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) |
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:14:00 -
[1531] - Quote
I am not sure I am happy with these changes. I was happy with the reduction in utility highslots across the board. I understand that these ships are designed to be t1 command link ships but more often then not these highs will be filled with neuts and more neuts is not a good thing. Honestly more command links is not a good thing either. To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:24:00 -
[1532] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Myrm was suffering too much from not being able to hold two full flights of drones, so we've doubled the dronebay buff to ensure that you can always have a full set of spares. The rep bonuses on both Gallente combat battlecruisers remain in this version. I do feel that they can be well served by the bonus and still remain unique to each other's playstyle. I am however not set in stone on the issue and won't rule out changing it either before or after 1.1 if it appears the current bonuses are not able to keep them both fun and unique enough. Prophecy: Hull: -250
Brutix: Change Medium Hybrid damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level Turrets: -1 Powergrid: -75 Hull: -250 Mass: +250,000 Align time: +0.1s
Myrmidon: Dronebay: +25
I get what you are planning, but the module is not in game yet, and planning for it does not make much sense till after its tested. The assumption is that the new Repper module will make the Myrmidon and the Brutix bonuses all better. It should be toyed with first else it will fall down the rabbit hole to go along with the Reactive Armor Hardener (a great idea which is still having issues being adopted).
Myrmidon with 2 flights of heavies.. good move. You are making the ship solely a drone dps platform though.. and to make it viable, you will have to give the myrm a Drone Microwarp Drive boost per BC level on the hull also.
I would probably do the same with the prophecy
|
Seleucus Ontuas
The Partisan Brigade Republic Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:38:00 -
[1533] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Freighdee Katt wrote:Seleucus Ontuas wrote:Fozzie, this feels a bit like a let down. C'mon man, either the Brutix or the Myrmidon has to lose the rep bonus. I've been using the Ferox as a fleet ship since January, but I'd really like to be able to use a Gallente ship for fleet and not rely on Caldari. Still feels like the Ferox needs +1 midslot and the Drake needs to lose the shield resist. Just make a clear break between the "attack" boat and "combat" boat in each race; every race needs one boat that is good at each. The tier 3s are not "attack" ships, they're dedicated snipers and gank wagons. Right now all the tier 1/2 boats are some sort of half-hearted hybrid without any clear roles between them. And the 10% kinetic bonus on the Drake is even worse of a bad thing than 5% was. Just swap it to RoF + Velocity. It is plain silly for the Drake firing heavy missiles to have the same effective range as a Caracal firing lights. These are both the combat boats. The Attack boats are the Tier 3 BCs. To the specific criticisms: Another mid on the ferox means losing either the utility high it just got back or another low. Neither is acceptable. The drake's kinetic bonus helps to keep it distinct from the Cyclone.
I'd be more in favor of the Ferox losing the new High slot and the new Turret for a 6th Mid. Remove the Ferox Resist bonus and give it a 5% Hybrid Turret Damage Bonus. Then on the Drake, let it keep its Resist bonus, and move it to a 7/5/5 layout. But, that's more than likely never going to happen. |
Tennessee Jack
Blac-x
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:47:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:I am not sure I am happy with these changes. I was happy with the reduction in utility highslots across the board. I understand that these ships are designed to be t1 command link ships but more often then not these highs will be filled with neuts and more neuts is not a good thing. Honestly more command links is not a good thing either. Oh and also fozzie we all vote no to both Gal battlecruisers with active tanking bonuses. Give us one ship that is not forced into a specific tanking type. We want to be able to have options without completely wasting a bonus. Wiv
I think there concept is to try to have a new method of tanking that does not involve a HUGE buffer tank, issue is that people do not like Active Tanks because they can be neuted (aka the sole reason that people are saying taking away a gun and putting in a high utility slot won't lead to people using Warfare links, but will lead to people putting on Neuts and Vampires to kill the readheaded, Cap Using Gallente Ship (Or the Harbringer), which will then lead to gallente's using the mids for Cap Batteries...
You can't remove capacitor use completely from tanking, but balancing the ships on a currently non-existent module (actually 3 non-existant modules, as the new armor rep module requires a consumable boosters, and at least 1 Rig slot to fit the new Armor repper rig, and the corresponding skill books to use them..
The issue is not the bonus with the ship... its the module the ship needs to use to get the bonus. The module requires capacitor, which can be negated/removed. The armor resistance passive bonus requires no capacitor utilizing module, and does not have a counter or a method of reducing the "resistance", while Reppers can be reduced by wiping out the capacitor of the pilot.
I do not believe that 3 new modules and a whole new skill is the solution to the Gallente Battlecruiser ship bonuses.... but we have not seen them in use yet. |
Mund Richard
286
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:47:00 -
[1535] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high Drone ships: 11 low+midslots The rest: 10 low+midslots Ferox: 9 low+midslots
Doesn't that hurt the Ferox a bit too much?
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. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
980
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:50:00 -
[1536] - Quote
I actually love what they did with the Ferox. Most fits were including a RCU in a low slot. By increasing the power grid by 150 they gave it back a low as well as give it a utility slot. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 20:58:00 -
[1537] - Quote
The prophecy change is kind of meaningless - it's perhaps the most powerful of the new BCs (at least in small scale combat), and losing a little hull doesn't really make much difference to its capabilities one way or another. The Brutix and Harbinger changes are both very nice, but the nerf to the cyclone is both baffling and utterly debilitating to a ship that was already very tight on fitting room - you already needed one or two fitting mods to do much of anything with the hull and it wasn't particularly strong compared to the other new BCs, so I'm not sure why it received such a harsh nerfing; the loss of PG moves it from competitive to essentially worthless. |
FistyMcBumBasher
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:18:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Can we get a reason for removing 100 of the Cyclone's powergrid? I don't exactly see why it was necessary |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
145
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:35:00 -
[1539] - Quote
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:Can we get a reason for removing 100 of the Cyclone's powergrid? I don't exactly see why it was necessary
Missile launchers are easier on grid and harder on cpu than equally sized turrets. |
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
509
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:44:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Does this mean the skill changes are happening? There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn! |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:49:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:but the nerf to the cyclone is both baffling and utterly debilitating to a ship that was already very tight on fitting room - you already needed one or two fitting mods to do much of anything with the hull and it wasn't particularly strong compared to the other new BCs, so I'm not sure why it received such a harsh nerfing; the loss of PG moves it from competitive to essentially worthless.
FistyMcBumBasher wrote:Can we get a reason for removing 100 of the Cyclone's powergrid? I don't exactly see why it was necessary
Because it doesn't need it in the first place. I'm looking at a variety of setups here. 2x LSE passive tank with HAMs and neuts; sure it wastes the bonus, but it's a valid use of the ship for some situations. Or replace the LSE with LASBs - that one actually has fitting issues, but they're CPU, not grid, and it works with a coproc or rig.
You know what the common theme amongst all these fits is?
If you remove 125 grid from them (100 plus 25 from Engineering 5), they all still fit, often with room to spare. That first setup only uses 1262, the second, 1315, out of 1500. You can swap a neut on either for a single gang link and still not have grid problems.
We can get a little more exotic, I guess. HAMs, two neuts and an XLASB fits, now we have to make some trades. As is, this fit comes up 3% short on CPU and 2% short on grid even now, so -100 grid means you run an ACR as well as the CPU rig to make it fit. Or maybe downgrade a medium neut to a small. You're getting an 850+ DPS tank, I think you can afford the sacrifice.
Maybe we want to get all fancy and have a cheap ganglink platform? HAM, 2x LSE II, invuln, 3x BCS II, DCII, 10mn MWD, plus two gang links. A coproc and command processor round out the lows and the mids, respectively, and we already need two CPU rigs as it is. But it fits now. Post-patch, you run either an ACR or an implant... or you just don't care, because who runs their bonuses on the front lines anyway?
Basically, normal combat fits fit before and after the patch without an issue, more specialized or gimmicky fits require a bit more tweaking.
What I'm saying is that the cyclone is fine and losing 100 grid isn't a big deal. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:53:00 -
[1542] - Quote
So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane?
Riiiiiight.
|
Wivabel
Exanimo Inc Unclaimed.
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:55:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high Drone ships: 11 low+midslots The rest: 10 low+midslots Ferox: 9 low+midslots Doesn't that hurt the Ferox a bit too much?
I really enjoyed the Ferox with the extra Low. Now I am not so sure. I really hope no one was wasting that extra slot with a reactor control..... unless you were using stupid overtanked fits and then .... oh nevermind. The Ferox was perfect before these changes.
Not so sure the Brutix needed its mass raised either. 1200 m/s is not overly scary.
Once again utility highs will be filled with neuts. Cruisers will have no chance against battlecruisers as they have little to no utility slots of their own. They also have very week capacitors.
Maybe this is CCPs way of balancing tanking types as armor ships will atleast be able to fit cap boosters.
I say again down with command bonuses and down with the over propagation of utility highslots.
Wiv To be a part of future EVE intrigue check us out. Sov in the south. Small gang pew is what we do when we are-ánot defending our space.-á
Join "Exan-áRecruitment"-áin game |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:57:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane? Riiiiiight.
My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus, there are valid reasons for both) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups... which themselves don't require going too much further to fit. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
156
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:03:00 -
[1545] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Tsubutai wrote:So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane? Riiiiiight. My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups. Your "fine" solutions all involve at least one of ignoring bonuses, multiple fitting mods, undersized tanking mods, or frigate sized modules. By your logic, the original version of the new harbinger was fine because if you used autocannons and a couple of ANPs, it fit quite comfortably. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:11:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Fozzie - Any chance you could check to make sure all of those can fit a gang link without completely and utterly gimping the rest of the fit with 3 fitting mods or something? |
Amaloy Jeqcovy
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:11:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Two flights of drones is the only "balancing" the Myrmidon needs.
On grid boosters = fail. Off grid != out of range; Out of system = out of range! (seriously, only your bug reporting speed is the lacking networking ability. It takes 60 seconds to send 45 bytes of text with login! FAIL! [Yes, I run a web server!])
Are you trying to balance out the people that came to EVE because everyone else balanced the noobs to elite? I don't want you to give players like me (3 months) any hand outs. That will just mess up what I have at a year, and even more what I have at 5! Quit muckin' about with the ships... (don't make them softer!!!!!!!!)
One thing you gotta realize is that ships will be popular by their kills. If a guy in my alliance kills 5 billion players with a venture, that thing will be a popular ship. Don't balance it out, you made it equal you just don't realize it's use. (these kills exist)
|
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel Gank for Profit
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:12:00 -
[1548] - Quote
the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit and the ferox is still not quite there and imo should get its range bonus buffed to 15% the slot move is also not benefiting it =/ the PG buff is tho =D the other changes are mostly good even though I think the brutix lost a bit of its flavor by loosing a turret also I very much hope that the myrmidon will get pushed up a bit in the remodel pipe to fix its empty hardpoint.... Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Amaloy Jeqcovy
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:25:00 -
[1549] - Quote
I have an idea: let's "balance" the game until the people that left WoW to come here hate you! Or, conversely, you could realize that sometimes a brick works better than a bat...
You want balancing? Look at what the actual statistics for death are (yeah, I'm a sick man) and model your ships after that!
Truth be told, here in the US most deaths are not due to firearms. There is a high number due to baseball bats, so brawler ships (like the myrmidon) are right up our alley! (bare knuckle boxer, me!) |
Montaire
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:26:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit and the ferox is still not quite there and imo should get its range bonus buffed to 15% the slot move is also not benefiting it =/ the PG buff is tho =D the other changes are mostly good even though I think the brutix lost a bit of its flavor by loosing a turret also I very much hope that the myrmidon will get pushed up a bit in the remodel pipe to fix its empty hardpoint....
Maybe you are supposed to need to make some sacrifices to put an XL booster on a battle cruiser hull... |
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:26:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote: the grid nerf to the cyclone is terrible cause it has to use one of its lows for a reactor control now to fit the standard X-L booster fit
Yeah poor Cyclone, needs to use two slots now for 14k shield boost in a fight. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:30:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:mynnna wrote:Tsubutai wrote:So your argument is that it's fine because you can still fit it in a way that ignores its tanking bonus, to obtain a ship that is substantially weaker than any other BC bar the cane? Riiiiiight. My point is that there are a couple of very likely fits that work (using or ignoring the bonus) just fine, and the removal of the grid only starts to manifest itself as you try to do more specialized or gimmicky setups. Your "fine" solutions all involve at least one of ignoring bonuses, multiple fitting mods, undersized tanking mods, or frigate sized modules. By your logic, the original version of the new harbinger was fine because if you used autocannons and a couple of ANPs, it fit quite comfortably.
Y'know, I feel the passive fit is valid in some circumstances, but lets set it aside for now since you seem overly fixated on it. And let's drop the false equivalency of the Harbinger, since as I'm about to show you, it doesn't even apply anyway.
So how about one normal, likely fit - dual LSB tanked HAMs. Seems reasonable - run one LSB at a time for a more sustainable tank under light damage, or slam both on for a big tank.
[NEW Cyclone, HAMs] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Co-Processor II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Warp Disruptor II Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Hornet EC-300 x5 Hobgoblin II x5
1315/1500. Seems like it'll be fine after the patch. Tighter, sure - 1315/1375 - fit it fits, so that's that.
I don't really consider LASBs to be "undersized" so much as XLSBs are oversized. But I'll indulge you, so lets look at the XLASB fit.
[NEW Cyclone, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Co-Processor II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Assault Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
500 DPS, two medium neuts, 916 DPS tank for as long as your boosters last, yes? Fits for now, but we come up exactly four grid short thanks to Fozzie.
So, what happens if we think about it for a bit instead of immediately whining? Well, we can always trade the Co-Proc (already mandatory) for an RCU II, and swap the ACR (also mandatory, even now) for a second POU. But we're still 2% over. What else can we do? Hmm, how about swap the DCU for a best named, and swap the T2 Warp Disruptor for a best named, or even just use a scrambler instead. Or we can just use an implant instead, that works too.
How about that, it fits now. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
158
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:55:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless. Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available.
I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:21:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Mynna, even after the GMP buff, webs are still mandatory on HAM ships that are geared to very small scale pvp, for damage application and for range control, so posting webless setups because they produce nice-at-first-glance tank numbers in EFT is kind of meaningless. This is true now, with autocannons, as well as post-patch with missiles. The web makes the tank weaker, but is required effectiveness while soloing.
Tsubutai wrote:Second, saying that you consider LASBs to be "right-sized" is all well and good, but you have to consider the environment in which the ship's going to be operating. If the changes go live in their current incarnation, you'll be seeing 80k EHP drakes with full tackle and excellent resists, 100k+ EHP prophecies (or active tanking setups that tank well over 600 dps and have good neut resistance), myrms tanking 700-900 dps, and brutixes tanking 600-odd dps while pushing the best part of 1k dps of their own - all with full tackle and similar or better outgoing/applied dps than the cyclone. Given those circumstances, LASB-based tanks are woefully inadequate - once you factor in cycle time and reloads, you wind up with a sustained tank of something like 360 dps, or about 70k total EHP before reloading if you use the ASBs as a burst tank. Ultimately, all your fits are showcasing is a tank-bonused BC that is far less durable than other tank bonused hulls, has mediocre dps, and cannot field supplementary tackle or ewar. It's simply not a viable ship given the options available. The XLASB fit I posted boosts about 38.8k EHP on its average resist (68.75%), which is an average tank of 370 DPS including reload time. The LASB fit will boost about 30.8k EHP total, for an average tank of about 294 DPS, including reload time, though it has the benefit of getting to choose to have that either all at once or over a lengthier period.
If you're arguing that when the ships are compared against each other in a 1v1 environment, the tank fielded by an ASB cyclone comes off as a bit lacking, then (provided the numbers you claim about other BC tanks are accurate, I haven't checked myself) you're right. That has nothing to do with the cyclone losing 100 grid and will not be changed by fozzie allowing it to keep 100 grid. If you want to make a compelling argument to fozzie about it, I suggest you present several setups for other battlecruisers that showcase this issue, and then try to make an argument for why he should care about the comparison of the tanks in a 1v1 environment that ignores all other factors. Good luck.
Quote:I also like how you refute the claim about the number of fitting mods required after the grid changes by posting an XLASB setup with three fitting mods... that still won't fit without an implant. Right now, the pre-tiericide XLASB setup requires two to three fitting mods depending on which sacrifices you choose to make. The original cyclone Fozzie proposed requires three fitting mods to make an XLASB setup work, period. With his proposed grid nerf, the setup can continue to be made to work by either using a piece or two of named gear, or by using an implant. So basically, little to nothing about using an XLASB cyclone has changed. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Mariner6
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 23:26:00 -
[1555] - Quote
I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.
Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie. I understand some bizarre desire to make a big Incursus but the Mrym is sufficient no? |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
982
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:24:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Let me throw this Ferox out there as a comparison to the Cyclone just for fitting purposes.
High: Heavy Ions II x 7 Small Nuet II Mid: Experimental 10MN MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: DC II TE II MFS II x 2 Rigs: Shield rigs to taste
Look Ma! No fitting mods or rigs! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2824
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:32:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:I was very much hoping to see that Armor Rep go away on the Brutix or the Mrym, especially after reading that whole mess on Armor tanking 2.0.
Fozzie, please rethink this and give GAL a different option beyond local armor rep. Its like forcing both the Hurricane and the Cyclone to have shield boost. That would suck and would be met with howls. There are places/times for local reps, and there are places where buffer is better and it would be nice to have that option. It just makes sense Fozzie.
You always have the option of ignoring the rep bonus. I say keep them. What, are you telling me you're going to get fleets of Myrmidons and Neutron Brutixes together? Confirming drones and Blasters are great fleet weaponry.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
349
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:40:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Let me throw this Ferox out there as a comparison to the Cyclone just for fitting purposes.
High: Heavy Ions II x 7 Small Nuet II Mid: Experimental 10MN MWD X-LASB Adaptive Invuln II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: DC II TE II MFS II x 2 Rigs: Shield rigs to taste
Look Ma! No fitting mods or rigs! Of course! How could I be so stupid, all I have to do to make the cyclone work is downsize the missile launchers!
[NEW Cyclone, XLASB] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Damage Control II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Stasis Webifier II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Light Missile Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Hobgoblin II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
Perfect, right?
(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.) This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Saul Elsyn
Sturmvogel Squadron
47
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 00:44:00 -
[1559] - Quote
I do have to wonder at some of these changes... the switch from a 5% per level bonus to damage on the Drake to a 10% for example... then dropping a high-slot. Some of these it's like we're not thinking about a specific role so much as a general 'does damage and reps or buffer tanks'
I was really hoping for specific roles for these ships... Heck, I was hopping some of them would loose the ability to fit fleet bonus modules so there'd be a bit more specialization.
I can see there's the kernel for some good ideas in some of these. I really like the Hurricane being setup as an all out damage ship, as that's really the role we've seen it used in quite a bit. On the flip side, I really am not that fond of turning the Cyclone into a missile boat.
I still can not figure out for the life of me why the stupid 10% cap usage bonus continues to survive on Amarrian ships. If laser cap usage is such an issue, increase the capacitor of the Amarrian ships. Or better yet, a bonus to cap injection if you really want to consider other possibilities. I always said that Amarrian ships use ammo... it's call cap boosters charges. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2825
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 01:11:00 -
[1560] - Quote
mynnna wrote:(Just to drive the post home, try your ferox fit without downsizing the guns, since there's no reasonable way for the cyclone to do that either. Then tell me how it works.)
He's using medium blasters... ?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
|
|
|
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 |