| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
BadFC
BadFleet
1
   |
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Omen Navy Issue shouldn't lose that extra low slot, because it's an armor tanking ship... derp.
Armor ships are supposed to get face raped and walk away, so making them faster, while leaving everything else would be helpful, but i get the idea you're going to make the ships faster, and then buff tracking on other ships/modules, so they are easier to hit them.
In the end, I just really don't want to lose that extra low slot on the Omen... |
BadFC
BadFleet
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i thought the idea of faction ships was to have a straight improvement to the T1 counterpart (if there is one). Best example is probably the navy apoc. I am not sure if i like the idea that the faction variants now get a distinct role to the T1 hull across the board.
This! |
BadFC
BadFleet
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 20:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:My concerns with these changes, which are by-and-large pretty good, is the absolute slap in the face given to the Omen Navy Issue.
I was expecting to see something along the lines of "We think the Omen Navy Issue is a great example of a fairly solid navy cruiser to begin with, so we just gave it a tad bit of speed and tweaked its hitpoints a little leaving its function largely intact." That's something that I would be interested in flying in the future and would expect to see flying around..
This is exactly how I feel. |
BadFC
BadFleet
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 21:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pinky Feldman wrote:
Anyways Fozzie, it sounds like you guys are going to be doing some serious changes to the game Meta and I hope you guys go through with some of the more drastic changes despite player protests.
Yeah, because moar tears are legendary for their use of t1 faction cruisers... derp. |
BadFC
BadFleet
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bosquit wrote:
When they went and made T1 logistics, they should have committed to making Faction Logistics as well, or they should change the hulls in my opinion.
Sorta.
But I think the t1 logistics bonuses should have gone to the faction versions, instead of the basic version that just anyone can manufacture...
In my mind, the progression should be a legitimate t1 > faction>t2.
It's beside the point, but it might be interesting if FW got some sort of 'enlistment' bonuses that made these ships a little better when used in the faction warfare part of the game... |
BadFC
BadFleet
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 22:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I can't help but feel like people are looking at the optimal bonus like it's a non-bonus because it doesn't affect the pretty EFT number. It's one of the most powerful bonuses in the game - especially on a laser ship. I'm super excited by the new NOmen, and if it's as bad as you claim then we will see them adjust it some in a polish pass.
-Liang Well the issue is keeping a distinction between NOmen and Zealot. Everyone loves optimal bonuses, however having 2 extremely similar boats is not that useful. They aren't extremely similar. -Liang You're right, one of them does nearly 40% more damage with guns and has EHP, and the other one goes kind of fast and has a flight of drones that are pretty useless for an optimal bonused ship. I didn't think anyone would seriously be concerned that the Zealot would be obsoleted by the changes to the Nomen. Quite the opposite, I think the Nomen is very nearly useless on release because the Zealot already exists.
I agree. |
| |
|