EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Attack Battlecruiser balance pass

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Attack Battlecruiser balance pass

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Chris Winter Zephyr Corp 2	Posted - 2013.04.01 03:22:00 - [241] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: I thought the same. Then I looked again to make sure. He's right. It has changed. -20km across the board. That said, the lock range is still over 200km, so with long range targeting, you still hit 250km. So i hardly see it as a problem. No. Scan resolution went down by 20. Lock range is unchanged.
To mare Advanced Technology 180	Posted - 2013.04.01 04:51:00 - [242] - Quote removing just 1 turret would hardly be a nerf because ppl would start to get smart and fit a neut there actually improving the ship removing 1 high would be a different story but still not enough. imho keep the old mobility/speed give all the attack bc 6 high 6 turret and ofc reduce the fittings since they would have 2 less gun to fit. after that give them 1 extra low or med to compensate the loss of highs this way the would still have plenty of dps and damage projection for a Medium hull and the mobility/speed for solo or small roaming and they wont mess so bad with the BSs on the heavy hitters role
Deerin Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy 73	Posted - 2013.04.01 08:24:00 - [243] - Quote What about: Giving them a slight gun sig res penalty? By using large guns they are supposed to be vulnerable to smaller ships. But I've seen tier3's blapping frigs easily. A 25% penalty across the board would not really hurt their DPS against other BC's and BS's, but they will have a harder time vs frigs/cruisers.
Ugleb Jotunn Risi 327	Posted - 2013.04.01 08:55:00 - [244] - Quote Generally speaking, if I have a concern about Attack BC's, it is their ability to kill smaller targets rather than their ability to stay alive. They are fragile ships already, that didn't strike me as much of an issue. The larger balance concern I have is trying to close in on one of them while flying a cruiser or frigate and wondering if I'm going to survive the first volley... How about a role penalty to reduce the effectiveness of their large turrets against smaller classes? Also, why does the Talos get drones when none of the others do? http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.-á Join channel JORIS to learn more!
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 92	Posted - 2013.04.01 10:04:00 - [245] - Quote Michael Harari wrote: Why is it that the naga, which is the most used, is also being the least changed? Because it is working well and needs no further changes.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 92	Posted - 2013.04.01 10:17:00 - [246] - Quote Michael Harari wrote: Dysphonia Fera wrote: Are you trying to demonstrate what hyperbole is? Go ahead and eft it, since I know you never fight a gatecamp outnumbered. A properly fit naga can do betwee 300 and 750 dps from between 70 and 200k, against a caracal burning completely perpendicular. A well tanked caracal has around 25k ehp. 2 Nagas are doing between 600 and 1500 dps. Thats about 15-40s of on-field time To me it looks like the naga is working as intended. I've been the guy in the caracal who was almost instantly vaporized and I have no problem with this. It's just life in new eden.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 92	Posted - 2013.04.01 10:26:00 - [247] - Quote edited: internet ate my quote.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 92	Posted - 2013.04.01 10:33:00 - [248] - Quote Darth Felin wrote: I am completely unimpressed to be honest. This change will hurt close range fits of Tier3 BCs that overwhelmed other BC in this role and it is good. But it will have almost non-existent impact on most popular sniper formats where they completely removed BS from roaming gangs and midscale PVP. It is just not right when Tier 3 BC will have larger Range and DPS than corresponding BS, I hoped that you will reduce number of guns to 6 or play with fitting to make it much harder to put full rack of largest LR guns on a ship Don't forget that battleships are due to have major rebalance and reevaluation soon. Personally I hope that battleships become dps monsters with huge ehp. It will make them useful again, the answer is not to nerf what already works well but to improve battleships to the point that they make an equally attractive choice prior to undock. When that happens we will have balance.
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted 435	Posted - 2013.04.01 11:08:00 - [249] - Quote Chris Winter wrote: Hakan MacTrew wrote: I thought the same. Then I looked again to make sure. He's right. It has changed. -20km across the board. That said, the lock range is still over 200km, so with long range targeting, you still hit 250km. So i hardly see it as a problem. No. Scan resolution went down by 20. Lock range is unchanged. You are correct sir. I shall go put on my dunce hat. MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Major Killz 163	Posted - 2013.04.01 12:12:00 - [250] - Quote I may be wrong but im confident that TRACKING and projected damage contribute most to Talos success. Tracking on said vessel is noticeably superior to all attack battlecruisers. There were situations where I was not able to track certain vessels with the second most effective attack battlecruiser solo (Oracle). Even a Tornado has bad tracking comparatively. Drones dont help much when a frigate disables you. In fact drones explode quickly. In fact when I start engaging a large group of frigates I do at 50 - 70,000m when possible. Outside the locking range of most frigates and a good counter to engaging tracking disruptor and sensor dampener on said vessels. The damage to non-signature radius bonused vessels is noticeable and frigates often pop. - killz

Violet Winters Angelic Eclipse. 40	Posted - 2013.04.01 17:45:00 - [251] - Quote Hope you're enjoying the new job "CCP Rise" :P This looks nice, I like how these ships are easier to tackle now. Talos was way to agile with crazy dps! Violet Winters, sister of Kahlia Winters.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1433	Posted - 2013.04.01 21:15:00 - [252] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Grath Telkin wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Grath insisted that I was being chicken little and dared me to ~poast numbers~ that showed why I hold the opinion I do. Yea, you'll need to either A) stop trying to fight at 50km with a short raned weapon system (shortest range weapons system actually) or B) change your fit. So, I guess that's you agreeing that for my purposes the Talos is getting brutalized? You can say I need to pull my range in, but again - I didn't have the range to give up. You can say that I need to change my fit, in which case the ship has other critical weaknesses. You can say I need to stop flying the ship... in which case (holy ****!) you're agreeing with me. -Liang No, that was me politely trying not to make fun of you for telling me that losing a few km off your joke of a fit really doesn't matter and that maybe, just maybe your fit is trash, mostly because the whole 100mn AB all the thing is laughable. The ship has the 5km worth of range to give up, with ease, you're choosing not to.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Atrocitas 3260	Posted - 2013.04.01 21:23:00 - [253] - Quote Nah, the hilarious thing is how many people like you that think it's a "joke fit" and then die to it. Combining the unmatched damage projection vs mitigation with scram immunity makes for a pretty boss platform. :) -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Pinky Feldman Gank Bangers Moar Tears 506	Posted - 2013.04.01 23:34:00 - [254] - Quote The issue starts with how their speed combines with BS guns and how that combination stacks up against their cruiser counterparts. Their speed with a few cycles of heat allows you to kite almost anything and match transversal or pull enough range transversal becomes insignificant on just about anything smaller than you. Cruisers down may have some small advantages in some areas, but its really not enough to set them apart. However, i'm not entirely convinced their ability to project damage is 100% of the issue or if it also ties in with how is how cruiser down long-range platforms struggle. Large guns seem to be fine because they can overcome tracking issues with range, while small guns go on ships that can negate some of the tracking issues with speed. Medium guns for the most part are just kind of bad. With close range ammo, you're better off just using close range guns and with long range ammo you either pick between doing no DPS or struggling to track. Ammo A short range ABC fleet wins the midgame and ranged damage projection battle in almost any configuration. Note, I want to focus on the damage projection aspect, not EHP or agility since those will likely be tweaked some. T1 long range ammo for medium guns on anything other than Minmatar just kind of underperforms, I don't know if its that the way the DPS scales is so low or what. T1 medium range ammo is decent, but the long range ammo is just kind of bad to the point that an ABC hitting at almost optimal+50% falloff is doing more damage than your perfect hits. Sure, there is the sig radius difference, but anything close either has it's MWD off so no transversal or has it's MWD on and has a huge sig. Next, theres the T2 ammo, which has such a bad tracking penalty that even on bonused ships it struggles to justify itself against an ABC. For example, 1400 Arty Nado with 1 TE and tracking ammo gets very similar range and tracking as a Munnin with two TEs shooting Tremor (a ship with bonuses to optimal and tracking) and still manages to have enough DPS advantage that even if you get a bad hit due to sig, you're either hitting just as hard or doing more damage anyways. Fitting There really isn't enough grid to ever use the largest size, long range, medium guns, and if you can fit them you're forced into a glass cannon, fitting mod-laden fit that suffers even more from having a weak tank than the ABCs do. The smaller size, medium guns are just kind of bad despite reduced fitting. tl:dr ABCs are generally fast enough to overcome the large gun issue. An ABC in long range or short range configuration is better or at least competitive than most long range cruisers. Yes, I know there are certain hard counters that work, but for the most part smaller ships struggle due to medium gun limitations when fighting ABCs which are helped by oversized guns which seem to lack much handicap. Getting tackle, I don't see as that huge of a deal when catching a solo or a small gang of ABCs is doable, and in large engagements you're losing not due to tackle but due to damage projection. I see a lot of this of this changing with Fozzie's faction cruiser pass, but i'm unsure if having a handful of cruisers that can fight ABCs, is a band aid or if it fixes some of the more glaring issues with the Cruiser-down vs ABC matchup as a whole. The moar you cry the less you pee
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Atrocitas 3260	Posted - 2013.04.01 23:45:00 - [255] - Quote Pinky Feldman wrote: For example, 1400 Arty Nado with 1 TE and tracking ammo gets very similar range and tracking as a Munnin with two TEs shooting Tremor (a ship with bonuses to optimal and tracking) I hate to nit pick, but I'm not near EFT at all. Can you remind me what the tracking and sig resolution on the Muninn is vs the 1400 Arty Nado? -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Pinky Feldman Gank Bangers Moar Tears 507	Posted - 2013.04.02 01:38:00 - [256] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: Pinky Feldman wrote: For example, 1400 Arty Nado with 1 TE and tracking ammo gets very similar range and tracking as a Munnin with two TEs shooting Tremor (a ship with bonuses to optimal and tracking) I hate to nit pick, but I'm not near EFT at all. Can you remind me what the tracking and sig resolution on the Muninn is vs the 1400 Arty Nado? -Liang Tornado: .01478 Munnin: .01121 Sig is 400 and 125 respectively, but like I mentioned earlier in the post, at longer ranges either they have their MWD on trying to catch you and keep transversal so they have a huge sig or the MWD is off and they don't have enough transversal for sig to really matter much, so anything a Munnin can hit at the limits of it's range a Tornado can do just about as well. Obviously a 1400 Nado won't outperform a Muninn at close-mid range, which I'm not sure comparing an AHAC was fair, I was trying to point out how cruiser sized ranged guns lose the matchup against ABCs and generally get outclassed against ABCs in almost every category. Basically, in regards to the ABC's ability to fight cruisers, long range cruisers can't really hold up against ABCs and have nothing in their favour that would allow them to at least put up a decent fight against ABCs. Think of it from the cruiser perspective. If i'm in a gang of cruisers, it doesn't matter if i'm fighting long range or close range ABCs, i'm not really competitive. I was suggesting that there could be another side of the coin in addressing the problem of ABCs being too strong could also partially be that long range cruisers are too weak due to their weapon systems and ammo. Obviously, power creep is a bad thing, but in the context of tiercide and making things with glaring faults useful, it's food for thought at least. The moar you cry the less you pee
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Atrocitas 3260	Posted - 2013.04.02 01:44:00 - [257] - Quote So, but the thing about it is that a 1400mm Nado and a Muninn have nowhere near the same tracking. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Pinky Feldman Gank Bangers Moar Tears 508	Posted - 2013.04.02 03:35:00 - [258] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: So, but the thing about it is that a 1400mm Nado and a Muninn have nowhere near the same tracking. -Liang 1400 Tornado with tracking ammo tracks better than a Muninn with Tremor, which is what I said the inital post that you quoted. I'm not saying anywhere that the 1400 Tornado can do the same things a Muninn can, nor am I saying they provide the same role in your fleet. They're two very different ships. I'm talking about how cruisers get dumpstered by ABCs in almost every way. Short range cruisers die to close range and long range ABCs. This makes sense. Long range cruisers die to long range ABCs. This makes sense as well. Long range cruisers engaging at any range but their max using non-t2 ammo don't even stand a chance against close range ABCs, because with the exception of a couple combinations, they're terrible. Long range cruisers engaging at max range using T2 range ammo can do ok against close range ABCs, but if you're engaging at that range a long range ABC would probably be more effective. The moar you cry the less you pee
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Atrocitas 3261	Posted - 2013.04.02 05:54:00 - [259] - Quote But a 1400 Nado doesn't track better than a Muninn with Tremor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.... I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tracking formula works. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space 56	Posted - 2013.04.02 10:35:00 - [260] - Quote Pinky Feldman wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: So, but the thing about it is that a 1400mm Nado and a Muninn have nowhere near the same tracking. -Liang 1400 Tornado with tracking ammo tracks better than a Muninn with Tremor, which is what I said the inital post that you quoted. I'm not saying anywhere that the 1400 Tornado can do the same things a Muninn can, nor am I saying they provide the same role in your fleet. They're two very different ships. I'm talking about how cruisers get dumpstered by ABCs in almost every way. Short range cruisers die to close range and long range ABCs. This makes sense. Long range cruisers die to long range ABCs. This makes sense as well. Long range cruisers engaging at any range but their max using non-t2 ammo don't even stand a chance against close range ABCs, because with the exception of a couple combinations, they're terrible. Long range cruisers engaging at max range using T2 range ammo can do ok against close range ABCs, but if you're engaging at that range a long range ABC would probably be more effective. Effectively you need to divide the tracking value by the weapon signature if you want to compare them. Munin stil ltracks like 3 times better effectively.

Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 706	Posted - 2013.04.02 12:03:00 - [261] - Quote Theia Matova wrote: Don't forget that TEs will get serious balancing. This will affect Tornado. Yes alpha remains but you will get problems getting the same falloff and even alpha to long range. Also, lets not forget that a single meta 4 Tracking Disruptor with lvl1 skill scripted tracking disruption is enough to make that Arty Tornado become useless beaten to death and dishonor by everything T1 able to scram it. Talos is indeed a great ship that could use a little nerf only with the long term sight of making Battleships more attractive, otherwise Talos hull agility/speed should remain untouched except maybe, I really mean maybe, decrease the tracking bonus to 5% and increase dmg bonus to 7.5% but take away the drone bay. The greyest argument about Gallente: when or when not shield tank means choosing in between a performing platform (tank with dps/mobility) or a meh thing, but this is still the remaining issue of shield/armor tanking designs so... This gets me to the point off battleships rebalance but this is not the thread about it. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Major Killz 163	Posted - 2013.04.02 12:18:00 - [262] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: But a 1400 Nado doesn't track better than a Muninn with Tremor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.... I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tracking formula works. -Liang Aye! Signature radius can be a negative or postive multiplier. Still. I understand his/her point and there was a qualifier (micro warp drive signature increase). I do believe this has become semantics but at the same time it may be helpful to those who do not understand basic combat mechanics. Note: while some of these changes surprise me (tracking ehancer). All I care about is the changes to warfare-links. That could mean the difference between earning 12 or 9 billion and bringing every "solo" poser ingame back to reality. - killz
Pinky Feldman Gank Bangers Moar Tears 510	Posted - 2013.04.02 14:54:00 - [263] - Quote Liang Nuren wrote: But a 1400 Nado doesn't track better than a Muninn with Tremor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.... I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the tracking formula works. -Liang So you have absolutely no thoughts on the terribleness of medium long range guns being any part of the problem with why ABCs are so dominant and instead focusing on a side tidbit that isn't even relevant in the context of what i'm trying to say? Anyways, don't mind corrections if I wasn't clear on a point I was trying to make if I pick crappy examples, but there's no need to be pretentious about it, since you're talking effective tracking, which you could have just said instead of taking 3 posts to nitpick after saying you hate to nitpick, let me start by admitting that the Muninn was a bad example to even pull numbers from since it it gets a bonus and I may have tried to make too many points off a single example. I brought up the Muninn to point out how a ship with great bonuses to range and tracking still gets completely outclassed by a 1400 Tornado when fighting ABCs. This part focuses only on the ABC matchup aspect of it. There's no point in bringing a Muninn to snipe ABCs because an ABC will still do that job better and with much more range flexibility. In terms of effective tracking, no they don't track the same, because of the sig resolution/tracking component and the fact that the difference in sig resolution weights more heavily than the the tracking. However, in terms of laying down DPS on a close range ABC at range even despite that difference, the 1400 Tornado comes out on top. If the margin still isn't close enough for your liking then throw on a tracking computer with a speed script onto the Tornado since you would realistically probably have one anyways. I mostly threw in the tracking number because I think T2 long range ammo on medium guns is absolute garbage. It works for small guns because dessies have ridiculous tracking and range bonuses that make it work and being a small gun and having small gun sig res means you have several ship classes larger than you which you can hit at relative ease. There's probably a few other applications where long range t2 ammo works for small gun applicatioins that i'm leaving out as well. Next, it works well on large guns because you can pull tons of range to help make up for transversal and the larger sig resolution. Yes i'm swapping the example here to something a bit more homogeneous. Compare a standard 720 Rupture with 2 TEs running Tremor with a 1400 Tornado with 2 Gyros, a TE, and Tracking Comp with speed script shooting tracking ammo and at that range you're still getting outclassed. If i'm in a long range cruiser using long range guns, all T2 ammo does is turn me into a really crappy long range ABC in terms of performance with nothing that really sets me apart. Meanwhile, if I want to use close range ammos, i'm just a really crappy close range ABC. I don't even think that it needs a huge change or care what it is, but something to give it some more viability compared to ABCs would be nice. At the end of the day, you know what? I don't even care what CCP does about this "issue" since there are tons of possibilities in a lot of the upcoming changes to discover as it is. There might be a good reason long range cruisers aren't a huge thing outside of bonused ships, because sniping and kiting and extreme ranges with impunity completely kills off some gang types. I just mostly wanted to toss some food for thought out for additional discussion. The moar you cry the less you pee
Pinky Feldman Gank Bangers Moar Tears 510	Posted - 2013.04.02 15:10:00 - [264] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Pinky Feldman wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: So, but the thing about it is that a 1400mm Nado and a Muninn have nowhere near the same tracking. -Liang 1400 Tornado with tracking ammo tracks better than a Muninn with Tremor, which is what I said the inital post that you quoted. I'm not saying anywhere that the 1400 Tornado can do the same things a Muninn can, nor am I saying they provide the same role in your fleet. They're two very different ships. I'm talking about how cruisers get dumpstered by ABCs in almost every way. Short range cruisers die to close range and long range ABCs. This makes sense. Long range cruisers die to long range ABCs. This makes sense as well. Long range cruisers engaging at any range but their max using non-t2 ammo don't even stand a chance against close range ABCs, because with the exception of a couple combinations, they're terrible. Long range cruisers engaging at max range using T2 range ammo can do ok against close range ABCs, but if you're engaging at that range a long range ABC would probably be more effective. Effectively you need to divide the tracking value by the weapon signature if you want to compare them. Munin still tracks like 3 times better effectively. Yeah, I started writing a reply last night but didn't finish it up until this morning. If Liang would have just said effective tracking from the start, we could have gotten to the point, but instead asked for sig res because they weren't by EFT so I figured if they needed EFT to know the sig res of guns they legitimately were talking about the tracking statistic and only the tracking statistic and then got baited into a semantics battle. I should have used a totally different example for talking about why T2 ammo is awkward and not even used numbers, since the Muninn example was mainly meant to point out that a bonused cruiser vs an ABC still gets outperformed by an ABC. The moar you cry the less you pee
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Atrocitas 3261	Posted - 2013.04.02 17:38:00 - [265] - Quote Pinky Feldman wrote: So you have absolutely no thoughts on the terribleness of medium long range guns being any part of the problem with why ABCs are so dominant and instead focusing on a side tidbit that isn't even relevant in the context of what i'm trying to say? I was mostly wanting to make sure that you didn't actually think the Nado tracks as well as the Muninn - because it doesn't (at all). I think the problem ultimately boils down to the fact that engagement ranges aren't what they used to be. Back in the day, the typical engagement range looked like: - 10km: web range - 20km: point range - 24km: T2 point range Now it looks like: - 18km: scram/web range - 35km: T2 point range - 42km: overheated T2 point range Without a range bonus, the furthest you can push any medium short range weapon is about 30km with Heavy Pulse - you can get further with Autos, but the damage is pretty bad. However, once you factor in ABCs and their battleship sized guns, you can see that even the closest range ABC (Talos) can project really good damage across the entire field of battle. The only way that medium weapons can possibly compete is by going with long range weapons + close range ammo, but now they are utterly lacking in DPS. Now, I know that people are going to immediately shout about tracking - but the truth is that tracking kinda sorta maybe doesn't actually matter that much due to how powerful MWD sig bloom is. Once things are big enough, the DPS difference between one value and 100 times that value can be pretty small. Granted frigates are still pretty tough nuts to crack, but I've got my ways for dealing with them. So really, to me, it does boil down to the DPS difference between ABCs with short range guns and the DPS available from medium gun platforms. In a lot of ways, this has been the driving factor behind why I've pushed so hard for the Omen and NOmen to get an optimal bonus. The NOmen getting an optimal bonus is a straight up hard counter to ABCs. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 558	Posted - 2013.04.02 23:07:00 - [266] - Quote What is the purpose of ABC's? Is is a sub-BS hull to provide firepower against BS and capitals or merely a BC with BS dps and near cruiser mobility? If the latter (hope it isn't!) then let them stay as proposed, they get to remain the blob ship of choice. If the former then .. the Tornado (for example use only) fires eight 1.4m (4.5ft for the metrically challenged) projectiles and although it has thrusters and a mass of 14 kiloton, this takes place in a zero-G vacuum .. how the hell does it stabilize those guns? Slap a -50% tracking "bonus" on them all .. the hulls, even with mass proposed additions, is roughly 1/10th that of the BS ships that must be assumed were intended to use the large weapons and thus have extra engine power diverted to maneuvering thrusters to help with realignment. Note: Technically the firing of lasers does not produce noticeable recoil, but for the sake of balance etc. I'd say they have some whopping big coolant apparatus/coils that need realignment so effect is same. All depends on what the purpose of them is to be. Personally want either tracking or range reduced as they have obsoleted all other LR platforms in one fell swoop, does a ship like the Apocalypse even sell anymore for non PvE activities (apart from the role of cap battery/ neut platform)?
Gorn Arming Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation 200	Posted - 2013.04.03 02:11:00 - [267] - Quote 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).
Johnson Oramara Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 14	Posted - 2013.04.03 10:39:00 - [268] - 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.
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space 57	Posted - 2013.04.03 13:18:00 - [269] - Quote 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!
Irelia Stark Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.04.03 15:38:00 - [270] - Quote Seems like a pretty good start so far. The Talos still needs to loose its drones though, and here's why: The ABCs seemingly were designed to be full gank, light tank, with good range and good mobility. The Oracle, Tornado, and Naga, when tackled by a frig, in most situations, are toast. This is a good thing. The ABCs have tradeoffs to their relatively high mobility to power ratio. The Talos, however has drones. Why? Perhaps when initially designed they were included because it was a Gallente ship and Gallente ships are the drone race. This is a poor design choice. However, I don't believe this is why they were included (although I bet it was a small consideration). I think the Talos got drones because it lacked the range of the other ABCs. The thinking was probably, "because the Talos has to engage it's targets at a closer range, it needs the protection of drones," etc. This is a good design choice IF it were not for other facts to consider that make the drones unnecessary and cause the Talos to outclass the other ABCs in many situations. The other facts I'm speaking about are the fact that the Talos has the BEST tracking and BEST mobility and to top it off, after the blaster and railgun buffs, it's range is not too shabby either. I've seen in game and on countless videos good Talos pilots blapping frigs burning towards them with ease. If you're a Talos pilot complaining about the potential of drone removal, don't even try to deny that you do the same. Even the man, Kil2 himself, has tens of videos of him in a Talos blapping frigs left and right. I'm sorry, but the weakness that other ABCs share - NO DRONES - needs to extend to the Talos as well. Even then, it can still defend itself better against frigs than the other ABCs. Therefore, the Talos needs to lose its drones.



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.