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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 28 post(s)
Meneer Wolf	Posted - 2005.10.22 10:34:00 - [181] Originally by: Kery Nysell Originally by: Sorja Moa: 6/5/3 ? Yes? Yes? Say yes already! I just read the seven pages of this thread ... I saw a new med slot on the Caracal (yay, more EW ... trying to tank a sheet of paper is pointless), but no 6/5/3 on the Moa ... seems it'll stay 6/4/4, sorry. i'd still rather have that 5th turret slot, with the missile "boost" and all.... <dude, where's my sig?>
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.10.22 10:34:00 - [182] Originally by: Forsch Originally by: Vlad Karamazov Stabber - 10000000 Vexor - 11250000 Rupture - 11500000 Omen - 11950000 Thorax - 12000000 Maller - 12750000 Moa - 13000000 Caracal - 13750000 At the moment mass wise its not on the forefront and it should not be but phaps move it up a bit. Keep in mind the tier of the cruisers. Tier III Rupture - 11500000 Thorax - 12000000 Maller - 12750000 Moa - 13000000 Tier II Stabber - 10000000 Vexor - 11250000 Omen - 11950000 Caracal - 13750000 Suddenly, Gallente doesn't seem so bad anymore. Lowest mass after Minmatar. If you go for a lower mass than them, prepare for battle. The forum is full of minmatar freedom fighters. Very quick hair to split since I'm in that kind of mood I guess, but its more like Tier IV and then Tier III (Yes I know the skills are 3 and 2 .. but there are four noticeable steps in cruiser effectiveness and stats and the more people realize that the better) Support the original point you were making though . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
R31D	Posted - 2005.10.22 11:32:00 - [183] rifter with an extra low? That things going to be insane Free bumpage for all
DarK	Posted - 2005.10.22 11:56:00 - [184] Originally by: Forsch Originally by: Vlad Karamazov Stabber - 10000000 Vexor - 11250000 Rupture - 11500000 Omen - 11950000 Thorax - 12000000 Maller - 12750000 Moa - 13000000 Caracal - 13750000 At the moment mass wise its not on the forefront and it should not be but phaps move it up a bit. Keep in mind the tier of the cruisers. Tier III Rupture - 11500000 Thorax - 12000000 Maller - 12750000 Moa - 13000000 Tier II Stabber - 10000000 Vexor - 11250000 Omen - 11950000 Caracal - 13750000 Suddenly, Gallente doesn't seem so bad anymore. Lowest mass after Minmatar. If you go for a lower mass than them, prepare for battle. The forum is full of minmatar freedom fighters. Only real problem I see is that the caracal is retardedly massive.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.22 11:57:00 - [185] Originally by: R31D rifter with an extra low? That things going to be insane not really, it lost its speed and still lacks one slot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Gloomash	Posted - 2005.10.22 15:19:00 - [186] Edited by: Gloomash on 22/10/2005 15:20:44 Originally by: Ebez Edited by: Ebez on 22/10/2005 02:13:31 Originally by: Tuxford Destroyers Now all get 50% bonus to optimal range of small turrets. Max targetting range increased by 20% resulting in Coercer - 30km Cormorant - 36km Catalyst - 33km Thrasher - 27km Tracking and (cap/dmg/optimal/falloff) bonuses stay the same? Should give destroyers a good shot at creaming tacklers racing for your battleships, which is one of their primary jobs. I honestly don't think they need more tank. I can live with getting hit hard, if I hit back harder. However, they could use some agility/speed love. And I'd really like to see Tier2 dessys that act like mini BCs for frigate fleets. Hmm, fix 2 problems with 1 bonus. 5%/level reduction in ship mass as a bonus? Gives speed, agility, and helps the AB/MWD problem, all in one shot. Imho suggestion for testing: Coercerer: fixed 5 or 10% Bonus to armor repairer, higher cap (armor tank it out) - another mid slot. Catalyst: more drone space (drone it out) Trasher: a bit lower sig though or 5% or 10% reduction in fitting requirenments of turrets, change one turret slot to mixed turret/launcher slot(fire it out) - 10 points lower signature and 10 m/s increased speed. Cormorant: fixed 5 or 10% bonus to shield tanking or something ew related or 2 turret slots change mixed turret/launcher slots(shield tank or ew or missile it out) - another low.
Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol	Posted - 2005.10.22 16:15:00 - [187] Originally by: Nafri ohh and poor caracal will loose its 5th midslot I hope not that 1v1 tournament shouldnt be considered as valid test conditions. --------------------------------------------- Signature filesize exceeded. Maximum sig size is 400*120 and 24000 bytes - Teblin - aww come on now :(
Max Gank	Posted - 2005.10.22 18:39:00 - [188] Omen Why not increase its dronebay to moderate size, say 50m3 in addition to the launcher slot? Currently only the Arbitrator has good drone bay. Some Amarr players with drone skills could use that in addition to the Arbitrator.
Sadist	Posted - 2005.10.22 19:22:00 - [189] Why is this called MK2? I dont see tech 2 ship changes here yet? In any case, time to take out my usual whine/rant - Boost Deimos PG, PLZ. Why it has the lowest of the gun-hacs is beyond me. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.10.22 19:58:00 - [190] The aim of the Mark 2 project is to rebalance TL 1 ships and to give them more defined roles. T2 ship changes are incidental. -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.10.22 21:17:00 - [191] I know these changes arn't so much to t2, but can you please consider giving the vengeance some love? There's tons of things that could be done with it. Extra low or med, more speed, less mass? It is a slot to short. I think an extra med and bumping up its speed abit would be sweet, but any love at all for it would be nice.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.22 21:27:00 - [192] Originally by: Necrologic I know these changes arn't so much to t2, but can you please consider giving the vengeance some love? There's tons of things that could be done with it. Extra low or med, more speed, less mass? It is a slot to short. I think an extra med and bumping up its speed abit would be sweet, but any love at all for it would be nice. it has same slots like any AF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Necrologic	Posted - 2005.10.22 21:41:00 - [193] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Necrologic I know these changes arn't so much to t2, but can you please consider giving the vengeance some love? There's tons of things that could be done with it. Extra low or med, more speed, less mass? It is a slot to short. I think an extra med and bumping up its speed abit would be sweet, but any love at all for it would be nice. it has same slots like any AF Retribution 5/1/5=11. Enyo 5/2/4=11 Harpy 5/4/2=11 Wolf 5/2/4=11 Vengeace 4/3/3=10.
Ebez	Posted - 2005.10.22 21:54:00 - [194] Originally by: Harry Voyager Originally by: Ebez Oh, and 5mn MWD/ABs please. I suppose 25mn ones for BCs would be nice as well. Of course pilots would promptly jam them on their frigs/cruisers..... Hmm, fix 2 problems with 1 bonus. 5%/level reduction in ship mass as a bonus? Gives speed, agility, and helps the AB/MWD problem, all in one shot. 5/25MN (more likely 7.5/75MN) burners wouldn't work well as oversized. Remember, they add 1/3 of their thrust to the mass of the ship in the mass dampening calculation. Consider a 1 MN frigate, with a top speed of 300m/s, fitted with a 1.5MN AB, a 7.5MT AB and a 15MT AB. All have a speed mod of 105% speed boost or a (1+1.05) multiplier. 1.5MN: 615m/s 7.5MN: 900m/s 15.MN: 972m/s 150MN: 1054m/s (just for kicks) We aren't talking about a game winner here, especially considering most likely, we're talking about 20-30 MW grid just to fit them here. Harry Voyager No, but a 5 or 7.5MN AB, even at 30 grid, would fit on a frigate with room left for a weak/medium combat load. A 50grid 10mn squeezed into a frig leaves very little room for anything else, if it even fits, and if you try to get the cap regen in to sustain it, its even worse. I'd like DDs and BCs to have a true propulsion module, but other than restricting them to a certain ship class (probably by a system similar to strip miners and advanced cloaks), those modules would be used by other ship classes. Could go the other way too. What if a 10mn won't fit on your cruiser without making sacrifices, but a 7.5 will. A 1mn would be basically a wasted slot, but the 7.5 would be useable. I'm not adverse to the idea of more propulsion modules, but balancing of them would sure need to consider the ship classes on both sides of the new module, not just it's intended class.
Meridius	Posted - 2005.10.22 22:08:00 - [195] Originally by: Necrologic Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Necrologic I know these changes arn't so much to t2, but can you please consider giving the vengeance some love? There's tons of things that could be done with it. Extra low or med, more speed, less mass? It is a slot to short. I think an extra med and bumping up its speed abit would be sweet, but any love at all for it would be nice. it has same slots like any AF Retribution 5/1/5=11. Enyo 5/2/4=11 Harpy 5/4/2=11 Wolf 5/2/4=11 Vengeace 4/3/3=10. Well i think he meant slot amounts like the Jaguar, Ishkur and Hawk. They all have a total of 10 slots. Not like it matters tho. Amount of slots != ship performance The Vengeance is a pos. ________________________________________________________
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.22 22:22:00 - [196] Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Necrologic Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Necrologic I know these changes arn't so much to t2, but can you please consider giving the vengeance some love? There's tons of things that could be done with it. Extra low or med, more speed, less mass? It is a slot to short. I think an extra med and bumping up its speed abit would be sweet, but any love at all for it would be nice. it has same slots like any AF Retribution 5/1/5=11. Enyo 5/2/4=11 Harpy 5/4/2=11 Wolf 5/2/4=11 Vengeace 4/3/3=10. Well i think he meant slot amounts like the Jaguar, Ishkur and Hawk. They all have a total of 10 slots. Not like it matters tho. Amount of slots != ship performance The Vengeance is a pos. same like many other ships :D wouldnt call a jaguar a good ship either, or an hawk -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.22 22:36:00 - [197] 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."
Meridius	Posted - 2005.10.22 23:07:00 - [198] Originally by: Maya Rkell 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... Actually it's worse. The Vengeance gets outdamaged by some tech 1 frigates. lol. ________________________________________________________
Elve Sorrow	Posted - 2005.10.22 23:09:00 - [199] Edited by: Elve Sorrow on 22/10/2005 23:10:00 My best Vengeance setup so far involved 200mm AC II. It still sucked though. I've heard some good things about a blaster + rocket Hawk, but the only reason thats semi-decent is because noone expects it. Another missile sure wouldnt hurt. Jaguar wouldnt be too bad if it was faster, like a mini-Vagabond. The Vaga can reach 3km/sec, ive yet to get my Jag over 2,5km/sec.
Andouus La	Posted - 2005.10.22 23:43:00 - [200] More a question then a post. Seems promising. Was about the caracal/kestrel and I see that the condor is getting the same ROF. Is there any perticular reason for an ROF limited to kinetic dammage?

Tuxford	Posted - 2005.10.22 23:49:00 - [201] Just wanted to comment on the Caracal, as a lot of you think that I'm taking away it's fifth med slot. It was kicking arse at the EVE championship but that doesn't mean that it's overpowered just particularly well suited for this situation. _______________

Trelennen	Posted - 2005.10.23 00:25:00 - [202] Originally by: Tuxford Just wanted to comment on the Caracal, as a lot of you think that I'm taking away it's fifth med slot. It was kicking arse at the EVE championship but that doesn't mean that it's overpowered just particularly well suited for this situation. How about the Caracal's mass? (and caldari ships mass by extent) Caldari ships mass have been increased as a quick balancing thing for overpowered missiles before cold war patch. no that missiles have been patched, how about lowering back caldari ships mass? It makes no sense to have a paper sheet caracal being heavier than an heavy armored Maller. Caldari ships should have less mass than their amarr counterparts, and prolly be between minnie and gallente ships (armor brings more mass in than shields, don't you think? And amarr - and gallente to an extent - ships are really dense given their skins - and their armor HP -, caldari are not, so they should have less mass) PS: although I'm Caldari, I fly minnie and a bit amarr, not Caldari ;) so it's not a "I want this for my ship even if it doesn't make sense" post. Actually the current situation regarding mass of Caldari ships doesn't make sense. Quote: dont fly what you cant afford to lose, always have it insured, make sure you can replace it before you take it into 0.0 or any potentially kaboomish situations.
Ticondrius	Posted - 2005.10.23 00:33:00 - [203] Edited by: Ticondrius on 23/10/2005 00:33:00 I've slugged through 5 pages of this topic, and gave up reading further. First, nice job Tux. We really roasted you in your last topic, this one proves you listen and learn...and not just to the whiners. ;) Thanks for taking our voice into account. Second, I have only 2, actually 3, issues left with what you're doing. 1. Naviatas and the Imicus. The Imicus is the Gallente noob mining frigate. The Navitas has no role except to be laughed at. Gallente need a scout frig. make the Navitas the Scout firg and leave the Imicus alone...except maybe to be able to fit 2x miner IIs. and have a mining drone yield bonus in place of it's useless hybrid damage bonus. Let the Gallente remain the drone race. 2. Tristan. A THIRD launcher slot? How about giving it a third launcher and third turret, giving us the option of 1/3 or 3/1? I think your intention here was to give us a missile frigate. That's nice, but we generally don't use missiles much at all. Giving us the OPTION to make it so or a good RAILGUN ship is what gallente ships are all about. Niether good at one or the other, but able to surprise the enemy by shifting setups. At the worst, ditch the third launcher and give it a third turret. 3. Deimos Powergrid. Does it NOT bother people that to enable the Thorax to fit a even so-so rack of blasters it has to have it's grid boosted up to be almost as much as the T2 HAC variant? I say the plan to nerf the dronebay and boost it's grid a great plan...BUT..I say boost up the Deimos's grid as well, perhaps to just 900 from it's current 860. Just enough that it'll still be worth flying the Deimos over the Thorax. Else, you'd be able to fit up the EXACT same long range gank setup with either ship...and the shield/armor resists on the Deimos won't matter a bit.
Tsual	Posted - 2005.10.23 00:44:00 - [204] Originally by: Ticondrius 2. Tristan. A THIRD launcher slot? How about giving it a third launcher and third turret, giving us the option of 1/3 or 3/1? I think your intention here was to give us a missile frigate. That's nice, but we generally don't use missiles much at all. Giving us the OPTION to make it so or a good RAILGUN ship is what gallente ships are all about. Niether good at one or the other, but able to surprise the enemy by shifting setups. At the worst, ditch the third launcher and give it a third turret. As it seems it would need a change of the ship's graphical model and afaik the artists are occupied with big ships(TM). -------------------------------------- Haanem ulwei, utnazhiram Hal'sha'roh mahiraam Hor'thul. The Universe is everything, the creation Hal'shah and the destruction Hor'thul.
Rephern Muare	Posted - 2005.10.23 01:13:00 - [205] Originally by: Tuxford Just wanted to comment on the Caracal, as a lot of you think that I'm taking away it's fifth med slot. It was kicking arse at the EVE championship but that doesn't mean that it's overpowered just particularly well suited for this situation. Thank you for the clarification, I can't wait for the next patch, caracal's need some love in the form of that extra med slot
Brechan Skene	Posted - 2005.10.23 01:32:00 - [206] To whom it concerns, All I need to know is when will the changes take place Thankyou Brechan Skene "Stop following meI am lost too"
Gierling	Posted - 2005.10.23 01:35:00 - [207] Actually its pretty competitive (the tristan) now. Right now its got decent bonuses for railguns and blasters. So it can go blasters and rockets and do a not too bad amount of damage, or it can go railguns and standards and do decent damage out to 35k. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.23 02:20:00 - [208] Edited by: j0sephine on 23/10/2005 02:21:03 "Just wanted to comment on the Caracal, as a lot of you think that I'm taking away it's fifth med slot. It was kicking arse at the EVE championship but that doesn't mean that it's overpowered just particularly well suited for this situation." Just to clarify... does it mean Caracal gets to keep that 5th slot, or that it is going away like kieron said, just for some unspecified reasons that don't have anything to do with the fanfest performance? ^^;;;
Farjung	Posted - 2005.10.23 02:39:00 - [209] Originally by: Ticondrius 2. Tristan. A THIRD launcher slot? How about giving it a third launcher and third turret, giving us the option of 1/3 or 3/1? I think your intention here was to give us a missile frigate. That's nice, but we generally don't use missiles much at all. Giving us the OPTION to make it so or a good RAILGUN ship is what gallente ships are all about. Niether good at one or the other, but able to surprise the enemy by shifting setups. At the worst, ditch the third launcher and give it a third turret. o_O Where did you get the third launcher slot? Tristan has 1 launcher slot atm, and this will add a second. Killmails
Rundown	Posted - 2005.10.23 06:47:00 - [210] This may have been said already, but I would like to see an overall ship facelifts for Mark 2s. Maybe stream-line ships. Less jagged, more curves. Some ships could really use some prettying up. Make the Atron/Taranis/? be symmetrical wth two wings. How about a smoother Rifter/Wolf/Jag with a better paint job? One of my strangest complaints about EvE is that 80% of ships are Assymetrical. I could understand if like 1.5 races had assymetrical ships, but not all 4. For intance. Caldari should probably be assymetrical, but less blocky (moa lookes like a fly block with stuff hanging off). Gallente smoother, curvier ships but with some assymetry (cept Atron and Thorax). Amarr ships probably should be perfectly assymetrical. Minmatar, mostly symmetrical, but still kinda resemble space junk throw together. Tho I think they should have different texture they all look like aluminum or burnt metal. Just my $0.02, flame it, bash it, or like it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: 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.