EVE Search - [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari

» 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 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 387	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:10:00 - [271] - Quote Heyo Caldari guys Little update for you since I think I've posted in the other threads a bit more =) I hate to do the soonTM thing, but Fozzie should be making a post soon (I'm not sure if that means today or tomorrow or what) about the Rokh/Abaddon resistance bonus tweak, so just watch for that. I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey. I know thats not as specific as you would want, but I hope its enough to hold you over until we pin down a few more things. We're glad to hear you like the scorp change!

Tilo Rhywald INVARIANT TENSOR 8	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:28:00 - [272] - Quote Van Mathias wrote: ..., add me to the list of dedicated Rokh pilots you have there. Done. ;) CCP Rise wrote: I hate to do the soonTM thing, but Fozzie should be making a post soon (I'm not sure if that means today or tomorrow or what) about the Rokh/Abaddon resistance bonus tweak, so just watch for that. I doubt that this future thread might somehow produce arguments that could negate our points - at all. One really big argument against the Rokh nerf that hasn't been brought up (to my knowledge) is the following: How many Rokhs were used in the last 3 Alliance Tournaments (the ones I watched for the most part)? I remember a single match of note where Hydra Reloaded used an all Caldari blaster gang including a Rokh in ATVIII. But otherwise... Somebody sure isn't as lazy as me to search for the AT ship stats. ;) Wouldn't the tournaments be a much better indicator of a ship's performance in total than huge blob fleet fights? Cheers Tilo R.
Hayman Wakefield Trans-Stellar Salvage Shipping and Securities 1	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:40:00 - [273] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey. I know there won't be any response to this but how can you balance the Raven whilst BS class missile systems are in their current state? I feel most of us were hoping you had a pretty good idea of what was needed to be done and that's why the ship looks poor currently, this sadly seems not to be the case. Like any bittervet I'm glad I can just pick up the current FOTM with equal efficiency... So Gal and Min again for 2013/14
Deacon Abox Justified Chaos 100	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:50:00 - [274] - Quote Tilo Rhywald wrote: One really big argument against the Rokh nerf that hasn't been brought up (to my knowledge) is the following: How many Rokhs were used in the last 3 Alliance Tournaments (the ones I watched for the most part)? I remember a single match of note where Hydra Reloaded used an all Caldari blaster gang including a Rokh in ATVIII. But otherwise... Somebody sure isn't as lazy as me to search for the AT ship stats. ;) Wouldn't the tournaments be a much better indicator of a ship's performance in total than huge blob fleet fights? Cheers Tilo R. More comedy gold itt. Do you seriously think that alliance tournament usage is indicative of in-game balance? Do you not understand point allocation per team and point cost in that artificial combat context? Does all eve combat involve a defined "arena" and limits on numbers or types of ships? Tell me how a ship that is currently tops on eve-kill is going to die off with this 1% nerf. Did you only read this thread and failed to notice that the Abaddon is similarly adjusted? Or, do you think that somehow the Rokh alone should be exempted from an overall adjustment of resist bonuses to 4% per level? The whole point with the resist bonus adjustment is that now a level 5 ship skill will provide a 20% instead of 25% omni-resist buff, which will still be about the best bonus any ship can get. I don't think, and more importantly the devs don't think this will kill off Rokh usage and instead will bring more balance. And in that they will be correct. It seems to me the Scorpion is going to fit quite well into armor BS gangs now with an extra low. Meanwhile show me equivalently useful options Amarr and Gallente will have for shield BS fleets. Lastly, cruises are slated for a buff. You have it right there from the horses mouth. So, stop whining.
SMT008 SnaiLs aNd FroGs 552	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:51:00 - [275] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey. Good to see you're reading feedback. Could you post a thread about battleship missiles somewhere else so we can debate and help you fix them ?
Sal Landry School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 46	Posted - 2013.04.10 17:58:00 - [276] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: So, stop whining. No.
Van Mathias Dead Space Collective 14	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:08:00 - [277] - Quote Deacon, a better nerf for large fleets of Rokhs and Abaddons is increasing their base material cost. It makes sense, because they are supposed to be tougher ships anyway. This nerf is aimed a large fleets, and you are right, a nerf like this wont break the ship in that context, but like others have said, that's not the only context that it is used. By doing this, they are going to decrease the amount of situations where a Rokh will be useful in small gang/solo combat. Indeed, the change could kill off its solo combat potential altogether. I don't participate in huge BS fleet fights, and I'm not really interested in game play in the largest blobs. So this nerf is hitting me, even though I'm not the intended target. Post your advanced battleship ideas here!
Aglais Liberation Army Li3 Federation 212	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:14:00 - [278] - Quote Sal Landry wrote: The Raven improved slightly from its current position, but it's irrelevant because there's nothing the new Raven will be able to do that the Typhoon can't do better. Um... The new Raven can... Move? The Typhoon's alleged mobility advantage literally dissolves when you try to give it any EHP at all, given it's slot layout favoring armor tanking far more than shields. The Raven's new mobility (Since nothing in this context has changed on the raven- 1205m/s with 14.5s align time with a MWD on) seems to be quite high, which means it will at least be able to lurch briefly towards/away from enemy battleships to actually attempt to dictate range. Which the Typhoon will struggle to do when laden with plates and trimarks. Not to mention the fact that the Typhoon has like... No range. At all.
Sinigr Shadowsong War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET 77	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:19:00 - [279] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Heyo Caldari guys I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey. Please answer these questions: 1. Do you think that +10% missile velocity bonus is useful for cruise missiles? 2. Do you think that +10% missile velocity bonus is enough to make Raven pilots use torps for PvE (since Raven is PvE-only). 3. Do you think that +10% missile velocity bonus may compete with explosion velocity bonus for cruise and torpedoes? And, most important: do you think that Raven will be used for PvP often enough to be on par with other BS?
Ranamar Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation 5	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:42:00 - [280] - Quote Sinigr Shadowsong wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Heyo Caldari guys I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey. Please answer these questions: 1. Do you think that +10% missile velocity bonus is useful for cruise missiles? 2. Do you think that +10% missile velocity bonus is enough to make Raven pilots use torps for PvE (since Raven is PvE-only). 3. Do you think that +10% missile velocity bonus may compete with explosion velocity bonus for cruise and torpedoes? And, most important: do you think that Raven will be used for PvP often enough to be on par with other BS? I think the goal here is to make it so that maybe the Raven is not pve-only. From a PvE standpoint, though, my personal answers would be: 1) Not for PvE 2) We already know from the Golem that torps could use a bit more range to be fully effective. 3) If the velocity bonus got standard torps to 50-60km with max skills and no rigs, I'd feel differently from now, because mission battleships often like to hang out at 50km. Regarding PvP: The new Raven can keep up with a Drake for a minute or two if they both run a MWD. I think there is potential here, and I await the missile changes with bated breath, but I still fear a nano-typhoon would be superior, especially if you have a friend for tackle. I think there's an argument to be made that missile velocity will make it harder for missiles to be avoided by running away from them, but I'm still learning about the relationship between theoretical and actual missile range when ships are running away or orbiting, so I don't have a useful gut feeling.

Tilo Rhywald INVARIANT TENSOR 10	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:45:00 - [281] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: More comedy gold itt. Do you seriously think that alliance tournament usage is indicative of in-game balance? Do you not understand point allocation per team and point cost in that artificial combat context? Does all eve combat involve a defined "arena" and limits on numbers or types of ships? Tell me how a ship that is currently tops on eve-kill is going to die off with this 1% nerf. Did you only read this thread and failed to notice that the Abaddon is similarly adjusted? Or, do you think that somehow the Rokh alone should be exempted from an overall adjustment of resist bonuses to 4% per level? The whole point with the resist bonus adjustment is that now a level 5 ship skill will provide a 20% instead of 25% omni-resist buff, which will still be about the best bonus any ship can get. I don't think, and more importantly the devs don't think this will kill off Rokh usage and instead will bring more balance. And in that they will be correct. You're wrong in all of your conclusions. Don't read too much into a simple statement. I said "better" indicator, not "ideal". If you really need further explanation, it should be absolutely clear that I would only compare the usage of Rokhs vs other battleships in the tournament. Since you brought up the Abaddon: How many of those did we see in the last ATs? The only reason I didn't refer to the Abaddon is that you rarely see it in solo actions and even less with an active tank. To clarify: I'm against the nerf of the resistance bonus in general, and in case of the Rokh it is the most out of place. Your Eve-Kill stats constitute exactly those huge nullsec fleets, nothing more, and thus they are in no way representative. This specific use of the ship won't die out due to the resistance nerf, agreed. But Rokh and Abaddon both will be hit in other scenarios, most of all in solo combat. I already wrote down the difference in active tank-ability of the proposed Rokh compared to the Maelstrom (at lv5). 10% is huge, especially with cap-using weapons. Cheers Tilo R.
Jaster Arcturus Matari Exodus 15	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:53:00 - [282] - Quote Regarding the torp Raven in pvp: Aside from the issues with damage application and the need to take up mid slots to get the most out of it, it would be useful if the torps themselves were reduced in size. Having a full "clip" in the launcher of only 20 missiles seems prohibitively small, at least in my solo/duo pvp experience. Furthermore, their size also limits the number of cap boosters you can carry when active tanking more than say projectile ammo for the maelstrom. Summary: reduce the volume taken up by torps. Apologies if this has been mentioned but I've looked through half of the thread and not seen it.
Octoven Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 66	Posted - 2013.04.10 18:59:00 - [283] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Heyo Caldari guys Little update for you since I think I've posted in the other threads a bit more =) I hate to do the soonTM thing, but Fozzie should be making a post soon (I'm not sure if that means today or tomorrow or what) about the Rokh/Abaddon resistance bonus tweak, so just watch for that. I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey. I know thats not as specific as you would want, but I hope its enough to hold you over until we pin down a few more things. We're glad to hear you like the scorp change! I like the idea of buffing the dmg, but I hope you arent planning to nerf the range as a balancing act. Granted cruise can fire further then a raven can target, but you can increase targeting range with mods, the only thing increasing your missile flight range is rigs. I'd rather keep my sniper raven. Unfortunately CCP has not only declared war on Tiers but also on the sniping role in general. Forcing ships that have sniped well in the past at 200+ to get down below 200. Why? Because the gunnery pilots feel its unfair.... >.> BS if you ask me. As for the scorpion, I DONT like the changes. Its a caldari ship so its natural to assume it shield tanks, but the ship, because of its inherent designs, SHOULD be armor or structure tanking. Seeing as how structure tanks still arent popular and the mods arent as extensive, I cant see it being a viable solution to the scorpion tanking problem. The worst of it is, you buffed the ship to presume we shield tank it, it is obvious that scorpion pilots do not. Surely your stats indicate this as well. You need ECMs which are mids, and a prop mod cuz the scorpion is too slow (also a mid mod), and sensor booster because the ship locks too slow (also a mid mod). It stands to reason that the mids will be filled with everything except a tank. This leaves 4 low slots for the tank. I can deal with only 4 slots for a tank, BUT it should be armor, not structure. Id suggest removing the structure buff and reallocate those HP to the armor instead.
Octoven Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 66	Posted - 2013.04.10 19:16:00 - [284] - Quote Sparkus Volundar wrote: Dear CCP Rise, I write to suggest putting a 7th mid on the Raven whilst leaving the Maelstrom essentially unchanged will be out of balance. At Minmatar BS 5, The Meal will have a 37.5% Shield Boost amount bonus. If the Raven uses a Shield Boost Amp II in its 7th Mid, it will get a 36% Shield Boost amount bonus, which is almost identical (96% of the Meal bonus). With PVP fits, it's very unlikely that stacking penalties will apply and in PVE, Faction etc. versions of Amps come into play more easily. In summary, I would suggest that proposing to give the Raven a 7th Mid slot and a smaller Sig Radius than the Maelstrom will be too much of a buff (or that the Maelstrom needs some additional boost to offset what seems to be the loss in value of it's tanking bonus). (Cross-posted to Mini thread also) Regards, Sparks Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? The Maelstrom has 8 guns too, the raven has 6 >.> I think its obvious your post is troll. The ships having identical tank is actually a good thing considering a mael can out DPS a raven. Additionally, I would point out that the raven is still losing a lot of its tank, the extra amplifier would only replace what it is losing. Your argument is irrelevant.
Sal Landry School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 47	Posted - 2013.04.10 19:23:00 - [285] - Quote Octoven wrote: Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? ... Your argument is irrelevant. Have you heard of this thing called tiericide?
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 256	Posted - 2013.04.10 19:36:00 - [286] - Quote Sal Landry wrote: Octoven wrote: Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? ... Your argument is irrelevant. Have you heard of this thing called tiericide? have you heard that there will be attack battleships and combat battleships ?
elitatwo Congregatio 70	Posted - 2013.04.10 19:37:00 - [287] - Quote Octoven wrote: Sparkus Volundar wrote: Dear CCP Rise, I write to suggest putting a 7th mid on the Raven whilst leaving the Maelstrom essentially unchanged will be out of balance. At Minmatar BS 5, The Meal will have a 37.5% Shield Boost amount bonus. If the Raven uses a Shield Boost Amp II in its 7th Mid, it will get a 36% Shield Boost amount bonus, which is almost identical (96% of the Meal bonus). With PVP fits, it's very unlikely that stacking penalties will apply and in PVE, Faction etc. versions of Amps come into play more easily. In summary, I would suggest that proposing to give the Raven a 7th Mid slot and a smaller Sig Radius than the Maelstrom will be too much of a buff (or that the Maelstrom needs some additional boost to offset what seems to be the loss in value of it's tanking bonus). (Cross-posted to Mini thread also) Regards, Sparks Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? The Maelstrom has 8 guns too, the raven has 6 >.> I think its obvious your post is troll. The ships having identical tank is actually a good thing considering a mael can out DPS a raven. Additionally, I would point out that the raven is still losing a lot of its tank, the extra amplifier would only replace what it is losing. Your argument is irrelevant. Any cruiser out dps a Raven and sink it, you don't need any larger boats to to that. Whenever you see a Raven on the grid you see a free killmail - that is the problem with that boat.
Octoven Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 68	Posted - 2013.04.10 19:53:00 - [288] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Octoven wrote: Sparkus Volundar wrote: Dear CCP Rise, I write to suggest putting a 7th mid on the Raven whilst leaving the Maelstrom essentially unchanged will be out of balance. At Minmatar BS 5, The Meal will have a 37.5% Shield Boost amount bonus. If the Raven uses a Shield Boost Amp II in its 7th Mid, it will get a 36% Shield Boost amount bonus, which is almost identical (96% of the Meal bonus). With PVP fits, it's very unlikely that stacking penalties will apply and in PVE, Faction etc. versions of Amps come into play more easily. In summary, I would suggest that proposing to give the Raven a 7th Mid slot and a smaller Sig Radius than the Maelstrom will be too much of a buff (or that the Maelstrom needs some additional boost to offset what seems to be the loss in value of it's tanking bonus). (Cross-posted to Mini thread also) Regards, Sparks Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? The Maelstrom has 8 guns too, the raven has 6 >.> I think its obvious your post is troll. The ships having identical tank is actually a good thing considering a mael can out DPS a raven. Additionally, I would point out that the raven is still losing a lot of its tank, the extra amplifier would only replace what it is losing. Your argument is irrelevant. Any cruiser out dps a Raven and sink it, you don't need any larger boats to to that. Whenever you see a Raven on the grid you see a free killmail - that is the problem with that boat. You will not get any argument from me on that front, but comparing it to a ship that is in a completely different tier is kinda stupid even with tiericide. The Mael and Raven arent supposed to be balanced to each other any more then a rokh and a raven. They have different roles. the Raven is going to be the Attack class and Mael Combat.
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly 681	Posted - 2013.04.10 20:03:00 - [289] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Updated OP to reflect a couple small changes based on player feedback! Scorpion is going to lose a high slot and gain a low slot. THERE we go. Now i like everything.
Nightfox BloodRaven Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis Dragonaors 1	Posted - 2013.04.10 20:31:00 - [290] - Quote Low slot for scoprion opens up a lot of new options so its a great.! But i am worries about the price cost.. I love the scorption cuz i can afford to fly it regularly at 90-100mil per hull... now given that the production materials will be adjusted i hope you guys will keep in mind that scorpion is a limited role ship... if it cost like 200-230mil to fly it (Tier 3 BS costs) --- i am afraid no one will fly it over the blackbird or the falcon...since 200mil -230mil for a ecm boat... seems to damn pricey... so hopefully scorpion pricey remain close to the 90-100mil range...

Catherine Laartii Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors 2	Posted - 2013.04.10 20:39:00 - [291] - Quote looks at Rokh and Scorpion, remembers hopes and dreams for obvious and delightful buffs and changes sees nerf and feels heart break and dreams shatter Why y no love caldari, CCP? Why? Q_Q
DragonZer0 Sons Of Alexander AL3XAND3R. 6	Posted - 2013.04.10 20:44:00 - [292] - Quote Finally the raven ****** pg is fixed oh thank the heaves. Scrop need abit more armor as it ecm based ship. But caldari are looking better now.
Gnoshia State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2013.04.10 21:48:00 - [293] - Quote Those missile buffs better be outstanding because as it stands, the Raven is probably going to be one of the worst battleships after these changes go live. After all this s*** heave missiles users had to put up with this year you could atleast redeem yourselves by showing the Raven some substantial love.
Ranger 1 Ranger Corp 3924	Posted - 2013.04.10 21:53:00 - [294] - Quote Gnoshia wrote: Those missile buffs better be outstanding because as it stands, the Raven is probably going to be one of the worst battleships after these changes go live. After all this s*** heave missiles users had to put up with this year you could atleast redeem yourselves by showing the Raven some substantial love. I have to agree with this. While I'm on board with what has been done with medium sized missiles, large missiles have needed serious work for some time... and the Raven overall has suffered for far too long. Good steps with the Scorpion, although I'm not convinced it's 100% where it needs to be yet. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base.
elitatwo Congregatio 70	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:01:00 - [295] - Quote Ranger 1 wrote: ... I have to agree with this. While I'm on board with what has been done with medium sized missiles, large missiles have needed serious work for some time... and the Raven overall has suffered for far too long. ... Six years and five months...
Alexa Coates Federation Navy Assembly Group LLC 371	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:35:00 - [296] - Quote I see the scorp is still useless to everyone except people in null gg. That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 105	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:04:00 - [297] - Quote Just noticed the drone stats on the raven 50m3 bay 75mbit bandwidth. Is this a typo? I just can't imagine how all that bandwidth could be used up, unless I am missing something, I am not that heavy a drone user so I may be wrong.
Octoven Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming 69	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:30:00 - [298] - Quote I like how the trade off of the HS for another LS is being made on the scorpion. That ship needed something done to help boost the tank on it. Its stats are in shields not armor but its tank is in lows not mids. I suppose the structure tanking could be useful for solo pvp but fleets will have to sacrifice some HP like about...2K in order to trade off for an armor tank. However, in fleets you also can use logies to more then make up for the loss in tanking preferences. The logi pilots wont be happy...but few ever are. The Scorpion is shaping up nicely, the raven ehh not sure about that one, it certainly has the capability of damage, but the missile systems being re-balanced will help reflect that more. Torps is where we are wanting to take the raven. Too long it has only been used as a PVE ship and adding high dmg weaps will certainly help with using it as a pvp ship. However, cruise missiles shouldnt lose as much range either. The raven thrives on range being used as a sniper. The issue here is that currently the raven is a heavy snipe boat. Missiles have often been associtaed with extreme ranges too. However, you are reclassing the ship to be a "up in your face brawler with torps". This is a fine concept, but we don't want to sacrifice the effectiveness of sniping. The Rokh can snipe but out to about 160ish...the raven puts it to shame at 250.
Grunnax Aurelius luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades 41	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:52:00 - [299] - Quote Caldari as you know are the most advanced race when it comes to Shield and Missile systems, now what i find odd is that the Typhoon has a skill bonus that affects the way damage is applied by missiles, when this would clearly be a Caldari thing. I suggest giving the Typhoon a 5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level or 5% bonus to Stasis Webifier propultion jam strength per level as that is the Minmatar's area of expertise, it will make taking on Battlecruisers easier than having a Explosion Velocity bonus. This is the Raven and the Typhoon, the Raven is supposed to be a Kitting Missile Ship, and the Typhoon a Brawling Missile Ship. Raven Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire +10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity Slot layout: 7H, 7M, 5L; 0 turrets , 6 launchers Typhoon Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% to Cruise and Torpedo launcher rate of fire +5% Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity Slot layout: 7H, 5M, 7L; 5 turrets , 6 launchers What I propose is that the Raven replaces its +10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity per level, for the +5% Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity per level. This would notion that the Raven should be Cruise Missile fitted and apply its damage easier as well as the Typhoon. CCP Rise did confirm that Cruise Missiles are getting a revamp and increased damage so Cruise Missiles wont be a bad choice anymore making this change extremely relevant and being a Kitting designed ship it should notion fitting Cruise Missiles. Also it should be given 1 more Launcher slot to help compensate for damage, but this eaxtra launcher point will depend on the changes to Cruise Missiles. The Typhoon replaces its +5% Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity per level with either a 5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level or a 5% bonus to Stasis Webifier effectiveness per level. Both these bonuses help Torpedo's on applying easier damage to target. I would personally like a Target Painter bonus but thats just me. These changes bring both ships into a really nice category and don't conflict with each other as much in terms of arguments of one being better than the other. CCP Rise please take this into consideration, they are not game breaking changes, they just small changes that bring both ships into line with each other with the defining feature of one being a brawling torpedo boat and one being a kitting cruise missile boat. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread
StrongSmartSexy Caldari Provisions Caldari State 7	Posted - 2013.04.11 01:04:00 - [300] - Quote Yeah, Raven's missile velocity bonus should be changed to something useful for easier damage application much like the revamped typhoon. Disregarding the abomination of Rage torpedoes' explosion radius, a TP bonus on any missile boat is a little outdated (with the new explosion radius reduction change) and less effective than a stasis web effectiveness bonus when trying to increase damage application against battleship sized targets. I'd prefer a stasis web bonus as it would be much more useful than an explosion velocity or target painter bonus. If there are concerns about imbalance, such a bonus could be tweaked to have less effectiveness per level than Serpentis/Marauder ships e.g. 5-7.5% webbing effectiveness per level.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: 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.