Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:31:00 -
[91] - Quote
I am thinking about talos and drones. Drones gives big advantage to talos over the other abcs. However you do not want to turn them all into same boat so you could also think about turning talos into sentry drone specialized boat. I know myrmiddon is drone boat but it does not get full 125 drone bandwidth to control 5 sentries. This could be given to talos. I realize this is a huge change but probably possible since it would solve the issue for talos being too mobile yet giving it bs grade dps.
Anyway think about it. |
Dysphonia Fera
Kaesong Kosmonauts
61
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:34:00 -
[92] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Akturous wrote: Talos just does outclass every BC in a gang situation full stop.
This is the reason for all those talos doctrines you see.
I'm sorry, are you being intentionally obtuse?
Taloses have no place in fleet doctrines, however, for small gang and solo, they are #1. |
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:So CCP Rise slowed down 2 battlecruisers and made them take longer to turn How much does CCP pay you? I was really worried that CCP might NERF attack battlecruisers alot more. I guess we don't have much to worry about with CCP Rise on the job - killz EdAWT: Naga is z BEST. I would say armor Oracles would be about the same. Atleast in fleets. Otherwise, for solo I would say Talos and Oracle. You would just endup making them small bses. If mwd speed is the issue make it so that they cannot use mwd maybe +200% to mwd cap consumption and be done with it. |
Suyer
Explorer Corps Polarized.
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:54:00 -
[94] - Quote
Cool. No reason to fly BC's anymore.
I too like flying un-agile garbage ships because I too like to get scrammed and then piled on by lamer pubbies who can't even consider flying without support.
Frigs it is. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
43
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:58:00 -
[95] - Quote
Suyer wrote:Cool. No reason to fly BC's anymore.
I too like flying un-agile garbage ships because I too like to get scrammed and then piled on by lamer pubbies who can't even consider flying without support.
Frigs it is.
What? You realize that he BARELY changed their agility? Talk of over reaction.
What we need is a WAY WAY more severe nerf. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2387
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:59:00 -
[96] - Quote
Suyer wrote:Cool. No reason to fly BC's anymore.
I too like flying un-agile garbage ships because I too like to get scrammed and then piled on by lamer pubbies who can't even consider flying without support.
Frigs it is.
Let's call it Suyer's Law.
No matter what a change actually does, there will be a post declaring that x ship becomes COMPLETELY USELESS.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Eshnala
TURN LEFT Exodus.
15
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:05:00 -
[97] - Quote
Tier3s need to be able to only fit their respective short-range versions of guns.
Nagas and Tornados are way to strong with rails/artys and can only be countered by a bigger fleet or a good warpin. And even with the later one they are often able to just burn out or warp because of their good agility/speed.
The big problem with tier3s is not their speed or tank, its their awesome damage projection (in combination with the speed ofc, as it helps to minimize transversal) up to very long ranges without beeing overly vulnerable to smaller/faster ships.
This proposed changes wont do anything to the big dominance of tier3s as fleetdoctrines for large entities but it will hurt the small skirmish pvp even more. (Nagas/Nados will just fit sensor boosters or have them fitted anyways.) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3273
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:06:00 -
[98] - Quote
Capqu wrote:The sig radius increase is unnecessary imo, what's the reasoning behind it?
Well, if you would actually read the changes and the posts with blue bars, you would have your answer.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
125
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
Looks good, pretty much what the majority had been asking for, a slightly bigger sig. Confederation of xXPIZZAXx CEO Watch PIZZA Videos http://www.youtube.com/user/LunchSquad |
Richter Enderas
Kaesong Kosmonauts
238
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:11:00 -
[100] - Quote
Eshnala wrote:Tier3s need to be able to only fit their respective short-range versions of guns.
Nagas and Tornados are way to strong with rails/artys and can only be countered by a bigger fleet or a good warpin. And even with the later one they are often able to just burn out or warp because of their good agility/speed.
The big problem with tier3s is not their speed or tank, its their awesome damage projection (in combination with the speed ofc, as it helps to minimize transversal) up to very long ranges without beeing overly vulnerable to smaller/faster ships.
This proposed changes wont do anything to the big dominance of tier3s as fleetdoctrines for large entities but it will hurt the small skirmish pvp even more. (Nagas/Nados will just fit sensor boosters or have them fitted anyways.)
wow are you telling me that a ship with 8 large guns can shoot far???????????????????
are you a space wizerd or smth |
|
Bakuhz
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
9
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:13:00 -
[101] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Single T1 cruiser 200 km off a Naga gang? Yes, run like hell. Seriously, you appear to be arguing that a Naga shouldn't be able to hit a cruiser as it approaches from 200 km. Actually it probably can't if you'd bothered to bring the right tool for the job - TDs or RSDs. Please list cruisers that can lock to 200km that commonly appear in roaming gangs.
sensorboosted blackbirds now commence the jamming
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Bakuhz#kills |
Streya Jormagdnir
Alexylva Paradox
169
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:20:00 -
[102] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:decent changes but i think you can go further here. -remove a turret -buff tank to be better than combat cruisers as it seems odd a moa can outank a naga at least in HP anyway.
And nerf the alpha on arties for christ sake they are OP in this regard i think missiles should really do the alpha damage not guns.
Alpha is the only thing that makes artillery attractive. It certainly doesn't get great tracking nor railgun-level ranges. Missiles in fact already do a good deal of alpha, it's simply delayed in application due to flight time. I am also a human, straggling between the present world... and our future. I am a regulator, a coordinator, one who is meant to guide the way. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
151
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:22:00 -
[103] - Quote
It's not enough. Nerf them harder, this isn't going to do anything. Do something big like dropping highslot or making them as slow as combat BCs. |
Major Killz
158
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:23:00 -
[104] - Quote
Eshnala wrote:Tier3s need to be able to only fit their respective short-range versions of guns.
Nagas and Tornados are way to strong with rails/artys and can only be countered by a bigger fleet or a good warpin. And even with the later one they are often able to just burn out or warp because of their good agility/speed.
The big problem with tier3s is not their speed or tank, its their awesome damage projection (in combination with the speed ofc, as it helps to minimize transversal) up to very long ranges without beeing overly vulnerable to smaller/faster ships.
This proposed changes wont do anything to the big dominance of tier3s as fleetdoctrines for large entities but it will hurt the small skirmish pvp even more. (Nagas/Nados will just fit sensor boosters or have them fitted anyways.)
Yes.
However Z changes to tracking enhancers should help with that, but not much. I think the hull damage bonuses should be nerfed. Or! Maybe 1 turret hard point should be removed v0v.
Long range turrets will still kick ass though.
- killz |
James Arget
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
104
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:39:00 -
[105] - Quote
I feel like the Talos still has greatly more flexibility with both guns and drones. Removing either 1 highslot (and pg/cpu to match) or removing its drones seems like a reasonable change to stop it from being so vastly superior to the others when fit for close range. At long ranges, the optimal bonuses of the Naga and the poor performance of T2 beams put Naga and Tornado far ahead, but I think that is acceptable since Oracle is very strong in mid range, and Talos will still be the strongest close. James Arget for CSM 8! Wormholes and the Player Perspective
http://csm.fcftw.org |
Bootleg Whammers
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:40:00 -
[106] - Quote
EVE ONLINE Minimum Requirements: computer thingy with some memory and stuff
**Note: We no longer support small gang PVP.
|
Oddsodz
Explorer Corps Polarized.
49
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:44:00 -
[107] - Quote
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 |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:48:00 -
[108] - Quote
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. |
Eshnala
TURN LEFT Exodus.
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:50:00 -
[109] - Quote
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. |
Aglais
Liberation Army Li3 Federation
192
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:52:00 -
[110] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote: -buff tank to be better than combat cruisers as it seems odd a moa can outank a naga at least in HP anyway.
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no non nein. Absolutely not.
That goes completely against the design philosophy of the attack battlecruisers in ways that would completely undo every single tiericide change that occurred with t1 cruisers. These tier 3 battlecruisers are the closest thing to the real concept of battlecruiser that currently exists in EVE. They have cruiser-magnitude (or worse) defense, hence the 'cruiser' part of their name, and then are also noted distinctly for being able to fit battleship weapons (which the lore implies is the reason they skimp on defense).
I am extremely against trying to make battlecruisers better to take roles away from smaller ships. That was a dark time in EVE, and now it will be awful given that battlecruisers, fully fit, are starting to cost near 100mil. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1617
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:08:00 -
[111] - Quote
hoped to see the cap use bonus replaced with something useful on the oracle, left disappointed. a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4466
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:14:00 -
[112] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hopefully the end result is that they are slightly more vulnerable to... bombing lol, cause they weren't terribly vulnerable to bombing before now. Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
250
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:30:00 -
[113] - Quote
Sorry CCP Rise, but no, these aren't good changes as they do nothing to address the fact the Attack BC's obsolete pretty much all the gun focused BS's.
This is one time when you really need to go back to the drawing board with the entire lineup.
I'd suggest knocking them down to 5/6 turrets, limiting them via grid or cpu so that they really can't fit an entire top tier rack of guns without serious fitting mods*, with the idea being that they can run around with the lower tier BS weapons as a "normal" fit, meaning they are near BS damage and range but not surpassing it, while still being light, manouverable and cheaper.
*Nb, I'd seriously think you (CCP as a whole) need to go back and relook at *all* fitting requirements. It used to be that if you wanted to fit top tier guns you had no choice but to use fitting mods and have a reduced tank, or you'd choose the medium tier and a medium tank, or low tier guns for a good tank.
It feels as if there's been a slow power creep over the past couple of years where it's becoming more common for people to easily use medium/ top tier guns, have a good tank and not really need fitting mods, which I think is bad for the rock, paper, scissors aspect of Eve warfare. |
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
7
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:35:00 -
[114] - Quote
Suyer wrote:Cool. No reason to fly BC's anymore.
I too like flying un-agile garbage ships because I too like to get scrammed and then piled on by lamer pubbies who can't even consider flying without support.
Frigs it is.
Ganking and multibox ganking is serious issue in eve and in low/null sec play. Wish such ass **** orgies were less :/ I wish its also issued soon since low sec could be as well called "psychopat sec" |
0wl
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:38:00 -
[115] - Quote
Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing. |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
353
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:47:00 -
[116] - Quote
85 percent of these replies are "OMG my t1 cruiser gets killed by two sniping ABCs because I dont warp off" or "I really dont know what I am talking about'.
ABCs are fine they way they are. We use the Tornado, Oracle, and Talos a lot. Each for their own purpose.
Talos - Roams and Brawling. Oracle - Roams and POS shoots Tornado - Lets go mess up someones fight or we cant really do anything due to numbers so lets go snipe the FC
We have even used the Naga in the past with rails, Decent ship.
These ships were made for high DPS with little or no tank. If you are complaining about them being overpowered they are not. Like most ships in Eve they have their weakness. Tracking anything close and a small tank.
As far as increasing their sig for better scanning, Not sure about this unless you are trying to help newer players that cant seem to scan them out. |
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
206
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:47:00 -
[117] - Quote
Good changes, all the ships really need imo.
0wl wrote:Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.
Ha, this is never happening.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
44
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:56:00 -
[118] - Quote
0wl wrote:Gah, still no Cruise Naga ... Disapointing.
Peopel really come here with this kind of expectation? Wtf people? get a grasp of reality. |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
53
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:59:00 -
[119] - Quote
Does the naga really need more sig radius?
Cant wait to see how this affects C6 Pulsar fits! |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
657
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 18:05:00 -
[120] - Quote
Jonas Sukarala wrote:decent changes but i think you can go further here. -remove a turret -buff tank to be better than combat cruisers as it seems odd a moa can outank a naga at least in HP anyway.
And nerf the alpha on arties for christ sake they are OP in this regard i think missiles should really do the alpha damage not guns.
Yeah just basically make them the same as normal battle cruisers, that's good game design... Is my bitter vet membership card in the mail? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |