EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Minmatar

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 440	Posted - 2013.04.08 22:38:00 - [1] - Quote I had a dream, CCP Rise had rightfully given the Tempest a 8/6/5 slot layout and made the Fleet Tempest a shield ship again... And then I woke up. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 458	Posted - 2013.04.10 13:27:00 - [2] - Quote The Tempest could use a bit of speed, and perhaps a high to a mid. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 458	Posted - 2013.04.10 13:41:00 - [3] - Quote Alek Row wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: The Tempest could use a bit of speed, and perhaps a high to a mid. 7 mids??? I'm not seeing that happen at all :-) 7/6/6 could really be interesting (a nice surprise fitting wise). I would be happy with just 5 more speed and maybe a slight tuning in agility / hitpoints. It would go from 8/5/6 to 7/6/6 unless I'm missing something. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 465	Posted - 2013.04.11 09:26:00 - [4] - Quote Maelstrom: No change: OK Tempest: A little on the slow side or should become a real shield tanker with 7/6/6 Typhoon: Pretty good so far, maybe a little bit more grid/fittings. Either way, drastic changes from this point would probably upset more people than they would please. Just tweaks needed I think. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 468	Posted - 2013.04.11 13:58:00 - [5] - Quote Nope. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 468	Posted - 2013.04.12 10:17:00 - [6] - Quote Hyperion can kind of get away with a 50% damage bonus given the secondary bonus is an active tanking one, which, to many, is less useful than a target painting bonus.... I mean, at least that bonus applies to an effect scales with the engagement (!) But no, this does not mean that the Tempest isn't boxed in. We have far too many Armour battleships offering far more than the tempest does in attack or defence. The relative speed/agility advantage the tempest enjoyed as been diminished by new classes and the change of racial meta. And now somethings got to give. 7/6/5 8/6/5 with a shield/armor HP distribution to match. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 469	Posted - 2013.04.12 20:29:00 - [7] - Quote On closer inspection, the Tempest is pretty bad. I'd either go back to making it the slower combat BS with the HP to match, remove the missile hardpoints and give it 125/150 drones. Or 7/6/6 - making it a strong shield tanker, allowing it to be faster than a Megathron, with decent EHP and DPS (somewhere around proms bench marks) WITH a web and a point. Less neuting power than before, but oh well, you can't have everything. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 469	Posted - 2013.04.13 11:47:00 - [8] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: On closer inspection, the Tempest is pretty bad. I'd either go back to making it the slower combat BS with the HP to match, remove the missile hardpoints and give it 125/150 drones. Or 7/6/6 - making it a strong shield tanker, allowing it to be faster than a Megathron, with decent EHP and DPS (somewhere around proms bench marks) WITH a web and a point. Less neuting power than before, but oh well, you can't have everything. The Cobmat tempest was useless. Eveerythgin It coudl dfo the maelstrom could do better. And the difference in HP between the previous proposla and current one is NOT 30 K EHP. ITs barely over 1K bae HP that translates to aroudn 2.5 K EHP. The sgianture bonus is MUCH MUCH MUCH more significateive than 3 K EHP The people who wanted armour and attack ship have pretty much the perfect combo in the new phoon. Attack with turrets? Tornado... I'm ready and waiting for the Tempest to receive the full CCP Rise treatment tbh. As it stands right now it's reinvention, or oblivion tbh. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 472	Posted - 2013.04.13 16:25:00 - [9] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Also some people have been asking for an extra mid and an extra low slot in this thread, which shows that some people like to shield tank and others like to armour tank the Tempest, which shows to me the current slot layout is doing its job perfectly. lol. Nope. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 472	Posted - 2013.04.13 16:36:00 - [10] - Quote If the tempest was actually a shield tanker, then the discrepancy between the speed and agility of the phoon would make sense... And so would the anaemic dps, You could try to make a better armour tanker I suppose, (would require more drone dps and to relook at the speed/agility stats) but it really doesn't make sense given how many ships can do a similar thing. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 472	Posted - 2013.04.13 16:52:00 - [11] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: If the tempest was actually a shield tanker, then the discrepancy between the speed and agility of the phoon would make sense... And so would the anaemic dps, You could try to make a better armour tanker I suppose (with more low slots), (would require more drone dps and to relook at the speed/agility stats) but it really doesn't make sense given how many ships can do a similar thing. To me if you are going to fix the Tempest into a role, then make it an armour tanker. That way it can utilise its low sig which would be completely negated by the shield tank, and also the maelstrom already has a better shield tank so no point having two ships doing the same thing. But in my opinion I would leave the slot layout as it is, and then alter other attributes if it needs further buffs. Also the Tempest puts out roughly the same dps and the Maelstrom, so I dont know where your getting this idea that is has anaemic dps? Do you put 2 or 3 gyros on your armor tanking tempest fit? And the Maelstrom would have a better shield tank but none of the speed or utility. Looking around across the races, there are just far too many turreted armour tanking fleet ships, forcing the tempest down that road has always seemed like a mistake, especially considering many prefer to kite with it. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 474	Posted - 2013.04.13 17:35:00 - [12] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: And we've come full circle. Keep the slot layout, keep the sig/speed, & give the Tempest its previously suggested HP increase. There's no way it will be OP, and the ship won't be pigeonholed into a shield/armor role. So basically, the way you believe you fix the DPS and agility issues is by increasing adding +800 to shields, +500 armour and +300 to hull HP? Looking at the current stats, (eg compared to the Phoon or Megathron) it seems like it's quite high for an Attack BS. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 475	Posted - 2013.04.13 23:32:00 - [13] - Quote unconvinced. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 475	Posted - 2013.04.14 13:17:00 - [14] - Quote Tempest: Retaining it's super low BC signature radius, the new 7/6/6 Tempest trades the utility of the 2nd neutrialiser - on a ship known to be light on capacitor- for improved performance as a shield tanker, as well as increased flexibility, unpredictability and damage projection with armour as well as an additional drone. From target painters, dual prop/dual webs, tracking computers or ecm, the unprecedented 6/6 mid/low slot layout exemplifies more than ever, the ad-hoc minimatar philosophy and despite the lower than average hit points, operational speed, utility and damage projection profiles whilst shield or armour fitted allows the Tempest to compete in ways no other battleship really does. Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire +5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 6 turrets , 4 launchers Fittings: 16000 PWG(+500), 570 CPU (+20) Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500 (reduce shield regen speed by 20%) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5400(+87.5) / 1154s / 4.68 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 100 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1) Signature radius: 340(0) Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 477	Posted - 2013.04.14 16:29:00 - [15] - Quote A 5 mid slot shield tank is terrible, 6 mid slot shield tank is viable. Given that you'll have 6 lows to play with, (which could be used for nanos/overdrives/TE's/etc etc) it gives it something different over the other 6 mid slot shield tanker... I'd certainly argue the extra mid slot +drones adds more than that extra high slot, especially outside of 1v1 land. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 479	Posted - 2013.04.15 06:57:00 - [16] - Quote If the 7/6/6 slot layout needs more CPU then fine, lets give it more CPU! But your talking from both sides of your mouth re: mid slots - on the one hand 6 mids terrible for shield tanking, on the other OP for armour tanking ooookaaay.... Look, we're trying to give the Tempest something different, in a game where we will have several 5 midslot armour tanking battleships, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the tempest getting 6 if only to be better at one thing then the rest, and especially given it's other disadvantages. And no, you can't have low sig, highish speed and agility, high sensor strength and combat ship HP, it just distorts the whole rationale behind the changes and doesn't really do much to improve the jack of all trades, master of none situation. Another suggestion was this: The Djego Would probably like something like this: Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire +5% bonus to Large Projectile falloff Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 5 turrets , 4 launchers Fittings: 15000 PWG(-500), 570 CPU (+20) Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 6500 / 7000 / 6500 (reduce shield regen speed by 20%) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5800(+487.5) / 1154s / 4.68 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 132 / .12 / 101000000(-2300000) / 16.81s(-.37s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 100(+25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 110(+10) / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1) Signature radius: 340(0) 25% more falloff to compensate for the TE nerf, extra med to buff up the utility/tank, same dps(10% damage bonus would give it to much alpha), a bit more cap, a bit more pg and cpu after requiring 1 turret less, 10% more top speed, 10% better lock speed and a slight dronebandwidth nerf to not overlap with the phoon. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 480	Posted - 2013.04.15 11:51:00 - [17] - Quote The problem with making things stupidly fast is that you **** things up for the classes below. In this case, tempests would completely, barring price and a few minor dissadvantages, make huricanes and tornados redundant. If there was a greater difference between speed in ship classes, this may be possible, but BC's and BS's already cover too large a variation in the already congested lower ranges of speeds in Eve. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 480	Posted - 2013.04.15 12:19:00 - [18] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: The problem with making things stupidly fast is that you **** things up for the classes below. In this case, tempests would completely, barring price and a few minor dissadvantages, make huricanes and tornados redundant. If there was a greater difference between speed in ship classes, this may be possible, but BC's and BS's already cover too large a variation in the already congested lower ranges of speeds in Eve. Currently the tornado makes the tempest redundant. The tornado has more alpha and its cheaper and its smaller. If temepst would be almsot as fast and almost as agile (but still a little bit worse) it woudl have more HP than tornado.. a fair trade and fair roles. No, you'd make the Tornado redundant, let alone the hurricane. It's already pretty bad with the Raven and the Typhoon (the new typhoon is a monster btw) Give the tempest an extra mid, let it focus on armour ewar/utility or shield BS kiting and stop the madness. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 480	Posted - 2013.04.15 12:24:00 - [19] - Quote Wrayeth wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: The problem with making things stupidly fast is that you **** things up for the classes below. In this case, tempests would completely, barring price and a few minor dissadvantages, make huricanes and tornados redundant. If there was a greater difference between speed in ship classes, this may be possible, but BC's and BS's already cover too large a variation in the already congested lower ranges of speeds in Eve. I see what you're saying, but the key differences here are sig radius and tracking. The smaller ships' lower sig radius allows them to, when combined with speed, avoid fire. With the sig radius the size of a small moon, that's less likely to happen with a battleship. Additionally, while this Tempest modification would give it a greater ability to dictate range, it doesn't directly help its tracking, and it will fail to track things that the hurricane will own in the face. The tempest's extra slots and huge range advantage more than make up for the signature/tracking of the cane. Also, have you seen the sig of the tempest vs some of the BC's? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 480	Posted - 2013.04.15 12:55:00 - [20] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: The problem with making things stupidly fast is that you **** things up for the classes below. In this case, tempests would completely, barring price and a few minor dissadvantages, make huricanes and tornados redundant. If there was a greater difference between speed in ship classes, this may be possible, but BC's and BS's already cover too large a variation in the already congested lower ranges of speeds in Eve. Currently the tornado makes the tempest redundant. The tornado has more alpha and its cheaper and its smaller. If temepst would be almsot as fast and almost as agile (but still a little bit worse) it woudl have more HP than tornado.. a fair trade and fair roles. No, you'd make the Tornado redundant, let alone the hurricane. It's already pretty bad with the Raven and the Typhoon (the new typhoon is a monster btw) Give the tempest an extra mid, let it focus on armour ewar/utility or shield BS kiting and stop the madness. Still don't se why tempest cannot be as agile as the megathron at least. If it needs to stay in the fight ..t hen it needs a 7th turret. 6 mids is ok, but then you need to give it antoher 40 tf cpu I don't mind making it as agile as the phoon or megathron, but the Macharical is WAAAAY over the top. In the 7/6/6 slot layout however, you'd have the flexibility to do whatever you wanted without having OMGWTF stats out of the box with no compromises, which is what we shouldn't be asking for. Let's face it, eve has changed, and without causing more issues down the line, this is the best way to make the tempest move with the times. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 480	Posted - 2013.04.15 13:34:00 - [21] - Quote Akturous wrote: It's not very reasonable to make it more agile than a Gallente attack boat, but it should be faster. If it's less agile but with more outright speed, you can avoid getting caught if you're careful, but you won't have the "we can never catch winmatar" crowd. As fast as a T1 Mach or even close is too much, but it should be as fast as the new phoon that's for sure. I wouldn't mind losing a high for a mid or a low, as long as there's some more cpu and speed. I even like my amour pest, but really that's only because I can't use torps or large blasters. As it stands, if you gave the Tempest the 7/6/6 slot layout, a shield fit could be made faster than an active tanking Megathron if a low was sacrificed for a speed mod. There may even be more room for more speed or agility increases but what we shouldn't be asking for is reversing the current meta (Gallente needs to have faster base speeds to make up for armour and the fact they fight at point blank) - Minmatar, the Tempest in particular, should be given the choice: either brick it and go max out on tank, gank and damage projection, provide a platform for fleet support with ewar or go super fast and kite like your life depends on it. I think 7/6/6 gives it that option. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 480	Posted - 2013.04.15 14:24:00 - [22] - Quote Quote: +12.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage You must be high and drunk if you think that anything should have 9.81x 1400mm's worth of alpha. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 481	Posted - 2013.04.15 14:39:00 - [23] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Quote: +12.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage You must be high and drunk if you think that would ever happen. Do you realise that combing rate of fire bonus with the damage bonus actually gives a bonus of 56.25% overall? So by trying to combine both of them you could either go for a 10% bonus to damage which would give 50% overall, or 12.5% bonus, which give 62.5% overall. I've not seen CCP use any percentages in between. Yes, and you also give it stupidly high alpha and mostly destroy the Maelstrom as the fleet artillery platform. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 481	Posted - 2013.04.15 14:43:00 - [24] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Quote: +12.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage You must be high and drunk if you think that anything should have 9.81x 1400mm's worth of alpha. Not really, would make a pretty nice niche for the Tempest by being able to deliver a good alpha. I mean the Tornado already offers 8 x of 1400mm alpha, the Tempest should be able to at least put out 9 x 1400mm of alpha with a bonus of 10% per level. No it shouldn't. And with your bonus, it's more like 9.8, with a tracking bonus? High and drunk indeed. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 481	Posted - 2013.04.15 14:52:00 - [25] - Quote That wasn't my proposal, not even close. The tempest get's 7/6/6 slightly more grid and cpu with slightly less sig, mass and as a result, higher base speed than the current Tempest proposal. The HP has been normalised with other ATTACK SHIPS, because that's exactly what it would become. But feel free to continue thinking that a 10% damage and tracking bonus is sane. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 481	Posted - 2013.04.15 15:05:00 - [26] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Shield tanking on Battleship scale does not make the sig and agility useless. You would fit an anciliary booster on a 7/6/6 tempest. The tank would nto be there to resist a full onslaught, but to repair the damage you could not mitigate with mobility. Active shield tanking is the Maelstrom speciality. If you want an projectile active tanking shield BS then you shouldn't be choosing the Tempest A buffer shield tank and you might as well just go with CCP Rise's original proposal which everyone hated. if you only classify the ship by its weapon and tank.. then you woudl be right. But there is a huge difference. The maelstrom is HUGE and nearly immobile. The tempest is moderately small and could be made as fast as the megatron . Those are very different roles. If you do not want to increase temepst droen bay to compensate DPS. Just use a 8% rof bonus. Exact same DPS. If your going with a 8% ROF, i'd suggest pairing it up with fall off, especially after the TE nerf. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 15:22:00 - [27] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Shield tanking on Battleship scale does not make the sig and agility useless. You would fit an anciliary booster on a 7/6/6 tempest. The tank would nto be there to resist a full onslaught, but to repair the damage you could not mitigate with mobility. Active shield tanking is the Maelstrom speciality. If you want an projectile active tanking shield BS then you shouldn't be choosing the Tempest A buffer shield tank and you might as well just go with CCP Rise's original proposal which everyone hated. if you only classify the ship by its weapon and tank.. then you woudl be right. But there is a huge difference. The maelstrom is HUGE and nearly immobile. The tempest is moderately small and could be made as fast as the megatron . Those are very different roles. If you do not want to increase temepst droen bay to compensate DPS. Just use a 8% rof bonus. Exact same DPS. If your going with a 8% ROF, i'd suggest pairing it up with fall off, especially after the TE nerf. Looks like your finally making some sense now again. Fall off is not as good as tracking in a lot of circumstances. On a close range speed tank fitting you will be well within your falloff with a bonus or not, where as tracking is where you will struggle big time and where you can gain an advantage over your opponent by combining your low sig and superior tracking. (this was discussed earlier in the thread) The long range fit is perhaps where it would be useful, but then that would be better paired with a damage bonus rather than a ROF bonus which you seem to be opposed too. Also tracking would still be useful on a long range fit as artillery innately has poor tracking, and as many ships are going to be faster than the Tempest you will inevitably get situations where the Tempest's tracking ability is going to be sretched. I'm not saying fall off would be useless, and I wouldn't be unhappy with it. But I think tracking would be much more useful and keep more to the essence of the Tempest and the minmatar way of fighting. The point isn't to make an OMGWTFBBQ ship with perfect bonuses. Tracking on high alpha ships should be poor, or else they'd be even more broken then they are now, fall-off has way better synergy with kiting anyway and provides a range option for fleet fit artilery that doesn't completely overshadow the tornado or maelstrom with for example, almost 10 guns of alpha!! And I still don't think you understand the difference between a 7/6/6 tempest or mealstrom. And no, I posted an alternative with similar bonuses suggested by someone else a few pages ago. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2885041#post2885041 Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 16:05:00 - [28] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: There is a big difference between making a omgwtfpwn ship, and making a ship which is conceptually flawed and has little use. With your proposal you are cutting the edge of making the ship useless due to a conceptually flawed design. With a ship which is a little too powerful but has a sound concept you can easily tweak it, which is what you are failing to realise here. It's not a conceptionally flawed design, it's a design built around the way a lot of pilots fly the ship, IE, kiting, with provisions/benifits for those who want to armour tank it in fleets. Infact, it offers a lot unique things in both aspects without displacing the roles of other battleships or ABC's. Rebecha Pucontis wrote: I proposed the Tempest above and edged on the side of making it a little strong, then that way it can be bought back down. I could have done the opposite and edged on making it a little weak, but then people like you would also probably complain that it is too weak without actually looking at the bigger picture and focusing on the concept. Well it's TOO strong, way too strong. Strong enough to overshadow a few ship classes too strong and demonstrates that your not really clued in to the current meta, and how perilously close 1400mm's are to being overpowered already. Rebecha Pucontis wrote: If you really think the extra high slot is useless then why not go for another low slot instead of a mid. I don't understand why you are fixed on making the ship a shield tanker when it is far more logical to make it an armour tanker. This has been discussed way back in the thread, and in a way this thread is going circular with the same arguments being repeated now. Count the number of armour tanking battleships, vs the number of shield tankers... Then count the number of battleships with 7/5/7 slots vs the number of battleships with 7/6/6 - Which would be better for diversity? Which would most likely offer something new? AND THEN, look at which fit on a tempest offers the mobility and DPS people crave in this ship - and if you can't see why it makes more sense for there to be an extra mid instead of a low, then there's no hope for you. Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Your second proposal is a little better although I still prefer CCP's Rise's current proposal to be honest. Your proposal is much weaker and you have nerfed it to the point of almost uselessness in my opinion. That could be tweaked, although I inherently disagree with trading the high for another mid anyway and focusing on the shield. If you focus on the armour then I would have much more time for it. It improves shield and armour fits, HELL, according to Prometheus, a 6th mid armour tanking fit would be OVERPOWERED - not that I necessarily agree, but at least that's coming from someone with a bit of experience in the game. All at the expense of nuets, which required too much cap or to be too close to whatever you where shooting at - you get not just flexibility, but respectable performance, doing one of 2 tanking types - that is something no other battleship in eve will have, and it's that uniqueness which would make eve better off in the long run. Rebecha Pucontis wrote: The big issue with both your proposals is I just don't see any overall concept. It seems like a mish mash of ideas, but as a whole it doesn't gel. I see where you are coming from with wanting to make it a fast and highly agile ship and nerfing the EHP even more, but then at the same time you are prioritising mid slots for a shield tank which would achieve the opposite of this goal. Look at the other Attack battleships. I'm giving it similar MWD speed, even lower sig with HP's that are inline with it's peers - more importantly, I'm giving it the slots to do something different, to allow it to perform better in the ways many pilots already fly the ship without it shitting on other roles or ship classes. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 16:24:00 - [29] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: There is a big difference between making a omgwtfpwn ship, and making a ship which is conceptually flawed and has little use. With your proposal you are cutting the edge of making the ship useless due to a conceptually flawed design. With a ship which is a little too powerful but has a sound concept you can easily tweak it, which is what you are failing to realise here. It's not a conceptionally flawed design, it's a design built around the way a lot of pilots fly the ship, IE, kiting, with provisions/benifits for those who want to armour tank it in fleets. Infact, it offers a lot unique things in both aspects without displacing the roles of other battleships or ABC's. The problem with your thinking is that don't seem to realise that once you start fitting shield mods along with shield rigs then the small benefit which you were getting from the lower sig has completely gone. It is already hard enough to make the low signature work for you, prioritising the shield and to be honest we might as well just go back to CCP Rise's original proposal of a large signatured behemoth which everyone hated, but at least it made sense conceptually. I can see with your proposals you are not even considering the signature which is what was clearly very important to people judging by the outrage from Rise's original proposal and that is why I disagree with them. The niche I can see you are perhaps trying to get it is basically making the ship a fast sniping ship, because that is all it will be good for. And it will only be moderatley better, if any better at all than a tier 3 BC, which will still outperform it in speed, agility, lock time, cost, alpha and damage. So basically all the areas which count. No. Fit with armour if your super worried about signature radius. Now you have more turret range, or an extra point or scram, or an extra tracking distruptor or ecm or eccm or web or target painter or cap injector or MJD or AB etc etc. If you can't see how that additional flexibility isnt better than an additional high.... Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 16:34:00 - [30] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: No. Fit with armour if your super worried about signature radius. Now you have more turret range, or an extra point or scram, or an extra tracking distruptor or ecm or eccm or web or target painter or cap injector or MJD or AB etc etc. If you can't see how that additional flexibility isnt better than an additional high.... This is where you misunderstand. Its not that I think a high slot is better than a mid slot. It is that adding a midslot and it would be inefficient to fit the ship any other way than shield. You are basically pigeon holing the ship into the kiting role, which it will be outperformed in most areas by a tier 3 BC. Keep the high slot and buff the ship in other areas to compensate is what I am saying. That way if you want your kiting ship you can still have it, 5 mid slots is enough for a decent enough shield tank and a prop mod already. If you want an auto fit then you can fit it with armour tank, two neuts, and gain some benefit from the lower sig i.e. how the old hurricane used to be flown which everyone loved. It's no less efficient at being an armour tanker than your proposal, yell, my proposal has MORE ARMOUR HP than yours. With the same number of low slots. Are you seriously high or something? 6 mids means you can choose to have even more damage projection than now, or some other form of utility. Far from being pigeoned holed. You still don't understand the concept do you? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 16:49:00 - [31] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Wow, all I can say is you are an idiot if you have to keep reverting to the suggestion that everyone who thinks your ideas are bad are high. You come across like some high school kid. As everyone has said countless times, 6 mids is massively overkill for an armour tanking ship. Even a Scorpion which is packed full of bonused ECM only has two more than this. This has been suggested loads of time in this thread already but is clearly not getting through to you. There clearly is no point in prolonging this discussion any further. Wait, first i'm pigeon holing the ship as a shield tanker only, and now it's overpowered for armour tanking? AND THEN, you turned the Tempest into an insane Artillery ship that completely overshadows the Maelstrom and in the main way it's used (FLEETS!) and the Tornado and you tell me that I'm the one who's overwriting roles? Your completely all over the map. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 17:11:00 - [32] - Quote Either your not posting with your main, or you've been playing eve 7 times as long as you have. Also... Rebecha Pucontis wrote: There is a big difference between making a omgwtfpwn ship, and making a ship which is conceptually flawed and has little use. With your proposal you are cutting the edge of making the ship useless due to a conceptually flawed design.... If you really think the extra high slot is useless then why not go for another low slot instead of a mid. I don't understand why you are fixed on making the ship a shield tanker when it is far more logical to make it an armour tanker. ...your proposal is much weaker and you have nerfed it to the point of almost uselessness in my opinion. That could be tweaked, although I inherently disagree with trading the high for another mid anyway and focusing on the shield. If you focus on the armour then I would have much more time for it. I see where you are coming from with wanting to make it a fast and highly agile ship and nerfing the EHP even more, but then at the same time you are prioritising mid slots for a shield tank which would achieve the opposite of this goal.... ...prioritising the shield and to be honest we might as well just go back to CCP Rise's original proposal of a large signatured behemoth which everyone hated, but at least it made sense conceptually. ....The only niche I can see you are perhaps trying to get it is basically making the ship a moderately fast kiting ship, because that is all it will be good for. And then "As everyone has said countless times, 6 mids is massively overkill for an armour tanking ship. Even a Scorpion which is packed full of bonused ECM only has two more than this." Seriously. How about you re-read what you said? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 17:14:00 - [33] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Guys.. you are actign a bit childish and as if what you 2 decided would be implemented. You guys need to convince RISe that the tempest need soem fine tunning. Not bicker amogn yourself. If anything, this discussion is just sealing future of tempest as " forever unchachable" Probably, but more pages to this thread won't hurt much either. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 482	Posted - 2013.04.15 17:17:00 - [34] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Again, you clearly didn't understand what I said previously. Do you really think the flimsy hull will overshadow the maelstrom as the choice for serious fleets? No, the speed and agility of the tempest almost already overshadows the Maelstrom in fleets... Put them at the same price, give one MORE ALPHA and MORE TRACKING, then you will have gone light years past the tipping point. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 483	Posted - 2013.04.15 21:41:00 - [35] - Quote On the podcast/twitch thing it seemed as if CCP Rise probably won't make many changes until after live testing.... But it would be good to get some sort of confirmation. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 483	Posted - 2013.04.16 10:48:00 - [36] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Liang Nuren wrote: Zarnak Wulf wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: On the podcast/twitch thing it seemed as if CCP Rise probably won't make many changes until after live testing.... But it would be good to get some sort of confirmation. They completely skipped over Minmatar at the beginning when discussing the BS changes. Over half way done - still listening. They never get back to Minmatar. I'd say it's because Kil2 and both hosts are heavily Gallente pilots. -Liang Ed: Kil2 does say that he feels it's kinda cool how Caldari has an ewar hull and Minmatar has two attack hulls - a point which I actually agree with. Rememberign that we had to make a giatn outcry for them to perceive that race identity was more important thatn uniformity and minmatar should have 2 attack hulls. But I agree with you... its clear that gallente received much more attention, not that they did not deserve.. but other races also deseve it. And minmatar still have the LOOONG stanting issue of lack of tempest identity. To be fair, Gallente was always broken. When CCP Tuxford's devblog introduced the Hyperion, he half apologised for running out of ideas for the bonus and ever since then, almost every game design change or every module nerf has weakened Gallente disproportionately. Even after the hybrid rebalance no one was satisfied, and we're still waiting to see what lies in store for any ship previously focused on medium rails. Meanwhile, minmatar had some of the biggest rebalances ever - being reborn as Winmatar. There are still a few problems though. In some ways, Artillery is papering over the cracks between the Maelstrom and Tempest and in many ways the Old and the New Tempest is uncompetitive, and not really suiting the way players generally prefer to use the ship. Ideally, I'd restore the slot, drones and hardpoints Typhoon almost back to the way it was, keeping everything else changed including the bonuses. The 2 utility high slots would remain on the ship best, and most likely to need to use it (way better synergy with >40km torps than <50km Autocannons) and the Tempest, relatively low on flexibility given the existing weapons bonuses would get the additional flexibility 12 Mid+Lows provides. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 483	Posted - 2013.04.16 11:47:00 - [37] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: damm... lets kick the bucket! 3/8/8 with 3 turrets and 10% rof per level and 10% damage per level :P Where do I sign? :P Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 483	Posted - 2013.04.16 21:46:00 - [38] - Quote The Tempest is already an overground hurricane (except it can still fit 1600mm plates ), and it still kinda sucks. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 485	Posted - 2013.04.21 10:28:00 - [39] - Quote Tempest still needs a lot of work. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.24 18:30:00 - [40] - Quote You can't increase the tempests damage output so that it "works" in armour because then you create an armour tanking minmatar ship that out damages a blaster boat at all ranges. Shield Fitted with tracking mods, it's suddenly competitive on the damage output, but a complete paper tiger tank wise. Armour tanking, it neither has the dps or the ehp to be competitive, to be honest, it was never really good for anything but pretending to be a BC, and now that BS hulls have been normalised, is even less likely to be considered by anyone as the go to ship for a specific role. Hell, it can't even master the jack of all trades role any more as I see the new or old typhoon being superior in that regard. So, instead of trying to make the tempest better than X at Y, it should be made into the ship that either offers unparalleled flexibility with a 7/6/6 layout (even armour tankers lose more than they gain), or turned into a kind of minmatar disruption ship (8% rof, 12.5% target painting bonus) because what this game needs more of, is new paradigms instead of trying to turn a ship into yet another racial facsimile of the typical armour tanking battleship. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.24 19:23:00 - [41] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: You can't increase the tempests damage output so that it "works" in armour because then you create an armour tanking minmatar ship that out damages a blaster boat at all ranges. That is not true at all. Blaster damage is so much higher that this is simply a fallacy. Up to something like 18 km Blasters completely outdamage 800mm Autocannons. with same number of damage mods blasters outdamage AC completely inside tackle range, as they are supposed to. Not to forget taht blaster ships also bring extra drones to help with even more damage. Your basically proving my point. Blaster damage is so much higher than autocannons on purpose, the only real way it begins to look competitive is when you compare shield with armour fits. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.25 08:28:00 - [42] - Quote FYI, weapons rigs are just about the poorest type of rig you can use on any ship. And I think CCP Rises opinion of the tempest is pretty obvious. He knows it's broken but doesn't think the effort of a real fix is worth the aggro of the community generally resistant to change. Thought experiment. What if every battleship gained an additional slot? Caldari Raven 8/7/5 (regains its lost high slot) Scropion 6/8/5 (regains lost high slot) Rokh 8/7/5 (extra mid) Gallente Hyperion/Megathron 8/4/8 - 8 turrets, damage and tracking bonuses Megathron/Hyperion 8/5/7 - 7 turrets, damage and active tanking bonuses Dominix 7/5/7 - additional high slot Minmatar Maelstrom 8/7/5 - additional mid Typhoon 8/5/7 - regains it's high slot Tempest 8/6/6 - gets a mid Amarr Geddon 7/4/8 - gets a low Apoc 8/4/8 - new low Abaddon 8/5/7 - gets a mid Probably most of the outstanding complaints about most of the ships is solved this way and somewhat future proofs the BS class from changes to the meta for some time. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.25 11:52:00 - [43] - Quote Quote: Tempest is looking very good to me, some extra agility and speed would be all it needs now in my view. Perhaps a falloff bonus and combine the damage bonus also to top it off So basically, a bigger Tornado? /adds Rebecha Pucontis to the ignore list. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.25 14:11:00 - [44] - Quote He might want to make it cheaper in that case, and delete the hurricane. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.25 16:22:00 - [45] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: He might want to make it cheaper in that case, and delete the hurricane. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Thankfully CCP is sticking to a sound concept because the concept you were suggesting was very bad. CCP Rise indicated that a slot layout change on the Tempest was a bit too extreme, so you might as well forget it now and focus on something which is practical. Such as an increase in Dps on the current hull which is what I am looking for now. I'm going to do some maths and work out a good bonus which will put it just below the mael in terms of sustained dps, and a little below the Tornado in terms of alpha. Ill post up the proposal later when I have a bit of time. Funny as how it was not extreme enough to be done on the hyperion.. double values here.... clear double values. The tempest main problem is the slot layout. Seem that the tempest is simply cursed forever... I will not waste time makign proposals based on current slot layout because its nearly impossible to get a USEFUL ship with that slot layout on current metagame. Don't mind her. I've been around long enough to see them make this mistake over and over again. They've finally gone in the right direction with the Hyperion, and maybe with :metrics: in time, they'll realise they've made the mistake, yet again, with the Tempest. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 489	Posted - 2013.04.25 16:42:00 - [46] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Don't mind her. I've been around long enough to see them make this mistake over and over again. They've finally gone in the right direction with the Hyperion, and maybe with :metrics: in time, they'll realise they've made the mistake, yet again, with the Tempest. Tempest don't blasters or armor rep bonus and the Hyperion previously didn't had 2 utility high. The comparison between the Hyperion and Tempest is a bit excessive IMO. I'm saying is that I've been in this situation with the Tempest before. We still have the problem now, and we'll have it after - or worse, without a slot layout change. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 492	Posted - 2013.04.25 16:58:00 - [47] - Quote And look at it another way, the change to the Geddon was the most extreme, least desired, and right now, the most contencious change they could have made to any ship - and yet it was absolutely necessary and, beyond a little tweaking the best course they could have made. You had 3 battleships that not only trampled all over each other in behaviour/flavour as well as role, but in the wider context of the game, had too many ships trying to do the same thing (armour/fleet) without the diversity in mechanics to make it work. Sooo... they took drastic action. With the Tempest, although you might not immedately make the observation that it's role is competing with ships around it, looked cross radically, it's painfully apparent. You have a ship that needs 2 damage bonuses, plus an unwieldy amalgamation of drones and missiles, to give it a level of dps and damage projection that's only useful when fitted with no tank. And with armour, there's just too many ships already better damage projection, with the speed and ehp to mater. Beyond getting lectured by the alt of some noob who thinks it's a good idea to fit weapons rigs on a battleship - I already know where fuc.king with the speed/class role over lap goes. Like it or not, there has been significant power creep with the changes already made, which is OK, because of the strength of ABC's and T3's, however, thankfully, it's been towards making Battleships overall, more distinct as a platform than smaller existing classes of ships. All, barring the Tempest of course, which in some ways as a BATTLESHIP makes even less sense after recent changes, than it did before. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 493	Posted - 2013.04.25 17:25:00 - [48] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Beyond getting lectured by the alt of some noob who thinks it's a good idea to fit weapons rigs on a battleship - I already know where fuc.king with the speed/class role over lap goes. Do you realise your coming across as someone who has got their head stuck so far up their own arse I'm surprised you can actually see out to make any balance suggestions? Your proposal was absolutely awful, you were trying to set the Tempest to compete with the Tornado which as pointed out is a fools errand. As for not fitting weapon rigs on a BS,,, ok, please go and even have a look at suggested goonswarm fittings, Agony fitting suggestions, and pretty much any null entity which gives out fitting suggestions for BS's. Guess what, they all use weapon rigs. I'm sorry but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and that is becoming plainly evident. And how many of those entities use battleship in the way the hew typhoon (that spawned this discussion) is intended to be used? Weapon rigs are failure in 9/10 times in battleships. 0.0 doctrines a LOT of times are not the best fit, becauser they must allow a MASS of members to train fast to a specific setup and keep costs reasonable (although that does nto mean CHEAP) Gah, best ignoring those who don't post with their mains. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 494	Posted - 2013.04.25 17:53:00 - [49] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Exactly why are you comparing an Attack bc to a combat one? Why don't you compare it's stats to the megathron then see how well it stacks up to it's actual class LOLfits obviously with meta-levels shifted around for fitting, but note high slot usage on the Megathron. Megathron outdamages the Tempest beyond neut range. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 494	Posted - 2013.04.25 18:00:00 - [50] - Quote Or see my previous post Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 494	Posted - 2013.04.25 18:51:00 - [51] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: +12.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire. Pro tip, learn how ROF bonuses are applied before posting garbage with your alt. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 494	Posted - 2013.04.25 19:08:00 - [52] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Exactly why are you comparing an Attack bc to a combat one? Why don't you compare it's stats to the megathron then see how well it stacks up to it's actual class LOLfits obviously with meta-levels shifted around for fitting, but note high slot usage on the Megathron. Megathron outdamages the Tempest beyond neut range. And the tempest can apply damage and maintain distance from well beyond neutron/null So can the Megathron... Replace Neutron Blasters with 425mm Rails loaded with Faction antimatter and you have something that out damages the Tempest (650dps 36+30km vs 590dps 7+47km) at most possible ranges outside of web range... Whilst still fitted with 2 neuts... Sure, not quite the tracking of 800mm's but you'll be hitting battleship fodder OK with decent piloting. The Tempest won't even be capable of fitting 1200mm's without dropping all the nuets and the injector. And at that range +30km, remind me why you'd want that extra utility high slots again? I mean, if you're worried about things getting under your guns, the megathron is a superior choice. Are you even arguing that the Tempest compared to even the Megathron is OK? Or are you just wanting a little insight into why we all think it's bad? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 494	Posted - 2013.04.25 19:38:00 - [53] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Exactly why are you comparing an Attack bc to a combat one? Why don't you compare it's stats to the megathron then see how well it stacks up to it's actual class LOLfits obviously with meta-levels shifted around for fitting, but note high slot usage on the Megathron. Megathron outdamages the Tempest beyond neut range. And the tempest can apply damage and maintain distance from well beyond neutron/null So can the Megathron... Replace Neutron Blasters with 425mm Rails loaded with Faction antimatter and you have something that out damages the Tempest (650dps 36+30km vs 590dps 7+47km) at most possible ranges outside of web range... Whilst still fitted with 2 neuts... Sure, not quite the tracking of 800mm's but you'll be hitting battleship fodder OK with decent piloting. The Tempest won't even be capable of fitting 1200mm's without dropping all the nuets and the injector. And at that range +30km, remind me why you'd want that extra utility high slots again? I mean, if you're worried about things getting under your guns, the megathron is a superior choice. Are you even arguing that the Tempest compared to even the Megathron is OK? Or are you just wanting a little insight into why we all think it's bad? If you haven't noticed, the mega has 7 turrets and is losing the utility, that eft battle wasn't a good example since with the changes the ships aren't meant to be fit the same, as for long range, why would a snipee pest even need a heavy neut? It's going to be far outside it's effective range. And there isn't even a single gyro on the pest though you stack two on the mega, how do they stack when the mega is using, tes to try to match the pest's range. I have noticed, I'm pointing out that EVEN THOUGH THE MEGATHRON HAS NO UTILITY HIGH SLOTS it has more than competitive DPS even doing what the "new" tempest does, with a comparative tank. I mean, you asked to compare apples to apples? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 496	Posted - 2013.04.25 22:26:00 - [54] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: So you admit that in neut range the mega is out classed because of the similar dps and tank of the temp with the neut? If by outclassed you actually mean, is faster, more agile, has the same ehp, the choice to do more dps in or outside of web range or more dps inside of neut range with a comparative fit, then yes the megathron is outclassed (lol, no) Drake Doe wrote: And which would gain more from being tracking enhanced and with a tracking computer (mega and pest respectively) after the upcoming Te nerf? Which will become much better at applying dps with proper skills? And which will be harder to hit than the other? I want 7/6/6 slot layout - call the tempest the new ad-hoc distruption ship with the ability to brawl well with shields when required. The only advantage it has over the megathron is the spare mid - which isn't that much considering the number of 5 mid armour tanking battleships there are now. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 496	Posted - 2013.04.25 23:27:00 - [55] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Drake Doe wrote: So you admit that in neut range the mega is out classed because of the similar dps and tank of the temp with the neut? If by outclassed you actually mean, is faster, more agile, has the same ehp, the choice to do more dps in or outside of web range or more dps inside of neut range with a comparative fit, then yes the megathron is outclassed (lol, no) Drake Doe wrote: And which would gain more from being tracking enhanced and with a tracking computer (mega and pest respectively) after the upcoming Te nerf? Which will become much better at applying dps with proper skills? And which will be harder to hit than the other? I want a 7/6/6 slot layout - call the tempest the new ad-hoc distruption ship with the ability to brawl with good damage projection with shields when required. The only advantage it has over the megathron is the spare mid - which isn't that much considering the number of 5 mid armour tanking battleships there are now. Have you even look at the stats of the new mega? It's less agile and slower which is an important factor in lower ehp BSes. Also is neut range the only thing you judge by, considering a tempest can hit with barrage farther than a mega with null. I'm starting to lose you now here. http://i.imgur.com/7XWwUIM.jpg ** Those are with the new stats/slot layout balance changes (note the word NEW next to the ship name) etc - the megathron is at the bottom, it's faster, has the higher agility, more (well, almost exactly the same) ehp when a similar number of tanking modules is used. AND you keep on saying a tempest can hit further out, when I've shown this to be a meaningless statement because. 1) EVEN with 5 turrets, 425mm's will out damage 6 autocannons outside of web range using any ammo, with 7 turrets vs 6, it's almost no contest at any range, with any ammo, when you consider the megathon has 2 extra low slots for damage mods. 2) The Tempest doesn't have the option to do meaningful dps at range without completely sacrificing tank Either way, I think we both agree that the slot layout is no good on the tempest as there is more utility born via mid slots (or low slots) than High slots. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 496	Posted - 2013.04.25 23:30:00 - [56] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Drake Doe wrote: The tempest being the weakest? Of the minmatar maybe but nor period. I'd like to introduce you to the raven, which has a hard time applying any of it's dps. Do you not see that bringing it into line is another way of saying it's becoming balanced? So you know seek to change it from slightly out classed to Op? I'm looking at it from a Minmatar players perspective and considering why we would choose one ship over another. I've got nothing against giving the Raven further buffs if that is what is required though. One thing I don't like is that the Typhoon has become a better missile boat than the Raven so I wouldn't mind that being addressed in some way. So why shouldn't the other races gain something unique to each ship? Why shouldn't the raven gain another missile slot to differ it from the phoon to solidify it's caldari roots as the missile race and why shouldn't the mega display that it's made by the drone race through a similar fashion to the talos. It just wouldn't be balanced. Balance is about niches and roles, but just adding missiles and drones to suit dogma instead of stats isn't a good way to do game design. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 496	Posted - 2013.04.25 23:42:00 - [57] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: The problem with the image you've posted there is that is a poor Tempest fitting compared to a half decent Mega fit, and when I say half decent its actually very bad but it at least has two damage mods. You have no damage mods on the Tempest, ie you've gone for all tank and no gank, which is no way to fit a pvp ship. I'd like to see a good Tempest fitting vs a good Mega fit as then we would have something to really compare. It's a relative comparison that allows you (well, normal people with the mental facilities of an adult) to make clear comparisons. Obviously, remove tanking modules for damage mods and the tempests damage will increase at the expense of ehp. drop a plate and it'll go faster. Do you really need that to be illustrated? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 496	Posted - 2013.04.26 00:07:00 - [58] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: It's a relative comparison that allows you (well, normal people with the mental facilities of an adult) to make clear comparisons. Obviously, remove tanking modules for damage mods and the tempests damage will increase at the expense of ehp. drop a plate and it'll go faster. Do you really need that to be illustrated? What I'm saying is the comparison is kind of pointless. If you are going for an armour tank on the Tempest then you would not be looking at matching the tank of the Mega which is always going to beat it in that regard. Your trying to set the Tempest against the Mega on the Mega's own terms which in will inevitably lose at and so you are setting it up to fail. It's a relativative comparison, drop tank for dps and nothing changes between the two, the megathron will be ahead - it's not 100% zero sum but it's close, mostly because the megathron can do with 7 highslots, more than that the tempest can do with 8. AND if you really wanted to set up the tempest in a way it wouldn't automatically lose to the megathron, I'd shield tank it. I honestly just think CCP Rise see's the :metrics: and thinks there's no point trying to fix something that isn't broken enough - as enough people use it now that it won't matter. - But with the changes to the other BS's, which are all more closer in performance than some fear, the tempest will be left behind. AND yes, I see the bigger picture, almost every stat (beyond shield regen time, CPU and mass) wouldn't need to be changed, because of the fundimentality of changing the slots. Your trying your hardest to make it conform, put it in line with existing ships and current dogma. This is bad, this is how ships trample over each other, this is infact, pigeon holing to a higher extent than you realise whilst seriously upsetting the balance that allows a number of other minmatar ships to be meaningful. The slot layout change I suggested increases the capabilities of the ship as swapping a high to a mid is far from zero sum, both in shield or armour configerations for reasons I've highlighted over and over again. Instead of conforming dps numbers with adhoc bonuses, I've given pilots the frame work to better express how they want to fly the ship. Second guessing whether CCP Rise has the resources or courage to correctly fix the tempest like he did with the geddon and hyperion isn't how this works. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 07:18:00 - [59] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Take a look at the stats of the new pest and Mega, while the mega is slightly more agile it has a lower base tank than the pest which means at least one of the extra lows would need support the tank. The only reason the Mega has a higher ehp in that fit is because of thr higher hull amount on it than the pest, and it's already a CPU starved fit or else it would have a dcu II, did you even bother trying to stretch the tank as much as possible instead of making bad fits for two different ships (and no, it would only be a personal attack if I insulted you for doing so). And the pest is getting a pg buff which makes fitting arty much easier, which people already did. Also the pest will be harder to hit because of it's low sig radius which makes a big difference in 1v1 scenarios, it'll be hard to apply it's dps if it can't hit you. Their dpses will also become more closer due to the double damage bonus on the pest, you can eft warrior all you want but next time try getting fits people will actually use and account for upcoming changes. I guess you're starting to clutch at straws when your hypothetical 1v1 scenario assumes that the slower ship would be able to build up enough enough transversal to make it's 5-6% signature radius advantage matter against a ship with a 50% tracking advantage. Or when you say structure HP doesn't matter in 1v1 scenarios (lol) The +500 powergrid the tempest received IS INCLUDED IN THIS BUILD OF ETF - so quit complaining that i'm missing out the secret factor that is deliberately making the Tempest appeared underpowered. Sure, with 2 damage mods, a 6 turret tempest matches a 5 turret megathron in dps at point blank range - and so what? These are terrible, unrealistic builds - the point of them wasn't to show you how in 1v1 unicorn land, one would win against the other - it was to provide an objective basis to compare the supposed strengths of one ship in context of other battleships. Even Rebecha Pucontis is starting to rub the wool out of her eyes in this regard. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:14:00 - [60] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: still wrong Even with 1 gyro on the tempest vs 5 turrets and 2 mfs's on the megathron - the megathron still does more dps at point blank, is still faster and more agile, but this time with 10% more EHP. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:37:00 - [61] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Running out of straws You forgot to add explosive damage and cap usage and and and... Seriously, it's getting pathetic now. The previous (4 slot tank) tempest without DCU II's has 67918 EHP, (5 slot tank) megathron 79,988 EHP, the tempest has 250 more armour EHP (+1%), but much lower armour resists against the others damage type (therm/kin, vs explosive) And its still slower. Chart. Red = 5x Neutron Blasters, 2x MFS - Megathron Green = 6x 800mm autocannons, 1x Gyro, Tracking Computer/Optical Range - Tempest Blue = 5x 425mm rails, 2x MFS - Megathron Top graph, 0 transversal Bottom graph, 153m transferal - megathron Within 20km, you doing better dps with a neutron blasterthron (ignoring ehp) off with a megathron doing what an armour tanking tempest is apparently designed to do. Beyond that range, you're better with 425mm rails and antimatter, before even looking at ehp or speed. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:02:00 - [62] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: And can you instantly switch between them during a fight? So either the pest brawls outside the.mega's range it gets close enough to the point it's in the optimal of it's autocannons. So yes, the Mega wins on paper but when you account for what's being fit and what the other could do to counter it, it becomes a battle of making the right decisions, not a mega rolling over it like nothing. slow claps Drake Doe for suddenly realising that 1v1 comparisons are dumb. I did an objective comparison to prevent the "waaaaaaaaaa, that's not how you fit tha..." but I suppose there will always be one. The fundamental point is that the tempest is really limited, and has no performance envelope where it excels, that this is bad, and needs to be fixed. Especially as a armour tanker, it's pathetic. It gets even worse when we compare it with new sentry domies or pulse lasers or even just a megathron or hyperion (because despite the combat/attack bulls.hit the hyperion is almost as quick) using 6 turrets instead of 5! And yes, you've seen the actual strength of the tempest, but in the wider context, it isn't much, especially considering the sacrifices. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:11:00 - [63] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Running out of straws You forgot to add explosive damage and cap usage and and and... Seriously, it's getting pathetic now. The previous tempest without DCU II's as 67918 EHP, megathron 79,988 EHP, the tempest has 250 more armour EHP (+1%), but much lower resists against the other (therm/kin, vs explosive) And its still slower. Chart. Red = 5x Neutron Blasters, 2x MFS - Megathron Green = 6x 800mm autocannons, 1x Gyro, Tracking Computer/Optical Range - Tempest Blue = 5x 425mm rails, 2x MFS - Megathron Top graph, 0 transversal Bottom graph, 153m transferal - megathron Within 20km, you doing better dps with a neutron blasterthron (ignoring ehp) off with a megathron doing what an armour tanking tempest is apparently designed to do. Beyond that range, you're better with 425mm rails and antimatter, before even looking at ehp or speed. Your comparison is worthless, because you should use close range ammo for range < 20km. Barange is a long range ammo, and is superior in your comparison at longer range. Blasters being superior at shorter range is not something amazing either. That's the way of things. AC are not supposed to be supperior to everything, they are supposed to be better than blasters at longer range (>20-25 km) and better than pulse at shorter ranges (< 15-20km). That's always how AC were supposed to work. Now, I'm not saying the Tempest don't need help, but here you are trying to make the Tempest to appear worse than it is. And you shouldn't use the drones in these comparisons, they are only confusing the numbers and are not relevant for any range beyond 15km. And finaly, can't you use something better than a TC in this mid slot ? The Tempest have 5 utility mid slots, so I'm sceptical about using it as any other low utility BS. A second web, ECCM or EWAR would serve it better IMO if not in 1v1 BS fights which isn't its niche anyway, because the Typhoon and Maelstrom will probably do that better. :faceplam: Read my last post. And yes, there are better things to fit in the midslot, but that wasn't the point however.... AND I'm actually advocating that the tempest gets more of them. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:27:00 - [64] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: So I've just realized 1v1 comparisons are dumb but that's what you've been basing your argument off of? Moving on, objective comparisons aren't the best ways to measure ships meant to be fit so differently, and I do believe it needs a slot rearrangement, which in my opinion should be losing a high for a mid and low. Also domis will become sentry phoons with projectiles which I hate. I responded (foolishly in retrospect) to your plea to compare the tempest with megathron - given that a typically fit blaster mega out damaged the tempest so severely with 7 turrets, I decided to see what would happen if I replaced a few with neuts... low and behold, it still did more damage, was faster, etc etc. I overestimated your ability to see at just exactly what I was getting at, to see what apples vs apples looked like and extrapolate what would happen with different fits, you brought meaningless 1v1 examples like sig radius or armour ehp and thus descended down to this mess! And just incase that wasn't a typo, the tempest would never lose a low slot for a mid AND a low. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 14:26:00 - [65] - Quote Kane Fenris wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Drake Doe wrote: still wrong Even with 1 gyro on the tempest vs 5 turrets and 2 mfs's on the megathron - the megathron still does more dps at point blank, is still faster and more agile, but this time with 10% more EHP. i agree with you but i still wonder did you put cap boosters 25 in there so the ship looses in runtime too? cause you put navy (guess 400 cant see) in the other. An oversight. I was swapping meta levels so much to deal with the fitting constraints I simply forgot to choose the right cap charges. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.26 15:08:00 - [66] - Quote But because you've got less slots for tanking, you've got lower resists anyway. AND re: signature - +50% tracking > +5% signature Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 497	Posted - 2013.04.30 18:24:00 - [67] - Quote A web range bonus would be soooooo overpowered. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.01 23:20:00 - [68] - Quote Until we get some feedback I'm just going to leave this here: Unless every battleship gets +1 slot (distributed to taste and in the case of the tempest 8/6/6) accross the board and we mess with bonuses instead - enter the new Tempest: Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +8% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire +10% bonus to Large Projectile Falloff Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 6 turrets , 4 launchers Fittings: 17000 PWG, 650 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 7300 / 7400 / 6400 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5400(+87.5) / 1154s / 4.68 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .104 / 101000000 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 100 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1) Signature radius: 360(+20) The new Tempest exchanges turret alpha and ammunition efficiency for extended range with autocannons and artilery. With a high slot moved to a mid and a significant increase to CPU, the new Tempest receives much improved shield tanking performance with added damage projection, utility or EWAR within armour fits. With increased power grid, it's also possible to shoe horn artillery with a functional armour tank for the first time. And although straight line speed may be lacking compared to some of the other Attack Battleships, the Tempest more than makes up for this in align time and acceleration. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.02 06:49:00 - [69] - Quote 1) It'll never get the 7th turret slot the Machariel has, not without the removal of drones, and even if it did, that would completely invalidate most of your post as you'd be giving up that 2nd utility high. 2) It'll be significantly more agile than the typhoon, with a higher acceleration. In a shield fit, this could be further improved. 3) It's 6 mids, allowing you to feasibly stack which ever form of EWAR you have on a single target, you could trash the optimal range of a beam apoc to 10-20km using 2x tracking disruptors - whilst having 70km fall-off with 800mm AC's (barrage), or use 2 tracking computers to boost that fall off to +100km - imo it's borderline OP, but I suppose that's a hard fact for some to realise, especially those fixated on point blank DPS. Far from pigeon holing it into a shield fit, it FINALLY allows the tempest to DO SOMETHING MEANINGFUL when fitted with armour, as apposed to a a poor mans insert another 5 mid armour tanking battleship here 4) And no, you could fit a smartbomb or lockbreaker in that 2nd high if you wanted to as well. But that doesn't allow you to come close to making up the utility of what you could get with an additional mid. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.02 08:43:00 - [70] - Quote 1) Your entire post is based around the idea that 2 utility high slots is actually valuable. It isnt, as you've just demonstrated. 2) Compare the stats I've suggested with the other attack battleships. It'll have higher acceleration (lower mass) and better agility (see agility mod) - With the increased fall off and it's focus on med range, being the fastest (without trading slots for speed mods) doesn't seem like a balanced trade off. 3) Well you should test it out or at least look at the stats before forming an (incorrect!) opinion on TD's. With TC's, SB's etc it becomes even more important. 4) Your complaint focuses on point blank DPS being anemic - this is only true when it's armour tanking. AND even so, the point of the above isn't to turn it into another megathron. And also, the Tempest only out damages the Mealstrom when fitted with torps (!) 5) A 6 mid tempest could fit more tackle, more TC's, more webs/scrams/mjds/eccm etc etc - basically, far more options than a high slot, and in a fleet situation, it'll have far more damage projection with extra tc's or sbs. 6) Going to 7/6/6 pigeon holes it FAR LESS as a shield tanker, when compared to 8/5/6 as an armour tanker - because not only does that extra mid slot have, even though you still don't want to admit it, have significant value as an armour tanker, the high slot is zero sum in regards to shield or armour performance. (Unless you want to some how argue that shield tankers don't use utility high slots?) It becomes unargably better at both armour (mid range damage projection) and shield roles because that additional high slot can really only be used by a couple of things. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.02 09:57:00 - [71] - Quote Who actually flys the hurricane anymore? Eitherway, the concept of a "Glorified battlecruiser" is bad. A battlecruiser is really a battleship without the tank or the EHP - without the real speed, acceleration or agility there just isn't any point - and if it was good enough, I'd bet that would trample pretty hard on the two battlecruisers already for-filling that role right now. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.02 10:35:00 - [72] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: I still think 8% ROF and a 20% web range per level would give it a n unique role. Does not compete with rapier web range and make the tempest the gate camping BS role. Also its able to do soemthign the tornado cannot. Webrangebonus has no business at all with a tech I hull, also expanding the tempests teritory over to 'a bit of recon' is something that hopefully won't happen. And ye, we don't want a glorified battlecruiser, we got the fleet cane now, which should have approximately the same EHP as a tempest - while being much faster. One of the smartest posts in the entire thread. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.02 22:11:00 - [73] - Quote It's funny, I proposed the 7/6/6 +fall off bonuses on FHC and received almost unanimous approval. It seems some are only interested in turning the tempest into a hyperion with 2 unbonused highs, or a larger hurricane - both of which offer little to the game imo. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.03 11:27:00 - [74] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Krell Kroenen wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: And can be made into an excelent shield ship. And there is the gist of it, the main agenda for the 6 mids slot push is to make an excellent shield ship nothing more or less. And while having the 6th midslot might allow for some colorful gimmicks on an armor tank none of them really shine. Even by your own use of the words good in comparison with the word excellent shows your own thoughts on the matter. I am sorry that the Maelstrom isn't the poor man's Mach that so many people want the Tempest to be. But the matar already have a shield tanking projectile battleship. Better be excelent shield ship than a mediocre armor and shield one :P One second there... We fly minmatar, since when have the matari even cared about shield, armour or even hull for that matter. ;) It doesn't matter our hulls are flaming wrecks as long as we can dish out a tonne of damage. :) I think your confusing minmatar with gallente. Minimatar have always been about mid range attrition, utilising oversized plates or shield extenders and grinding down opponents unable to run away, and running away from everything else. In Battleship land, over sized plates have never existed, and until the changes to projectiles, royally sucked. The hulls still kind of need work, especially Maelstrom and Tempest, although the Maelstrom is barely still clinging on to relevancy by lieu of the fact it is still the best 1400 artillery platform. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.03 15:41:00 - [75] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Double neut not even close to payss off all the disadvantages the tempest have. And now the neutralizer role is armageddon place. No one will ask you anymore to bring a tempest because we need neutralziers alongside some moderate firepower. Armageddon does it way better now. Dominix already did it better then. If the Armageddon is a threat to the Tempest, then the Dominix was already overshadowing it. And, as I've shown, the new Megathron, with 5 turrets +2 neuts will do just as good. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 498	Posted - 2013.05.04 16:14:00 - [76] - Quote Tempest: A 200mill slow battlecruiser with 2x heavy neuts... LOL, Nope. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 510	Posted - 2013.05.05 19:37:00 - [77] - Quote Heh, this thread has dropped to 4 posts a day. At least Rise made a change to the Apoc this weekend. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 510	Posted - 2013.05.05 20:18:00 - [78] - Quote Avald Midular wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: Heh, this thread has dropped to 4 posts a day. At least Rise made a change to the Apoc this weekend. What change? My bad, CCP Rises last actual comment was on the 24th a couple of weeks ago. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 512	Posted - 2013.05.06 18:50:00 - [79] - Quote Another day, no more feedback. And this thread has died a death. The dead horse thoroughly beaten? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 512	Posted - 2013.05.06 19:48:00 - [80] - Quote Let's some this up: Typhoon: I'm happy with it, some aren't - mostly to do with the mix of drones and missiles. May be better with missiles than the Raven - but to be honest, that's the Raven's problem. Maelstrom: :S Good enough for now... Tempest: Blaugh Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 512	Posted - 2013.05.08 21:44:00 - [81] - Quote The Maelstrom has even less flexiblity to be reduced to second rung on either alpha or turret dps, in either case, turning the Tempest into the minmatar Megathron would be foolish for too many reasons. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 513	Posted - 2013.05.10 23:13:00 - [82] - Quote I think the people who don't believe it needs a slot layout change, amongst other things, are in the minority. And after testing the phoon on sisi, even with crap cpu, holy **** what an amazing ship to fly. The Tempest is a joke. I do a better job kitting with a domi (lol at 700 dps gardes @56km optimal) Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 513	Posted - 2013.05.10 23:30:00 - [83] - Quote It almost certainly needs both a slot layout and bonus change. Given the navy BC's and the new price tag, CCP Rises bigger hurricane nonsense has never seemed more out of touch. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 513	Posted - 2013.05.11 00:27:00 - [84] - Quote Kitting with auto's is dumb in the land of fast ravens spewing 600-700 dps worth of 10km/s cruise missiles out to practically infinity. I mean, what's the point of doing half that dps at only 40-50km? Or a third that dps with armour? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 515	Posted - 2013.05.11 21:02:00 - [85] - Quote Abandon all hope all ye enter here. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 519	Posted - 2013.05.12 16:41:00 - [86] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: I The only Tempest Fit I found that I liked used a LAAR and a LAR2. It would rep 980 DPS and put out 900 DPS as well. It has a bit more projection and speed then the Hyperion. It definitely was a low sec toy though. With a dual rep tank I can fit very little in the 2 high slots, medium smart bombs or heavy missiles, even then I often run out of cpu. With 3 damage mods, you have 640 turret dps with barrage. That's not much at any range these days: With Hail it's almost 900 dps with 3+18km but compare that with the phoon - almost 790 dps with fury missiles, with 100km range. And that's with cruise missiles, and not including drones - Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 521	Posted - 2013.05.13 11:24:00 - [87] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hey guys, sorry for the time between posts. I've been reading plenty and working on final touches as the feedback from sisi starts to trickle in. A couple small things I can say for sure - the Typhoon being 100/125 is intentional, I'm not sure why it was written up differently in the thread, but I've fixed it now, sorry for that. When the Tempest got re-billed as 'attack' we really only went part way with it, and I think we need to finish the job by speeding it up a bit more to make it really stand out in that role. I'm not sure exactly which numbers will be changing, but I'll let you know soon. I also want to say that I'm listening to what you guys have to say about the Typhoon, but I really believe this new version is still going to offer more versatility than your average battleship, while also becoming 'better' in most variations, as well as providing a clear progression for Minmatar players who have focused on missiles. I'm hearing from sisi that people are enjoying it a lot, and it was even popular in the SCL yesterday, which is a good sign I think. What do you think about the slot layout on the tempest, specifically the 5 mids and 6 lows? Any chance of making it more shield orientated with 6/6 mids/lows and +200 cpu so that it's more able to unleash it's dps? If not, could you increase the power grid and drone bay significantly please, fitting 1400mm's with something reassembling an armour tank could make it at least stand up to the Phoon or Maelstrom at +medium ranges? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 521	Posted - 2013.05.13 11:25:00 - [88] - Quote Grim Destiny wrote: New typhoon is awesome It does need a little more power grid. Consider bringing up PG up another 500 and it will be perfect.. Don't forget CPU. Also Rise, what's the deal with fittings? Old Tier 3 BS's fit with no issues, the Attackships and Geddon, massive CPU issues, if they all have tier 3 price tags, why the disparity? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 533	Posted - 2013.05.14 12:46:00 - [89] - Quote A better question would be, why does an armour artillery platform need 2 empty high slots that wouldn't be much use to it at the general ranges it operates in? A mid or a low would be far more useful, and even then, it would need a substancial power grid boost to not feel like some tier 0.5 garbage abortion of a ship that it currently is. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 533	Posted - 2013.05.14 13:10:00 - [90] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: The 2 empty high slots used to be powerful when NOS was useful Now .. well neutralziers you do not need more than 1 95% of time. And on the other 5% the armageddon will be superior... Not that you can fit 1400mm's +ANYTHING in those high slots. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 535	Posted - 2013.05.15 07:02:00 - [91] - Quote Wrayeth wrote: I'm perfectly fine with making the Tempest faster than the 'Phoon. Of course, I want a battleship-sized Stabber, so... -shrugs- Haven't you heard of the Fleet Hurricane? Failing that I hear sleipnirs are pretty good at being "battleship-sized Stabber" - seriously, we don't need more overlap in that direction. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 537	Posted - 2013.05.15 14:19:00 - [92] - Quote The slot layout is the dumbest thing about the tempest, utility highs are next to pointless if your working with 1400s. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 537	Posted - 2013.05.15 14:45:00 - [93] - Quote Understand that your firmly in the minority in that aspect. Performance issues stemmed from split weapons requiring twice as many damage or tracking mods as single weapons, and thus effectively having less lows. You can't fix performance issues of split weapons without removing split weapon systems. And Fly a fleet issue typhoon if you must fit missiles with your autocannons, there at least, you have bonused launchers to go with your x9.6 turrets, there you can also forfill all of your bigger BC fantasies too due to having real attack ship stats. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 539	Posted - 2013.05.15 17:35:00 - [94] - Quote The increased utility argument does not apply if your in favour of keeping a high instead of a mid or low. You are less predictable, have more options than, and generally more productive with -1 high and +1 mid or low, especially when, comparatively speaking, you have so few lows and mids to begin with. In a 7/6/6 or 7/5/7 tempest, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from dropping 1 or more of your 6 turret hardpoints for an additional launcher, if you are so inclined. (why conform amirite?) Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 539	Posted - 2013.05.15 17:42:00 - [95] - Quote Either way, there isn't actually anything stopping CCP Rise simply adding a slot arbitrarily in the special case of the tempest, i mean, they don't do it just because of :gamedesign: but then again 3 battleships already have the wrong number of slots and minmatar battlecruisers in the past have had more slots than their peers.... so all this high vs lows vs mids is really academic. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 540	Posted - 2013.05.15 17:51:00 - [96] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: In a 7/6/6 or 7/5/7 tempest, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from dropping 1 or more of your 6 turret hardpoints for an additional launcher. The high slot modules offer specific abilities which you will not get on a mid or low slot items. And lets be honest, you are going to fill every bonused turret, launcher slot with the specified weapon. My point is that performance matters, and that's why split weapons suck. If fitting split weapons was REALLY so important that you'd sacrifice performance in your main weapon system, you'd happy trade turrets for missiles regardless of how many turret spots you've maxed out. If that sounds silly, then welcome to how I, and I'm sure many others view the "cosmetic value' aspect of your argument. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 540	Posted - 2013.05.15 18:32:00 - [97] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Also using the logic which you are using, if we are going for pure performance, then we would find the optimal layout for the perfect pvp ship and make every ship have that particular layout. Also using your logic, no ship should have any unbonused high slots, as they are inferior to an extra low or a medium. No, it's not the same logic. Eve game mechanics offers limited, but real, alternative paths, niches, environments or roles, with weapons systems that are behaviourally different enough to provide real choice. Deliberately building inefficiency is only OK if it excels in a given role, otherwise your just pissing people off by making them train more, fit more mods, and waste more slots to accomplish a trivial level of performance. I personally don't believe projectiles and armour mix (projectiles have deliberately low dps for too many good reasons and thus need spare low slots for dps, and oversized shield mods for tank) - and given that we have at least 4 other t1 turret plus armour, ships, and that amarr and gallente have managed to have two of each, minmatar should have 2 shield based ships, one with alpha, and the other with fall off. CCP Rise mentioned something about armour artillery. If he were to go down that route, the ship as designed would have to be changed to forfill that role efficiently, in that context, would you rather have a tracking computer or damage mod or cruise missile launcher? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 542	Posted - 2013.05.15 19:20:00 - [98] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: The Djego wrote: A utility med for a TD/better tank options to outlast them at your range. Both options the extra med slot would provide. Also both option could be provided by giving the Tempest a falloff bonus as I suggested in my Tempest proposal a while back. Or by increasing the base shield HP. So if your statement above is correct. then I assume you'd be happy keeping the current slot layout if either shield HP increased, or falloff bonus was included? If what I assume is true though you and Pattern will still oppose it as you are fixed on the slot layout change even though the options I mentioned above will provide exactly the same benefit whilst keeping the slot layout intact. No one said anything about slot OR fall off. 7/6/6 would be with an 8% rof and 10% fall off bonus. The extra mid could be used to extend range even further, or improve tracking speed or improve lock range or fit lock breaker or eccm or mjd or... etc etc. If you want more turret dps, fly a Maelstrom or Tornado - that's what they excel at, and your just displacing one problem with another in that aspect. And in general on the DPS subject, if your just after high eft numbers, fly gallente, seriously. I've seen what happens when minmatar ships or projectiles do unnatural amounts of dps, gallente ask for boosts the very next weekend. I've got the t-shirt. I think, as I've explained before, minmatar have excelled when they use oversized tanking mods (no other race could use) to maximise low PG autocannons and limited tanking slots (eg rifter, rupture, sleipnir) to simply grind down opponents from beyond their range, or at point blank range vs ranged opponents. With battleships, that never existed, so minmatar battleships ALWAYS sucked to some extent, although back in the past, fall off an alpha used to be more viable, as did nosferatu. Welcome to 2013, the meta has changed, and now the Tempest actually needs a role (even if that role is utility), and not just MORE DPS, because the new phoon and maelstrom do that all too well TBFH. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 542	Posted - 2013.05.15 19:26:00 - [99] - Quote Kane Fenris wrote: as somebody said the spot where tempest could be as an fats ac ship is to crowded with machs tronados and galente blaster ships..... and i think hes right . one could maybe find a spot in between there but i think maybe a comletely new approch woul be much better. keep the two main charakteristics -keep it fast -keep the 2 utility highs screw the rest and think up something new maybe some smartbomb (bonusrange?/activation cost?) or energy transfer or some other crazy stuff for utility high slots and boost it into a comepletly new role which would make it distinct. new roles could be found! ....and thats in the spirit of the great eve sandbox. althogh i fear its way to late for such radical approach Too niche, leave that **** for t2. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 544	Posted - 2013.05.15 21:06:00 - [100] - Quote Rebecha Pucontis wrote: If you focus on using it with a decent shield buffer then its role will end up half way between a maelstrom and a tornado but not actually excelling at either. I would be interested in your opinion on why you think a shield buffer would be chosen over a tracking/falloff bonus when you can simply go for the maelstrom which will always out compete the Tempest in terms of shield? Why not just forget the shield and go for tracking/falloff bonus on the hull, and then make the Tempest excel at damage application. To clarify my thinking ill link the original proposal below. 1) It'll be an attack ship with a shield and armour ability - vs a very slow combat ship with +37% more active tank or a ABC with a 5th the hit points. 2) The Talos and Hyperion doesn't stop the Megathron from being an armour tanking attack ship, nor does the Abaddon or Oracle stop the Apoc from being an armour combat ship, why should it be different in this case? 3) And, it will have as many low slots as it does in your proposal, IT WILL ARMOUR TANK NO WORSE than it does now. Perhaps better, if you want to toss in things like cap batteries and or re-chargers for pvp/pve. 4) Shield tanking enhances damage application, which seems to be your no1 problem. Funny that. 5) The fall off bonus alone isn't enough, compare fall off with what a cruise missile phoon would do? In many ways, the slot layout offers more meaningful change than changing the bonuses 6) Oh, and there are just too many armour battleships, too many armour +turret battleships - the game is healthier trying to balance this out. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 544	Posted - 2013.05.15 21:50:00 - [101] - Quote Oh, I think quite the opposite, in many ways it puts the Maelstrom in the shade, but with 25% more alpha and the ability to active tank strongly, hopefully, the Maelstrom might still hold some value. Shield Tempest would be agile and ganky enough to keep up with fleets with ehp/utility to do something useful to ships it's own size, maybe. Armour tempest will be better than current with acs or artillery, with significantly greater range (with 7.5% - 10% fall off bonuses, pg boost and additional mid) for fleet stuff or general ewar/magic tricks for solo stuff Basically, it becomes more unpredictable and flexible with improved turret performance. I'll type up the final version later. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 546	Posted - 2013.05.16 09:32:00 - [102] - Quote A faster artillery platform with more dps and alpha than the maelstrom and only 10-15% less hp would consign the maelstrom to active tanking undocking games. I really don't want that to happen. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 547	Posted - 2013.05.16 23:30:00 - [103] - Quote I'll just leave this here: TEMPEST: Highest Align Time Fastest to lock (50% faster) A more efficient, more unpredictable and more versatile slot layout Improved fittings: 1200 PWG, +100 CPU Improved drone bay: +25/+50 ~7.5% increase to turret dps (800mmGÇÖs w/ 3x Gyros with hail goes from 895 dps to 962 dps - or 10.7 effective turrets) Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +7% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire +5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 6L; 6 turrets , 4 launchers Fittings: 16700 PWG, 650 CPU CPU Defence (shields / armor / hull) : 7000(less) / 7000(less) / 6000(less) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second) : 5400(+87.5) / 1154s / 4.68 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 / .12 / 101050000(-2250000) / 15.21s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 67.5km(+5k) / 150 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Ladar Sensor Strength(+1) Signature radius: 340 TEMPEST FLEET ISSUE The Tempest Fleet Issue borrows a lot from the new Tempest, including the additional mid, whilst overall still retaining the armour focused layout. Although it does not receive the new Tempests inherent speed, agility or scan resolution, the Fleet Issue Tempest is a much tougher customer, with massive additions power grid, even higher turret dps, and an increase to turret alpha that edges it closer to the Mach Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire +7.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage Slot layout: 7H, 6M, 7L; 6 turrets, 4 launchers Fittings: 19000 PWG(+1950), 680 CPU(+103) Defence (shields / Armour / hull): 10500(+884) / 10600(+369) / 9000(-961) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate): 5500(+187.5) / 1150s(-4.875s) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 130(-2) / .115(+.007) / 103300000 / 16.47s(+1s) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 74km(+11.5km) / 120 / 7 Sensor strength: 24 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.25) Signature radius: 350 Notes: The Tempest becomes a better sniper overall. With powergrid implants, a passive armour tank can be fitted with 1400GÇÖs without the need for fitting mods. Combined with the new slot layout that increases mid slots vital for damage projection and fleet support, at the expense of an high slot which, with 1400s had limited use and even less power grid to utilise. CPU has also been improved, allowing for stronger passive, and in some cases, active shield tanking that has further synergies with autocannons allowing the Tempest to provide the nimble, anti BC support in a way unique to the nascent cruise laden Typhoons. With the heavy Maelstrom retaining the Turret Alpha, active and passive shield tanking crowns, and the Typhoon remaining the speed and damage projection king, each Minmatar Battleship now has a distinct and meaningful place within a matariGÇÖs hanger bay. Comments: Basically, I wasn't going for a complete realignment, just a better compromise - ehp has been shaved, a high slot has been lost, capacitor still remains low and without implants, you still won't be able to fit everything you want with artillery. But overall, itGÇÖs a more focused projectile platform, has more agility and scan res, more turret dps and dps overall. With ACGÇÖs, itGÇÖs supposed to be a ship with magic tricks, 1vs1, you win not with raw dps or ehp, but by being unpredictable in ways 2 heavy neuts could rarely be. That being said, it is more competitve with the phoon and megathron with the above. Re: The slot layout: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3033987#post3033987 I decided to ditch the ROF+Fall off bonus because it was problematic. Turret dps was too low for extreme fall off to matter, and compared to new sentry drones and cruise missiles, it didn't make much sense and/or broke more than it fixed. I considered increasing turret alpha for about 10 minutes, but decided that EVE online doesn't need more alpha right now, and that the tipping point between the Maelstrom and Tempest as far as alpha is concerned, is more finely balanced than most realise, and ******* that up would result in a Maelstrom fix down the line. That being said, itGÇÖs fundamentally a better sniper, for armour, fleets or otherwise, and will do the most turret dps at range exchanging 7% more dps, for 7% less alpha than the Maelstrom. It loses a high (dps) in exchange for a larger drone bay keeping the rest of the dps roughly the same in absolute terms. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 548	Posted - 2013.05.17 07:48:00 - [104] - Quote Don't feed the troll. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 548	Posted - 2013.05.17 08:11:00 - [105] - Quote Don't forget that Rate of Fire Bonus isn't the same as Resistance Bonus, and that resistance bonuses got nerfed for completely different reasons - namely, they where too strong compared to active tanking bonuses. And the Maelstrom isn't popular because of DPS, it's popular because of alpha, tanking and ehp. You should be embarrassed if you took the trolls suggestion seriously. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 549	Posted - 2013.05.17 16:27:00 - [106] - Quote Navy Hurricane.... Or Tempest...... /o\ Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 551	Posted - 2013.05.17 17:56:00 - [107] - Quote Funnily enough, the New new Tempest is still the least agile, and almost the slowest attack ship of the lot. GG Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 551	Posted - 2013.05.17 18:18:00 - [108] - Quote Just checking with 1v of the original stats: The Tempest going from combat to attack... -0.4 seconds align time -1000 Shields -800 Armour -300 Hull +7m/s A maximum of 900 turret dps at 3km (vs 900 cruise missile dps out to 100km on the phoon) +500 more armour HP vs a megathron that has +2 more low slots. wtfisthissh!t?.jpg Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 551	Posted - 2013.05.17 18:19:00 - [109] - Quote Suliux wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: The other option is Rise may be waiting to see the statistics after odyssey expansion has been released to see what changes are needed, if so then it will be a long wait. Would be nice to hear what Rise's opinion is on any future possible changes to the Tempest. Like with the Stabber - we'll get +25mbit drone buff down the road which will fix it - right? He was too busy telling everyone not to panic a few days ago. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 555	Posted - 2013.05.17 23:08:00 - [110] - Quote What is the Tempests role? What is it designed to do better than any ship or size class exactly? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 555	Posted - 2013.05.17 23:38:00 - [111] - Quote The stabber uses OVERSIZED plates or extenders to supplement EHP that is on average, high for ships with that utility or dps. Without XL extenders or 3600mm plates, the chances of a faster tempest doing anything but terrible impression of mach are remote. This all gets very depressing when you remember that the Tempest is now set to double in price too. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 559	Posted - 2013.05.18 17:05:00 - [112] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Rebecha Pucontis wrote: The Tempest still has a role, it is just the roles are not handed to us on a platter as with some of the other ships, and sort of the point of the Tempest is it doesn't have one specific role but can fufill a few different ones much like the hurricane. I can see a few roles quite clearly for it now, but because it's attributes are a little underwhelming, it doesn't particularly perform well. I don't think we should be focusing on trying to completely redesign the Tempest, but instead work with what is there and find ways in which Rise could perhaps increase its attributes to make it work. Two roles it can do for a start. 1 - Close range active armour and dual nuets (armaggeddon doesn't overlap too much as it has no gunnery bonus, and its nuet bonues are range bonus which aren't useful for close range) 2 - Long range shield and artillery fit (with cruise missiles it out-damages the Tornado, and has much greater EHP, but currently the benefits of the Tornado perhaps outweigh any small advantage you get from the Tempest) I'm sure there are a few more roles also which it could be used for once people start playing round with it. Personally I think combining the damage bonus into a single bonus giving the same dps as before, and then adding another bonus such as tracking or falloff would fix the Tempest and make it far more usable. We need to give some realistic suggestions to CCP Rise though if we are going to get any changes at all. The armageddon Does overlap that. It can do basically almost as much damage as the tempest using torpedoes and drones. That with superior slot layout. Also active tanked and dual neuts is NOT a role, its a FAIL fit because you will cap yourself too fast. Logn range arti with shield is maelstrom ROLE! THe maesltrom is WAy superior there. So No there is no realistic situation you would prefer the tempest over other ships. That is why I'm saying increase its attributes such as dps and damage application so it performs better. As I stated earlier I keep that CCP shoudl have changed BOTH maesltrom and tempest. Change tempest into 7/6/6 8.5% rof bonus and 7.5% shield boost bonus. There you have your close range brawler. Strong, powerful and minmatarish. Maelstrom Focus in fleet operations. 5% Damage per level (yes lower dps, but I said FOCUS) and 10% shield Hp per level. Yes HP, what you use in a fleet. Both ships have distinct roles that are not overshdowed by anything else. Also the malestrom stop being passed in favor of ARTI abaddons that is somethign stupid that shows things are wrong. CCP giving bonuses to minmatar hulls that perfectly suit their intended roles? Don't be silly... Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 559	Posted - 2013.05.18 18:41:00 - [113] - Quote Combat ship /= Fleet Ship Megathron and Apoc are both the fleet battleships for there race. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 568	Posted - 2013.05.21 13:08:00 - [114] - Quote Hyperions speed should be nerfed to be inline with the other combat ships. @CCP Rise, how about giving the Tempest an extra Mid slot. 8/6/6, keep it's high mass, keep it's ****** capacitor, keep it's shite power grid and cpu, it's 2 damage bonuses on 6 that aren't worth 1, keep the fact that the raven and typhoon do substantially more dps outside neut range, and that the megathron and hyperion do more within neut range. Give it +1 more slot than it's peers, like you did to the old Cyclone vs the other BC's before the tier 2's, if the rules are flexible enough for 3 battleships to have 1 less slot, surely there flexible enough for 1 battleship to have 1 more slot. It's the option with the least Q/A, it's the option that enables the greater variety of emergent game play, it's the option that sets it apart from it's piers, without overwhelming or over righting them, and you probably make the most people happy. So CCP Rise... What do you say? (I'm on my knees here. Last ditch saloon and all.) Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 571	Posted - 2013.05.21 14:24:00 - [115] - Quote Kane Fenris wrote: Pattern Clarc wrote: @CCP Rise, how about giving the Tempest an extra Mid slot. 8/6/6, keep it's high mass, keep it's ** capacitor, keep it's shite power grid and cpu, it's 2 damage bonuses on 6 that aren't worth 1, keep the fact that the raven and typhoon do substantially more dps outside neut range, and that the megathron and hyperion do more within neut range. problem: 1 low will be used for fitting mod so it would be like you made it 8/6/5 -> i'd rather have it 7/6/6 The slot would be used to fix whatever perceived issue we all have with the tempest for our specific use case. That's the point. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 571	Posted - 2013.05.21 14:32:00 - [116] - Quote If I was flying a regular Megathron vs a Kiting tempest, What would happen if I fitted rails, a couple of nano's and and weapon mods? A Tempest can't counter, AC's don't have the damage at range, the Tempest doesn't have the low slots to make up the speed advantage or build up any sort of transversal, and we all know what happens when we try to fit 1400mms or active tanking mods on the thing. Meanwhile, a Megathon (perhaps the least optimal out of Megathron, Hyperion, Phoon or Raven to compare to), if it wanted to, could get so close to a Tempest in performance it didn't matter (this is before the changes to speed and hit points). When a pony is so bad it it's one trick, its best to lovingly put it down. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 575	Posted - 2013.05.21 22:17:00 - [117] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Zarnak Wulf wrote: Anabella Rella wrote: Looks like it's time for me to get training for those T2 large blasters, rails and lasers or, buy a stack of Typhoons. The writing was on the wall over 15 months ago. I have all my large weapon specializations to 4 and all my racial BS to 5. R.I.P. Tempest. Tempest was never good. Relatively speaking, it was good when the multispec of doom or the sensor damp or doom or the nos of doom ruled, when tornados and maelstroms didn't exist, and when 1400mm's could sometimes take battleship down to structure in a volley. Basically, 5 years ago. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 575	Posted - 2013.05.21 22:35:00 - [118] - Quote Also, if CCP Rise was really honest about making a bigger battlecruiser for the Tempest, he would have started with combat battlecruiser stats for everything except the power grid and slots, and added or subtracted were necessary. What we have now is a ship that's basically incompatible with the type of gangs that concept seemed to be centered around, is horribly inefficient at dealing with BC's compared to the options now available, and is pretty much pray to all of it's peers. Basically, I'm starting to believe that the dev's think the tempest is actually fine, the numbers will reflect it post release and that we're just over reacting - not the, we want to fix it but we don't know how.... :s Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc Aperture Harmonics 578	Posted - 2013.05.22 17:17:00 - [119] - Quote Ninja buff indeed. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

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.