Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 60 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
LaserzPewPew
Origin. Black Legion.
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:40:00 -
[421] - Quote
Are we going to see a pirate cruiser rebalance as well?
Namely, the hybrid bonus that was traded for a drone tracking/optimal bonus on the Ishtar would be beautiful to see on the Gila as well as a *moderate* speed increase to match the speed of the Cerberus. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:40:00 -
[422] - Quote
Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.
That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is)
HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships
imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
247
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:43:00 -
[423] - Quote
I like the changes proposed so far.
However, I think that there is one big problem with T2 ships in general.
I totally understand that they should not just be more powerful versions of T1/navy ships. I even agree!
What I don't understand, is why you don't do anything to push their pricetag down to their performance level. It really created false expectations, and ultimately hurts the ships, because they literally won't be worth using over t1 or navy ships. And I'm not even speaking of the HAC vs BC comparison.
So basically, don't give them more bang, but do something about all the bucks they cost please... Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Zilero
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
84
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:44:00 -
[424] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas?
I did. Until this dev post I had no idea people were so ********.
Last I checked, vagabonds were horrible brawlers and you wanted to fight as much as possible in the falloff of your guns, but apparently everyone now flies Vagas with ASBs in order to brawl.. or.. whatever. The CSM that came up with this lame idea needs to be shot (in game).
If I want to brawl and win I'll pick a hull that costs 1/10th the Vaga hull and win over a brawling vaga 90% of the time.
Good riddance.
Also, the MWD bonus is ridiculous, why do you need a bonus when most of the HACs can't even fly with an MWD turned on for more than 1-2 minutes.
HACs are even more dead with this "rebalance" - there is litterally no need to train for HACs at all as most T1 cruisers are better. |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr Nulli Secunda
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:44:00 -
[425] - Quote
as you need the racial cruiser at 5 to fly these ship, why don't you put those cruiser racial skill bonus into role bonus class ?
Quote:exemple : Vaga
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
these stats will never be 20% bonus to rate of fire since you need level 5.
Let's do something clear and put them like this :
Quote:Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty 25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 37.5% bonus to shield boost amount
Unless you guys have a plan to remove the racial cruiser skill 5 from prerequisites ? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
305
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:44:00 -
[426] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades. That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is) HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes
indeed also T1 are meant to be the base ships from where navy/pirate and T3 and T2 stem from so make HACS T2 attack cruisers you can still use different bonuses and layout from the T1's to keep uniqueness. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
92
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:45:00 -
[427] - Quote
I hope the missile slots on the Deimos are a mistake, omg. Anglic Eclipse.
Lee told me to remove my signature Minmatar and Gallente FW |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
338
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:45:00 -
[428] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Swidgen wrote: Think about it: if HACs no longer fulfill their originally intended roles, .
problem with the op is rise does not define in his mind what is the role of a hac. it seems some are leaning toward a combat and some to paper thin attack... we need to clearly define what is a hac before we can discuss where they need to go. moreover we have two tiers of hacs... IMO one should be more combat tanky and one more mobile attack. It seems as though (based on the Tech chart from a while ago and various comments) that CCP envisions HACs as a tankier version of a T1 Attack Cruiser. This idea worked great in the Zealot, because it can mount a significant tank (~+100%) over an Omen, project more damage with its damage bonus (on top of its RoF bonus) AND have better optimals with the +optimal bonus. The Zealot combines the best of Amarr T1 into a T2 hull: strong tank (like a maller) and good damage (like an Omen (old ONI)). Each race has one HAC that is supposed to elevate their T1 Att. Cruiser and then some. Zealot already does this, Deimos should, Vagabond should and Cerebus should (probably does after this pass).
Then, the other ships in the HAC category were racial wildcards. Amarr had Sacrilege (firing HAMs from an armor hull), Gallente had Ishtar (which was supposed to be some sort of super Vexor), Minmatar the Muninn for a specialized long rage Arty boat and Caldari the Eagle for a similar purpose. What happened in the mean time is T3 BCs were released, obsoleting the long range ships and T1/Navy got such boosts that the rest, save from the shining-star Zealot--which really wasn't affected because the package on the ONI is for kiting, just couldn't keep up. Obviously, the Zealot was a beautiful ship, well designed and didn't need to change.
Unfortunately, the other ships weren't at this place. The Deimos isn't a "better" Thorax. The Thorax still tracks better, is faster and puts out the same (or more) damage than it. Eagles will still put down pitiful dps (at range! whoo! /sad) and the same dps as a Moa up close. I have to disagree with CCP that HACs shouldn't be "better" than a T1 ship. Yes, they should be. The Zealot, by all measures, is flat-out better than an Omen and a Maller. HACs should put out more damage with ~60k tank (with an ACR). Command Ships, OTOH, should put out similar damage to their T1 counterparts but have a tankier ship. That'd distinguish CSs with HACs: HACs give you damage and CSs give you tank.
But back to the point: CCP likely wants HACs to be what their name implies: A heavy assau--attack--cruiser. A T1 cruiser with more tank. But that distinguishment will never justify the 10:1 increase in cost, and if they don't balance based on cost, then there's really no point in having these ships cost more just so we can get a marginal increase like extra optimal range. (And besides, Navy ships are already T1 ships with more tank.) These ships have to do more: project damage better, better falloff, better tracking, faster rate of fire, stronger cap, stronger tank, etc. There needs to be a reason to buy one--and a much better reason than a marginal performance increase.
CCP, I urge you to have a hard look at the Zealot and why it's been so successful in the game. Ask yourselves why Deimoses, Eagles and the others have been shelved. Then, once you answer those questions, work in solutions to this line that addresses those answers.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
149
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:49:00 -
[429] - Quote
"guys why should a 150m ship be better than a 10m ship????" -EVE-O scrubs |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
114
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:49:00 -
[430] - Quote
Please have a second look at the agility. Whilst I like some of the changes around slots and bonuses, some of these ships are horrifically slow. Now I don't want these to all end up flat out faster than the T1 cruisers, but please consider putting them in the same ballpark.
Looking at the Zealot as an example. It's a big chunk slower in a straight line than an Omen, whilst taking a few extra seconds to align. If you don't want to make it and the other ranged HACs faster can you consider giving them more fitting - powergrid in particular - so they can actually fit the full size guns, MWD and some tank without needing fitting mods / implant? Looking in EFT, with perfect skills. Can't fit a set of Heavy Beams, meta 4 800mm plate, meta mwd and even a micro cap booster without implants or fitting mods. It just needs a percent more! :p
|
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
221
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:53:00 -
[431] - Quote
Add another to the list of voices shouting for more CPU on the Ishtar.
Seriously, this should have been the first thing that was addressed on the ship. Ishtar has always had crippling fitting. It's like you've never even flown the ship (and I'm fairly certain you have). I am disappointed with you. Your parents probably are too. You should feel bad. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 18:54:00 -
[432] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Please have a second look at the agility. Whilst I like some of the changes around slots and bonuses, some of these ships are horrifically slow. Now I don't want these to all end up flat out faster than the T1 cruisers, but please consider putting them in the same ballpark.
Looking at the Zealot as an example. It's a big chunk slower in a straight line than an Omen, whilst taking a few extra seconds to align. If you don't want to make it and the other ranged HACs faster can you consider giving them more fitting - powergrid in particular - so they can actually fit the full size guns, MWD and some tank without needing fitting mods / implant? Looking in EFT, with perfect skills. Can't fit a set of Heavy Beams, meta 4 800mm plate, meta mwd and even a micro cap booster without implants or fitting mods. It just needs a percent more! :p
Agility would certainly be a balancing point vs T1 ships, though. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say that T1 attack crusiers ought to have gotten the MWD bonus to offset somewhat their smallish tank and lack of T2 resists. T2 ships keep their strong tank with better damage application but at the cost of some agility and speed. Makes sense.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:02:00 -
[433] - Quote
This makes HACS better just on conditions. And still... Again t1 variants are more effective in close range... doesnt worth to use t2 (!) and of course in long range other ship class is way better.
T1 cruisers, frigs, battleships got boosted in their EHP, weapons, bonuses while Hacs got some boosting IF you do this and that... or they didnt got any significant boost f.e. zealot, vaga(bonus to tractor beam would be equally funny and you could still claim that there is a boosting).
Not really any change, nothing to see here.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:04:00 -
[434] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them?
Yup
[High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos
[Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler
[Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II
[Rig Slots]
Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer
Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals)
Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:05:00 -
[435] - Quote
After a bit more reading and thinking, I have developed my conclusion further.
1) No one understands how strong T2 resists are. Seriously.
2) The Sacrilege would benefit tremendously from going to 4 launchers with a 10% damage bonus and trading a high for a low. This would open up so much viability it's just silly. Rise, please read this and the other Sacri posts. I love this ship, I've flown it forever, and this is our chance to make it work without breaking anything.
3) The Deimos needs a different bonus (replacing the mwd thing) and the Ishtar needs more cpu. These ships are simply not worth using without these changes.
4) All or some of these vessels should have their cost reduced slightly. As many have commented, the investment vs reward for using HACs is very disproportionately high on the investment side.
Hopefully most of you agree with me. I think with these changes, this would be a solid balance pass. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
5488
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:06:00 -
[436] - Quote
Pic'n dor wrote:as you need the racial cruiser at 5 to fly these ship, why don't you put those cruiser racial skill bonus into role bonus class ? Quote:exemple : Vaga
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
these stats will never be 20% bonus to rate of fire since you need level 5. Let's do something clear and put them like this : Quote:Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty 25% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 37.5% bonus to shield boost amount Unless you guys have a plan to remove the racial cruiser skill 5 from prerequisites ? It's probably done that way because that is how the bonus is actually calculated. Showing the bonus in the same way avoids any confusion or misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. A role bonus would be something you can't possibly ever lose once gained, but there are still ways to lose skill levels in the game and fully trained skill are the most likely victims if it happens, so it's perfectly justified to show them as per level bonuses. |
Raging Beaver
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:06:00 -
[437] - Quote
Great changes! Time to go to Jita and sell all HACs... And let me guess, you're going to make them more expensive as well, right? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:08:00 -
[438] - Quote
Its a shame i was thinking of training HAC lv5 and actually buying some HACS ... but alas my cynabal isn't going to be displaced by any HACS ... i would be more likely to use my caracal or get a bellicose nice and cheap and do the same thing as HACS pretty much... or maybe use my SFI for a more armour based setup .. a great frig killer in a RR armour BS fleet. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:08:00 -
[439] - Quote
Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades.
Except HACs cost five times as much, so being straight upgrades would actually make them worth it. T1 cruisers for newer players, HACs for older players.
Obviously HACs shouldn't be 5 times better because they cost 5 times as much, but they should be better than their T1 originals.
And what does ABC stand for? A Basic Cruiser? Clearly I've been living in my wormhole for too long since when I went to WH space ABC meant Arknor Bistot Crokite...
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1664
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:08:00 -
[440] - Quote
Basically you made t1 cruisers so good that anything you do to the HACS that cost 10-15 times as much wont be good enough.
Perhaps a drastic reduction in HAC build costs to maybe make them cost in the 50-70 million range and you'd be getting somewhere with your current ideas.
What you're doing right now is wasting time changing stats on ships that will stay shelved because of changes you made to other ships.
EDIT: They need to be cheaper than Talos, Tornado ect hulls which are flat out better at damage projection and more exensive than their fragile t1 brothers, so anywhere in the middle there will bring their use back up, anything else you do short of making them a direct improvement over the t1 hull will leave them sitting on the shelf where they're currently at. |
|
Romar Thel
Mythos Corp Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:09:00 -
[441] - Quote
Raging Beaver wrote:Great changes! Time to go to Jita and sell all HACs... And let me guess, you're going to make them more expensive as well, right?
They worth being more expensive after THAT boosting!
hahahah. Good point bro |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:12:00 -
[442] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them? Yup [High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos [Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler [Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II [Rig Slots] Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals) Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least.
interesting fit.... but is it worth using over a cyclone dual ASB 1200 plus tank for a 4th of the price? Which is always an issue if you care about your wallet and your kb... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Adaramyyn
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:12:00 -
[443] - Quote
As an originally-Caldari pilot who trained into Amarr specifically for the Sacrilege (only to learn later that it was a terrible ship at the time), I approve this message. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
8583
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:14:00 -
[444] - Quote
Losing hitpoints is a bad thing for brawlers. The Deimos is no exception. Or are you trying to turn the Deimos into a Shield tank now? sort of a Gallente version of the vagabond? the hitpoint reduction makes no sense to me whatsoever. if anything, BUFF the hitpoints! DOES THE SLANG NAME "DIEMOST" MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?
Vagabond's new base speed is 9 m/s slower than current Vagabond with only Minmatar Cruiser 5. Other than that, with the new Shield Booster bonus I reckon it's gonna need a bigger cargo bay as well so it can hold enough capacitor booster charges, and also it's not consistent with the Jaguar, so I wonder where the "consistency" is here. also, brawler role? then what's the speed and falloff bonus for?? And fitting shield boosters on Vagabonds is only popular because Ancillary Shield Boosters are overpowered which made them popular with lots of ships. Yes they ARE overpowered. and yes I do use them because of that and I enjoy the benefits of overpowered shield boosters.
Sacrilege as heavy tackle? isn't the Vagabond better for that, with its higher scan resolution? The bigger drone bay will give the Sac a lot more DPS, in combination with its stronger powergrid allowing for a better tank, will make it a lot more common as it is much more powerful and will probably be able to compete with some Battlecruisers.
tl;dr HAC changes make no sense. And here I thought the HAC rebalancing will add more tank to them. My bad! Sorry! You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
339
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:15:00 -
[445] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Kesi Raae wrote:you don't want T1 ships to be made obsolete again by making HAC's straight upgrades. That would make sense if HACs actually filled a different intended role than T1 cruisers, which they don't, and this patch won't do anything to change. They're T1 cruisers that trade mobility for tank and DPS, except they also cost 10 times as much, so no one uses them. For damage application Tier3s are better, for brawling T1 cruisers do nearly the same thing but much cheaper, the only viable HAC in large fleets is the zealot by virtue of its good fleet-oriented bonuses and T2 resists (and because of how bad the Omen is) HACs either need an entirely new role that they excel at (unlikely, as pretty much every conceivable role in this game is already well-filled), or to be expensive direct upgrades to T1 ships imo there's nothing inherently wrong with direct upgrades, that's basically what most navy ships and many T2 ships are, and people still fly T1 ships because cost-efficiency is something people care about. The Exequror Navy is a direct upgrade of the Thorax, superior in every way, and guess what? People still fly Thoraxes QFT. The bolded part is what needs to be shouted from the roof tops. T1 ships are very capable, throwaway fun wagons. T2 is what you fly when you're more serious, would prefer to not get killed, and want a better performer.
Besides, if you guys have any designs on nerfing T3s to perform "less," then these ships are going to have to out perform them. As the iteration is now, their dps is still sub-T3, so unless you're going to nerf T3s into oblivion, these HACs have to out-damage (perhaps damage as much as) a T3s post-T3-rebalance and certainly more than their respective T1 counterparts. At the end of the day:
T1: Fastest, agile, high dps, small to med. tank T2: Slower than T1, less agile, highest dps, med tank T3: Middle of T1/T2 speed, middle T1/T2 agility, middle dps, higher tank (but obviously most adaptable) CSs (since they really fit in here, too): Slowest speed, slow agility, ~T1 and a little dps, highest tank.
These are obviously all approximations. The Vaga, for example, is faster than a Stabber, but the overall concept is the same.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
114
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:15:00 -
[446] - Quote
In addition to previous post. +1 to cheaper hacs and more ishtar cpu! |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
342
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:16:00 -
[447] - Quote
Liafcipe9000 wrote:Losing hitpoints is a bad thing for brawlers. The Deimos is no exception. Or are you trying to turn the Deimos into a Shield tank now? sort of a Gallente version of the vagabond? the hitpoint reduction makes no sense to me whatsoever. It doesn't make sense to me because the Thorax performs the shield kiting role WAY better than a Deimos will--PLUS, it's got a tracking bonus, making those now-worse tracking medium rails hit better.
As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
131
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:17:00 -
[448] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:Harvey James wrote:darius mclever wrote:Harvey James wrote:and the comment that vaga can brawl seems ridiculous to me even with the ASB bonus which must be hard too fit i would imagine. the vaga is built on speed and kiting .. just remove the shield booster bonus and just buff its damage bonus to 10% so 3 more useful bonuses instead of 4 weaker and odd bonus combos did you miss that many people already fly ASB vagas? but do they brawl with them? Yup [High Slots] Dual 180mm Autocannon II Small Neut/Nos [Mid Slots] 10mn Experimental Microwarpdrive 10mn Afterburner II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler [Low Slots] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Nanofiber Internatl Structure II [Rig Slots] Medium Ancillary Current Router Medium Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer Requires a 1% PG implant, 400 DPS without drones MWD - 2700m/s AB - 1000 m/s Slowboat - 408m/s 12k EHP 750 DPS tank with overloaded ASB (Should be closer to 1000 with the new bonus, higher still with crystals) Can catch kiting ships, can get under battleship guns, works well for what amounts to basically a one slot tank. I think Garmon also did a video with one of these... one of those elite PvPers did a video with it at least. interesting fit.... but is it worth using over a cyclone dual ASB 1200 plus tank for a 4th of the price? Which is always an issue if you care about your wallet and your kb... Also when CS get buffed .. similar price which is more useful to the fleet?
And that is why HACs are bad, even with these changes
I'm also going to point out that a Vaga goes twice as fast and has a lower sig giving it the ability to speed tank. Cyclone is likely superior in most situations though.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:25:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: VAGABOND - Like with the Stabber, we are rolling the max velocity bonus into the base stats, and then replacing it with a shield boost bonus. This has nice racial continuity and supports a play-style that has been emerging for the Vaga anyway as a close range active brawler. Please keep in mind that it can still be used exactly the same way that it always has been with virtually no change in performance.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1) Fittings: 855 PWG, 395 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1750(+97) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4) Capacitor (amount) : 1060(-2.5) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 290(+51) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 330 / 6(+1) Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 115
It's kinda difficult to see the further decline of the Vaga s a kiting ship which I loved so much. The nerfs to TEs were just the last nail in the coffin of a gradual descent into mediocrity and oblivion. I had hoped that the HAC rebalance would have given it some new shine but now I see that idea was unfounded. The decline continues with an additional speed nerf (albeight a slight one) and the addition of an unnecessary bonus to ASBs. I'm quite sure there will be some shmucks that will fit the ASB on it and use it as a close range brawler, I'm quite sure it will still stay a niche, and it will be a poor brawler at that because of a lack of mid slots.
How could have things be different? Well dunno, haven't given it that much though, but maybe if instead of the ASB bonus it was given a stronger speed bonus or some kind of tracking or agility bonus.
PS. If you're so dead set on the the ASB bonus, more CPU and PG will be needed, so at least give it a boost on that side.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
459
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 19:31:00 -
[450] - Quote
The only complaint I have is about the deimos.
IMHO it is still the die-most with an outdated MWD cap bonus. Either it needs some sort of survivability bonus, or a speed bonus.
I think the coolest bonus to give it would be a 10% increase to MWD overloaded speed per level.
This would mean an MWD would still give a 500% bonus when turned on normally, but when overloading instead of giving a 750% bonus it would be a 875% bonus (a difference of about 400 m/s on a 290 m/s base ship) This would increase the deimos' ability to catch its opponents quickly without increasing its ability to kite forever. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 60 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |