| 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) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
608
   |
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:27:00 -
[181] - Quote
Lina Theist wrote:As it stands right now, a rokh will never snipe because it's outperformed in every way by a naga. As such, blasters are the only viable option for a rokh. However, if it got a damage bonus instead, rails would actually do enough damage to be viable. Blasters would lose range, and be niche.
Right now, rokh is fitted with blasters only as a brawler.
Just FYI, you're totally out of touch with reality. The Rail Rokh is a dominant fleet BS.
And I hope the guy above me wasn't suggesting deadspace MWDs as a method of going faster...  |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:46:00 -
[182] - Quote
Hmm? The c-types are sold at a very resonable price, if you can afford a rokh hull, you shouldnt have any problems affording a c-type MWD.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
608
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 17:51:00 -
[183] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:Hmm? The c-types are sold at a very resonable price, if you can afford a rokh hull, you shouldnt have any problems affording a c-type MWD.
It's not the cost. Why do you think they're so cheap? Maybe because they don't give any speed bonus over a T1 MWD...? |
Ager Agemo
Imperial Collective
261
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:02:00 -
[184] - Quote
After further though... I have to say that after carefull examination the Raven its a complete piece of crap that shouldn't even exist and might as well be in a trash bin. |
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:25:00 -
[185] - Quote
Please look into improving the scorpions viability as an armor tank, it's a really bad armor tanking ship, not expecting miracles just improve the armor aspect of it somehow.
-1 or -2 high slots, add 1 or 2 low slots (hint hint) |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:36:00 -
[186] - Quote
Why should the scorp, a Caldari ship, armor tank? The problem is that ECM's take mids, and several people have suggested to making it a highslot mod, which it should be. Once that is done, you will be able to shield tank it adequately.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Heribeck Weathers
The Executioners
Capital Punishment.
35
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 18:49:00 -
[187] - Quote
CCP rise, you said in the galent thread that the other ones whernt sayign much of interest, but i have yet to hear your take on how to make the scorp more useful? especialy above the much cheeper BB or the much more suprising Falcon. It donsent have manuverability, nore tank, hell it doent even do decent DPS, it dosent have anything a Battle ship should have, just an aditional mid over the Falcon. Why do we need this ECM BS? for big fleet fights where a BS EHP will keep it on field longer? nope because it will have Craptastic tank and still die, and if we shield tank it, the BB will out jam it. so for the love of Zombie jesus, give it either more tank, more DPS, or somethign special to make it worth takign over a BB or falcon.
Seriosuly, last time i saw a Scorpion at all was XL-ASB shield bait ones |
Jureth22
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 19:05:00 -
[188] - Quote
why the hell scorp has better tank than raven?
p.s : scorp is a support ship and utterly almost useless. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 19:14:00 -
[189] - Quote
Actually, I could see the tank order for Caldari BS being Raven/Light - Scorpion/Meduim - Rokh/Heavy. I would also reccomend that if this is the way forward, to redo the raven hull to look like a thick B2-Spirit.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Noisrevbus
420
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:02:00 -
[190] - Quote
Would someone care to give an explanation of the reasoning behind the velocity bonus on the Raven?
The number one problem among the racial traits of Caldari ships (with the L-Missile platforms included) for the past few years have been that they've not been updated to the changing environment around them. Range have long been their trait, and application of range bonuses is understandable but many of those platforms wrestle with problems letting the bonuses help define the ships.
Torpedos have a range that hit the standard tackling breakpoints yet with bonuses do not hit the next logical step.
Cruise already overshoot targets, far too many weapon systems in the game hit the desirable breakpoints and so forth so the value of a range bonus is even more limited on them.
This used to be the case for various Caldari hybrid platforms as well, though recent changes have made the Rokh and Naga somewhat more competetive options. The struggles with the logic still remain though.
There are obviously a number of ways to deal with these problems, from affecting breakpoints (probing-, warp-, and tackle- ranges) to diminishing projection across the board of all weapons to fit into present breakpoints, to looking over the general projection of all missiles rather than adapting a malbalanced case-by-case prod or simply changing bonuses and redefining the Caldari racial traits to something that fit into the game as envisioned in recent times.
Regardless of whatever route is chosen: The ~250km LR variants and ~45km SR variants (on a system that is meant to be projectible in a ~0-10-25-60-100-150km meta) simply have massive troubles finding a place in the world. L-rails (along with both S-hybrids and S-missiles) have always had a knack for hitting those breakpoints very well with various ammunition choices on bonused hulls while essentially all the other bonuses fall between the cracks. |
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
608
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:17:00 -
[191] - Quote
Yeah, with current cruise/torp stats, the Raven's missile velocity bonus is of very little use, it's an obsolete holdover from past ages. I would criticise it further, but it's pointless, since we know that cruise and torps will be changed, and those changes may make it useful again. But we won't know until we know how cruise and torps are getting changed.  |
0k00l
Steel Rat Knights
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:43:00 -
[192] - Quote
Raven needs more tank, less PG and CPU for torpedoes. Torpedoes have to be rebalanced too - they can't hit anything in it's full damage. More drones and drone's bandwidth for rokh and raven.
Rokh is no way going to loose this 1% shield resistance bonus. Just don't touch the rokh.
Relocate ECM for high slot, give the option to put tank and propulsion (point maybe too) in mid slots. Same for all shield tank caldari ships.
Those speed changes for BS are commonly useless. All outperformed by big gun In small hulls battle cruisers, T3 cruisers.
Bring back solo of 2005-2008.
|
MItchell Jensen
Gravit Negotii
S2N Citizens
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:06:00 -
[193] - Quote
Xiaodown wrote:I'll quote what I said in the Reddit thread: Quote:The scorpion is almost worthless at this point. It used to be literally the most OP ship in the game - twice. But now, with the multiple nerfs to ECM, it's inability to speed, sig, or armor tank, and the latest nerf to ECM in the way of skills that can boost your sensor strength, I just don't see why anyone would ever fly it.
It costs 15x blackbird, and two blackbirds would be better. It costs the same as a falcon and, tbh, has a similar train time, but the falcon is better in every conceivable way. It's the only battleship without a bonus to either damage or tank; it is a strictly PVP ship - it's just a solution for a question that no one asks anymore. I really wish something would be done about the scorpion. Since 2008 or so, ECM has been nerfed many times (at least 3 that I remember); it is only marginally effective, and even then only when you fill every mid and low slot for jamming, with maybe holding back two slots for tank. So, basically, it's a ship that's only effective when hero tanked, and yet it's primaried first in almost every fleet I've been in, so what's the point? It's not cost effective, it's not mobile, it's not effective at jamming for more than a couple of cycles before it explodes, it has little to no tank, no PVE role.... Its role needs to be rethought, IMO.
Yes. I was trying to fit a scorp all night on the test server to try and get a fit that could survive more than 3 volleys and still be able to lock down targets.
Spoilers: My efforts were in vain.
The face on the Avatar is used for much more than just the doomsday. |
Siresa Talesi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:18:00 -
[194] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Slot layout: 8H, 6M, 5L; 8 turrets , 0 launchers This is just a typo, the Rokh will keep its launchers. Sorry about that! What about the raven? You mention 0 turrets, but it currently has 4, and there is no (-4) notation.
This was my question as well. In frig-heavy missions, sometimes it was nice to fit a couple of small turrets to assist with the smaller targets. I won't begrudge the loss of one high slot in favor of one more mid, but if you really are removing versatility by dropping turrets entirely, then I have to say that's a bad move. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned
Ace of Spades.
47
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:24:00 -
[195] - Quote
Hello,
After reading the respective battleship posts the caldari ones leave me with a litle problems. Amarr and Minmater looks fine, and at this time the Gallente is still in the other unrevealed build
First of All a global comment.
While atm controversial, i think the primary and secondary weaponsystems for Combat line battleships is a good chooice. While i don-¦t really like the fact that some races have a different ratio in combat - attack - disruption ships, i can understand that atm there can be a timebased / balancing issue that just doesn't allow the implementations of 1 more battleship for each race to solve this problem.
I hope in the future this will be solved. However that leaves the Caladri in a unique position, beeing the only one with a disruption battleship, and thus haveing one less combat ship.
The rokh as a combat ship is a logical choice, since the missiles have Always been the primary weapon systems of caldari, and thus it would be more logical for the attack line ship to use missiles. However due to this, i believe a future caldari battleship should be a combat missile ship. And There lies the problem. With the current Typhoon and Raven, finding a combat ship that is missile based, is nigh impossible.
Individual ships:
Rokh
I can understand why you want the effective hp amount reduced. However, All things beeing equal, a shield ship has fewer options to increase it then the armor versions. In effect these ships will have an average lower hp then armor versions.
While this isn't the biggest problem, there incomming damage is further increased by the fact that it has a substantial bigger signature radius. Especially when you add a few much needed shield extenders. The chang of getting a wrecking shot, or full damage from a missile will be a LOT higher then on eg the Abaddon.
I am not completely satisfied with the other stats of the rokh, but those aren't as worrysome as the big difference in effective hp and effective incomming damage the current ships have.
The current problems with hybrids, is that either the tracking, alpha or range is sup par to the other shield based gunboat
Raven
Although i like the Raven, i don't concider it at all near the other attack line missile based ship the Typhoon. 86% of the speed of a Typhoon is a big difference, and it extra range is no where near as potent as the explosion range velocity, wich will make the typhoon apply its damage much better.
Its a slower moveing less damageing version of the typhoon, wich makes the other things it has above the typhoon, in an Attack line ship negliable.
It can't pass as an Combat ship either, and as i stated above, if your going to introduce a 4th battleship this logically would become an missile based combat ship. Makeing the raven a slower ship and less damageing option then another ship, and a less sturdy and less damageing? ship in thet corner.
Scorpion
I've Always loved the scorpion, really i did. But in about 6 years of PvP i've only taken it out maybe 5 times. The cost and effect of this ship truelly is abysmal. Its to slow in speed maneuverability and locking, to effectively use it in small skirmishes, and its to squishy and to high of a priority target to use in large fights.
With added ECM nerfs, more and more increased sensor strength on all ship sizes and additional skills to counter ECM even further, the usefull ness of this ship is dropped below any other ship choice, of its class or below. To make the scorpion work, something drastic needs to be done
Either convert it fully to a combat ship and use the navy issue scorpion as a template, or drasticly increase its effectiveness as a disruption battleship, by upping its base scan resolution, Amount of targets locked, and ecm strength bonus. Also a greater buffer would be much needed on this ship.
Conclusion:
Amarr and Minmitar ships look distinct, in line with the new philosophies, and alloweing for a whole new meta game. Caldari ships need to be worked with to make you want to chose them. |
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
638
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:37:00 -
[196] - Quote
Raven still sucks, Rohk is still meh, scorp still sucks.
Lame.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
Kor'el Izia
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:56:00 -
[197] - Quote
Buff to cap/s was recieved to the following ships and wasnt included in the "stats-o-spreadsheet";
Raven: cap/s +0.16
Scorpion: cap/s +0.17
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
3342
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 21:56:00 -
[198] - Quote
This will help the BS lineup find a place.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jezza McWaffle
EVOL Command
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:04:00 -
[199] - Quote
With the missiles. Would not having 2 types of cruise missile and buffing torps be a good idea?
Example:
- Long range cruise missiles.
Have faster travel time and sligtly lower explosion radius, current dps
- Short range cruise missiles
Around 35km range, decent dps (think ultraviolet damage and range), slightly higher explosion radius and slower travel time
|
TheFace Asano
Deadly Execution
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:24:00 -
[200] - Quote
CCP Rise, is it a possibility we are getting an XL shield extender? Looking at the drop in shields on quite a few of these BS makes me think we might. Something that takes quite a bit of grid like a 1600 and can't be placed on ships lower than BS? The Raven has sub-par tanking abilities even ratting in null, my minnie ships do better by far, both the tempest and mael, and that's active tanked, buffered for pvp I wouldn't want to fly it now or after the changes. |
|
|
Just Lilly
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:36:00 -
[201] - Quote
Rokh still looks good
Raven could be even faster and more agile, not by much, just a tiny bit more then the suggested changes.
It could also use a boost in Scan Resolution, ramp it up to about 100-120
Scorp looks good, though it recived an increase in tank, the +sig radius feels over the top.
The +tank was very much needed, but the +1031 to hull rather then armor? wut? 
Looking kind of ok across the board, still need some work though 
Powered by Nvidia GTX 690 |
feihcsiM
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
194
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:44:00 -
[202] - Quote
I would seriously consider making the scorpion a Caldari drone boat, it would give it much needed versatility and actual viability in a lot more situations without making it OP.
The T1-->T2 lineup is being balanced around T1=general --> T2=specialised but the poor Scorpion is a T1 hull but with a specialised role, and more unusually only a single viable role outside of baitfit.
If you were to give the Scorpion a drone-based bonus it would result in the drone battleships becoming:
Gallente - Dominix. Drones on crack
Amarr - Armageddon. Drones + EWAR (Neuts)
Caldari - Scorpion. Drones + EWAR (ECM)
Would this not be a sensible option? It wouldn't remove the ECM that people want from the Scorp, you could still fit it as many do now with max ECM and an armour tank and sacrifice your drone dps in the process (no room for DDAs) so it wouldn't lose it's current limited role. It also removes that awkward 'disruption battleship' moniker reserved for this one ship.
It feel it would really play to the strengths of the hull and eliminate one of the main reasons the Scorpion in currently sidelined (jammed first by that T2 falcon with his quicker lock time? Your newly bonused drones are off to say hello), and would become a viable ship for many more fleet compositions, though rightly not able to attain the dps of the Dominix or Armageddon due to its slot layout.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 22:55:00 -
[203] - Quote
Hmm, this scorp idea sounds interesing, I could go for it.
Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
609
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:00:00 -
[204] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:With the missiles. Would not having 2 types of cruise missile and buffing torps be a good idea?
Example:
- Long range cruise missiles.
Have faster travel time and sligtly lower explosion radius, current dps
- Short range cruise missiles
Around 35km range, decent dps (think ultraviolet damage and range), slightly higher explosion radius and slower travel time
Maybe we could call the short-range type "torpedoes"?  |
Master Sergeant MacRobert
The Amarrian Expendables
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:27:00 -
[205] - Quote
feihcsiM wrote:I would seriously consider making the scorpion a Caldari drone boat, it would give it much needed versatility and actual viability in a lot more situations without making it OP.
The T1-->T2 lineup is being balanced around T1=general --> T2=specialised but the poor Scorpion is a T1 hull but with a specialised role, and more unusually only a single viable role outside of baitfit.
If you were to give the Scorpion a drone-based bonus it would result in the drone battleships becoming:
Gallente - Dominix. Drones on crack
Amarr - Armageddon. Drones + EWAR (Neuts)
Caldari - Scorpion. Drones + EWAR (ECM)
Would this not be a sensible option? It wouldn't remove the ECM that people want from the Scorp, you could still fit it as many do now with max ECM and an armour tank and sacrifice your drone dps in the process (no room for DDAs) so it wouldn't lose it's current limited role. It also removes that awkward 'disruption battleship' moniker reserved for this one ship.
It feel it would really play to the strengths of the hull and eliminate one of the main reasons the Scorpion in currently sidelined (jammed first by that T2 falcon with his quicker lock time? Your newly bonused drones are off to say hello), and would become a viable ship for many more fleet compositions, though rightly not able to attain the dps of the Dominix or Armageddon due to its slot layout.
Perhaps make the Scorp bonus's apply to ECM drones aswell as ECM modules?
Also, the Scorp needs to lose 2 High Slots and given 2 Low slots with further balance to CPU/PG. It should be able to fit a half ass'd armor tank and a couple of signal distortion amplfiers. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:49:00 -
[206] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Jezza McWaffle wrote:With the missiles. Would not having 2 types of cruise missile and buffing torps be a good idea?
Example:
- Long range cruise missiles.
Have faster travel time and sligtly lower explosion radius, current dps
- Short range cruise missiles
Around 35km range, decent dps (think ultraviolet damage and range), slightly higher explosion radius and slower travel time
Maybe we could call the short-range type "torpedoes"?
You missed the point there. The suggestion was to give cruise missiles ammo versatility the same way a projectile ship can switch between fusion and titanium sabbot at different ranges. |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions
Headshot Gaming
66
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 23:59:00 -
[207] - Quote
The sig radius needs a bit more balancing. I like what you did with the Attack BSes (Apoc, Raven, Tempest, Megathron), the Apoc and Mega mirror each other, just as the Raven and Tempest mirror each other. Both groups are different from each other but its a more balanced approach over all. Perhaps you could do the same with the other two types of battleships. For example, lower abaddon to 460 or raise maelstrom to 470. Lower the rokh to 485, having 500 sets it out too far on a ledge.
In this scenario, the caldari have the highest sig radius on 2 ships compared to their counterparts. The same could be said for the far right too, the domi needs brought down to the geddon or the geddon brought up to the domi. They are both drone boats why not have the same sig radius? The scorp being 480 ehhh I can live with that, but there is no reason to have the typhoon that far low. Its 100 less then its other counterparts. which is the largest gap there is in ANY of them. The largest gap besides the phoon is 40. I know this is the caldari thread, but that is much too large a gap in sig radius. Id suggest bringing the phoon up to at least 440 preferably up to mirror the scorp at 480. Or balance both ships to mirror each other at 470.
Amarr Abaddon - 470 Apocalypse - 380 Armageddon - 450
Caldari Rokh - 500 Raven - 420 Scorpion - 480
Minmatar Malestrom - 460 Tempest - 420 Typhoon - 350
Gallente Hyperion - 485 Megathron - 380 Dominix - 465 |
None ofthe Above
493
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:23:00 -
[208] - Quote
feihcsiM wrote:I would seriously consider making the scorpion a Caldari drone boat, it would give it much needed versatility and actual viability in a lot more situations without making it OP.
The T1-->T2 lineup is being balanced around T1=general --> T2=specialised but the poor Scorpion is a T1 hull but with a specialised role, and more unusually only a single viable role outside of baitfit.
If you were to give the Scorpion a drone-based bonus it would result in the drone battleships becoming:
Gallente - Dominix. Drones on crack
Amarr - Armageddon. Drones + EWAR (Neuts)
Caldari - Scorpion. Drones + EWAR (ECM)
Would this not be a sensible option? It wouldn't remove the ECM that people want from the Scorp, you could still fit it as many do now with max ECM and an armour tank and sacrifice your drone dps in the process (no room for DDAs) so it wouldn't lose it's current limited role. It also removes that awkward 'disruption battleship' moniker reserved for this one ship.
It feel it would really play to the strengths of the hull and eliminate one of the main reasons the Scorpion in currently sidelined (jammed first by that T2 falcon with his quicker lock time? Your newly bonused drones are off to say hello), and would become a viable ship for many more fleet compositions, though rightly not able to attain the dps of the Dominix or Armageddon due to its slot layout.
+1
I'd like to see the Caldari do more with drones. Fits in better with what I actually see played too. We Caldari just love drones, never understood them not being so in lore. Perhaps its time to adapt the lore to the way the players play.
PS - Not fond of the resist nerfs or the attack Raven that is not good at attacking. So not overly pleased with the new Caldari Battleships.
Vote, you apathetic bastards!-á -> http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/vote/
CSM 8 Endorsements:
Ali Aras, Malcanis, Mike Azaria, Psychotic Monk, Trebor Daehdoow, Ripard Teg |
Ranamar
Li3's Electric Cucumber
Li3 Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:45:00 -
[209] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Jezza McWaffle wrote:With the missiles. Would not having 2 types of cruise missile and buffing torps be a good idea?
Example:
- Long range cruise missiles.
Have faster travel time and sligtly lower explosion radius, current dps
- Short range cruise missiles
Around 35km range, decent dps (think ultraviolet damage and range), slightly higher explosion radius and slower travel time
Maybe we could call the short-range type "torpedoes"? You missed the point there. The suggestion was to give cruise missiles ammo versatility the same way a projectile ship can switch between fusion and titanium sabbot at different ranges.
You can already do that, too: it's called Fury and Precision missiles. ;)
Admittedly, it requires a little extra training time, and more for the battleship weapons, but the other gun types don't get that thing you're describing without T2 ammo, either. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 01:17:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Admittedly, it requires a little extra training time, and more for the battleship weapons, but the other gun types don't get that thing you're describing without T2 ammo, either.
What? Every weapons system except for missiles gets variable ammunition choices at purely t1 with no training.
Projectiles: Fusion et al for close range, Titanium Sabbot et al for longer range / better tracking
Hybrids: Antimatter for up close blasting, Lead et al for longer ranges
Lasers: Multifrequency at point blank all the way out to Radio at extreme range
These are all in addition to the T2 close/long range ammo choices, although scorch renders the laser t1 ammo aside from MF completely pointless |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |