Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:44:00 -
[781] - Quote
Well, yes I knew it was a significant base DPS drop. It's also a pretty substantial alpha increase and the tracking 'problem' was intentional. ;-)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1552
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:46:00 -
[782] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Malcanis wrote:
The New CNR will be better than the current CNR. If you don't believe me, believe the market; prices are up.
That's all thats really important, it's kind of hard to stomach all the complaining about a ship that will be demonstrably better than it is now (like how for example the loss of a utility slot is more that compensated by a mid slot you can put a prop mod in). I guess for some people "better" just isn't enough. Does losing an utility high and it's dps edge over other missile battleships make it "better"? Please explain to me what it does better.
Better damage application, faster, more cap, more calibration, more dangerous to smaller targets, theres more but you don't actually care because you've latched on to Liangs arguments for solo PVP (which weren't anywhere near y our own in the begining) and you're riding them out. You originally claimed that its worse in every way (without any facts to back that up) and now that a good dozen people have gone through the updated EFT files an posted screen shots showing you that you're wrong you're clinging to that missing high slot like its a life vest.
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
542
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:49:00 -
[783] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Well, yes I knew it was a significant base DPS drop. It's also a pretty substantial alpha increase and the tracking 'problem' was intentional. ;-)
-Liang Fall off is less game breaking, and that way we can have the appropriate number of slots. Either way, start with the t1 tempest first if your serious about a fix. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
147
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:50:00 -
[784] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Rise wrote: TEMPEST FLEET ISSUE The Tempest Fleet Issue is becoming MinmatarGÇÖs GÇÿcombatGÇÖ battleship, and as a result will move more solidly into a role that it already takes on as a very strong projectile platform with an armor base GÇô something that is difficult to find elsewhere. The Tempest, as always, wants to occupy a space between attack and combat, and therefor has unusually high speed and unusually low sig for its role.
Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret rate of fire +5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 8H, 5M, 7L; 6 turrets, 4 launchers Fittings: 17500 PWG(+450), 580 CPU(+3) Defense (shields / armor / hull): 10200(+884) / 10800(+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): 75 / 100 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 74km(+11.5km) / 100 / 7 Sensor strength: 24 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.25) Signature radius: 350(+10)
Nobody seems very excited by the new Fleet Pest. What would you say to this instead: Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses: +7.5% bonus to Large Projectile Turret tracking +10% bonus to Large Projectile Turret damage Slot layout: 7(-1)H, 5M, 7L; 6 turrets, 0(-4) launchers Fittings: 21000 PWG (+XXX), 580 CPU(+3) Defense (shields / armor / hull): 9316 / 11684(+369+884) / 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): 75 / 100 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 84km(+21.5km) / 100 / 7 Sensor strength: 24 Ladar Sensor Strength(+.25) Signature radius: 350(+10) The goal here is to encourage a relatively fast armor artillery platform with limited utility highs. I haven't looked too hard at the grid change, and used the Abaddon as a base. I wouldn't quibble much if it went up or down from there. -Liang
Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
|
Jason Sirober
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:54:00 -
[785] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Jason Sirober wrote: About the Geddon, that's fine then. About the CNR, you'd be better served by starting a thread about missile damage application than complaining that the ship will now do less damage against bigger targets and more against smaller targets. Unless you like to fight in large BS vs BS battles which would suit the current CNR with the new cruise missile changes better than the new CNR.
Except you are not talking about BS fights, you are talking about missions and how it's going to interfere with your isk/hour ratio. If I'm wrong tell me so and explain why. If I'm right, go ahead and start that other thread.
This is the Navy BS Feedback thread. If you don't like the feedback for Navy Battleships (the CNR is one), then feel free to leave. If you want to add more feedback about whatever battleship you are concerned about, then do that. However, encouraging me to fork the conversation into a thread that will never be read by CCP is simply not a constructive comment. However to answer your question: I torp fit my PVP CNRs and torp fits are getting ******* murdered by this change. It's one of the reasons I'm so adamant against it. However, people want to talk about missions because that's the ship's primary use - and it just so happens I know a bit about that as well. -Liang
Whatever bro. Happy trolling |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1553
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:54:00 -
[786] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Grath made a series of extremely revealing comments revealing ignorance of basic missile mechanics
I'm sorry, I stand by what I said, if you are a moving target, you mitigate missile damage, and no amount of telling me otherwise will change my mind because I have 6 years of working proof, so you can say i have an ignorance of missile mechancis all you want, and you can rant and rave about wanting to do 1100 dps at 200km all you want, but none of that will actually ever be true or make it happen.
If you move, you take less missile damage, that is not ignorance of missile mechanics, that is a fact.
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 19:57:00 -
[787] - Quote
Deerin wrote:
Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:02:00 -
[788] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Grath made a series of extremely revealing comments revealing ignorance of basic missile mechanics I'm sorry, I stand by what I said, if you are a moving target, you mitigate missile damage, and no amount of telling me otherwise will change my mind because I have 6 years of working proof, so you can say i have an ignorance of missile mechancis all you want, and you can rant and rave about wanting to do 1100 dps at 200km all you want, but none of that will actually ever be true or make it happen. If you move, you take less missile damage, that is not ignorance of missile mechanics, that is a fact.
Your understanding of missile mechanics has been rebuffed repeatedly by many many well known voices in the community. I wasn't attempting to pick on you for it - simply illustrate that I was not making **** up in my post. Many of the people who are in favor of the CNR changes have very flawed understandings of the ship and missile mechanics as a whole. As I said, for the most part you have a great deal of respect in my eyes. :)
That said - I neeeeeeed my utility high and torp deeps.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:05:00 -
[789] - Quote
I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:07:00 -
[790] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Deerin wrote:
Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.
Nah, I feel like that Pest would actually be pretty decent for certain kinds of engagements. It's definitely a raw DPS nerf (especially if you use ACs) but the volley and tracking with 1400s would be even higher than the Machariel.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
542
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:07:00 -
[791] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Deerin wrote:
Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change. which is funny because he produced a more meaningful ship than the crap we have now.
/adds liang to the ignore list. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:09:00 -
[792] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...
Uhhhhhhhhh..... ok. You can see it at a glance really: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage. Notice how sig radius is factored into both the explo radius and the explosion velocity parts of the equation? Yyyeaaaahhhhh...
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1554
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:12:00 -
[793] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...
Sig radius is actually the biggest effect on missile damage, but regardless of sig you can mitigate damage by moving.
If you want to test it, get a missile boat and a vaga, turn the vagas mwd on to bloom its sig, hit it with a missile, note the damage, the put the vaga at speed and hit it with a missile, note the difference.
You can do the same test without a MWD on and you'll still see the same differences in damage, simply moving mitigates the damage, not as much as sig reduction will as thats the primary dirver in relation to missile and target, but movement will always mitigate it.
These are simple tests that the guys who love the formulas can go out and test (field tests have an always will be a huge part of theory that half of EVE skips over like it doesn't matter) but don't.
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:22:00 -
[794] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so... Uhhhhhhhhh..... ok. You can see it at a glance really: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage. Notice how sig radius is factored into both the explo radius and the explosion velocity parts of the equation? Yyyeaaaahhhhh... -Liang
It is in both. I've seen the equation. However, the damage reduction due to velocity is a logarithmic decrease compared to the linear nature of signature size.
Like I said I need to model it myself but it looks like once you're in the velocity regime (where the third part of the equation is the deciding factor), target velocity reduction has the largest impact (assuming you're not trying to hit frigates with torpedoes or something).
Also, I'm not saying you're wrong (or right) - I want/need to see the graphs for myself.
This seems a bit tangential... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:28:00 -
[795] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: These are simple tests that the guys who love the formulas can go out and test (field tests have an always will be a huge part of theory that half of EVE skips over like it doesn't matter) but don't.
Oooh, oooh, is this where we start talking about the field test I did that finally convinced Gripen to add falloff damage reduction into EFT?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
148
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:34:00 -
[796] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Deerin wrote:
Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change.
No. 9 turrets worth alpha with tracking to boost its application is a serious buff that can tip scales of balance.
If he wanted to make such a point he would've said: "Consider a mach with 8 turrets and trackng bonus instead rof bonus" |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:37:00 -
[797] - Quote
Deerin wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Deerin wrote:
Pg looks too high for a 6 turret ship. TFI can fit almost everything without problems. Other than that it looks very decent. Maybe too decent. 9 turrets worth alpha is quite high..thouh pest is paying with loss of one lot in this case
It was a rhetorical post. It's a nerf (sorta). With the proposed change it went from 10 effective turrets to 9 effective turrets with better tracking. He was trying to prove a point about the CNR losing dps with the proposed bonus change. No. 9 turrets worth alpha with tracking to boost its application is a serious buff that can tip scales of balance. If he wanted to make such a point he would've said: "Consider a mach with 8 turrets and trackng bonus instead rof bonus"
I mean it's true that it loses out on raw DPS, but dat alpha :swoon:
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
166
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:52:00 -
[798] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:That said - I neeeeeeed my utility high and torp deeps.
-Liang Laing, I don't want this to sound a certain way, but it seems like this is the crux of the problems you're having with the proposed CNR changes. If you really want a utility high and torp damage, maybe its better for you to stick to Scorpion NIs after June 4. It's generous amount of mids and built-in resist bonuses mean that you can use more of those mids on ewar/tackle and you still get the utility high.
The Golem by design will always outperform a Navy Issue battleship in PVE situations (and perhaps moreso once the Marauders get a balance pass), while its small sensor str cripple it for PVP. Again, by design. The CNR's sensor strength is 50% stronger and it lacks a utility high to make it a formidable PVP platform while reducing its overall potential by losing that utility high. It more and more seems like the CNR change is hitting you personally (meaning your personal playstyle with it), and that is where a lot of your passion is coming from.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 20:56:00 -
[799] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:That said - I neeeeeeed my utility high and torp deeps.
-Liang Laing, I don't want this to sound a certain way, but it seems like this is the crux of the problems you're having with the proposed CNR changes. If you really want a utility high and torp damage, maybe its better for you to stick to Scorpion NIs after June 4. It's generous amount of mids and built-in resist bonuses mean that you can use more of those mids on ewar/tackle and you still get the utility high. The Golem by design will always outperform a Navy Issue battleship in PVE situations (and perhaps moreso once the Marauders get a balance pass), while its small sensor str cripple it for PVP. Again, by design. The CNR's sensor strength is 50% stronger and it lacks a utility high to make it a formidable PVP platform while reducing its overall potential by losing that utility high. It more and more seems like the CNR change is hitting you personally (meaning your personal playstyle with it), and that is where a lot of your passion is coming from.
I like how you point out that the CNR is going to be worse in PVP than the SNI and worse at PVE than the Golem. Where, exactly, does it state that faction battleships should be literally useless? The NApoc isn't obsoleted by the Paladin and the CNR shouldn't be by the Golem. I really don't understand why that's so ******* hard to understand.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:03:00 -
[800] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I like how you point out that the CNR is going to be worse in PVP than the SNI and worse at PVE than the Golem. Where, exactly, does it state that faction battleships should be literally useless? The NApoc isn't obsoleted by the Paladin and the CNR shouldn't be by the Golem. I really don't understand why that's so ******* hard to understand.
-Liang
Ed: And the CCNR will be worse in PVP than either the Fleet Phoon or regular Typhoon. That's the part that's really cute. It really can't catch a break and the ship will come out of the gates completely obsolete. Right now it has a role - and it can keep that role. But if we need it to have a different role, let's do that. But wholly obsolete ships are bullshit and the reason we're doing Tiericide in the first place.
Gotta wait for the marauder balance pass. That may very well be their intent. I can see marauders getting some big changes.
As for the Typhoons - they do certainly look a bit strong. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1555
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:07:00 -
[801] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: These are simple tests that the guys who love the formulas can go out and test (field tests have an always will be a huge part of theory that half of EVE skips over like it doesn't matter) but don't.
Oooh, oooh, is this where we start talking about the field test I did that finally convinced Gripen to add falloff damage reduction into EFT? -Liang
Actually yea you can, the number nerds fail to realize that the numbers only take you so far before you need to actually see the effects in game and understand how they effect things.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:08:00 -
[802] - Quote
Ok, one more time: - Cruise Golem > PVE Cruise CNR - Torp Golem > PVE Torp CNR - Torp SNI > PVP Torp CNR - Torp Phoon > PVP Torp CNR - Cruise Phoon > PVP Cruise CNR - Cruise PhoonFI > PVP Cruise CNR
I mean, this list really goes on and on. The ship is completely without a role. No, we do not need to wait for the marauder balance pass before pointing out that the current proposal for the CNR is kinda ****.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
724
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:21:00 -
[803] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'm not sold on your claim that signature radius has the biggest effect on missile damage and that target painters provide the largest boost. I need to go home and model it in a spreadsheet and apply effects from TPs, webs, and various bonuses to fully judge. I've been wanting to do this for a while now though so...
Well, it's messy really. In terms of reducing the degree of damage mitigated by speed, a 60% web has the same effect as a 150% painter. Since 60% webs are quite common and 150% painters are, er, quite rare, then this suggests that speed is more important.
However... no amount of webbing will make a missile with a large explosion radius do full damage to a ship with a smaller sig radius., because of the hard cap of [sig]/[explorad]. The only way to get round that is via sig or explorad issues - hence the entirely reasonable claim that painters are the best mod, in conjunction with the limited range of webs in PVE applications.
This means that the CNR's 5% explorad bonus is much more powerful than the Typhoon's explovel bonus, because the explorad bonus is useful in all cases of damage mitigation, while the explovel bonus cannot bypass the signature hard cap. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:22:00 -
[804] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Ok, one more time: - Cruise Golem > PVE Cruise CNR - Torp Golem > PVE Torp CNR - Torp SNI > PVP Torp CNR - Torp Phoon > PVP Torp CNR - Cruise Phoon > PVP Cruise CNR - Cruise PhoonFI > PVP Cruise CNR
I mean, this list really goes on and on. The ship is completely without a role. No, we do not need to wait for the marauder balance pass before pointing out that the current proposal for the CNR is kinda ****.
-Liang
You said 'The NApoc isn't obsoleted by the Paladin' but after the marauder balance pass it very well might be. It might be that they want the marauders to be relevant in pvp and be better than their T1 and Navy counterparts. We don't know.
I agree about the regular and Fleet Typhoons being so much better. Don't have any suggestions on possible changes though.
Why is the SNI automatically better than the CNR with torps? Is it the tank? Easier fitting due to only having to fit 6 launchers? Is the explosion radius and range bonuses not a good enough offset? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:27:00 -
[805] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Ok, one more time: - Cruise Golem > PVE Cruise CNR - Torp Golem > PVE Torp CNR - Torp SNI > PVP Torp CNR - Torp Phoon > PVP Torp CNR - Cruise Phoon > PVP Cruise CNR - Cruise PhoonFI > PVP Cruise CNR
I mean, this list really goes on and on. The ship is completely without a role. No, we do not need to wait for the marauder balance pass before pointing out that the current proposal for the CNR is kinda ****.
-Liang You said 'The NApoc isn't obsoleted by the Paladin' but after the marauder balance pass it very well might be. It might be that they want the marauders to be relevant in pvp and be better than their T1 and Navy counterparts. We don't know. I agree about the regular and Fleet Typhoons being so much better. Don't have any suggestions on possible changes though. Why is the SNI automatically better than the CNR with torps? Is it the tank? Easier fitting due to only having to fit 6 launchers? Is the explosion radius and range bonuses not a good enough offset?
You are really reaching if you're trying to pitch a totally non-existent undisclosed potential possible future Marauder buff will make the Paladin totally obsolete the NApoc. Definitely living up to your name here.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:29:00 -
[806] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: This means that the CNR's 5% explorad bonus is much more powerful than the Typhoon's explovel bonus, because the explorad bonus is useful in all cases of damage mitigation, while the explovel bonus cannot bypass the signature hard cap.
It also means that the Golem's damage application bonuses (explo velocity + painter) are extraordinarily powerful for damage application.
-Liang
Ed: Grammar Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
289
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:31:00 -
[807] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Ok, one more time: - Cruise Golem > PVE Cruise CNR
Actually, I'm going to call you on this one. We've had a discussion a few months back about MJD CNR in Ships&Modules. Back then, you and a few others claimed that an MJD CNR was not viable because, quote "that's well outside the optimal of painters". Well, there you have it, no painter issues for a sniper missile boat :) |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:32:00 -
[808] - Quote
The Cruise Golem doesn't need a MJD to hide from damage. (Neither does the CNR)
-Liang
Ed: Honestly, the whole mission MJD CCNR is just a terrible idea. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:32:00 -
[809] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
You are really reaching if you're trying to pitch a totally non-existent undisclosed potential possible future Marauder buff will make the Paladin totally obsolete the NApoc. Definitely living up to your name here.
-Liang
I'm not selling anything. I'm speculating. You're overly defensive and are going off the deep end. Your choice though. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3528
|
Posted - 2013.05.15 21:36:00 -
[810] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
You are really reaching if you're trying to pitch a totally non-existent undisclosed potential possible future Marauder buff will make the Paladin totally obsolete the NApoc. Definitely living up to your name here.
-Liang
I'm not selling anything. I'm speculating. You're overly defensive and are going off the deep end. Your choice though.
Your speculation is just ******* terrible TBH. The entire reasoning behind Tiericide is that there won't be ships that are just plain obsolete anymore. The new CNR is exactly that, and attempting to say we should just wait by presenting a case where a future undisclosed and likely not currently on the drawing board change might maybe possibly completely alter the role of two ships is just ******* silly.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |