| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
910
   |
Posted - 2013.04.12 15:22:00 -
[31] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Have you ever seen an eagle?
how to fix the eagle.
step one. boost medium rails damage by 5%
step two. increase base pg of the eagle
step three: add a mid slot
step 4: replace the second optimal range bonus for a rate of fire bonus.
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Hakaimono
Stillwater Corporation
112
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 15:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Have you ever seen an eagle? how to fix the eagle. step one. boost medium rails damage by 5% step two. increase base pg of the eagle step three: add a mid slot step 4: replace the second optimal range bonus for a rate of fire bonus.
Lol I just posted a new thread about the Eagle asking just that. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1261
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Angelina Joliee wrote:Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok. Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest. The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists (compared to faction cruisers) and small sig (compared to BCs). I would expect the HAC rework to be focused around emphasising these stats.
If they follow assault frigs, then tankier + more dps, but a bit slower than their T1 counterparts. |
Liam Inkuras
Chaotic Tranquility
Casoff
221
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 16:37:00 -
[34] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Malcanis wrote:Angelina Joliee wrote:Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok. Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest. The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists (compared to faction cruisers) and small sig (compared to BCs). I would expect the HAC rework to be focused around emphasising these stats. If they follow assault frigs, then tankier + more dps, but a bit slower than their T1 counterparts.
This^ . Make them bigger brothers of the AF's. like almost exactly the same, but on a cruiser level.
So make the Cerberus a kick ass HAM brawler, or capable HML sniper (lol), just like the Hawk can do with Rockets or Light missiles. The Eagle, well it already has identical bonuses to the Harpy, so I guess buffing rails and maybe changing the slots around is the fix needed.
The Sacrilage is already a large Vengeqnce, but make the bonuses consistent, so Missile Damage and ROF for Amarr cruiser bonus, and cap recharge and resists for HAC bonus. Give the Zealot the Sarum skin and swap the 5% ROF cruiser bonus for a 7.5% Tracking bonus, just like a Retribution.
I won't speak on Minmatar because I feel that their AF's and the Muninn are broken. The Vagabond is fine. Perhaps change the Jaguar to get the same bonuses as the Vaga?
The Deimos I feel should receive the same bonuses as the Enyo, so a 10% damage bonus for the cruiser skill, and the 7.5% tracking bonus, and leave the falloff bonus, just give it to the Ento too instead of its optimal one. The Ishtar, well I'm not sure if it should get the Ishkur's bonuses, or the other way around.
This is just my thought on the subject. By making the HACslarger versions of the AFs then you streamline training and create a clearer progression.
Edit: CCP, please give us Assault Destroyers.
I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
1243
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:06:00 -
[35] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Ginger Barbarella wrote:I have sick range on my Cerb heavies... don't you DARE say anything that'll get that nerfed again!! That was never the issue with the Cerberus - the tank is. Even you have to admit that as soon as someone sneezes at a Cerberus it goes boom.
True, you almost have to OVER-tank it just to make it "normal"... But dat range... 
"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
korrey
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 17:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
-Snip-
The Sacrilage is already a large Vengeqnce, but make the bonuses consistent, so Missile Damage and ROF for Amarr cruiser bonus, and cap recharge and resists for HAC bonus. Give the Zealot the Sarum skin and swap the 5% ROF cruiser bonus for a 7.5% Tracking bonus, just like a Retribution.
[/quote]
Bolded the part that should never happen. Ever.
Or else watch the Zealot's DPS drop to anemic. |
Dato Koppla
Rage of Inferno
Malefic Motives
138
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 03:39:00 -
[37] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Malcanis wrote:Angelina Joliee wrote:Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok. Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest. The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists. Perhaps it predates me, but why do the resists have no consistency. For example the massive EM resist on minnie shields. Seems bizarre.
T2 resists are derived from lore, Minmatar get EM to combat Amarr lasers, Caldari get Thermal to combat Gallente Blasters, Amarr get explosive to combat Minmatar projectile ammo, and so on. |
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
The Graduates
RAZOR Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 05:22:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Malcanis wrote:Angelina Joliee wrote:Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok. Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest. The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists. Perhaps it predates me, but why do the resists have no consistency. For example the massive EM resist on minnie shields. Seems bizarre. T2 resists are derived from lore, Minmatar get EM to combat Amarr lasers, Caldari get Thermal to combat Gallente Blasters, Amarr get explosive to combat Minmatar projectile ammo, and so on.
This, and for practical purposes, they provide a general counter to NPC damage types, as well as adding some variety into standard ship fittings.
thhief ghabmoef |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations
The Fendahlian Collective
42
|
Posted - 2013.04.13 13:07:00 -
[39] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Malcanis wrote:Angelina Joliee wrote:Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok. Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest. The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists. Perhaps it predates me, but why do the resists have no consistency. For example the massive EM resist on minnie shields. Seems bizarre.
They actually have very good consistency but the way resist bonuses are applied can make it look a bit mixed visually.
Basically, the armour and shields of T2 and T3 ships each race gets a good resist bonus to the main damage type of their racial enemy and a moderate resist bonus to the secondary damage type of their racial enemies.
So for example, Minmatar get a good EM bonus to armour and shields and a moderate thermal bonus to armour and shield to counter Amarr energy weapons. Amarr then get the opposite for explosive and kinetic respectively, matching Minmatar T2 ammo and much of their T1 ammo. Since the base shield resist is 0%, the Minmatar shield EM bonus looks huge. Similarly for Amarr and armour where their base explosive resist is 20% leading to a huge armour explosive resist.
In the middle, Caldari and Gallente get good bonuses to thermal (e.g. Ogre drones) and kinetic (e.g. missile damage bonuses) respectively. And since they both use blasters, their moderate bonuses are to the opposite of their good bonus.
Well, that's the rationale I came up with in the past...maybe someone can link an old Dev post or something with an official line :)
Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! "  |
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
The Marmite Collective
373
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 00:10:00 -
[40] - Quote
I know the HACs look bad (and really, the Caldari ones ARE bad), but those resists are easy to underestimate, particularly in gangs which have Logi and Links.
Quality Assurance
|
Veronica Kerrigan
Hand Of Midas
My Other Laboratory is a Distillery
88
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 00:47:00 -
[41] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Malcanis wrote:Angelina Joliee wrote:Yeah, please fix the caldari hacs - they are so bad atm.
All other hacs do not need any urgent changes - they are ok. Erm... not really. The Caldari ones have just been the worst for longest. The advantages HACs have over their competitors are T2 resists. Perhaps it predates me, but why do the resists have no consistency. For example the massive EM resist on minnie shields. Seems bizarre.
Tech 2 resists are based on lore.
Minmatar : EM primary, Thermal secondary. Counters the Matari enemies, the Amarr
Amarr : Explosive primary, Kinetic secondary. Counters the damage of the Glorious republic.
Caldari : Thermal Primary, Kinetic Secondary. Counters the heavy damage of both blasters, as well as Gallente drones.
Gallente : Kinetic Primary, Thermal Secondary. Counters the primarily Kinetic damage of the State, as well as hybrid damage. |
Dato Koppla
Rage of Inferno
Malefic Motives
141
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 03:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
I'd say Ishtar, Zealot, Sacrilege and Deimos are the HACs that are at least decent. |
Lloyd Roses
Risk-Averse
PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
51
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 11:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:
and vaga too of course, although the cynabal really steps on the vagas toes
the poor man's cynabal. |
Noisrevbus
424
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 13:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
Equus wrote:Honest question here, I am just very slowly returning and getting my feet wet, and the more I think about it when I left, at least for minmatar ships, HAC's were seldom used. Lots of fleet stabbers out, no vagabonds, and munin (sp?), I can't remember the last time I have seen one of those. As for other ships, unfortunately my views are lopsided as currently I really only fly minmatar.
Is my viewpoint and experience too limited, or do some of the T2 ships out there need some loving as well?
Well, it's mostly due to the general power creep CCP decided to implement going back to around 2011.
Granted, there were alot of people who argued that HAC had issues even back then, carrying over from the changes in 2008, and there were definately alot of individual ships within the class that had adaption issues back then too; but the overall class still had some appeal and it was more a question of tweaking ships rather than finding new entire roles for the entire class.
In 2011 i still argued "for" the HAC (and Combat Recon) class saying it still had an overall appeal in the face of BC2 and BS profiling, and an appeal that stretched beyond "just Zealots for AHACs". Vagas were in dire times but the ships were still useful. Muninns had been overtaken by Alphacanes, Alphamels and Nanopests but they still had a niche inbetween them (between reach, sig-speed and field control), both the Deimos and Ishtar were functional yet underrated and even if the Caldari ships were underwhelming even in their bonused roles or trait: a niche within the niche if you may, that only needed some tweaks to become appealing (the Eagle had interesting tracking, the Cerb had the ability to extended over hostile gangs into their support and also had good fitting options with some potential utility mids).
Today it's a different story and i'd argue that it's more an overall thing, if you can follow my logic: eg., the Vaga losing an overall appeal wasn't a problem as long as the Muninn remained functional and Huginns were profiling - but now that there's little incentive to fly any of them the ship class(es) have broad issues and there's little you can do with them that is interesting; they've just been clamped down from every direction (BC3, T3, Cruisers, AF and Frigs, ontop of Faction Cruisers, BC2 and BS). Each of those do not represent a problem each, but together they have just encroached on the roles too much.
These issues have also affected certain Faction Cruisers, CS, BC2, AF, BS1 and BS2 as well as the HAC and CR of crouse, so it's not like the HAC is the only loser. It's just a question or result of a general streamlining that have left many ships, modules and tactics behind.
I'm not sure if those that follow my posts have figured it out already or not, but the first and foremost reason why i am very critical of the current direction of CCP doesn't really have to do with ship balance or racial balance as many other players posting on these forums concern themselves with: my concerns tend to revolve with the design and decisions one step back, with the balance of tactics and overall vision. I am more concerned with the core set of strategies that each race represent disappearing from the game than i am with whatever race adapt the best into current meta. The fact of the matter is that we are losing more and more alternatives to interact with the game in different ways in favour of a popular, tried and proven approach - that makes the game very stale, conservative and imbalanced (because alot of the old mechanics that still exist were designed with the old tactical variety in mind) overall.
In a game like EVE you can't simply streamline some things and be done with it, everything is related which means that once your start poking you force yourself to commit and re-commit. That's why these new ships and ship-changes are such a massive undetaking that i believe alot of players and developers alike underestimate.
|
Noisrevbus
425
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 19:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
If the above is unclear...
another, somewhat blunt, way of putting it would be (and this ties into the resist-argument made at the top of this page):
Caldari were based around "sniping", Gallente based around "rushing", Minmatar based around "kiting" and Amarr based around "push-pull". Each race was balanced to have a general competence within each core strategy, not necessarily to be the best in every detail, every aspect or be the only option.
This is why Gallente and Minmatar are fast with alot of utility, while Caldari and Amarr are more tanky where Caldari is agile but slow in order to facilitate warp-tactics. It's why their EW was based around keeping things off range (ECM), crushing range (Damps, Points), controlling distance and sig-speed (Webs, Painters) and pushing off, pulling in or breaking through (Capwar, Trackwar).
This is also why, while push-pull strategies have become much more powerful and popular than the other with the direction of scaling and certain key changes made to the game, Amarr is not necessarily the best in every regard. It is their core strategy that has become the ideal though and most ships deemed good by the playerbase is powerful in that paradigm. The Drake was not a sniping ship, it was a push-pull ship (same as the Baddon, Capitals or Mael).
Sniping and Rushing took initial hits with changes around 2008 that involved buffs to probing, LR-R turrets (ie., "the Tachyon buff") and nerfs to certain EW (NOS, Damps and ECM). Their demise lead to Sniping resurfacing as Mobile sniping (or Kite-sniping) and an era of general Kiting. Kiting was later overtaken by Push-Pull gameplay (introduction of HIC, bottom-out pricing leading to the popularization of lynchpins etc.), and even Mobile sniping took a backseat role.
If you look at recent changes, the MJD is an attempt at reviving certain Sniping strategies, by enabling on-grid warps, escapes and traps. The BC3 was an attempt at reviving the Mobile sniping strategy (sadly, with opposite effects, if you ask me). Other attempts have been the nullifier subsystem, or player ingenuity such as 100mn or anti-probe ECCM. What distinguish all of those things is that they pay homage to old ideals and core strategies that have become impossible, impractical or just fallen out of practise. The continued improvement to cloaky strategies could similarily be seen as an attempt at counteracting the push-pull paradigm by providing, at least some, options to deal with grid-push.
Special class- or tier bonuses overall can be seen as attempts to shift some racial variety over to class variety; with "attack" ships, cloaky ships and so forth. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8668
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 20:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
Kali Omega wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Yep, tech2 ships definitely are on our to-do list. While Command Ships, Black Ops and Heavy Assault Cruisers are quite in dire need of attention, we'll most likely go over them all one class at a time to make sure they fit with what we've done so far with the tiericide. Please Please don't touch my Redeemer its fine the way it is. Edit: If you put laucnher hard points on it like its t1 counter part...so help me :P
Are you kidding? I am praying that the Redeemer gets those bonuses. Oh god please yes yes yes :puppyeyes:
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
8668
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 20:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:The BC3 was an attempt at reviving the Mobile sniping strategy (sadly, with opposite effects, if you ask me).
Not sure what you're saying here - the tier 3 BCs have revitalised the mobile sniper meta. They're basically almost everything I used to love about sniper HACs, but with good alpha and T1 insurance.
I hear a lot of complaints about the tier 3s, but they're exactly what we need more of: ships that are fun to fly, accessible*, affordable without being trivially cheap, great at blowing things up and very prone to blowing up themselves.
*OK T2 large guns are an arse to skill, but you can use meta arty with the nado just fine.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
140
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 21:56:00 -
[48] - Quote
Most T2ships have fairly clear roles like inties and just need a few stat tweaks.
HACS are a little different, while assault ships can be said to be competitive with the faction frigates and even T1 and T2 destroyers the balance at the cruiser/BC level is a little different and with a possible command ship revamp into more combat roles and with recent battlecruiser revamps and even faction BC on the horizon the spot for HACS as a just under T1 cruiser speed medium weapon DPS platform seems crowded.
While I can see a safe solution in stat buffs or faction specific role bonuses I would perhaps opt for a role bonus to the overheat effect of propulsion modules. Say 100% doubling the 50% overheat bonus.
This would allow HACs a good turn of speed allowing them to catch tier 3 BC or run from others, but this speed boost would be for limited time only. Always having the turn of speed to run down other ships could give them a clear differentiating ability, even a 800 mm plate Diemos with trimarks would push towards 3kms for a period. |
Spr09
East India Ore Trade
The East India Co.
65
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 23:01:00 -
[49] - Quote
Hakaimono wrote:Ishtar could even stand a little cpu buff when the balance hammer falls.
CPU upgrade is mandatory, which is really annoying since you're losing a low or rig slot right off the bat. |
Aralyn Cormallen
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 15:58:00 -
[50] - Quote
As I see it, most HAC's have got caught in a crush between Battlecruisers (primarily the Tier 3's) and Strategic Cruisers, which has only been further mashed by Tiericide bringing standard cruisers up from behind.
Most roles a HAC had is now done better in one of the other directions. The sniper HAC's are straight-out supplanted by the Tier 3 BC's, the high-resist, low-sig role is taken by the Strat Cruisers, and the good all-rounders are now not enough better than there equivalent T1 hull to justify the price tag (if they are even better at all). And of course, some HACs never had a hope due to ****** weapons (ho, ho, medium rails), or ****** ships (don't take that Cerb into a system with a warp over 70 Au). A couple can still hold open a role (Zealots, Muninns and Vagas are still used commonly by certain group), but how much of that is nostagia beating out reality? |
Tsukino Stareine
EVE University
Ivy League
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 16:07:00 -
[51] - Quote
They need to give all sniper HACs a role tracking bonus in addition to their current ones. Cerb can get a missile explosion radius reduction.
HAC niche should be the ability to pop small ships even when they're not in approach, T3s can only realistically hit stuff on approach with MWD on or with 0 transversal.
As for the brawling HACs I'm not sure how to make them usable without making T3s obsolete. |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs
Mildly Intoxicated
116
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 16:48:00 -
[52] - Quote
My poor cerberus got made fun of in fleet last time I brought it out :(
Needs work lol... |
Steve Spooner
Mordu's Military Industrial Command
Circle-Of-Two
27
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 19:30:00 -
[53] - Quote
Why HAC when you can use a tengu loki legion proteus? |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Tribal Band
620
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 00:20:00 -
[54] - Quote
Incindir Mauser wrote:
Cerberus isn't fast enough to kite.
It's description has always given me the impression that it was meant to sit at range and snipe. |
Alabugin
Adversity.
Rote Kapelle
6
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 19:41:00 -
[55] - Quote
I hope CCP reads this:
While we are on the discussion of HAC's - it essentially boils down to T1 cruisers and their counterparts. I think it is wonderful CCP has buffed the T1 cruisers, as they are very strong now. However, they completely overshadow other cruisers (t2 and faction in almost every way) (Not including pirate faction here - cynabal always OP)
Now - for example, lets look at the Caracal - and compare it to the caracal navy issue. While the navy issue appears to have more powergrid and CPU, it also has to fit an extra launcher to make up the difference, this always cripples it in terms of tank when trying to fit HAMS.
Its also SLOWER than the regular caracal - by a **** ton. The navy issue can fit no tank, yet it cannot get away from even t1 cruisers - this is sad sad sad.
The stabber fleet issue is in a good boat i think, doesnt need any buffs
The omen navy issue could use either an optimal range increase, or a damage increase - the cap isnt too neccessary.
The vexor navy is kinda meh, I still prefer the regular vexor to it currently in most situations
Lets not even talk about how ******* bad the navy frigates are (including all pirate except daredevil)..
TL;DR - CCP buffs T1 cruisers...and leaves their counterparts untouched - thereby producing a powercreep which pushes the higher end ships (even t2) off the playing field. We dont need NEW faction battlecruisers, you need to FIX what we have currently.
/rant over |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
722
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 11:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Well Zealot is still being good because of very little things, scorch of course makes it for 50% of these little things but the fact it can actually fit decent guns and tank just makes it a bit over the others.
Diemost got better but still terrible overall, it's a suicide run ship in a pvp environment that isn't that friendly for solo pvp, it doesn't have the DPS it should bring for such a hull cost and skills, it's tank got better but still close to mediocre and mobility while better after new skills (plates) Deimos is a blaster ship, this means MWD but it can barely fit everything it needs to be interesting over new Thorax even with Elite fitting certificates.
Ishtar is a drones ship, I don't like drones so I will not comment on this one.
Cerberus is a ridiculous paper thin extreme long range missile spewer, while not bad on paper doesn't fit on anything of current Eve, overall is a bad ship. T1 is way better
Eagle, on top of being really ugly uses med rails so everything is said about Eagle = bad ship overall. T1 slightly better but rails...
Vagabond, why use it when you can do the same and even more for a fraction of the cost with the T1 version? -new SFI changes will make the current Vagabond an unwanted item to speculate on the long term. Plus for some more isk you can use Cynabals that are way way much better in every aspect.
Munin, arty fit and in groups are an extreme danger but can use some love still when using autos. Slot layout and ship fittings are "awkward". T1 version is way worst.
Personal opinion of course about these ships but yes, they're definitively in need of quick "take-a-look-at", if this can be done for newt expansion it would be fantastic since this ship class was recently and probably amongst the most used ships in the game for their intended role and purpose, today easily replaced by T1 hulls with the obvious advantages but also the less obvious downsides this revamp massively increased.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Andrea Griffin
333
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 18:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
I would like to bring up again a new capability that I've proposed in the past that would provide the Assault line of ships something new and different: EWar resistance. These ships are supposedly tough, hardened things that are supposed to take a lot of abuse, so why should the internal systems be any different?
Every level of ship skill would reduce the effectiveness of enemy EWar by X percent. Tracking disruptors, dampeners, webs, etc., anything which affects the ship's capabilities by an amount or percentage would be affected by this.
It would give these ships something extra above and beyond the very boring and very tired "it does more damage and tanks better".
CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
Whores in space
162
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 10:53:00 -
[58] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Have you ever seen an eagle? how to fix the eagle. step one. boost medium rails damage by 5% step two. increase base pg of the eagle step three: add a mid slot step 4: replace the second optimal range bonus for a rate of fire bonus.
OTher much more flavoful change. Increase max lock range in eve to 300 km. Done.. eagles can now engage outside the range of any non caldari ships. |
Darius Brinn
Iberians
Iberians.
260
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:09:00 -
[59] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:
T2 resists are derived from lore, Minmatar get EM to combat Amarr lasers, Caldari get Thermal to combat Gallente Blasters, Amarr get explosive to combat Minmatar projectile ammo, and so on.
In this case, "so on" being "And Gallente also get Thermal because **** Gallente" 
|
Darius Brinn
Iberians
Iberians.
260
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:13:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
OTher much more flavoful change. Increase max lock range in eve to 300 km. Done.. eagles can now engage outside the range of any non caldari ships.
Of course. Engaging from 300Km in a sluggish hull with anemic guns which need two volleys to scratch the paintjob of its target. I see absolutely no problems for that prospective Eagle pilot.
No sir. That's EXACTLY the Eagle's problem: range. Yes it is.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |