EVE Search - Sticky:[Odyssey] Navy Battlecruisers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Odyssey] Navy Battlecruisers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 62	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:02:00 - [121] - Quote votes for swapping the Brutix for a Myrmidon hull The bonuses can stay like they are, just let us see more of the Myrm hull and stop there being 4 variations of the Brutix! Unless..... you have another plan up your sleeve CCP?
Narjack CragCO 2	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:12:00 - [122] - Quote Katsami wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: [quote=Perihelion Olenard]Why are navy BCs necessary? ... Why are these particular ships necessary? Why? Because CCP is accommodating a subset of players. There were many players that raged and still rage about the BC nerf. The boats they have been wanting either back or have never gotten are now provided. This somewhat satisfies the bitter pilots who wanted their old Hurricane back, raged about the Drake nerf, hate that worthless armor rep bonus on the Brutix, and gives the Amarr Pilots a BC with a glorious 5th Mid. The boats will be more expensive but they probably hope that it will stop the constant whining they hear from us about the "great BC Nerf." Pretty smart really.
Pelea Ming Prostitutes Are Always Wlling 101	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:18:00 - [123] - Quote May Wanderdriven wrote: If they are doing that, then by all means, do it. But the problem with that is that the amarr may be losing it's diversity. Still it's far less worse than having no cap AT ALL. I'll want to hear from CCP about it to believe it though. And I agree with you. The current problem is pretty severe in that CCP is pretty much removing all hull boosts for reducing cap of lasers, isn't really doing anything to the cap of the hulls, and is remaining firmly entrenched in their silence about whether they are going to fix the cap draw of lasers (or at least stick in something specifying they use less cap when fitted to such and such hull types), and you'd think that rather then getting stuck with everyone constantly bitching at them to do something about the cap, they'd just go and tell us if they were going to do this... instead they maintain their silence, which is starting to make me think that they aren't speaking because they actually intend to go tell us to just screw ourselves.
Pelea Ming Prostitutes Are Always Wlling 101	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:21:00 - [124] - Quote Alyssa Haginen wrote: LP prices are too high..a navy bs hull for only 25k lp more then a navy bc hull. 75k would make sure these hulls stay at a fair and balanced price. The way its set up now it puts navy bc prices at right around 200mil. Edit-Command ship hulls are in the mid 200's so why would I buy a navy bc hull. Every other navy hull is just over twice the price of its normal variant with the exception of the frigs. That would put the target average price for navy bc hulls at about 160mil. ^^^&Exactly this. Yes, I do overall like what I see with these Navy BC hulls, don't get me wrong... but the LP store prices should be set to properly reflect scaling of hull sizes and etc. There should be no reason for a BC to just only marginally less then a standard BS hull in the LP store. (Note that I don't make mention of market prices, because, hell, let that piek to whatever it wants to be, LP store purchases are there for the smart to make use of.)
Alsyth 20	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:21:00 - [125] - Quote Why no Faction Myrmidon? Not logical. Unless you plan on swapping the EOS in a Myrm hull. Brutix looks good. It's a proper oversized Thorax (or undersized Megathron). Harbinger seems good. Nice shield ship with 5 meds. Hurricane is what it should have stayed (minus the ehp buff). The Faction one should have got another medslot to allow for better shield tanking, like Harbinger. Drake gets back some range and accuracy it lost with your (very bad) HML nerf, but has less dps and tank than the old T1. And seems as impossible to fit as Nighthawk. Fixing HML which are totally broken and only useful on Tengus is something you need to do before looking at any HML ships.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 174	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:22:00 - [126] - Quote Narjack wrote: Katsami wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: [quote=Perihelion Olenard]Why are navy BCs necessary? ... Why are these particular ships necessary? Why? Because CCP is accommodating a subset of players. There were many players that raged and still rage about the BC nerf. The boats they have been wanting either back or have never gotten are now provided. This somewhat satisfies the bitter pilots who wanted their old Hurricane back, raged about the Drake nerf, hate that worthless armor rep bonus on the Brutix, and gives the Amarr Pilots a BC with a glorious 5th Mid. The boats will be more expensive but they probably hope that it will stop the constant whining they hear from us about the "great BC Nerf." Pretty smart really. But those guys deserve to be unhappy, because they're dumb.
Pelea Ming Prostitutes Are Always Wlling 101	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:28:00 - [127] - Quote Sal Landry wrote: Deerin wrote: Drake has NO damage bonus. It will be out damaged by regular drakes AND it loses resist bonus, which is the strongest bonus in game imo. So in total I believe Drake NI will be....meh at best.. Slightly less dps with scourge, but 33% more dps with non-kinetic ammo and a damage application bonus that might let it use furies efficiently in PvP, instead of just the same old faction ammo. But, wouldn't an explosion velocity bonus be better then an explosion radius bonus? After all the explosion still has to expand to it's outermost limits regardless, and if it's doing that at the same speed as always, doesn't that mean that something using speed tank won't still effectively 'dodge' some of it? whereas, with the explosion velocity bonus, it would more directly equate to a 'tracking speed' style bonus in that it would be more likely to defeat a speed tank.
Pelea Ming Prostitutes Are Always Wlling 101	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:32:00 - [128] - Quote Little Dragon Khamez wrote: I see it differently, now we have two versions of the drake that are not worth flying. So go and get your hard on for the new proposed Raven which is getting a 7th mid slot and put your old passive tank on that, sheesh.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 105	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:47:00 - [129] - Quote Major Killz wrote: Little Dragon Khamez wrote: I see it differently, now we have two versions of the drake that are not worth flying. Well then you are blind. The Drake does seem to be very strong and will do signif more damage than the prenerf Drake to frigates. Which means nano-Drake is back with a vengeance. The Harbinger made out well too. Only the Brutix and Hurricane are terribub. CCP has it out for Minmatar. Still! I do not approve or disapprove of these ships. - killz 6 launchers at fifty percent bonus equals 9 launchers, how many has the navy version got again? Plus no damage bonuses or resist bonuses. A rof bonus would have been better, and you call me blind... lol
Narjack CragCO 3	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:49:00 - [130] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Narjack wrote: Katsami wrote: Vimsy Vortis wrote: [quote=Perihelion Olenard]Why are navy BCs necessary? ... Why are these particular ships necessary? Why? Because CCP is accommodating a subset of players. There were many players that raged and still rage about the BC nerf. The boats they have been wanting either back or have never gotten are now provided. This somewhat satisfies the bitter pilots who wanted their old Hurricane back, raged about the Drake nerf, hate that worthless armor rep bonus on the Brutix, and gives the Amarr Pilots a BC with a glorious 5th Mid. The boats will be more expensive but they probably hope that it will stop the constant whining they hear from us about the "great BC Nerf." Pretty smart really. But those guys deserve to be unhappy, because they're dumb. They are not dumb. They just have different opinions and CCP is wise in remembering to satisfy their customers as best they can. And its a particularly difficult player base to do that with I think.

Catherine Laartii Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors 2	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:51:00 - [131] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: May Wanderdriven wrote: Catherine Laartii wrote: May Wanderdriven wrote: Why on earth there is no cap bonus for the harbinger navy? don't you guys know that cap is life? what's wrong with you? why do you insist of ruining the Amarr? Pretty sure that with the recent ship rebalances for amarr that CCP finally understood that the only sensible, straighforward way to fix amarr is to half the cap usage on the guns, instead of, you know, screwing over the ships by giving them bonuses to allow them to use the actual laser weapon in question. Or, more likely, they could just be rolling full steam ahead without even considering that and they'll all become useless hulks with the exception of the drone/neut boats. If they are doing that, then by all means, do it. But the problem with that is that the amarr may be losing it's diversity. Still it's far less worse than having no cap AT ALL. I'll want to hear from CCP about it to believe it though. Errr.... You people do realize that this Navy Harb got an additional mid slot and more grid, right? So you can fit a cap booster in addition to your old fit. And last I checked, cap booster > no booster in PvP. So this is much much better than the cap bonus. But I'm sure if you whine and cry enough they can swap the tracking bonus for your old cap bonus, and then you can fit a tracking computer in the mid to get your tracking... :-/ Back in the day Ivy League actually taught players not to be complete idiots. What happened? The issue was never about how to use the ship. It's the fact that amarr ships in question that use lasers have a bonus wasted on fitting the actual guns. This idiotic fact is compounded by the realization that since their inception, no effort has been made on the part of CCP to simply REVERSE THE GODDAMN ROLES. I am not saying they should make it easier to fire them on the ships themselves; I am saying the cap usage bonus should be transferred over to the lasers, so the ship has the same option of two combat bonuses just as any other t1 or faction boat.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 105	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:51:00 - [132] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: Little Dragon Khamez wrote: I see it differently, now we have two versions of the drake that are not worth flying. So go and get your hard on for the new proposed Raven which is getting a 7th mid slot and put your old passive tank on that, sheesh. Now that is an idea worth following up on. I always enjoyed the raven. Damn fine mission ship, back in the day.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1184	Posted - 2013.04.10 22:53:00 - [133] - Quote Katsami wrote: You are arguing from a perspective outside the context of the game. Inside the game, these new ships do very little to expand combat. They are extremely redundant and under-powered in terms of price. You are arguing for the addition of anything of that cannot realistically have a significant effect on the meta, just because it's new. ... Why are these particular ships necessary? This is a different and more substantive argument than "Why is this new thing necessary?" and I agree, this proposed content is as underwhelming as content can get, the ships are going to be of crappy and overpriced to the point where I kind of wonder what CCP Ytterbium was thinking when he put those numbers and bonuses together. However that's an argument about the quality and usefulness of the content, the position is basically "If they're going to be this useless they may as well not exist at all." Which is fine having good content that players will actually like and make use of is obviously important. Its still the case that none of the content in the game needs to be there. Even in in-game terms you don't need dreadnaughts to take down structures or other capital ships, you don't need recon ships. There's no point arguing that something isn't necessary when everything is arbitrary anyway, the actual argument is about whether or not the content actually has a positive effect on the game.
Catherine Laartii Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors 2	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:00:00 - [134] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: May Wanderdriven wrote: so you suggest that forcing you to stick a cap booster in the mid will increase fitting variety? I don't see how. You run out of cap with a standard Harbinger if you do anything more than just fire the lasers. Even a long point tips you over that edge. It's a laser ship, you can't expect it to be permanently cap stable whilst running everything. In order for Amarr to have a valid laser ship that could continue to fight for longer than brief bursts without using any cap booster it would need a hell of a lot more than a 50% bonus to laser usage. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one Amarr ship capable of this. But for the meantime, I'd much rather have an Amarr ship that isn't an Abaddon that has 2 bonuses to using it's weapons, rather than 1 bonus plus the ability to make it slightly easier to shoot. Here here! I second this motion; amarr cap problems can be solved with halving the cap usage of all the laser weapons. This mitigates the difficulty with forcing double bonuses and expecting it to work like CCP seems to be trying to do.
Comic Justice Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:05:00 - [135] - Quote Sofia Wolf wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: HURRICANE FLEET ISSUE Over its regular version, this ship has 8 high slots, two utility slots, slightly more mobility and fittings, while the role itself doesnGÇÖt change. Kind of reminds us of something, but what could that be? Memory must be playing tricks on us. GÇó Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: +5% to medium projectile damage and 5% bonus to medium projectile rate of fire per level GÇó Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 launchers GÇó Fittings: 1235 PWG, 420 CPU GÇó Defense (shields / armor / hull): 6375 / 6750 / 5250 GÇó Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 2250 / 592 s / 3.8 GÇó Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 12.2 s GÇó Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30 GÇó Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 220 / 6 GÇó Sensor strength: 20 Ladar GÇó Signature radius: 250 If you going make it an old hurricane ad lest give us back power supply of old hurricane! Full 1350 power grid please! I support this sentiment. Sure, it's nothing new, but the old cane was a Faction ship in disguise. But I mean, old-old cane. Pre-every nerf. That was a faction cane. If we're going back to an old cane, at least give us the Cane that was King. The other Faction BC's (FBC's) seem to be more competitive than Old School Cane.
Catherine Laartii Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors 2	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:05:00 - [136] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Pretty sure I'd rather keep the cap bonus on the harbinger than gain a tracking bonus. That's what they WANT you to think! Don't think backwards like that; ask for cap reduction on the guns instead of cap reduction on the ships! D8
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 135	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:09:00 - [137] - Quote Looks nice, but IMO cost is going to be the crippling problem. By the time you have the skills to make good use of an expensive faction BC you've also got the skills to fly a command ship, and don't really see what these ships have to offer over their T2/T3 competition (especially once command ships get re-balanced and the truly awful ones are fixed). This is especially a big problem for the Navy Brutix. As much as I love the idea and consider it the perfect BC, the price tag is just too high for something that demands a glass cannon shield buffer/max-gank fit. I hate to say it, but a faction Myrmidon would probably see a lot more use since its mid-range tank focused strategy makes it a lot less suicidal.
Catherine Laartii Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors 2	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:10:00 - [138] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: May Wanderdriven wrote: Yes, I do realize that, and I think that the ship could have a much greater variety with a cap bonus instead of a tracking bonus. Reason being that I CAN put a TC in the mid, but I can go for E-War or more webs (or something else), and then I don't have to worry as much about cap. Why should I be forced to stay with the cap booster? Oh and Mr Floydy, the Harbinger has a 10% reduction in Medium Energy Weapon capacitor need. Wait, what? There would be more variety if it had the same bonus as the basic Harbinger? what in the actual hell are you on about? Do you realise what variety means? I'm fully aware that the Harbinger has a 10% cap bonus for lasers, that is my point in it's entirety. The Navy Harbinger is rightfully different, it offers a different twist on the ship to the T1 version. It's great that the faction versions aren't just mirroring the T1 bonuses with more HP like Navy ships used to. Floydy, Amarr gunboats SHOULDN'T have to deal with crippling cap bonuses that require a bonus to use the guns in the first place! May was referring to how the cap reduction bonus frees up the ship's capacitor for more options, but the ship itself still suffers from having that gun usage bonus in the first place. We're all suffering from the delusion that amarr ships with cap usage bonuses are ok because we've had to put up with it since the game's inception! That doesn't make it right, it just makes them wrong for turning a blind eye to an easily solvable problem for so long.
Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 63	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:15:00 - [139] - Quote They don't want to reduce the cap usage on lasers as they want to try and keep them as Amarr weapons. As much as I'd love Amarr ships to just have more cap, it's never really going to happen. How about some role bonuses to using the weapons for these ships alongside the already proposed bonuses? Navy Harbinger - 50% reduction to laser capacitor usage The others - 50% reduction to reload time
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 617	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:15:00 - [140] - Quote Pelea Ming wrote: But, wouldn't an explosion velocity bonus be better then an explosion radius bonus? After all the explosion still has to expand to it's outermost limits regardless, and if it's doing that at the same speed as always, doesn't that mean that something using speed tank won't still effectively 'dodge' some of it? whereas, with the explosion velocity bonus, it would more directly equate to a 'tracking speed' style bonus in that it would be more likely to defeat a speed tank. No, explosion radius bonuses are better than explosion velocity bonuses, because of the hard cap to missile damage resulting from the [target sig]/[explosion radius] quotient. It's also why Rigour rigs are better than Flare rigs.

Mr Floydy Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 63	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:17:00 - [141] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Floydy, Amarr gunboats SHOULDN'T have to deal with crippling cap bonuses that require a bonus to use the guns in the first place! May was referring to how the cap reduction bonus frees up the ship's capacitor for more options, but the ship itself still suffers from having that gun usage bonus in the first place. We're all suffering from the delusion that amarr ships with cap usage bonuses are ok because we've had to put up with it since the game's inception! That doesn't make it right, it just makes them wrong for turning a blind eye to an easily solvable problem for so long. I know, I've posted numerous times saying that I'd like amarr ships to have a way to deal with the cap usage of lasers. But I don't want every single amarr laser ship to do it by losing a damage/damage application bonus by having to have a cap usage bonus. Until the most recent set of balances the only ship that the Amarr fleet had that just went "sod it I'm going for max dps + tank, I'll deal with Cap later" was the Abaddon, and the Abaddon is an epic ship that gets a lot of use in big logi supported fleets.
Ranamar Li3's Electric Cucumber Li3 Federation 5	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:53:00 - [142] - Quote Comic Justice wrote: Sofia Wolf wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: HURRICANE FLEET ISSUE Over its regular version, this ship has 8 high slots, two utility slots, slightly more mobility and fittings, while the role itself doesnGÇÖt change. Kind of reminds us of something, but what could that be? Memory must be playing tricks on us. GÇó Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: +5% to medium projectile damage and 5% bonus to medium projectile rate of fire per level GÇó Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 launchers GÇó Fittings: 1235 PWG, 420 CPU GÇó Defense (shields / armor / hull): 6375 / 6750 / 5250 GÇó Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 2250 / 592 s / 3.8 GÇó Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 12.2 s GÇó Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30 GÇó Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 220 / 6 GÇó Sensor strength: 20 Ladar GÇó Signature radius: 250 If you going make it an old hurricane ad lest give us back power supply of old hurricane! Full 1350 power grid please! I support this sentiment. Sure, it's nothing new, but the old cane was a Faction ship in disguise. But I mean, old-old cane. Pre-every nerf. That was a faction cane. If we're going back to an old cane, at least give us the Cane that was King. The other Faction BC's (FBC's) seem to be more competitive than Old School Cane. TBH, when I saw the comment, before checking stats (since I don't tend to fly Hurricanes), I expected it to be before all the nerfs. All things considered, this is a faction battleship. Since the Navy ships seem to go in for a large dollop of nostalgia, why can't the "too powerful for the general public" (as I think the in-game description says...) Hurricane be the one that everyone used to know? It'll be too expensive to be a disposable welpcane, after all. Let them have their fun.
Kesthely Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades. 49	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:57:00 - [143] - Quote At current it doesn-¦t look like these navy battlecruisers support links? is this correct?
Ruforian InterSun Freelance Moon Warriors 0	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:58:00 - [144] - Quote No Navy Myrm is a bit unfortunate, as seams to leave a gap in the tier 2 line up. i was hoping CCP would get a little adventurous and keeping inline with the other Galllente + Drone theme make the myrm a mini carrier. Similer to the Guardian Vexor idea, say 1 extra drone per lvl BUT keep it limited to a 125 bandwith so it could launch only 5 hvys, but up to 10 med/light. sure sure, u would have the ability to launch, 4 hvy + 5 light or some other combo, but im sure CCP have the smarts to work something out. i believe this would fill the Tier 2 Gallente spot + keep in line with the Gallente drone theme without being OP (drake with 8 launcher? / Drone boat with 10 med drones). Im just saying, would be fun, even if a bit more laggy :)
Rebecha Pucontis Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 155	Posted - 2013.04.10 23:58:00 - [145] - Quote Awesome, so all my old Hurricane fits are once again going to be useful!! Thank you CCP.
Ersahi Kir Freelance Mining Company 93	Posted - 2013.04.11 00:01:00 - [146] - Quote Kesthely wrote: At current it doesn-¦t look like these navy battlecruisers support links? is this correct? I asked the question, we don't know. It would be nice to have an explicit answer on this one. But I'm going to assume no unless they say otherwise.
Muirnin 101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda 0	Posted - 2013.04.11 00:01:00 - [147] - Quote DRAKE NAVY ISSUE: Unwilling to imitate our dear friend Victor by creating a Drakenstein monster, the Navy version focuses on flexibility instead of improving the already good raw firepower and tank of the standard Drake. It has a 10% missile velocity and 5% missile explosion radius bonus per level, 8 launchers and improved mobility. GÇó Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses: +10% to heavy missile and heavy assault missile velocity and 5% bonus to explosion radius of heavy missile and heavy assault missile per level GÇó Slot layout: 8 H, 6 M, 4 L, 0 turrets, 8 launchers GÇó Fittings: 880 PWG, 550 CPU GÇó Defense (shields / armor / hull) :7875 / 4875 / 5625 GÇó Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 2500 / 658 s / 3.8 GÇó Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.64 / 13329000 / 11.8 s GÇó Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 GÇó Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8 GÇó Sensor strength: 23 Gravimetric GÇó Signature radius: 295 This literally just made my EVE year! Oh so happy right now, oh so happy!
Rebecha Pucontis Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 155	Posted - 2013.04.11 00:02:00 - [148] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Kesthely wrote: At current it doesn-¦t look like these navy battlecruisers support links? is this correct? I asked the question, we don't know. It would be nice to have an explicit answer on this one. But I'm going to assume no unless they say otherwise. They better had.
Suliux Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance 4	Posted - 2013.04.11 00:04:00 - [149] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: I have to agree about the HFI. It's just dull. It's the Hurricane we used to have and no real difference from the standard issue. Don't get me wrong. It's nice and all but just dull. I say give it an extra turret and drop one of the damage bonuses for a falloff bonus. The SFI already has the tracking bonus. We don't need a bigger SFI but we don't have a fleet issue AC Kiter EDIT: and no, the SFI isn't that great at being a kiter. It suits brawling so much better With a falloff bonus it sounds like a passive tanked Sleipnir (many people fly/fflew them passive as they are), so what's the point? Sleip isn't changing much at it's turn up to the plate with the buff/nerf bat. Minus that, I do agree - just too meh and lacks thought and ingenuity? I think a tracking bonus with an extra turrent would be the best option and it essentially stays in line w/ the Minmatar line of ships. Hell, why not go full SFI: add the 7th turrent, drop the utility high (blasphemy I know), and add a mid. Then you have a very fun big brother to the SFI and something that seems to me to be more in line w/ the traditional Minmatar fleet line of ships. Lastly - change the Sleipner model to a Hurricane already, It just feels and seems right, doesn't it? - Suli
Siddicus Nation of Sidd 1	Posted - 2013.04.11 00:25:00 - [150] - Quote Comic Justice wrote: Sofia Wolf wrote: CCP Ytterbium wrote: HURRICANE FLEET ISSUE Over its regular version, this ship has 8 high slots, two utility slots, slightly more mobility and fittings, while the role itself doesnGÇÖt change. Kind of reminds us of something, but what could that be? Memory must be playing tricks on us. GÇó Minmatar Battlecruiser skill bonuses: +5% to medium projectile damage and 5% bonus to medium projectile rate of fire per level GÇó Slot layout: 8 H, 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 launchers GÇó Fittings: 1235 PWG, 420 CPU GÇó Defense (shields / armor / hull): 6375 / 6750 / 5250 GÇó Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 2250 / 592 s / 3.8 GÇó Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 12.2 s GÇó Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30 GÇó Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 220 / 6 GÇó Sensor strength: 20 Ladar GÇó Signature radius: 250 If you going make it an old hurricane ad lest give us back power supply of old hurricane! Full 1350 power grid please! I support this sentiment. Sure, it's nothing new, but the old cane was a Faction ship in disguise. But I mean, old-old cane. Pre-every nerf. That was a faction cane. If we're going back to an old cane, at least give us the Cane that was King. The other Faction BC's (FBC's) seem to be more competitive than Old School Cane. Agreed, Most of my old fits for the cane ran powergrid to the bone and while my skills aren't all V, I have better than average fitting skills. Though most of my fits were not the conventional type granted, I still miss that ship and those fits =(



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.