|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8617
   |
Posted - 2013.04.11 11:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Gypsio III wrote:It would also help giving feedback on the Raven if we knew the current state of thinking on introducing missile "tracking computer" mods and the missile disruptor ewar (please god don't just give a missile disruption effect to tracking disruptors, even via a script). nobody can balance a ship where you dont know what weapons can it fit , ccp have to revisit raven typhoon after large missile fix oh and i dont think there should be any missile disruption at all , just like there shouldnt be modules that directly boost missiles, makeing everything the same is bad and still i think raven should have better sensor range , it has 75km laughable for a ship and race specialized in long range warfare
Once upon a time, no one ever fitted Cruise Missiles on a Raven, only Torps.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8621
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 14:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
I mean be careful about making sweeping statements about what the Raven is "designed" for.
The proposed new Raven will be a moderate improvement as a CML platform, and a huge improvement as a Torp platform. Whatever the Raven was designed for, it is going to be designed as a fast attack torpedo ship. And a very fine thing too.
I can only hope that they enact the proposed changes and migrate them to the Navy Raven as well. An extra slot for a Target Painter? Yes please!
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8803
|
Posted - 2013.04.22 14:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:
Oh my poor, poor Rokh. Why are you so neglected?
First off, quoting CCP Rise: "The Rokh, like most of the former tier 3 battleships, is in a very healthy place currently. "
Supressing riotous laughter and rivers of tears at the ignorance of that statement, I would like to point out that the rokh is, as awful as it is for me to put this in a pun, "Between a Rokh and a hard place." Hybrids are currently broken in the realm of the caldari, as their usefulness is in CCP trying to force Caldari to use just rails, and Gallente just blasters.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20:facepalm: it is only usable in huge rr fleets , and now ccp wants to nerf that,soon it will be outplaced by another ship/doctrine and rokh wont be used at all Stop whining Naomi, it'll be fine. The advantages of damage projection, instant shield RR and high resists will still remain.
Rokh is an outstanding fleet BS, in fact I'd go so far as to say it's probably the best of the straight T1 lineup for that role.
If you want to run missions, then a Cruise Raven will be ridiculously good for that.
Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8812
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 15:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
The basic idea of ECM is bad in the first place. Get rid of it and replace it with an EWAR that isn't horribly unreliable.
Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8812
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 15:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Hagika wrote:Given that the Phoon applies damage better than the Raven, please either make the raven apply damage better or give it another launcher slot to add more dps to compensate. The Raven is absolutely **** for a battleship and it needs to be boosted significantly in order to make it better.
The irony of lore stating Caldari superiority when they are certainly not and the Raven is useless in PVP. I have tested the raven on duality it rapes the typhoon. Let me guess, you put them face to face, standing still and just shot till one died.... That doesnt exclude the fact that the raven is still a sub par pvp ship compared to the others.
Maybe he put them 25km apart.
The range bonus on the Raven is kind of a big deal with torps, you know.
Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8844
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 19:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Just a heads up, but no one will stop using the Rokh because of a 5% EHP nerf. Or the Drake, come to that.
Hope this helped you more than hyperbole is helping your credibility.
Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8891
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
The Talos is a great ship, but it's made for Blasters, not rails. Naga easily outclasses it as a sniper.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8989
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 17:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lord Eremet wrote:I don't think I ever seen a rohk being used in pvp, except for that rare newbie who loses it 3 seconds later and have it lol-fitted. Now with Naga and other attack battlecruisers I doubt it have a use at all since its not cost-effective. If anyone have a fit that isn't lol and doesn't include hugging a station all the time or alts with logistics, please post it, I'm really curious.
Nagas and Rokhs are both fantastic for medium and large fleet PvP respectively.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
9830
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 08:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
The Raven is classed as an "Attack" battleship (smaller, faster, slightly fewer hp). You shouldn't be comparing it to the Hype, but to the Mega.
Scorp is a "Disruption" BS, and it's the only one, so there's no direct comparison. Although I might point out that it has 8 mids, so it should be able to shield tank well enough.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
| |
|