|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
228
   |
Posted - 2013.04.08 20:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sad to see the mega changes, seems to have gone from a fun ship to fly to a very middle of the road ship. Don't think the changes will make the hyperion that useful either. Domi I'm on the fence some interesting changes but seems the geddon will now own gal at their own drone game...
Infact the more I see of these "closing the gap" changes like TE and mega, etc. the more its making me lose interest in the game. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
229
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think the drone changes to the geddon and domi are potentially very good - don't forget that as the domi is no longer hybrid weapon focused you can use a high slot better to extent drone control range, etc. I think the main problem is they don't seem to have sat down and looked at the geddon and domi side by side in isolation post change. I think a little further work on those 2 could make for some new and exciting changes coming from it (and less of a clash).
Almost tempted to suggest dropping one high on the domi and giving it an extra mid or low to futher boost its ability to use drones.
There are going to be some upset people I'd imagine tho who use RR domis for certain WH class PVE but with a bit of rejigging I think they can probably still work effectively there if not better with the sentry drone changes.
Megathron changes tho are just a big NO from me. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
229
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
Megathron:
You just swapped the slot layout with the hyperion. You are an idiot. One of the big reasons why the hyperion was so bad was BECAUSE OF ITS SLOT LAYOUT! You seem to be under the assumption that a 5/6 slot layout will work for armor tanking. Let me inform you - it won't. The only way that this will see use is as a shield tanked ship... not as armor tanked. If you want armor tanking to actually be viable on it, drop that "utility highslot", which it doesn't have the pg to fit anything in anyways for a midslot, instead of taking away one of its lowslots. A 7/5/7 slot layout megathron may actually see some use. Also... why the hell did you take away 25mbit bandwith? That just seems rather arbitrary... and this is the damn drone race too. Give it the phoons bay - 125 bandwith/175 capacity. What exactly you expect people to do with only 100mbit bandwith is beyond me - aside from just being capricious.
Even less useful than the hype in that config tho which is kinda lol - granted doesn't suffer quite as bad armor wise in some ways an interesting change but as a replacement for the mega... its a joke.
Arazel Chainfire wrote:
Hyperion:
Go back to the drawing board, and try to come up with actual, viable uses for this ship that are more than just fringe cases.
Pretty much all you needed to say there :P |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
229
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 21:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Izi55IzI wrote:
Furthermore what I hate the most is constant dumbification of EVE, what's next not being able to undock if not fitted to CCP standard or buying fitted ships from market?
Lose the tier concept all together, ballance ships individually, stop assigning new terrible roles to classic battleships. fire the people responsible, leave EVE the sandbox it is.
You've hit the nail on the head there for something I couldn't quite put my finger on - I've always hated cookie cutter fits and games where if your not playing using 1-2 specific fits your irrelevant - one of the things that drew me to eve was that you could mix things up a bit and people were constantly coming up with out the box fleet doctrines that worked. The reason why many of the changes/proposed changes recently (and there have been some great changes don't get me wrong) is that some of these changes are going down the road towards very stock fits and doctrines, closing the gap towards the middle and towards that point where you might as well just buy a prefitted standard ship off the market. (I'm still not putting it very well but still). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
229
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 22:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Ah yes, the Armageddon vs Dominix.
Personally, I think the strength of the neut bonus is being overestimated somewhat. Its a very cool bonus, but I think the impact of the domi's added tracking and optimal will be similar in power level - we'll have to wait and see. Please keep in mind that you will lose damage on fits that used hybrids before, but the fit will still be available.
I do want to look at the dominix power grid and see if it we can't find a better balance with the Armageddon, by adjusting one or the other.
I think the drone bay thing is kind of odd. Up the ship line you have Amarr with more bay, less bandwidth and Gallente vice versa, but at the BS scale you really can't give a drone ship less than max bandwidth, and you don't gain much from having more bay than the dominix already does. I didn't want to lower the dominix bay, so we just set the armageddon equal.
One last thing to mention: Personally, I really think sentry drones should move some, even if its only to return to bay. We need to talk some more about this internally and look at ways it can actually be implemented, but a change to this effect could have a very positive impact on the Dominix and I don't think its a very unrealistic goal.
Personally I think (as I previously touched on) these 2 drone ship changes have some great potential to shake things up a bit - I do think tho that taking the 2 in isolation and giving them another pass of tweaking comparing one directly to the other might be worthwhile, I'd especially like to see something to make amarr drones used more with the geddon rather than it just being yet another drone boat fielding gal and min drones.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
229
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 23:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Montevius Williams wrote:
This just proves that CCP have NO idea what they are doing with Gallente ships. Especially the Hyp.
To be fair I think to an extent CCP Rise is trying to make the best of a bad job when it comes to the gal blaster boats - unfortunatly the hyperion is such an ugly duckling in general (tho I know some people enjoy some niche uses for them) that IMO there isn't an elegant solution, it would potentially be better to pretend the hyperion never existed in the first place and redo it from scratch aslong as that didn't upset too many people. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
233
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
fukier wrote:
i think gal need at least one turret based fleet ship and i think a combat based mega with a fall off bonus instead of a tracking bonus would do this.
One of the gal blaster boats having a 10% per level falloff bonus wouldn't go amiss tho don't think I'd want to lose the tracking bonus to get it.
I quite like the new stats overall tho a little sad at the loss of the utility high on the mega but on balance trading it for an extra low probably isn't too awful a compromise.
|
|
|
| |
|