| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
13
   |
Posted - 2013.03.29 23:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Eshnala wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Oddsodz wrote:Make sure that base scan resolution is low enough that my Arazu is not instalpopped before I lock a tier3 battlecruisers as it jumps in from a gate.
I Am sad as it is that the fire power of tier3 battlecruisers makes the job of a recon pointless (pun intended) when camping gates and so on. Before any sensor boosters are used. A tier3 battlecruisers can lock and fire before any recon ship. And in Lowsec. You can't use frigs for tackling on gates (well you can use an enyo if you can afford the silly fit with legon boosts) due to gate guns and so on. So you would use a cruiser or a recon for that job. But since the tier3 battlecruisers came along. There is no need for that role/job any more. tier3 battlecruisers can lock and pop any target before it even has a chance to warp (fittings depending). My job as an Arazu pilot was not needed any more.
Anyway. Rant over As i said several times. Attack BC are bad for the metagame. They were knee jerk reaction to make players happy back at the incarna fiasco results. Now we are paying the price of ships made to be extra awesome, instead of being good to the metagame. i would be completly happy with removing tier3s at all tbh.
Agreed, or change them to those medium gun using long range sniping platforms and fix the medium long range weapons. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 23:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:0wl wrote:Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing. Peopel really come here with this kind of expectation? Wtf people? get a grasp of reality.
Can someone actually explain why this would have been such an bad idea and wouldn't have worked with maybe less launcher slots? |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 00:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:0wl wrote:Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing. Peopel really come here with this kind of expectation? Wtf people? get a grasp of reality. Can someone actually explain why this would have been such an bad idea and wouldn't have worked with maybe less launcher slots? Cruise and Siege missiles are pretty underwhelming in PVP. I was told they might have worked well in PVE but I dont know. If the Naga was able to use missile. Then why not make the Talo a drone ship? In anycase. The Naga is one of the best vessels for fleet engagements. What more could a Caldari pilot ask for?
So because cruises and torpedoes are crap for pvp then instead of those getting fixed and made viable they just entirely ignore them and use another weapon system? I don't know, to me Talos and Naga are just a bit too similar in their roles... and now i guess i made someone angry... |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 10:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.
The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.
Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes).
Yes, it's actually quite ridiculous that i can run L4 missions faster in Talos than battleships which they are made for... i'm really looking forward to some major fixes in battleships if CCP sees nothing more wrong in tier3 bc's than this. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 23:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Gorn Arming wrote:Add another vote to the "Grath is correct" pile.
The Talos obviates all other BCs in a small gang. I guess the Drake is still useful for large fleets, and the Prophecy is okay for baiting. I can't think of a reason to bring a Hurricane or a Harbinger or any similar ship on any kind of small gang engagement, though, other than getting tired of the Talos.
Hell, the Talos even dominates PvE in Deklein. That may change here as it's right on the edge of being able to solo F-hubs due to speed/sig tanking (in fact I rather suspect that nerfing Talos ratting is one of the reasons behind these changes). Yes, it's actually quite ridiculous that i can run L4 missions faster in Talos than battleships which they are made for... i'm really looking forward to some major fixes in battleships if CCP sees nothing more wrong in tier3 bc's than this. wowowowh stop there. Battleships are not made to run missions. Only marauders are! Do not dessacrate the holy battleships with this heresy!
Alright, i can make missions in my Talos almost as fast as in my Golem or Vargur The speed that i can blitz around and large gun dps to kill stuff is just that much of an advantage, and will be even after the mass increase.
Then note their price tag difference. Of course you feel safer in marauder and can loot/salvage while killing but that is not my point.
Flying it is helluva fun but this can't be balanced in any way 
Try the same in any other regular bc, their dps nor tank just aren't enough. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 14:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game.
Thank you for confirming active armor tanking still has hope.  |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 15:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Roime wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Just because I posted one shield fit doesn't mean thats the only viable way to fly the ship. It was just the best way to achieve the numbers sited above me. Personally, I think active tank brutix is extremely fun and have flown armor and shield variations both quite a bit.
I'm happy to say that currently active armor bonuses are not as valuable as they maybe ought to be. We intend to keep looking at tank balance, and in the mean time we don't want to throw out all the bonuses and just give up on active armor ever having a place in the game. Buffing the hull bonus from 7.5% to 10% would do it :) alternatively, buff the medium and large reppers. Since fitting active armor tank means sacrificing damage, and it has a common hard counter (neuts), I honestly see no reason why it shouldn't be more powerful. Active tanking ftw, it adds an interesting mechanic into PVP and in it's own way complicates combat. Which is a good thing considering the somewhat limited nature of actual ship-to-ship combat mechanics of EVE.
Yes, i would like to see active tanking somehow buffed or buffer tanking nerfed, with active tanking you need to constantly manage your cap and are vulnerable to neuts, while with buffers you can just focus on keeping your target in range and other stuff... Now armor buffers were buffed with the mass reductions for plates and even skill was introduced for this... ASB's were when they were first released a bit op but now they are mediocre at best like AAR's. |
| |
|