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) |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1909
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 15:17:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Good that you are still able to learn.
Mega does look good in any hangar :)
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
251
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 16:01:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Sarcasm is an art.
I'll work on it.
"He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day." |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
480
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 16:08:00 -
[2073] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Fozzie, I'm curious: how does having high cap use create interesting player decisions on Amarr ships? I honestly can't see what you were referencing there.
High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible. That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.
Just give the harbinger a 3rd bonus, or at least make whatever awesome stat it has over other battlecruisers show up in the description. I mean a drake gets a bonus to weapon damage and tank, meanwhile its weapons still use less cap than the harbinger. A bonus shouldn't be something that other ships get for free. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 16:23:00 -
[2074] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.
Autocannons have no drawbacks at all. - Good dps on bonused ships - Good range via falloff and TE/TC - Good tracking - Selectable damage pattern - Capacitor-free - Easiest fitting - Large ammo capacity
In fact AC is so good that it is default option on hulls without damage bonuses. I bet that if there were projectile bonuses on all turrets ships we would very rarely see anything but autocannons. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
367
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:05:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .
Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)
the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.
Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?
TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . . |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:23:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Roime wrote:(Also notice that lasers are ****** over WAY more by TD's than any other ammotype due to having no falloff/bad tracking already) Frankly, they'd need to look over how TE/TCs work (optimal vs. falloff) And by look over how they work, do you mean reduce the falloff they give to somewhere towards x1.5 for instance? TD not affecting falloff the way TC does would make sense if the plan would be to let brawling ships at least stand a chance against kiters by going into deep falloff. Now how much that reflects the current state of affairs, is another thing.
Whaaaaa? I think you need to play more man, Optimal and Fall-off both get done over by TDs equally. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1918
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:29:00 -
[2077] - Quote
No idea why my name is in that quote, someone messed up.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:33:00 -
[2078] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . .
Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection)
the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range.
Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster?
TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Eeh, I disagree. Blasters over small can all shoot out to long point range with Null loaded (assuming a TE or two), but don't get outrun by a close orbiting enemy ship. Also many blaster ships have enough mids to fit full tackle AND a cap booster so they aren't as susceptible to neuts. Also they don't take long to switch ammo either. So they get DPS, tracking, and don't typically suffer as far as neuting is concerned. And all large blasters and any range bonused/TE'd medium blaster ships have all the range they need. The projection at that range isn't as good as lasers, but is still sufficiently high. |
Callduron
174
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:39:00 -
[2079] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Callduron wrote:The issue of certificates came up at the CSM Town Hall on Sunday. Is someone going to look at the relevant certificates as part of the rebalancing process. Cyclones currently have Cruiser Projectile Turrets (Standard) on its recommended list.
(I notice this has been done for the Retribution rebalanced ships so well done there). Yes we've updated the recommended certificates for each of the Combat BCs as a part of this change.
Great work, many thanks! |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
28
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 17:48:00 -
[2080] - Quote
Fozzie,
I understand that having varied ships makes the game exciting. Hell, you made the game more exciting by making people fly more than just minmatar by making each ship good in it's own way while being able to compete with other races and other ships within the same race.
But that's the kicker, each ship has a role that makes it noticeably better at one role and not so good at another. That makes interesting game play. However, for the Gallente BC's you have resolved (for the time being) to have two ships compete at the same role through only slightly different means. There is no definable difference that says the Myrm does this better than the Brutix and vice versa. The Myrm just outright does it better leaving the Brutix to twiddle its thumbs and dream of what it could have been.
And I'll explain one more time what I mean. The Myrm, as many have said before, excels at taking on 1-2 targets and using its drones to kill the target. While it uses the drones for it's dps, the myrm can focus all of it's midslots to full tackle and cap boosters because of the cap intensive requirements of running active armor tanks. 99.9% of the time the Myrm fills it's high slots with projectile turrets because they also use no cap alongside drones which allows the Myrm to focus all of it's worth on staying alive.
Now, when you look at the Brutix, it has been graced with an additional low slot and a tiny amount of extra PG but to be honest it's not enough to save the active tanking role. Unlike the Myrm, the Brutix uses blasters (or broken railguns) to apply that amazing paper damage. Those use cap, are subject to bad tracking and awful engagement range. Again, unlike the Myrm, the Brutix cannot fit a full tackle set and enough cap boosters to feed the cap itensive armor reppers alongside hybrids. The Brutix needs a web if it plans to engage anything smaller than another BC, but it can't afford to fit one if it wants to be a true dedicated active tanker. Without full tackle, the Brutix can't control engagement ranges (even with it, it still won't be able to) and is sentenced to any early death if the other guy has a neut.
So we're left with two ships doing the same role (albeit with different means of doing damage) but with one ship fulfilling that role better. That leaves the Brutix in the same state of where it is now, stuck on the market or shield buffed. Take your time and come up wth a meaningful second bonus for the Brutix that will make it be chosen and actually useful in small gang and large gang armor fleets: RoF bonus, tracking bonus, falloff bonus, agility bonus, mwd cap penalty reduction, etc.
*P.S. - Why on Earth do both the Gallente BC's have bonuses to active armor tanking but have larger Hull HP than armor HP? That makes no sense, especially considering the extremely long cycle times of armor reppers in a pvp environment. That needs to be looked at as well, I for one do not enjoy having to pay a large repair bill every time my Gallente hull gets into it's massive structure. /me sends Fozzies his repair bills :D |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
536
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 18:45:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . . Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection) the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range. Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster? TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Laser boats generally don't have the mids to have both cap and web.
Blasters are better in scram range in every single way as the tracking on all lasers is ****. And blasters use less than half the cap that lasers do.
That said the majority of the problem with amarr ships are the ships/slots/bonuses synergising badly with the WS |
Marcus Jonas
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:35:00 -
[2082] - Quote
thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:53:00 -
[2083] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes.
Thats why for ten years they've only had like 3 drone ships?
Personally I'm against making the races similar, or making ship progression derp-level easy.
Difference is good.
|
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
482
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:58:00 -
[2084] - Quote
Marcus Jonas wrote:thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Commander Ted
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
482
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 19:58:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:amarr were intended to be a drone race before the current changes. Thats why for ten years they've only had like 3 drone ships? Personally I'm against making the races similar, or making ship progression derp-level easy. Difference is good. Its not easy its just sensible. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Marcus Jonas
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:01:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Marcus Jonas wrote:thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot.
YOU ARE IDIOT THEY MAKE HAEVY ONE LOWER YOU NOOB SO SHUT UP AND DIE! |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:04:00 -
[2087] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there.
Autocannons have no drawbacks at all. - Good dps on bonused ships - Good range via falloff and TE/TC - Good tracking - Selectable damage pattern - Capacitor-free - Easiest fitting - Large ammo capacity In fact AC is so good that it is default option on hulls without damage bonuses. I bet that if there were projectile bonuses on all turrets ships we would very rarely see anything but autocannons.
Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:13:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Vae Abeo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:High cap use as a drawback provides a different challenge to the player than the drawbacks of other weapons. The point isn't to remove all the interesting drawbacks, it is to make sure that the potential benefits are good enough to keep everything as competitive as possible.
That weapon balancing goal is of course not something we have reached yet, but we are working towards it and rolling the cap use bonus into the weapon isn't the way to get there. But you do agree that the lasers (and subsequent cap use) are the bane of the Amarr (maybe too much so). For example AC and pulses are pretty balanced the range of lasers offsets tracking of AC, etc. However your unable to just shut off AC's with a neut. And even with the recent armor mass buffs when you bring an armor ship your staying for the whole time and likely unable to dictate range (the main bonus of lasers) and even so you have almost no option to back out of a fight or leave. Since you're committed there its almost always (at least in my exp) long enough to warp in some backup, because you certainly aren't out MWD'ing anything. On top of that if you don't have some spare ET's your engagement time is limited to how many boosters are in your cargo (even active tanking) once you're out your only option is to cycle some guns to keep some dps outgoing but then your dps is often so low its inconsequential. I feel that sometimes as Amarr the only thing i should fit is buffer tank and even then it pretty much only excels in a fleet. Active simply requires too much cap and your often mid slot limited (prop, booster,point) you simply have no other option than buffer. Of course that doesn't make Amarr useless it just requires a much different play style (read:fleet) I think most the animosity is targeted at the fact that most Amarr hulls fly the same. While I think fitting a ship SHOULD be frustrating do you pick Dps/Tank/Prop/Neut, and it should be difficult to fit and fly well. But as it stands you more or less have only a few viable options most of which are pretty cap limited and once your cap is gone you have little to no influence on grid anymore. Lasers are still quite a bit better than blasters at all sizes except small . . . Blaster ships have all the drawbacks (they turn off when neuted, non-selectable damage, slow armor tanks) and they have none of the upside (instant ammo switching, damage projection) the damage and tracking is much higher on blaster ships, but as you said, armor ships cant dictate range. Laser ships can overcome their tracking issues by using a web, blaster ships overcome their range deficiencies by . . . going faster? TL;DR if you think lasers are the red headed step child of weapon systems, my blaster ships would like a word . . .
Blasters are great right now. Lasers are the worst.
With the new armor changes coming armor tanked blaster ships will be much faster. |
Marius8
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:13:00 -
[2089] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake: Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to all Shield Resistances 10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage Fixed Bonus: Can fit Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 6 Launchers (-1) Fittings: 800 PWG (-50), 500 CPU (-25) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 3750(-156) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric Signature radius: 295 (+10) Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Change the kinetic damage bonus to a general damage bonus, and the drake will at least be useable and the changing in the shield reduces the tank on a passive tanked drake with almost 110 hp/s (that's to much reduction!!!!!). |
Ryomo Shimei
Galactic Brotherhood of Violence
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:13:00 -
[2090] - Quote
marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something |
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
45
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:32:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those:
1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations. 2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages. 3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes. 4. Interdictor in a league of it's own. 5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3495
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:38:00 -
[2092] - Quote
A few points:
Amarr have always had a strong predilection towards drones. Along side their line of obviously drone dedicated T1 and T2 cruisers many of their other ships (BS in particular) have always sported larger drone bays than any other race but the Gallante. True, Gallante put a stronger emphasis on pure drone damage but for bay size and variety available Amarr has always ranked highly. Amarr pilots who have been in the game any length of time and not realized this have apparently been blinded by their lasers. Time to get with the program as the rebalancing makes this even more obvious.
For the record, Amarr have not traditionally been know as being an active armor tanking race... they have been known as the buffer armor tanking race. Big difference functionally. Gallante have always been a bit more flexible in this regard, but with active tanking being made more practical we should see it becoming a lot more main stream than it has been in the past.
And last but not least, it's going to be very amusing when Drakes remain the most commonly used mission running BC, and STILL a strong contender for med to large fleet engagements. I may have to book mark a few posts in this thread for future reference and nose rubbing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
471
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:39:00 -
[2093] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those: 1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations. 2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages. 3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes. 4. Interdictor in a league of it's own. 5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.
Aligity and speed are basically the same idea.
The fitting is great because of the low fitting requirements of the weapons system.
T2-resists are nice, but arties and the sabre don't provide enough advantages to say minmatar have many advantages.
Most of their power is due to ACs. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3495
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 20:45:00 -
[2094] - Quote
Ryomo Shimei wrote:marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something If Marcus wants to avoid confusion in the future he shouldn't say "rockets" when he apparently means heavy missiles (or all missiles).
Also adjustments are being made to missile range calculations so that what you see will pretty much be what you get... meaning if it says 15km then it means 15km. Of course, heavy missiles are still an excellent weapons system compared with all other medium long range weapons systems but I'll stop so as not to distract you from your panic and hand wringing. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
45
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:15:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote: Aligity and speed are basically the same idea.
The fitting is great because of the low fitting requirements of the weapons system.
T2-resists are nice, but arties and the sabre don't provide enough advantages to say minmatar have many advantages.
Most of their power is due to ACs.
Alltogether they have enough advantages. Something about autocannons have to go, either it selectable damage, cap-free usage, super-easy fitting or double benefit from TE/TC. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:20:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote: Now, when you look at the Brutix, it has been graced with an additional low slot and a tiny amount of extra PG but to be honest it's not enough to save the active tanking role. Unlike the Myrm, the Brutix uses blasters (or broken railguns) to apply that amazing paper damage. Those use cap, are subject to bad tracking and awful engagement range. Again, unlike the Myrm, the Brutix cannot fit a full tackle set and enough cap boosters to feed the cap itensive armor reppers alongside hybrids. The Brutix needs a web if it plans to engage anything smaller than another BC, but it can't afford to fit one if it wants to be a true dedicated active tanker. Without full tackle, the Brutix can't control engagement ranges (even with it, it still won't be able to) and is sentenced to any early death if the other guy has a neut.
And they removed a gun but increased the bonus to compensate for it, increasing its PG effectively. And they reduced the PG cost of medium reps by 20%. They've done a lot to help the Brutix PG wise. And subject to bad tracking?? What? Blasters? I will agree with the mids though. It can't afford to put in the cap boosters it needs to power the reps. |
Gosti Kahanid
Farstriders Apocalypse Now.
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:27:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Abaut the Drake Damage-Bonus: Why not change the "10% to Kinetic Damage" to "5% to Damage, and additional 5% to Kinetik" Such a Bonus existet once for a Amarr-Frig, why not make it for the Drake. Like this, Kinetic ist still the superior Damage-Type which can make over 700 DPS, and the other Types would be at least a little bit usable. Not at much like Kinetik on the Drake, or overall the Damage on the Zyclone, but at least usable |
Lili Lu
681
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:38:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Marcus Jonas wrote:Commander Ted wrote:Marcus Jonas wrote:thx ccp for killing caldari !
first you downgrade the rockets and now make the drake to a pice of junk......
thats the time for saying good by.......... i quit this game.
thx ccp good job CCP has only buffed rockets and your an idiot. YOU ARE IDIOT THEY MAKE HAEVY ONE LOWER YOU NOOB SO SHUT UP AND DIE!
Ryomo Shimei wrote:marcus is right .. the heavy missiles got nerved ... and the heavy assault missiles has way to low flyrange compared to other short range weapons which can easy outrun em in range .. and since caldari ships are basicly the slowest you cant even get in range with ham + with only 6 launchers in the drake and the lowerd tank ability makes the last usefull missile boat in the cruiser level useless for caldari since in missions many npc use defender missiles but no use for example tracking desruptors ... so drake is also useless in missions now so whatfor even go for missiles since they cant be used properly .... you have way to less dps ( since if ya have you have nearly no tank ) or way to less range .. especialy since ham need nearly 5km to get at maxspeed which for example reduaces your range from 15 km down to 11 ... and if i see that an minmatar player can fire easyly 22km and is faster caldari is out of use ... i hope ccp r4econsider the missiles again ... not only in pvp case but also in pve ..... or give as much rats that use defender missiles anti turrent equipment aswell so that the turrent users know how it feals when you cant kill something
THESE POSTS ARE BEAUTIFUL, WHETHER SINCERE OR TROLL
I'm betting troll, and well crafted at that o7 But, there are unfortunately plenty of people in this game that honestly do have such reactions. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Silent Infinity
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 21:50:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Diesel47 wrote: Without ACs minmatar would only be fast.
Things like sensor strength, lock range, cap, defence, dronebay, etc are generally weaker on minmatar ships compared to others.
I disagree. Beside ACs and speed Minmatar ships have numerous advantages over other ones. Here are a few of those: 1. Best afgility and align times. Crucial in many PvP situations. 2. Artillery. Brings a lot of creative usages. 3. Best T2 Resistances profile. No evident resist-holes. 4. Interdictor in a league of it's own. 5. By far easiest fitting. In many cases you can just slap anything you want onto Minmatar ship and don't even need AWU.
1. Agility - Ok, so why are there so many pvp situations that people don't use Minmatar(Drake/tengu blobs, hellcats, etc.)? Agility is important, but not as lower is always better, often for fleet they want similar agility/align time not lowest. 2. Arties are nice but creative uses aren't limited to Arties. 3. Eh, best T2 Shield resist profile sure. Horrid for armor though where Amarr have the best. and then Gallente/Caldari T2 profiles are nice because whether you shield or armor tank you only have one big hole to fill, instead of two in the case of shield tanking Amarr or armor tanking Minmatar. Best profile, in some ways yes but not always. 4. Till T2 balancing comes around. 5. Pretty much, though AWU is still much needed, esp for arties. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
234
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 22:59:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Minmatar would *only* be fast, because that's not a lot of course... |
|
|
|
|
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 |