Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 108 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
362
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:47:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Thank you for making the amarr ships more exciting. Yes, the lazor bonus is very much a good solid bonus, however you can get around this bonus by giving ships a stronger capacitor if you have to... And since most people tank amarr ships with a fully passive armor buffer and use cap boosters to run MWD, tackle and guns the bonus is mostly obsolete in my eyes.
A better flavor makes them attractive ships and except for the mishandled Geddon which will likely be fun anyway I am looking forward playing them. That is if the Megathron doesn't get 8 lowslots at least... |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
417
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:48:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Quote:And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary?
Such a tone!
Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion).
I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme.
Hope that helps! |
|
Ayla Crenshaw
Polish Immortals
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:49:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Thank you for making the amarr ships more exciting. Yes, the lazor bonus is very much a good solid bonus, however you can get around this bonus by giving ships a stronger capacitor if you have to... And since most people tank amarr ships with a fully passive armor buffer and use cap boosters to run MWD, tackle and guns the bonus is mostly obsolete in my eyes.
A better flavor makes them attractive ships and except for the mishandled Geddon which will likely be fun anyway I am looking forward playing them. That is if the Megathron doesn't get 8 lowslots at least...
Capacitors would have to be about 30% to 40% better to offset the loss of cap use bonus.
If we get that I'll sign up for these changes with every limb I have, even if it means learning how to write with my feet. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
122
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:50:00 -
[1024] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary? Such a tone! Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion). I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme. Hope that helps!
Well its more of a case taht battleships were almost not used at all for PVP outside huge fleet fights. And I think we neede dsome work to change THAT.. more than finding new strange sub roles. Grnated the geddon will find its usage in low scale PVP because its very powerful But a lot of the other battleships cannot hope to get used more. |
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:51:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P
well if you fit a plate instead, the dps will be decreased by 17.5%, that is a trade off. The repping power will not be increased by anywhere near 17.5% I believe. |
Ayla Crenshaw
Polish Immortals
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:51:00 -
[1026] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:And why, pray tell, is that new "exciting" direction to Amarr even necessary? Such a tone! Despite the fact that clearly there are people who were happy with the Amarr battleships in their former state, overall there was a significant gap in use between apoc/geddon and most other battleships (the only BS used less was the hyperion). I looked across as many different environments/metrics as possible and this was a consistent theme. Hope that helps!
Fair enough! I didn't think my tone was that harsh though...
I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.
I just don't want to cap out from firing my guns only. I don't want to be forced to fit a cap booster on my ships. Can you at least assure us that you'll TRY to make that possible? |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
468
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:52:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Jack C Hughes wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.
Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not. Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc. Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great.
It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
86
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:53:00 -
[1028] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We, along with many players, feel that this an exciting direction for Amarr. I would ask that you guys accept this draft as more or less set, and then help us out with testing once these go to a public server.
Can you comment on Amarr slot homogenization and why you don't feel the need to break out of 4 mids 7 lows or or make a single one of the platforms have 8 lows? That would go a long ways towards the 'flavour' tweaking of your changes. Did you READ the suggestion of how to do that for the Apoc a couple pages back? Not much has to be changed to include the damage bonus and if it needs a nerf to allow for the extra low and utility high that can easily be done by tweaking numbers. |
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:55:00 -
[1029] - Quote
In my first impression of the Amarr's cap bonus it suggest that the lasers are just too powerful, and it needs such bonus to prevent other races to use it.
If you can use it on other race's ships, it simply means it is not that powerful.
Then now amarr battle ships do not have that bonus anymore if you want to keep lasers on amarr ship only, the cap for those Amarr battleship should be much higher than other races to keep the guns fire. Or the guns it self use less cap, which ables other races fitting lasers, while I don't think many would consider.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
122
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:56:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Jack C Hughes wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P
well if you fit a plate instead, the dps will be decreased by 17.5%, that is a trade off. The repping power will not be increased by anywhere near 17.5% I believe.
read my whoel post damm. i am not against. I am just saying why CCP think itsa powerful You do not have to conveince me.
I thin ALL battleships need some sort of buff. |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
417
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:56:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Quote:I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them.
We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility.
I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
122
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:57:00 -
[1032] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them. We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility. I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.
I think people are more worried about tachyons on PVP. |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
417
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 10:59:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Quote:Can you comment on Amarr slot homogenization and why you don't feel the need to break out of 4 mids 7 lows or or make a single one of the platforms have 8 lows?
This is actually the thing I'm personally most unsatisfied with. Part of my goals through the rebalance was to create more slot variation overall in battleships, and one of the best previous examples of this was the 8/3/8 Geddon. We had some versions of the Apoc with 8 lows, but in the end this layout seemed to fit best with the bonuses we wanted to go with. I'm convinced that the current lineup looks the healthiest of all the options we considered, and I expect the Navy BS to fill some of the gaps that still exist. |
|
Aurora Fatalis
Black Dawn Rising
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:00:00 -
[1034] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: We are in a really difficult position of wanting to offer new options for Amarr pilots, despite them having 2 iconic ships and one fleet staple. That means no matter where we go (for instance if the Apoc had become the drone ship) someone is going to be unhappy. I like the new Armageddon, but I also liked the old Armageddon. It really was iconic in its old role (just look at its lore!), and while I like the new Armageddon and understand why a dragoon-style ship was in the works, I think it should've been a new ship, not a replacement. That's how you offer new options - not by removing the old ones that worked fine. The reason you remade the Prophecy in this way was, after all, because it was underused and not really an option. This really doesn't apply to the Armageddon. |
Ayla Crenshaw
Polish Immortals
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:01:00 -
[1035] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them. We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility. I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.
That's reassuring, thanks for adressing at least some worries we have. Eagerly awaiting further development and results of more extensive live testing of these changes then. Don't lose focus! |
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:02:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.
Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not. Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc. Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great. It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta.
Yes I did consider that, giving Apoc a large cap and slower regeneration. But finally I gave up Massive cap will change alot of things, not just for turret but others.
Here are just some examples:
As cap boosters are fixed sized: 800 400 200 etc, a larger cap pool will mean that when it used cap booster it is just not significant. you never want to eat up 4*800 boosters and gaining only 1/10 of your total cap. That is disapointing.
If by saying low regeneration you mean the speed of regeneration, it is not acceptable. That means the Apoc will not be capstable, as the turrests are consuming twice cap as before
If you mean regenration time, and the overall performence will be improved, that is not acceptable too. That will make it a massive elecricity producer.. or power plant, and could easily fit 8*smartbombs or remote reps or nuet as these things' cap usage are not increased, bringing more advantage. |
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:02:00 -
[1037] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.
are you able to give us any indication on when we can expect to see these land on SiSi? By the sounds of it your at a point where you are fairly happy with the changes.
|
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:03:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:
because people would likely fit yet another plate instead :P
well if you fit a plate instead, the dps will be decreased by 17.5%, that is a trade off. The repping power will not be increased by anywhere near 17.5% I believe. read my whoel post damm. i am not against. I am just saying why CCP think itsa powerful You do not have to conveince me. I thin ALL battleships need some sort of buff.
Sorry if my word made you any where near angry^-^ I am just a little bit too sensitive and trying to make my points.
|
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
65
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:05:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Jack C Hughes wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.
Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not. Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc. Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great. It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta. Yes I did consider that, giving Apoc a large cap and slower regeneration. But finally I gave up Massive cap will change alot of things, not just for turret but others. Here are just some examples: As cap boosters are fixed sized: 800 400 200 etc, a larger cap pool will mean that when it used cap booster it is just not significant. you never want to eat up 4*800 boosters and gaining only 1/10 of your total cap. That is disapointing. If by saying low regeneration you mean the speed of regeneration, it is not acceptable. That means the Apoc will not be capstable, as the turrests are consuming twice cap as before If you mean regenration time, and the overall performence will be improved, that is not acceptable too. That will make it a massive elecricity producer.. or power plant, and could easily fit 8*smartbombs or remote reps or nuet as these things' cap usage are not increased, bringing more advantage.
Cap stability is not an important issue as a PURE issue. Remember apoc will hit more so it will be more efficient per shot made. Therefore the overall reduction on capacitor efficiency should not be even close to the 50%.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
417
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:06:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Quote:are you able to give us any indication on when we can expect to see these land on SiSi? By the sounds of it your at a point where you are fairly happy with the changes.
I'm not sure, but it can't be too long - Odyssey will be upon us soon! |
|
|
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:07:00 -
[1041] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them. We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility. I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea.
Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...? new players does not have any skill near that.. The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before.. and the new regeneration is just a little higher.. Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it. And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse. |
Tessle Aesis
DECIMA LEGIO Yulai Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:08:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Gordon Esil wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:LOL , stop complaining awesome changes. I wasn't playing much as of late, i was very busy but i found some time to check what is new. Well ...... all i can say is stfu. New Augoror Navy issue- no cap usage bonus. CCP +100000000000 points. New Omen Navy Issue - no cap bonus , CCP +45646456456456456456 points. Harbinger Navy Issue - no cap bonus ... This is awesome. Rebalanced Battleships - no cap bonuses. I couldn't believe in this all awesomness. But i do now.
I know Amarr ships are cap hungry and this will make problems even bigger BUT ... but finnaly we don't have bonus that was FORCED onto us. FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME WE CAN DECIDE ... yes we can decide IF AND HOW we can deal with this problem. Some people may want to rig for less cap usage, some may fit cap booster etc. AND SOME MAY ignore it as it is. Yes exactly that's what you hear is absolutely true. Because you know some people did fly Abaddon even tho it got no cap bonuses, some people did fly Slicer- tho it got no cap bonuses. "Fly" - ok i'm liar - those ships were extremly popular. BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY HAD BONUSES.
With all honesty i can say that Amarr is finally getting good treatment. Keep it up CCP. Did you ever got your pod inside any of the 3 battleships that are about to get killed? Abaddon DOES get capped out from the GUNS only, you just sit there shoot something no mods/no tank running and you WILL get capped out VERY FAST Quote: some may fit cap booster etc. Correction: EVERY SINGLE ONE WILL BE FORCED TO FIT CAP BOOSTERS AS STATIC REQUIREMENT TO HIS AMARR BATTLESHIP We were living OK with the ships currently, our Abaddon pilots made the life of the Guardian pilots as hell by whining for them for cap every second, now they will make them commit suicide by whining for cap AND repairs every half a second because of the reduced resists on the ship and not making up for that with an 8th low slot That goes for the remaining 2 battleships with the bonus change on Apocalypse (basically it is now faster Abaddon from cap pov) People have been flying Armageddon for 10 years as a DPS ship and it was THE BEST, simply changing that into Neudromissageddon is something not exactly good thing, and you tell us "You are happy that Amarr is finally getting good treatment" but in fact they are getting the Amarr BS line F'ed and I can only imagine who will be happy about that only who have never flown an Amarr BS or a troll (AND IT SEEMS THAT YOU SIR ARE BOTH OF THEM SO GO FLY WHATEVER OTHER RACE YOU ARE FLYING AND KEEP THE GLORY OF THE AMARR SHIPS TO WHO REALLY ADMIRES THEM) Obviously you are not fully aware of the Amarr BS line and you need to spend sometime with it first then tell us to STFU Quote:I know Amarr ships are cap hungry and this will make problems even bigger BUT So you know but you did not "try" there is an insane difference between "I know" and "I flown Amarr ships and they are cap hungry" And there is NO "but", there is no adaptation because we are already adapted to this currently, if we are asked to "adapt" more then basically we will not fly Amarr ships at all, and that is no way to happen because we fly Amarr ships because we DO WANT TO fly them not any other race (I don't want to fly yellow Dominix for the geddon case) I hate drones and if I wanted to love drones I would go fly the real greenish Dominix Someone who flies Armageddon, has ZERO (or low) drones skills (as Amarr are not drones race) suddenly finds himself with a useless ship, and in order to make it useful again he need to spend 2+ weeks training for drones, 1 week training for neuts, 1 week training for missiles I don't see how this is good for current AMARR battleships pilots - - - - Please don't talk about cruisers and specially navy cruisers while we are talking about T1 battleships
i totally agree with you! But the "real" problem is: CCP are Gallenteans!
each race should maintain their diversity, having a amarr missile ship and or an amarr drone ship is hilarious, specially when we know all the cap problems with the our beloved laser turrets when we fly laser ships, but we love them anyway.
the races are four: Amarr LASER, ARMOUR Gallente HYBRID + DRONES, ARMOUR Caldari MISSILE + HYBRID, SHIELD Minmatar PROJECTILE + MISSILE + DRONES, SHIELD (speed+agility)
it is non-sense to change this: if someone wants diversity can train minmatar tree and they have all, also powerful turrets... if some1 wants to play Amarr should know he needs laser, armour and cap trouble, and viceversa, that's all.
CCP my think is "you are going to change too things too much, lastly... Relax!"
EDIT: P.S.: keep in mind I FLY ALL: http://eveboard.com/pilot/Tessle_Aesis/ships with T2 fit |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
65
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:10:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Jack C Hughes wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them. We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility. I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea. Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...? new players does not have any skill near that.. The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before.. and the new regeneration is just a little higher.. Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it. And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse.
Unfortunately ships must be balanced by level 5 characters. OTherwise you will ahv eproblems. |
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:11:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:ugh, the abaddon shouldn't be changed to be the cap stable mission running ship that the apoc and geddon would already conformably fill with the current set of stats.
Nor does it need an 8th low "just because". Focus on fixing the apoc instead of turning another into something it's not. Well then give me back my cap stabled apoc. Well, I would if I could, but I don't think the New Apoc is THAT far away from being great. It would be interesting if they give the Apoc a massive cap pool, perhaps 3-4 times larger than most battleships, but it regenerated quite slowly. With CPR's it might be a bit too high... but then again that could provide some interesting options within the games current PVP meta. Yes I did consider that, giving Apoc a large cap and slower regeneration. But finally I gave up Massive cap will change alot of things, not just for turret but others. Here are just some examples: As cap boosters are fixed sized: 800 400 200 etc, a larger cap pool will mean that when it used cap booster it is just not significant. you never want to eat up 4*800 boosters and gaining only 1/10 of your total cap. That is disapointing. If by saying low regeneration you mean the speed of regeneration, it is not acceptable. That means the Apoc will not be capstable, as the turrests are consuming twice cap as before If you mean regenration time, and the overall performence will be improved, that is not acceptable too. That will make it a massive elecricity producer.. or power plant, and could easily fit 8*smartbombs or remote reps or nuet as these things' cap usage are not increased, bringing more advantage. Cap stability is not an important issue as a PURE issue. Remember apoc will hit more so it will be more efficient per shot made. Therefore the overall reduction on capacitor efficiency should not be even close to the 50%.
giving a 37.5% tracking will not increase your efficency by that much. if you are talking about mega pulse, it tracks battleships and battle crusers perfectly and for frigs you are supposed to use your drons. So the diffences is mainly on elight crusers and crusers. Are there sooooo many of them in the missions that will make the tracking bonus that significant?
|
Jack C Hughes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:14:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Seishi Maru wrote:Jack C Hughes wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:I do hope you take another (deep) look at the cap issues though. There are a lot of ways to solve them. We really have looked at them. Fozzie was running level 4s yesterday easily in a pulse Apoc without sacrificing many slots. Not only can you run them, but you gain a lot of offensive capability because of the tracking bonus and the increased speed and agility. I think you will find its not a very painful shift - but again, public testing will give us a better idea. Are you running lvl4 missions with an all lvl 5 skill charactor...? new players does not have any skill near that.. The problem is the turrets are consuming twice as much cap as before.. and the new regeneration is just a little higher.. Yes Pulse are good but I believe you have to have T2 with Scorch to actually use it. And before that you might have to use meta lvl 4 mega beam.. which consume more cap than mega pulse. Unfortunately ships must be balanced by level 5 characters. OTherwise you will ahv eproblems.
In eve there is no such new players with lvl 5 skills from the begining. And I did not see any over powering from the lvl5 version of 6 turret + 7.5% damage. You go balance ship with lvl5 charactors, that is fine. But when considering lvl4 missions, and for the god sake of new players, please consider the usability with low skills! |
NinjaStyle
hirr RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:14:00 -
[1046] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Can you comment on Amarr slot homogenization and why you don't feel the need to break out of 4 mids 7 lows or or make a single one of the platforms have 8 lows? This is actually the thing I'm personally most unsatisfied with. Part of my goals through the rebalance was to create more slot variation overall in battleships, and one of the best previous examples of this was the 8/3/8 Geddon. We had some versions of the Apoc with 8 lows, but in the end this layout seemed to fit best with the bonuses we wanted to go with. I'm convinced that the current lineup looks the healthiest of all the options we considered, and I expect the Navy BS to fill some of the gaps that still exist.
Rise what about Tachyons? are they simply not surposed to be fittable? |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
417
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:15:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome.
You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line. |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:21:00 -
[1048] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome.
You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line.
Khanid are T2 manufacturers though ...... just like gallente have Roden shipyards do they have missiles on their droneboats? 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |
Shingorash
S T R A T C O M THORN Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:21:00 -
[1049] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome.
You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line.
Damnation and Sac as other examples. |
Gordon Esil
Lambda Initiative
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 11:22:00 -
[1050] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Being called Gallentean right after Gallente were saying we hate Gallente is pretty awesome.
You're right about the primary racial roles, but Amarr has been establishing a stronger drone representation throughout tiericide. Dragoon -> Arbitrator -> Prophecy. And Khanid has always existed as a missile focused division of Amarr. I don't think we are straying far at all from Amarr offensive system organization with this battleship line. The thing about Khanid is they are not the main Amarr ship lines, they are T2 ships The point as I see it, is: Amarr are leser/armor race, but they do offer missiles (aka Caldari weapons) on their Khanid (T2) ships, which is very awesome mechanics But why bringing Gallente weapons on their main T1 battleships hulls? can't that be on a T2 hull? Why reducing the tank of the most used battleship and making it more cap problematic Why making more cap problems on the Amarr T1 battleship hulls other than fixing that? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 108 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |