EVE Search - mk2 - a fresh start

All Channels

Ships and Modules

mk2 - a fresh start

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 28 post(s)
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.21 12:46:00 - [1] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 21/10/2005 12:51:32 Originally by: Gunsnroses Originally by: Indy Boy Very good changes, but 1 question though. Any chance on Sacrilige getting some boost, like adding more launching hardpoints to it, or chaning its bonuses, because sac seems underpowered. P.S:It will be better, if Khanid with all their ships will be deleted from game and their t2 ships will be replaced with carthum conglomerate/viziam versions Sac is simply a brilliant defensive ship, but otherwise has ZERO offensive capiblities, and with the way eve is, that sux :( Loool. They're VERY useful as tackler/nos ships for HAC fleets. And Tux, ffs, ditch the DAMAGE bonus on the Vigil allready. I really can't take Mk2 seriously with that in it :/ (Rifter might be..okayISH now tho. Irony is I'll be using an Amarr frig for travel now tho, GG :/) PS, I'm concerned over the destroyer gun bonus. It seems excessive to me - they are allready useful in packs for smashing T2 frigs, if anything they need not more damage, but a sig radius cut to barely above frigates. (expecially because you're cuting plated ceptor speeds and raising extended ones sig radii). "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.21 22:22:00 - [2] Originally by: Elve Sorrow Also, the Bhaalgorn gets a Webbing range bonus too... Yep, and there's a reason it's an expensive faction ship... "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.21 22:27:00 - [3] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 21/10/2005 22:39:31 Originally by: Diana Merris Toaster: I'd like to point out the the fitting you have for the Rupture will just barely fit with the increased grid from the MK2 project while the Thorax setup would easily fit on the Thorax's old grid. This would allow the Thorax to fit a plate while the Rupture can't and therefor the Thorax will tank better. Bahahahahaa! You realise that mounting a plate which will seriously slow your ship along with blasters is perhaps THE most counter-productive thing you could do? Also, in my opinion we need to stuff DC into a garbage blender. In Arshat. To whit: There are 8 interceptors. 4 of these are pure fighting intys. They INTERCEPT. 2 of the others are good tacklers. The other 2...are somewhat underpowered. So, the 4 which FIGHT are fine. The rest should, indeed, TACKLE, and have appropriate bonuses. To think that ships like the Claw will have any chance with 2 midslots as a tackler is both sad and amusing. On the other hand, yes, I'd love a 5%/level warp disruptor range bonus for the Stilleto and it's ilk. Lock range only needs to be over 25km, and they're fine. Removing intys from frigate combat would push the vast majority of people who enjoy small-ship PvP back into T1 ships. AF, while nice ships, are NOT fast combatants. Bombers have a limited role thanks to their emphasis on gimicky stealth. But wait, AF's and the newly boosted destroyers will munch through T1 frigs. So...there is really a narrowing gap for their usage, and people who enjoy fast-paced frigate combat would basically be out of luck. Contrast with the options avaliable to the Cruiser pilot, and you start realising why removing the bonuses of the 4 fighting interceptors is such a bad idea. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.21 23:34:00 - [4] Absolutely. But that DOSN'T mean removing firepower from ships designed for, well, firepower. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.21 23:42:00 - [5] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 21/10/2005 23:42:29 mm. I think the Munnin's a fine ship, personally. People just need to stop obsessing with the 720mm. I personally have killed a Deimos with one for very little damage. It is a good 1v1 choice in many situations? No. But you can't and shouldn't balance for 1v1's. Cerb needs a bit of a boost? Sure. I'd increase it's cap and give it a little more CPU/grid. OR, heavy missiles a boost. Either or. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.21 23:54:00 - [6] Mm. If you mean it has more hi-slots than it can really use, yes. I'm really not sure about adding midslots, though. It's allready a very powerful ship for doing damage, and extending it's EW capacity would make it overly powerful. An extra low for a high? I could see it, and it'd be nice. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.22 22:36:00 - [7] Agreed. Vengence suffers because it has NO bonus to damage. That leaves it with no better firepower than the Amarr interceptors (it can fit bigger guns, but they have a damage bonus), and while it's tougher it's also slower... Jaguar suffers because it has no real role distinct from the Wolf, and with 3 mids it has no real ability to shield tank either. I'm not sure what can be done for it, but it needs a reaon to exist. Hawk needs another missile slot, imo. And the Ares and Raptor are UGH. I stil like the 4 kill/4 tackle interceptor idea. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.23 13:00:00 - [8] Originally by: Techyon The Ishtar gains 25 grid over the Vexor, now this I think should be more like 50 or max 75 extra grid.. The Ishtar is a very good ship and doesn't really rely on it's grid to much that's why it doesn't need or receive that much extra.. could do with a slight extra nudge perhaps. You can't examine that alone. You have to look at ALL the factors involved in the ship setup. I don't think the Ishtar needs a boost (atm anyway...if Heavy Drones get a nerf so they can't hit frigs it might need some love...) , but the Diemos might well. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.26 17:29:00 - [9] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Khaldorn Murino Tracking tracking tracking. Why does everyone ignore it. Right when i got some time from actually meaning to be at work doing some work, ill stick some comparative dps numbers with tracking on. Ta. I hate the tracking guide, ok? Wont spent hours to actual analyse that data too Ya. We need an Excel/Open Office spreadsheet... "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.28 16:58:00 - [10] Originally by: Talos Darkhart The use of nos has increased due to frigs being OVERPOWERED against battleships and this being the only module that can be used to defend against small targets effectively. Without this module a raven would be able to be killed by a handfull of frigates due to the crap nature of missles. Nos is not overpowered just stay out of range beside iirmc you can warp even without cap so should be able to escape just not attack. I could be wrong about this last bit though Snort. Try drones. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.28 20:23:00 - [11] Originally by: FalloutBoy The rifter is now a close range ship with its 3rd mid. and essentially makes it way to powerful in that roll since its faster than all the frigates in its current form it can dictate range. imagin this and be afraid: 3x200mm Autocannons 1x Rocket Launcher MWD Web Scram small armor rep, 200mm Plate MAPC you know what forget it the more i look at it the more I want to fly it Don't forget the higher speed/agility penalty from the plate... "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.28 21:57:00 - [12] And have a lower amo capacity. I used to carry 2 150's and 1 200 back when I had a choice. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.01 22:43:00 - [13] Actually, not so. The problem is right now that the ship has too little cap to make proper use of jammers. I'd rather be able to run a jammer for 5-6 cycles than to be able to get maybe a single long-range cycle. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.09 00:23:00 - [14] Destroyers are T1 ships, which shouldn't be able to compete with the T2 interceptors when the intys are in full-on kill setups. Which is, well, currently the case. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.11 23:21:00 - [15] Sure. And in a HAC gang, that's invaluable. A heavy tackler with a great tank. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.12 02:03:00 - [16] And once more, the difference is tanking ability and setup is significant. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.12 20:11:00 - [17] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 12/11/2005 20:12:06 Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Maya Rkell And once more, the difference is tanking ability and setup is significant. It's pretty simple if you're not a troll. 25% resists or 1 more mid, 3x+ more damage, 100% nos dedicated highslots (can suck more cap, compensates well for not having as much cap), faster and more agile. Tough decision If you have a counter point please try to make a point rather then mention what the difference is and not back it up with any facts. Okay, let's go over the details AGAIN. Better resists, unless you want to spend 350+ mil on a membrane and even then it stacks. Missiles, so you can do a range of damage types and strike at any range *Ship prices Blah, I can't be bothered, said it all before. If there are issues, fine. But every suggestion is trying to turn it into a bad imitation of the Zealot. (I AM in favour of doing things like adding armour and removing shield, and making the drone bay 25m¦ AFTER the changes ffs...as again I've already stated) "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.11.12 21:53:00 - [18] ding, troll point for bashing heavy missiles. You know fullwell that they are getting a RoF increase and the heavy missile maths unbroken. As for resists, again, the Ishtar cannot do better without spending 350 million+. This might seem like a small sum to you, but it is significant for the vast majority of players. That the ship has a specalisation which the Ishtar does not is precisely why it can be made useful. And the FACT remains that the Sac is a lot lower priced than the Ishtar, regardless of your reasoning (and has a good deal to do with the specific suppliers as well as usefulness - to take another example right now, the Claw is at 6.6 million or less on the market, less than the Tarranis, despite being the better close-range interceptor - the lesser price having everything (in this case) to do with supply patterns). And once more, I'm not saying that the sac does not need improving. I'm saying that devaluing its current strenghts is NOT the way, as most ideas here being pushed advocate to make the ship better. You are deliberately missing my points. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."

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.