| 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) |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
487
   |
Posted - 2013.02.17 20:44:00 -
[2371] - Quote
So yeah the drake.... it needs another redesign.....
wumbo |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries
Sick N' Twisted
322
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 21:23:00 -
[2372] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:So yeah the drake.... it needs another redesign.....
Well it is an ugly SoB...
The art team should get on that, along with 90% of the other Caldari ships, (except you scorpion, I can never stay mad at you... x)
But stats wise, its looking good compared to the other BC's. And thats the point, they are balanced against each other and other ship classes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, good job Fozzy and the team.
(Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.)
MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 00:25:00 -
[2373] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:(Also, try putting something useful in your post rather than, "Change It". Normally an explanation is helpful. Thats the whole point about constructive critisism.) I'm generally all for that, but I have to admit sometimes pointing to a problem is plenty good enough, and it might be better to not post a solution when you don't have one.
-á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters
i'm strangely comfortable with it"
-Mittens |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
178
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 06:38:00 -
[2374] - Quote
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:Hakan MacTrew wrote:Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:Harbinger
looks like a nice buff to me, but as i said before pls remove that cap boni its just worthless The Fozz did explain this one: If they halved the cap usage of lasers, then nocked 33% off the huge optimal, you could give the harby, (and all the other cap bonused ships,) an optimal bonus and have the same effects. The weapon system itself has different benefits and problems. That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.
Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I think that the cyclone having only 5 main weapons and 2 utility slots will gimp it unless it's as swift compared to other battlecruisers as the stabber is to the cruisers. Even then it'll still be midway between a cruiser and battlecruiser, and will be loved more as a cruiser that can fit gang links than as an actual battlecruiser. Now I also don't think giving it 6 main weapons is the answer. I like its 3 utility slot setup that it has right now, and I think keeping that will ensure it always has a special niche.
Cyclone essentially flies like a pimped up original Podla Drake - between 1.4 and 1.5 km/s, 400-500 dps, while remaining (barely) cap stable. It is, as you put it, the Stabber of BCs. As far as I'm concerned, it'll easily be my go-to kiter missile BC now. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
394
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 07:01:00 -
[2375] - Quote
Jeanne-Luise Argenau wrote:That would hurt Ships like the geddon or maller to much. Thats why i said instead that amarr ships with cap useage boni should get a reduction in the damage boni and get a tracking boni + more standard cap. The reduction in Damage should make up for the boni in delivery.
So, reduce Harbinger's damage below other ships and capacitor need automatically drops to the level where lasers can be used.
What? I don't even...
Btw, why people still use "boni"? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Tribal Band
387
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 10:39:00 -
[2376] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Personally, I prefer the "safe, stable" vs. "unstable, insanely powerful" choice you can make between Amarr ships. It's what makes lasers, otherwise limited to EM/TH, not suck. Lasers have an excellent range to damage ratio, which is why they cost so much capacitor. Reducing their range and capacitor cost would essentially turn beam lasers into short range railguns and pulse lasers into autocannons that don't have a choice in damage type.
Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against. They don't need an adjustment to make people use them because people like them just the way they are. But I think it would be nice to add some variation in damage types, maybe make some of the crystals have mostly thermal and others have mostly EM.
-á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters
i'm strangely comfortable with it"
-Mittens |
Mund Richard
330
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:56:00 -
[2377] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lasers are a very popular weapon system, despite being absolutely the easiest to prepare for and tank against. Dunno, for T1 ships, I'd say generally hybrids are easier to tank, as both tank systems have it in the middle-way, lasers fall into the shield's weakest.
T2, Minmatar tank lasers fully, Gall/Caldari the Thermal part. Hybrids? Minnie/Amarr tank half of it, Caldari/Gallente head-on.
But then again, if you know what your foe brings and can prepare accordingly...
"If you have a fair fight in EVE, someone messed up"?
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Dav Varan
Caltech Shipyards
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:00:00 -
[2378] - Quote
For the love of god please fix the drakes damage bonus dont make it worse.
8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness )
No Kinetic damage bonus.
1 second per level ammo reload bonus. ( faster ammo switch )
133% EM , 133% Therm , 133% Kin , 133% Exp.
Against
6 launchers with 50% kin bonus.
100%EM , 100% Them , 150% Kin , 100%Exp.
Maximum firepower is less than that being proposed.
Players have to use correct ammo to maximise there potential.
Drake is no longer easy mode fit kin and forget about it.
Players now have to make sure there firing into resist holes to max there damage.
Also removes the T2 Cal/Gal invulnerability being proposed to Cal FW fleets.
And if 133% at all resists is too much ( no likelly ) then lose a mid slot.
Too much tank has always been the drakes problem for fleets not its firepower. |
Mund Richard
330
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 12:07:00 -
[2379] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness ).
Ok.
Since every (non-drone) BC (bar the Ferox) has the same number of slots (7 high, 10 low+mid)
Do you want to lose a low slot?
A mid slot?
And you are also losing the utility high you have.
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Dav Varan
Caltech Shipyards
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 13:52:00 -
[2380] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Dav Varan wrote:8 missile launchers ( to match the model awesomness ). Ok. Since every (non-drone) BC (bar the Ferox) has the same number of slots (7 high, 10 low+mid) Do you want to lose a low slot? A mid slot? And you are also losing the utility high you have.
Your question was already answered.
Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability.
nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted.
|
|
|
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 14:05:00 -
[2381] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:Your question was already answered.
Lose a mid if needed to reduce the tankability.
nm anyway , I see the horse has bolted. A new day, a new idiom I learn about.
I'm not disagreeing with your aesthetic btw, I do dislike the Drake having yet another launcher less than the model.
Nor do I like how a weapon system that has "selectable" damage as one of it's fortes gets it taken away even on a BC hull (makes more sense on smaller hulls where plugging a resist hole is argh). A bit as if the Cane would have "+5% rate of fire and damage to medium artillery".
But I wouldn't like a 8-8 / 5 / 4 battlecruiser, even the Ferox is a sore spot for me.
Would rather have 6 launchers with 5% RoF.
And the same for the Cyclone. Heck, make the Drake have 6 launchers with 5% damage, so the Cyclone will be different (and more ganky/mobile but less brick)
But that's just me.
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army
Atrocitas
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 14:43:00 -
[2382] - Quote
TravelBuoy wrote:Fjury wrote:Fu*k you CCP, last couple year you doing nothing than ruining this great game!
Last successful patch was Trinity! since this moment you ...... ...... .. .
And now you came up with that fu*king BC nerf and Only one ship which will be complety fu*ked up will be hurricane.
SHOW ME SOME GOOD BENEFITS!!!! except of lame targating range bonus
Hurricane:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers
Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(-188) / 3500(-16)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Ladar
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 425 (-50) +1
|
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated
Sinewave Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:18:00 -
[2383] - Quote
a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.
With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.
I understand nerfing things, but all you are doing it fixing one totally useless BC (proph) and creating another (drake)
|
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:26:00 -
[2384] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.
With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops. Please look at it again.
The drake is gaining a bit of kinetic dps with BC skill at V, and doesn't lose any with skill at IV.
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:43:00 -
[2385] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:a t2 HAM drake currently has around 600dps and 16km range.
With all other BC set to be at 650-750 dps, why is the drake losing one of launchers ontop of this? It'll be looking at 520dps tops.
I understand nerfing things, but all you are doing it fixing one totally useless BC (proph) and creating another (drake)
considering the other bc's won't do that much damage at 16km........... |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:15:00 -
[2386] - Quote
i think that the myrmidon is nerfed too greatly by removing a turret since drones have the problem of being too vulnerable when increasing in size.
either drones should have slightly reduced sig radius, at least when warping or balance the mrtm by gining it 125BW, a lightly bigger cargohold or anything else
regarding Brutix
its traditional problem was too little pwergrid and you shrink it even more? |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:33:00 -
[2387] - Quote
is there gonna be a change in the material costs? |
Electra Magnetic
Hard Knocks Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:33:00 -
[2388] - Quote
UGH, because CCP admits Shield tanking is still way better even after balance changes.
Its not that hard CCP - Reduce cap need for armor reps. Problem solved. |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:37:00 -
[2389] - Quote
one of the ferox main problems and the reason it is so usless is his 5 medium slots while being a shield tank.
since railguns do so little damage comparing to others, short ranged blasters will require scram (ofcourse), web, prop... and what? 2 slots for tank?
i advice moving 1 low slot to medium |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 16:54:00 -
[2390] - Quote
generally i'm not sure if i feel comfort with new tweaking session every month
even if its required, its too rapid |
|
|
Naomi Anthar
No Tax So Relax.
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 17:43:00 -
[2391] - Quote
Laura Belle wrote:generally i'm not sure if i feel comfort with new tweaking session every month
even if its required, its too rapid
Wow , wow , wow ... im speechless. Are you serious ? Some things are waiting to be balanced , changed for months if not years and you say things are going a bit too fast . I would say opposite. |
Laura Belle
Vectis Covert Solutions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 20:19:00 -
[2392] - Quote
this is ur ferox
Ferox:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1)
Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
this is how i see it - taking the ferox and turning it into a pocket-rokh
Ferox:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 8 M(+3), 1 L(-3), 8 turrets (+2)
Fittings: 1200 PWG (+125), 530 CPU (+55)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 350 (+5) |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:09:00 -
[2393] - Quote
Laura Belle wrote:this is how i see it - taking the ferox and turning it into a pocket-rokh
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 8 M(+3), 1 L(-3), 8 turrets (+2)
Fittings: 1200 PWG (+125), 530 CPU (+55)
Rokh has a slot layout of 6 mids and 5 lows.
So why does your pocket-Rokh have 8 mids and 1 low?
And with 1200 PG (less than the CCP proposed) the 8 turrets (and one low only)...
Wishing it had one more mid so that it can brawl, I can understand.
I wish it had myself.
As much as I love utility highs, the Ferox is hurt a bit by being the only BC with 8 highslots, thus less mid+low.
But the original plan didn't involve 6 mids as well.
Though it still could be changed for it!
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Cap'n Thich
Dark Circle Enforcement
Templis Dragonaors
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:42:00 -
[2394] - Quote
I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of my favorite ships being nerfed... most BC's are nearly pointless to fly and after the patch its just going to be the same or worse in my opinion. Much more efficient to just fly cruisers now. I saw someone else post this and I agree, BCs should be a bridge between cruisers and BS's, but at their current state they're not. And the patch isn't going to help. |
Mundi Kundoni
The Illuminatii
Mildly Intoxicated
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:53:00 -
[2395] - Quote
As a blops user and battlecruiser fanatic I love love love the changes so far! In fact just bought a third account on one of your deals and training it to fly amarr drones with a view to helping out a newbie mate out with a drone prophecy! But my question is this, once he has advanced to level 4 missions will that character become useless or will the Armageddon be going the way of the prophecy and using that massive drone capability to its potential with a damage bonus?
Love n hugs! |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:57:00 -
[2396] - Quote
Cap'n Thich wrote:I'm sorry but I'm kind of tired of my favorite ships being nerfed... most BC's are nearly pointless to fly and after the patch its just going to be the same or worse in my opinion. Much more efficient to just fly cruisers now. I saw someone else post this and I agree, BCs should be a bridge between cruisers and BS's, but at their current state they're not. And the patch isn't going to help.
Reading the post at the start I had the impression that it will be another "boohoo, CCP keeps nerfing my Cane/Drake" post, but ended up being a bit more.
And I kinda see your point, when I compare the Moa and the Ferox for instance.
5 bonused guns are not far off from 7 unbonused, what the Ferox gains in optimal the Moa can balance simply being able to dictate range better (about 50% faster with an MWD on and 36% without), low and midslot count is the same.
On the other hand, if you are in a group and some guys come and keep stuff sitting still (many web and scram), the Ferox has over twice the base shield HP, armor and hull, mobility of the Moa will mean less (you will either not be primary, or have many webs on you in a "fair" engagement as well), while the optimal will be better.
DAAAAMN!!!
I hate it when while writing a post I come to a conclusion opposite of what I wanted to get!
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:00:00 -
[2397] - Quote
Mundi Kundoni wrote:As a blops user and battlecruiser fanatic I love love love the changes so far! In fact just bought a third account on one of your deals and training it to fly amarr drones with a view to helping out a newbie mate out with a drone prophecy! But my question is this, once he has advanced to level 4 missions will that character become useless or will the Armageddon be going the way of the prophecy and using that massive drone capability to its potential with a damage bonus? The DevBlog with the BS plans had no mention of such, only the Phoon get's a total rework (and drones/cruise should).
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army
Atrocitas
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:15:00 -
[2398] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Laura Belle wrote:this is how i see it - taking the ferox and turning it into a pocket-rokh
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 8 M(+3), 1 L(-3), 8 turrets (+2)
Fittings: 1200 PWG (+125), 530 CPU (+55) Rokh has a slot layout of 6 mids and 5 lows. So why does your pocket-Rokh have 8 mids and 1 low? And with 1200 PG (less than the CCP proposed) the 8 turrets (and one low only)... Wishing it had one more mid so that it can brawl, I can understand. I wish it had myself. As much as I love utility highs, the Ferox is hurt a bit by being the only BC with 8 highslots, thus less mid+low. But the original plan didn't involve 6 mids as well. Though it still could be changed for it!
One more mid may be a thing but if it were to get 6 mids I would want it to come from the highs at the expense of the utility high, as it stands as presented it fits Ions and an XL ASB pretty easily for 650 dps with Void and over 900 dps tank thanks to a built in capless invuln. 8 Turrets may not even increase this dps since you are proposing taking off all your magstabs and TEs to fit your ship with WAYYYYYYYYYYY to much tank. You're also losing the bonuses from the TEs to your tracking, optimal and falloff that you will need to really make your optimal bonus shine.
8 mids is just right out and not going to happen, it's not even good. Getting that at the cost of all but one low is horrible. Now you have a stupidly overtanked piece of crap who's sole role is to warp some place obvious get pointed and call in something better to deal with it. This proposal is not good or even useful, it would be exactly what the Prophecy is now before this patch goes through. The only thing you can do with this is warp in with your fleet and have the satisfaction of taking a very long time to die last. Even the Cormorant was bad with only 1 low which is why it got more, instead of more mids. |
Mund Richard
331
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:25:00 -
[2399] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Mund Richard wrote:Wishing it had one more mid so that it can brawl, I can understand. I wish it had myself. As much as I love utility highs, the Ferox is hurt a bit by being the only BC with 8 highslots, thus less mid+low. But the original plan didn't involve 6 mids as well. Though it still could be changed for it! One more mid may be a thing but if it were to get 6 mids I would want it to come from the highs at the expense of the utility high. Yupp, that's where I was going.
>> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely."
Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty?
Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
153
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 00:03:00 -
[2400] - Quote
Probably the worst part of these new BC's is the necessity to train lvl 5 now due to the much higher gap in damage/tank bonuses from 4 to 5 than before. I thought one of the mandates CCP had was that there should never be a necessity to have to have a skill to be competitive? 10% damage per level on top of some ships gaining another 5% to resist makes such a huge gap compared to the old 5/5 that there's almost no way a player can compete unless that ship skill is to 5. There's certainly no chance with it 3 or below. Even worse, it supplants actually training multiple gun skills to 5 as the ship bonus is larger than 2-3 levels of most gun skills. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |