL;DR version is: Drake: NERF NERF NERF! Make it a useless ship! Why not just remove this ship from the game? It's bad already after the missile nerf, now it gets hit where it was still keeping up: the defenses, turning it into a completely useless ship. The removal of the utility high hurts even more since I'll now have to remove a launcher (even less DPS!) to get my ganglink...
Cane: Not so bad but still a rather nasty hit. Removal of the high slot hurts...
Myrm: Drone boats are useless already in PvE but kept their place in PvP... not anymore! Neut Myrm was a great addition to any gang, now it gets seriously screwed.
Harbi: What looks like a nerf initially is actually a buff. Less turrets but FAR more firepower on the remaining ones (+25%!). Loss of PG/CPU hurts but with -1 turret - not so much. Same goes for cap.
So I guess we're heading back to the days when Amarr ships were THE only ones that mattered. Fly Amarr or be useless. Raavi Arda |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:00:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Why not take a page from the original Talos' playbook and drop the 7.5%/level active armor tank bonus on the Brutix for a 5%/level stasis webifier strength bonus? This results in 75% webs at BC 5, which is a considerable advantage but not nearly as dominating as 90% webs. For reference, two unbonused webs yield an 80.9% velocity reduction, and two hypothetical 25% bonused webs yield a 91% velocity reduction--marginally better than a single web on one of the web-bonused pirate faction ships, but considerably better than two webs on an unbonused ship.
I'd fly it with such a bonus, and it would be distinct from other ships filling a similar role (esp. the Talos). |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
132
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:09:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:How come the harbingers second bonus only partly counters their favored weapons inherent weakness?
Lasers are powerful by default. Take for instance an unbonused battlecruiser with 6 guns (I'm using Ferox for this, except for range on hybrids where I'm using Brutix to get the base number). Let's assume 2 weapon upgrades in lows and use of most popular ammo (short range with ACs, IN Multifrequency + Scorch with lasers and CN Antimatter + Null with Blasters).
With 425mm AutoCannons II, it'll deal 329 dps at 1.5+12, with Heavy Neutron Blaster II it'll get 449 dps at 2.25+6.25 or 358 at 6.3+8.75, while with Heavy Pulse Lasers II, it'll get 367 dps at 7.5+5 or 292 at 22.5+5. That means that unbonused, anywhere beyond about 3.4 km where blasters drop under them, lasers will have superior damage to every other gun. As soon as you add a damage bonus, the dps goes through the roof (see Abaddon, Nightmare, Armageddon, Oracle for examples). So in a way, cap use is their balancing factor, you have the potential to do the most damage, but you also risk draining your ship and leave it defenseless. The cap bonus then offsets this risk at the cost of what could be a second damage bonus, resists or whatever. Had lasers not been working like that, CCP would be forced to lower their damage in order to balance them - and I'm sure we don't want that, do we?
Quote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga?
Sturdier ship, meaning it's a better Blaster boat.
Quote:Is there going to be any incentive for using Drakes over Cyclones? Like... Ever?
Drakes do more damage vs. kinetic targets and Cyclone only pulls ahead on other damage types if it uses utility slots for turrets. Most Cyclones are likely to be fitted with neuts or something similar, so Drakes will tend to deal more damage. |
Bastion Arzi
Pro Synergy ARK.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:01:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Hi, just wondering when these changes ar implemented will we have to strip ship fittings before the patch or will that happen automatically?
Also if it does happen automatically where will the unfitted modules go? |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
100
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:13:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Dear CCP Fozzie,
I read your post from the 10th and I was initially calling for a damage bonus on the Ferox to replace the optimal, you convinced me however, to give it a go as presented as the 7th turret should bring it's damage up to being closer to on par with other battlecruisers which is one of the biggest thing the hull currently lacks. Null and optimal presents at least an opportunity I would like to try and I hadn't considered the impact of the optimal bonus on PvE, as since I made enough money to work the market for ISK I haven't done much PvE in a long time.
So as for my request for a damage bonus to replace the optimal on the Ferox, consider it withdrawn. Those of you who liked my initial post can feel free to unlike it if you wish. If I want the full on damage blaster brawler there's always an improved Brutix out there I can fly as well.
I feel like the number of complaints around battlecruisers was not unexpected seeing as how they were the go-to ships for nearly everything EVE, though there is one I'm very concerned about and that is the Harbinger, it's damage increase is nice for me as I have ~60 million SP but those who don't have that I feel will really suffer still and frankly I doubt I will use it much or at all with it so hard to move as it is, laser optimal is great and all but doesn't mean much if you're always using scorch against an opponent you can't web and can never catch up to, he's free to disengage the moment he feels threatened. Lowered fittings are also a serious concern as it lost more than a single focused medium pulse laser worth of fittings and the lowered amount also mean skills add less to a ship already notorious for fitting issues.
Of all the complaints over these changes, I feel the Hurricane is the most exaggerated. Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm only looking at the bracketed change numbers on the first page but with losing a high slot the standard Cane will now fit only one neut instead of two (which after reading the dev blog a few months ago about some BCs losing slots was exactly what I expected), but the grid and CPU are completely unchanged from the last patch. That says to me that you just gained extra fitting room on your Hurricane as you now need ~15-20 less CPU and ~175-200 less grid to use a standard fit. The damage is still there and your shield Cane can still push out around 750 dps with a standard shield fit and still have over 50k EHP and finally is only outpaced by the Cyclone. If anyone would have preferred the Hurricane lose either a mid or a low or a double bonused high (yeah right) they have yet to say so when I comment on the lost neut. So I think your Hurricane is pretty much spot on.
I should also say that I wasn't initially a big fan of the Prophecy but the more I think about the more intrigued I am about getting a chance to play around with it. I would have loved to see it become a HAM ship but I'm getting used to the drone idea and I am having thoughts about what I can do with it now and I think its future is looking bright and has real potential to become one of my favorites.
As for the Gallente I'll suspend judgement until the active armor rep details are released, other than to say there may be a good case for not giving the rep bonus to both of them. Overall I wasn't initially impressed with these battlecruisers but the more I think on them the more I like what you've done, so much so that I'm finally going to like that first post. I've been really enjoying EVE's removal if tiers and re-balance efforts. I look forward to the battleships.
- Val. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1635
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:30:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Bastion Arzi wrote:Hi, just wondering when these changes ar implemented will we have to strip ship fittings before the patch or will that happen automatically?
Also if it does happen automatically where will the unfitted modules go?
They actually "stay" on the ship, but are offline (greyed out) and you can then remove them manually, there's no empty slot under them. At least so far. Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 10:04:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Raavi Arda wrote:So... TL;DR version is: Drake: NERF NERF NERF! Make it a useless ship! Why not just remove this ship from the game? It's bad already after the missile nerf, now it gets hit where it was still keeping up: the defenses, turning it into a completely useless ship. The removal of the utility high hurts even more since I'll now have to remove a launcher (even less DPS!) to get my ganglink...
Cane: Not so bad but still a rather nasty hit. Removal of the high slot hurts...
Myrm: Drone boats are useless already in PvE but kept their place in PvP... not anymore! Neut Myrm was a great addition to any gang, now it gets seriously screwed.
Harbi: What looks like a nerf initially is actually a buff. Less turrets but FAR more firepower on the remaining ones (+25%!). Loss of PG/CPU hurts but with -1 turret - not so much. Same goes for cap.
So I guess we're heading back to the days when Amarr ships were THE only ones that mattered. Fly Amarr or be useless.
Drake still has awesome tank and does solid damage, you can still use Myrmidon as neut ship, and Harbinger is actually nerfed to the ground with its 30dps boost and -30pg nerf. In my book that is a bad trade off, especially on a ship that was already a ***** to fit even with implants and max skills.
I should learn to ignore posts that start with all caps and exclamation marks. They are full of stupid. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 11:28:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga?
There will be a small niche for the Ferox as an inside-web-range brawler. Now, you'd probably be right to say that the Ferox would be better with a damage bonus in that role, notwithstanding the better range flexibility of range-bonused blasters, but if the Ferox has a damage bonus would there be any incentive to fly the Moa over the Ferox? Any incentive would only be related to mobilitiy, but by giving the Ferox mobility poor enough to make the Moa relevant would end up favouring the optimal bonus.
I thought about a tracking bonus instead for the Ferox for a bit - tracking and optimal would help the rail Ferox relative to the Naga - but I don't think it's a battlecruiser's job to be fighting frigates. |
Mund Richard
277
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 12:02:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Aglais wrote:Is there going to be any incentive whatsoever to use the Ferox over the Naga? but if the Ferox has a damage bonus would there be any incentive to fly the Moa over the Ferox? That's like asking if there's any reason to fly the Rupture over the Cane.
Oh look! A race that has one of it's perfectly working cruisers scaled up for BC level without touching it's recepie for win in any way! Who would have guessed, that it's the WINMatar? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1638
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 12:13:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Optimal range bonus translates into increased applied damage in a very concrete way when using blasters in practical brawling situations. Ferox can shoot AM at ranges where Brutix needs to switch to null, bringing them close to each others in real dps.
The difference between Naga and Ferox is clear, Ferox is much more capable of handling tackle-range combat due to fitting medium guns, and having actual tank. Even a blaster Talos with it's awesome tracking bonus struggles at close range, large guns are helpless compared to medium guns when you go to scram range.
This makes an armor Brutix a very interesting option, which is just currently just plain worse than a buffer Myrm, which has more of everything, tank, dps, range and utility.
Unfortunately it still comes short, even with 6 lows it has a slot for a magstab- it does not have enough grid to fit a full rack of neutrons and plate without two ACRs, all Vs, Genos and a PG-3. New Myrm achieves the same dps (which applies better) with one DDA, but can fit a T2 plate with just one ACR and no implants, resulting in bigger tank and dual webs.
Only thing the Brutix has going for it is slightly better mobility, which however is a absolutely mandatory to be able to use medium blasters in the first place (range < scram), whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km.
Proposed Brutix might not be such a good choice over, say, AB+800mmII+Neutrons Thorax... which trades some paper EHP and two turrets for tracking bonus, speed and 2.5 times smaller sig.
Armor rep just needs to be buffed up to 10% for the Brutix to make any sense.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Mund Richard
277
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 12:21:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Roime wrote:whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km. Of course, you are assuming the 1km/sec MWDing (not orbit speed!) Ogres catch up to the target (plated battleship, or no MWD?), who doesn't shoot the non-repping and limited in supply drones down as opposed to shooting at the ship that is know to fit a helluva rep making a fight long. A fight, that once it's 7 drones are out is about shooting a punching bag. Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
432
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 13:26:00 -
[1198] - Quote
This thread needs more devposts... Seriously 1 in 60 pages i a bad ratio. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1638
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 13:56:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Roime wrote:whereas Myrm will be able to deliver 469 vs 158 drone dps out to (theoretical) maximum of 60km. Of course, you are assuming the 1km/sec MWDing (not orbit speed!) Ogres catch up to the target (plated battleship, or no MWD?), who doesn't shoot the non-repping and limited in supply (btw 600? 750 sig?) drones down as opposed to shooting at the ship that is know to fit a helluva rep making a fight long. A fight, that once it's 7 drones are out is about shooting a punching bag.
Like I said, theoretical. In practice we're talking probably under long point ranges, which is still a lot more than blasters. There is more flexibility in range, not huge, and also flexibility in the way your ship can maneouver on the field without it affecting your applied dps.
Drone sig radius seriously needs to be looked at, they are just insanely too large now.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
433
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 14:27:00 -
[1200] - Quote
You don't put ogres on an unwebbed/scrammed target unless you really REALLY want to lose your ogres. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |