| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ethan Tomlinson
   |
Posted - 2005.11.17 17:19:00 -
[1]
I suggest we start lobby'ing for changes to the cerberus and eagle again. people need to start either posting in this thread or making other ones to get the devs to throw in these changes before big content patch!!!
eagle: 5th turret hardpoint, more powergrid, more cpu
cerberus: 5% kinetic missile dmg bonus removed and changed to 5% bonus to all missile dmg per lvl, more capacitor, more cpu(because t2 bcu's are a ***** to fit)
sacriledge: i dont know cause i dont fly em but i hear the dmg is pretty ****ty
there we go thats my suggestions. ccp please adhere to these changes immediatly or i will burn your women and *****your belongings
any more suggestions are appreciated.
Lets make the cerb and the eagle the proud caldari flagships that they should be!!!!
|
Lord Ziggy
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 19:24:00 -
[2]
i agree with your eagle changes, not had a cerberus yet but bonus to all missiles sounds good.
for that sac IMHO i would change resistance bonus from armour to armour and shield, and make armour and shield HP the same, add another missile launcher slot, and change the 10% laser range bonus to a missile damage bonus.
|
Darling Hassasin
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 19:32:00 -
[3]
Yes pls fix the Eagle or you can have my stuff.
|
DayVV4lkEr
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 20:22:00 -
[4]
Fix the Cerberus ?
Just wait for the 10 % Heavy Missile Launcher RoF Boost the only problem i see with the cerberus now is that the BCU II needs to much CPU (bring them in line with the turret ones) and that the damage of Heavy's is a little to low but that should be adjusted by increase the damage of Heavy Missiles and not by boosting the Cerb only. Because a caracal for example compared to a lot of other cruisers just sucks....
|
Kuningatar
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 20:23:00 -
[5]
muninn too, nub
|
Ati'Kasha
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 20:38:00 -
[6]
Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a 5th gun slot on an Eagle make it insta-overpowered? I mean, there are allready pretty effective BlasterEagle setups out there, and an extra gun+grid will make them outclass even the Deimos up close.
Shieldtank and more grid will basically mean a 5x Neutron setup. This would make it tank and do insane damage at the same time. Deimos's can only do either one really well.
This should not happen.
Maybe a better way to upgrade it will be by giving it an extra mid, so it can tank a bit better. I hear it's weak EM resist gets it killed very often. Also, after the next patch, it's tank will be upped DRASTICALLY.
Maybe it needs a somewhat better damagebonus? Maybe 7,5%/HAClvl? Or RoF instead of Damage. It does need more damage, but NO WAY IN HELL should it get more gunslots and grid. That would leave the true damagedealing HAC sortof obsolete. Range/Damage/tank-wise.
Also:
Sac's arent built for damage.
Cerb definitely needs a boost. CPU wise maybe?(those BCU's will stay at 40 tf as CCP hates Caldari for some reason) And ofcourse damage, but everybody knows that.
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 20:40:00 -
[7]
eagle & five guns... ok but reduce pg for 200... or maybe tell me how to fit 5 neutron blasters on deimos :)
Be back in a year or so :/
 Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Pre-patch: Scorpion + Gankageddon.
Post-patch: Scorpion + Raven, maybe.
Missiles sux, doesn't they?
|
xenorx
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 20:48:00 -
[8]
Edited by: xenorx on 17/11/2005 20:50:33
Cerberus:
Add +1 launcher slot
Add CPU and PG to fit the extra launcher.
Change 5% kinetic bonus on both the caracal and cerberus to 5% to all damage types and + 5% kinetic on top of that. Just like the proposed changes to the kestral in the mk2 project.
Change the missile flight time bonus to something usefull. Perhaps a bonus to target painters or web range or cap recharge or....well something usefull. firing heavy missiles over 160km is just a useless bonus.
|
Ethan Tomlinson
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 21:03:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Ethan Tomlinson on 17/11/2005 21:03:35
if eagle had 5 slots which it should...diemos would still do 25% more dmg with hac 5...
ccp should increase powergrid so that eagle cant have much or any of a tank but still should be able to fit 5 t2 250's. that guarantees u can fit a gank setup on the eagle for long range sniping that actually hurts ships larger than frigates. atm a punisher can just about tank an eagle from long range...
if u can barely fit 5 t2 250's you are going to be hard pressed to fit 5 t2 neutrons an mwd and any kind of tank on your eagle and even with 5 t2 neutrons that extra 25% dmg bonus on the diemos means it still does more dmg with electrons
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 22:17:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 17/11/2005 22:25:42
Originally by: Ati'Kasha
Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a 5th gun slot on an Eagle make it insta-overpowered? I mean, there are allready pretty effective BlasterEagle setups out there, and an extra gun+grid will make them outclass even the Deimos up close.
It's a long way to go for an eagle to "outclass" the deimos up close.
The mk2 thorax outdamages the current eagle. Sure, the eagle gets 25% damage bonus, but the thorax gets a 5th gun which is like a 25% damage bonus (except for the extra cap & ammunition use). Then, 10 medium drones t1 (~80-90 dps) outdamage 2 heavy launcher t2 with the new stats (< 50 dps).
Originally by: Ati'Kasha
Shieldtank and more grid will basically mean a 5x Neutron setup. This would make it tank and do insane damage at the same time. Deimos's can only do either one really well.
Yeah, conveninent for you to ignore the whole issue related to how you are supposed to close in, web, and scramble... which the deimos can do, but your eagle "tanking and dealing insane amounts of damage" would not be able to do.
By the way, where is this insane amount of damage you speak of ? Sure as hell it's not in eve.
Currently, would what you speak of fit.
With a launcher hardpoint switched to a turret hardpoint, would it all fit.
Neutron or not, the eagle will never be a good blastership, it lacks the agility, speed, ability to fit mwd + tackling gear, and drone bay.
Originally by: Ati'Kasha
This should not happen.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure your uninformed opinions will take care of that: it will not happen. Sorry for not being very friendly but i'm sick of uninformed opinions.
Originally by: Ati'Kasha
Maybe a better way to upgrade it will be by giving it an extra mid, so it can tank a bit better. I hear it's weak EM resist gets it killed very often. Also, after the next patch, it's tank will be upped DRASTICALLY.
Drastically how ? Sure, the resist bonus is better than the shield boost bonus. But, get real, it's not going to be a tanking monster, challenging the apoc in a tanking contest.
Originally by: Ati'Kash
Maybe it needs a somewhat better damagebonus? Maybe 7,5%/HAClvl? Or RoF instead of Damage. It does need more damage, but NO WAY IN HELL should it get more gunslots and grid. That would leave the true damagedealing HAC sortof obsolete. Range/Damage/tank-wise.
Erm.
* 25% damage bonus = 5th gun damage wise. Damage bonus is even better because it doesn't eat cap, cost money for the gun, or use ammo. Granted, the 37.5% damage bonus that you propose is not equal to 56.25% extra damage from two 25% damage bonus but your point isn't making sense anyway.
* rof bonus instead of damage bonus. Oh, great. While in a fight that last forever, 25% ROF bonus is more damaging than 25% damage, in a real fight (where volley damage is something interesting for a sniper ship) it's not neccesarily the case. There is no ROF to wait for before the first volley and that's why rof bonus isn't always better than damage bonus. By the way, even assuming it's better... how exactly is it better ? Right, not even marginally.
Not bothering anymore with this flying abomination that is the blaster-eagle. Here's a graph of the damage of the current eagle and an eagle with a rof bonus instead of the second range bonus.
Current Eagle and Eagle with ROF bonus instead of second 50% range
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 22:24:00 -
[11]
Your graph is crap, I'm a maxed out deimos pilot with implants and the works and your damage figures are still way way off
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.11.17 22:31:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 17/11/2005 22:32:58
Originally by: Gariuys
Your graph is crap, I'm a maxed out deimos pilot with implants and the works and your damage figures are still way way off
Here's one more crap graph for you.
What's wrong exactly? The fact that I included the impact of volley damage (and the first volley) on damage over time, some damage mods, falloff and drone damage? Or just the color?
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Spreadsheet - Damage @ range. |
Big MackDaddy
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 00:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ethan Tomlinson
Edited by: Ethan Tomlinson on 17/11/2005 21:03:35
if eagle had 5 slots which it should...diemos would still do 25% more dmg with hac 5...
ccp should increase powergrid so that eagle cant have much or any of a tank but still should be able to fit 5 t2 250's. that guarantees u can fit a gank setup on the eagle for long range sniping that actually hurts ships larger than frigates. atm a punisher can just about tank an eagle from long range...
if u can barely fit 5 t2 250's you are going to be hard pressed to fit 5 t2 neutrons an mwd and any kind of tank on your eagle and even with 5 t2 neutrons that extra 25% dmg bonus on the diemos means it still does more dmg with electrons
quoted for truth, and the same in all areas for the cerburus, i mean come on the carcael has 5 launchers and neither are bout to claim any dps records :/
|
Beyatch
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 01:10:00 -
[14]
The sacrilege needs to be beefed up quite a bit....i dont fly them personally but a few corp mates do and they say the dmg sucks.
ive also looked at the stas for the sacrilege and saw that it had 1 LESS low slot than the maller!! now cmon isnt it supposed to have atleast the same amount of low slots than the maller or 1 more low slot so that its tanking ability can be made better??
Maybe give the sac 1 or 2 extra low slots so that it will be able to tank better than a zealot can
my 2 cents
|
Taka
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 01:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Beyatch
The sacrilege needs to be beefed up quite a bit....i dont fly them personally but a few corp mates do and they say the dmg sucks.
ive also looked at the stas for the sacrilege and saw that it had 1 LESS low slot than the maller!! now cmon isnt it supposed to have atleast the same amount of low slots than the maller or 1 more low slot so that its tanking ability can be made better??
Maybe give the sac 1 or 2 extra low slots so that it will be able to tank better than a zealot can
my 2 cents
Dam alt getting in my way
--------------------
 |
Hobblin I
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 01:13:00 -
[16]
Originally by: xenorx
Edited by: xenorx on 17/11/2005 20:50:33
Cerberus:
Add +1 launcher slot
Add CPU and PG to fit the extra launcher.
Change 5% kinetic bonus on both the caracal and cerberus to 5% to all damage types and + 5% kinetic on top of that. Just like the proposed changes to the kestral in the mk2 project.
Change the missile flight time bonus to something usefull. Perhaps a bonus to target painters or web range or cap recharge or....well something usefull. firing heavy missiles over 160km is just a useless bonus.
ROFL 
|
Kyoko Sakoda
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 01:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Hobblin I
Originally by: xenorx
Edited by: xenorx on 17/11/2005 20:50:33
Cerberus:
Add +1 launcher slot
Add CPU and PG to fit the extra launcher.
Change 5% kinetic bonus on both the caracal and cerberus to 5% to all damage types and + 5% kinetic on top of that. Just like the proposed changes to the kestral in the mk2 project.
Change the missile flight time bonus to something usefull. Perhaps a bonus to target painters or web range or cap recharge or....well something usefull. firing heavy missiles over 160km is just a useless bonus.
ROFL
Yeah usually I don't say anything bad against making Caldari HACs better, but doing all of that is way too much.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 01:53:00 -
[18]
The only ship mentioned that actually needs help is the Sacrilege.
________________________________________________________
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 01:57:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Meridius
The only ship mentioned that actually needs help is the Sacrilege.
If you trully think that atm sacrilege is worse for pvp than eagle you need to think again. Hard. My guess is you are used to zealot being the definitive pownmobile and you want sacrilege to be the same... with missles LOL, wake up and smell the roses :)
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 02:05:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Meridius
The only ship mentioned that actually needs help is the Sacrilege.
If you trully think that atm sacrilege is worse for pvp than eagle you need to think again. Hard. My guess is you are used to zealot being the definitive pownmobile and you want sacrilege to be the same... with missles LOL, wake up and smell the roses :)
You should check the MK2 Eagle, tanking like a Sacrilege with 3x more damage.
PS. Get a clue
________________________________________________________
|
Hobblin I
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 02:24:00 -
[21]
Also giving the sac another missile slot would not help at all. While not LOW on cpu, it doesn't have nearly enough to fit 4 launchers and an armor tank with tackling in the mids. And ofcourse NOS
|
DayVV4lkEr
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 03:14:00 -
[22]
i would say the cerberus fans just should wait for the upcoming changes.
sure i would love to see the cerberus to be a wtfomfffsbbqmobile but that wouldn't be good for the game.
a well setup cerberus can take out both minmatar HACs and the deimos (maybe sacri) if u fit them for the enemy a cerberus can even take out EVERY HAC (maybe except the zealot (zealot is just the enemy a caldari SHOULD fear (EM Damage so i think it's right that a cerberus can't kill a zealot without thinking).
The 10 % RoF boost for heavy launchers and the upcoming assault missiles look good so far. if the damage of heavy's against smaller targets get's increased a little (so it can finally fight a stil standing AF) i'm totally happy :) (for now)
btw the sacrilige pilots should think about the following:
the sacri is the BEST tank among the HAC and one of the best ships to have in complexe's maybe it is it's niche to be a tanker not a damage dealer (that is what i heard a thosunad times as a caldari, sorry, just wanted to say that to someone)
|
Hobblin I
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 04:20:00 -
[23]
Originally by: DayVV4lkEr
i would say the cerberus fans just should wait for the upcoming changes.
sure i would love to see the cerberus to be a wtfomfffsbbqmobile but that wouldn't be good for the game.
a well setup cerberus can take out both minmatar HACs and the deimos (maybe sacri) if u fit them for the enemy a cerberus can even take out EVERY HAC (maybe except the zealot (zealot is just the enemy a caldari SHOULD fear (EM Damage so i think it's right that a cerberus can't kill a zealot without thinking).
The 10 % RoF boost for heavy launchers and the upcoming assault missiles look good so far. if the damage of heavy's against smaller targets get's increased a little (so it can finally fight a stil standing AF) i'm totally happy :) (for now)
btw the sacrilige pilots should think about the following:
the sacri is the BEST tank among the HAC and one of the best ships to have in complexe's maybe it is it's niche to be a tanker not a damage dealer (that is what i heard a thosunad times as a caldari, sorry, just wanted to say that to someone)
Sorry, best tank? Ok
But for an uber armor tanker it has less armor than most armor tanking hacs by default and fewer low slots.
Also, for an armor tanker it has more shield hp.
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 06:46:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Meridius
The only ship mentioned that actually needs help is the Sacrilege.
What do you know, in the first place?
Can't you just shut your mouth instead of talking about ships you don't fly?
Do you see the Caldari pilots voicing their legitimate concerns (for monthes) about the HACs they fly go **** on the parade of those who ask for Amarr and Minmatarr buffs?
I surely don't, so mind your own business.
If you don't like the Sac, start your own thread and see how you will be wellcome by other Amarr pilots.
____________________________________
Let's make the MK2 Moa a ship worth flying. |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 07:29:00 -
[25]
Cerberus seems very powerful on SiSi right now, and will be very potent when Red Moon Rising hits tranquility.
If you don't believe me I still state why:
a) Heavy Launchers are a lot better, they fire almost 20% faster.
b) Medium and Large Shield Extenders (even T2) are very easy to fit, it IS possible to get a Cerberus setup with ~5,000 shields and PvP viable.
c) Everyone elses ships have had their damage scaled BACK. Deimos, Zealot, ect all do less damage because of the new stacking penalty, while the Cerberus actually has been boosted in DPS thanks to the heavy launcher rate of fire boost.
d) Damage Control II helps cover up the EM hole, and four damage modules IS NOT that advantageous over three right now, so why not use this module instead?
e)The Invulnerability Field is now a capacitor friendly module and could be considered useful in some setups, I imagine.
The things keeping the Cerberus from being good, but not great:
a) 40tf Ballistic Control II hampers setups, Domination Ballistic Controls are very much worth the 40 million ISK people are asking for them nowadays because they use 12 less CPU, that adds up to 36-48 spare CPU for your Cerberus, that is huge..
b) Still has a weak capacitor, thus using a large shield booster is well, very fleeting, it will suck you dry.. extender + medium shield booster works better.
c) It's still not a truly "ganktastic" ship like the Zealot or Deimos or Vagabond, but it's better, and very competetive.
I could live with the pathetic capacitor and the fact the Cerberus does less DPS than other HAC (it obviously out ranges them all by tenfold), but the BCU II thing really bothers me because quite franky it really keeps the ship from ascending to the upper echelon of HAC, because quite frankly, you run out of CPU.. and I still think you need at least 3 Ballistic Control IIs on thie ship to be viable, especially with the enhancing tanking introduced in RMR.
Eagle is getting better because of many of the same reasons, scaled back damage from other ships makes the Eagles DPS more competetive, it also can fit two heavy launchers for extra DPS (though with my just about maxed skills, each launcher adds only ~25 more DPS on SiSi). It has excellent resistances, especially when you fit a damage control II or invulnerability field II..
Can't comment on Sacrilege, don't fly it, don't know much about it. It still strikes me as a poor man's Ishtar from my point of view.
------
If Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock embracing one another, in a bath tube, nude, in space, is wrong, I don't want to be right. |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 08:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Sorja
What do you know, in the first place?
Can't you just shut your mouth instead of talking about ships you don't fly?
This is who i trust when it comes to missiles:
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Cerberus seems very powerful on SiSi right now, and will be very potent when Red Moon Rising hits tranquility.
It's not my fault he's more experienced in every possible way and has an opinion thats actually worth something.
Just as always tho i'll beat you down with 2 more points.
-Eagle MK2 will tank as well as a Sacrilege while putting out near 3x more damage
-Cerberus almost matches the DPS of a Zealot while boasting 15x the effective range (just to simplify things for you a Cerb will match or outdamage a Zealot from 10-20km up to 150km)
Oh noes, all hope is lost
________________________________________________________
|
Red Horseman
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 08:50:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Red Horseman on 18/11/2005 08:51:03
Only change i'd recommend to the sacrilege is to switch the shield and armor hp. I have hull upg 5 and shield whatever 3, still have more shield than armor.
The strong point of the Sacrilege is its capacitor, that thing is amazing. if you get 1 relay and 2 recharger II's you can run any setup with the possible exception of mwd/blasters.
Damage really isnt bad, but i have pretty good skills (medium pulse spec 4, surg 5, +5% medium energy damage implant).
Its also very versatile in terms of being able to use either heavy pulse or heavy missiles as its primary weapons, and its 4 mid slots.
Although its not as ownful as other hac's, its still a nice ship.
|
Gee'Kin
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 09:08:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Gee''Kin on 18/11/2005 09:09:01
Edited by: Gee''Kin on 18/11/2005 09:08:50
Well mount more guns on a eagle would be nice. Eagle should be a gun platform
no changes to cerberus. its good enough for me atm. even better then the eagle :S
gank
-> To kill someone in a massively multiplayer rpg, usually by dishonorable methods <- |
Hanns
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 11:21:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Meridius
The only ship mentioned that actually needs help is the Sacrilege.
If you trully think that atm sacrilege is worse for pvp than eagle you need to think again. Hard. My guess is you are used to zealot being the definitive pownmobile and you want sacrilege to be the same... with missles LOL, wake up and smell the roses :)
You should check the MK2 Eagle, tanking like a Sacrilege with 3x more damage.
PS. Get a clue
Quoted for truth.
and P.S pwnt
|
Denrace
|
Posted - 2005.11.18 11:38:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Lord Ziggy
i agree with your eagle changes, not had a cerberus yet but bonus to all missiles sounds good.
for that sac IMHO i would change resistance bonus from armour to armour and shield, and make armour and shield HP the same, add another missile launcher slot, and change the 10% laser range bonus to a missile damage bonus.
/signed 
This would rockz0r
____________________________________________
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |