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) |
elitatwo
Congregatio
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:51:00 -
[601] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s
...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... |
Rn Bonnet
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:52:00 -
[602] - Quote
Oh BTW since the t1 cruiser hulls are often 50% faster than there base hull for a lot of these ships the MWD sig bonus just puts them on par with the t1 hull in terms of tracking. Make them all at least as fast as the t1 hull and we will be talking. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:53:00 -
[603] - Quote
Unsure about Deimos changes.
Armor deimos can fit a web and not lose the cap booster, which makes up for not having a neut. But armor Deimoses are still Diemosts.
Shield Deimos either gets more tank, cap stability or can also fit a web to make up for not having a neut. but TE nerf already hit it pretty hard and even before the TE nerf it was only projecting damage roughly as well as a 425mm Auto Hurricane. I was really hoping for the Thorax's tracking bonus to transfer to the Deimos. As it stands the Thorax's better damage application under 10km seems to make it better as an anti-tackle ship.
ASB bonus on vaga is GREAT for my vaga fits, but to be honest it's borderline overpowered. What the Vaga really needed was a capacitor bonus. At the moment it's almost compulsory to fit a deadspace mwd to be able to fly around for any significant amount of time. I'm personally happy for you to keep the ASB bonus on the vaga because I will be having a complete ball with my Vagas, but from a balance perspective... yeah. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:54:00 -
[604] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
In Spirit
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 02:57:00 -
[605] - Quote
Quote:I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look.
Spoken like someone who has clearly never attempted to fit an Ishtar for it's purpose, a drone boat. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:08:00 -
[606] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better
Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway.
Thing is, I still don't know what a good bonus for HACS would be but some of the afore mentioned ideas sound more promising than an ab bonus without a significant base speed buff. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
89
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:10:00 -
[607] - Quote
In Spirit wrote:Quote:I'll look at the Ishtar fitting. To me it seems like one of the stronger HACs already and it gained a bonus to damage projection and application so I didn't see a need to give it even more buffs. I don't think of it as a ship that ought to be running medium sized mods in all its high slots. All that said, I'll have another look. Spoken like someone who has clearly never attempted to fit an Ishtar for it's purpose, a drone boat.
I did but I am going to sell it and buy two NOMENs instead.. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1670
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:13:00 -
[608] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better nah you'll have tons of time cause some idiot tried to tackle you in a cloaky huggin instead of the rapier meaning he has a severe scan res penalty so the entire line of thought is moot. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1301
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:14:00 -
[609] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... because a MWD will work so much better Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway. Thing is, I still don't know what a good bonus for HACS would be but some of the afore mentioned ideas sound more promising than an ab bonus without a significant base speed buff. With a MWD bouns the Diemos will go 102.4 m/s under web and scram. With an AB bouns the Diemos will go 448 m/s under web and scram. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Noisrevbus
463
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:15:00 -
[610] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We can't control how you feel, we can only control how powerful the ships are, and they're quite powerful.
Compared to what, in what scenario?
A quick glimpse at the released data would assume that you are looking to poke a few more ships into the 'AHAC role' to compete with the Zealot, shift another couple of ships into some sort of play-at-war brawling (Blaster Eagles, ASB Vagas etc.) for the Amamake crowd and the broad overall objective seem to be cautiously reinforcing the old 'SHAC role' with the new role-bonus (burning a bonused MWD outside of immidiate web-scram ranges).
How do you envision these expensive ships standing up defensively in the face of modern budget sniping options such as Caracals, BC3 and similar?
The range come with the upside of avoiding Loki webs (and the only ships being able to web them from an onset is yet again Recons with their more managable buffers while things like Painters will face falloff-values). Having framed the setting with that dull lead-in: How powerful would you envision these ships to be against considerably larger gangs with cheaper ships firing at them on stacked, unbonused Painters in falloff? I understand that it's a ridiculous "What if" scenario, but I have a feeling that it's going to be a common one and much of a make-or-break scenario. Would it be possible to grab a bunch of these expensive ships without imidiately entering into a trading-blows scenario with less expensive options?
You may not be able to control how we'd feel, but there's usually some sort of logic and elegiability behind how we feel.
Alot of the early calculations done within the community today is simply a "critical mass" overview to the alpha of common ships (ie., you'd need this many Talwars, Caracals or Megathrons to volley ship X on either ideal, average or common accuracies). That's obviously not the end-all measurment of a ship's performance and likely appeal but it's a good starting point and overview. In this case I think it's more prudent than usual since what will make or break the use of these ships is not wether they can kill stuff but wether the risk involved with their price-tag will warrant any use against common gangs.
You didn't have those issues revamping Frigates for example, because Tech II Frigates are still cheap enough in the general span of Tech I subcaps.
|
|
JerseyBOI 2
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:18:00 -
[611] - Quote
Honestly kil2 you know any road leading to HACS not the being kiteyest, fastest cruiser hulls and above is a failure. If they want to divide them into attack and combat roles than that be cool I guess. But without the above it's just...no. WTF is CCP still petrified about the pre nano nerf days? |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
909
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:31:00 -
[612] - Quote
Honestly, I haven't really chewed through the other changes that much yet, but the Vagabond change seems completely stupid to me off the bat. I've been flying the ship since pre-nanonerf, and no, this change is going to drastically change how the ship is going to be flown.
You've essentially made a ship that, at its core, was an excellent kiting ship that did very well in small/medium gang scenarios, and turned it into a flying brick waiting for anyone whose competent to shut it down. The ASB vagabond is a special snowflake setup that has far too few practical uses in ~real pvp~ outside of very controlled scenarios. The traditional vagabond has already been slightly hamstringed by the changes to TEs. You're essentially pushing any good vagabond pilot to just give up on the hull and fly a Cynabal, which just does the current vaga's job a whole lot better as a pirate hull.
You're essentially slapping a useless shield booster skill onto a hull that already suffers, like a good kiting minnie hull, from cap issues. Please, for the love of god and keeping that ship anywhere near useable, do a sensible bonus like projectile falloff or something appropriate for the hull, not some stupid bonus for the special snowflakes that will make the hull completely useless outside of some very specific scenarios. Toshiro Ozuwara > GOon cowards come fight Toshiro Ozuwara > Oh wait, you only camp when you got numberssss
I would fully support account bans by ccp for meta type stuff like this. |
Chessur
Life of lively full life thx to shield battery
124
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 03:52:00 -
[613] - Quote
Please give me a hull that is from the ground up designed to be a true kiting boat.
Give at least one ship in the HAC line a pure kiting bonused kit. (Vaga, Zealot, Cerberus, Diemos)
Speed- In the current T1 cruiser meta, faster than 2400m/s unlinked, unsnaked, and using only 1/2 nanos
Projection- Give us something that can shoot, and hit out to 35K+ using Pulse, AC's, RLMs, Blasters would obviously need some tweaking on the deimos hull. Either make the ranger shorter to compensate blasters, or give the diemos something that would help out its use of rails.
DPS- I am not asking for a lot here. Just give us an edge over the current T1 cruiser / Navy faction varients at projected and applied DPS at range.
Tank- I am not asking for a lot here. Just enough tank to be able to pull range, or warp out from heavy blob DPS fire. I don't need an active bonus, I don't need resitance bonus. Just give me the base EHP to work with, or the fitting room.
If you can make a ship that has the ability to do these 4 things, inside of its fitting room- you have succeeded. You have created something, that while not always better than a T1 cruiser, will specialize a hull farther into the kiting role (Which many of the T1, and all of the navy cruisers can already do to some extent.)
There are currently no / very few cruisers in the game that are able to do the 4 listed objectives. Why don't you make that the HAC's intended goal? |
Gorion Wassenar
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
65
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:38:00 -
[614] - Quote
So....
Why did you think it was a good idea to take the Vagabond, the ship that is supposed to be a high speed skirmish ship, and then give it a tanking bonus and make it about 100m/s slower under MWD? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4086
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:39:00 -
[615] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s ...and suddenly a Huggin decloaks and you are going nowhere... A Huggin decloaks you say? . |
Mr Ignitious
Aperture Harmonics K162
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:44:00 -
[616] - Quote
All of these changes rock my world.
EXCEPT THE ISHTAR. I'm actually aghast with it. I'm convinced it will really suck in comparison to all the other cruisers. It's getting SLOWED DOWN? What? Why?! You're making it a kiting ship with **** agility and now worse speed? It'll be the 2nd slowest HAC. I don't understand this at all. It's slot layout means it can just about do nothing well. It's not a good sniper because sentry mechanics still suck.
I really hate the stupid bonus to drone control range, i mean it now has 2 bonuses to drone sniping... which is the most ******* worthless thing I've ever heard.
I'm actually seriously disgusted with the design for the ishtar. It will do nothing well. If you want a sniper hac you are better off with an eagle or zealot or muninn by FAR which all have better resist profiles, are faster, and CAN MOVE during engagements. It's going to SUCK for being dual prop or close range brawler because it's DPS is getting **** on. I really REALLY hate this. So ******* dumb. |
Joelleaveek
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:47:00 -
[617] - Quote
The term "Heavy Attack Cruiser" implies to me some kind of damage dealing and tanking machine. Yet here were are molding them into tankless kiters. I was expecting something better from this. |
Kai Lae
hirr RAZOR Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:47:00 -
[618] - Quote
Couple of things here. First, deimos. What are you thinking in reducing it's armor, hull, and boosting it's shields? This has got to be one of the weirdest things I've seen since the last time you tried to turn it into a bigger turkey than it is now. Unless you're running a 1600mm buffer setup (which suck, because they take away too much agility and speed) your overall tank, right now, is about 30k EHP. This is obviously so powerful that you felt the need to reduce it? I would love to hear the explanation of why you think this is necessary. Second you've left the MWD bonus. This is just a bad bonus - which your own staff at CCP has already admitted to (though I won't be surprised if you don't remember this as it was probably before any of you were hired). The last deimos "rebalance" which turned the ship into a active tanked armor rep ship removed the MWD bonus and simply increased the base cap to compensate was the only positive idea to come out of the last attempt. How about this proposal, instead of changing the shield/armor/hull amounts just leave them alone, remove the MWD bonus, increase total cap, and add tracking. This will allow use of void in more situations due to the tracking hit being not as severe, while assisting against attacking ships using single unbonused TD's as a defense. You should also consider asking why a close range, in your face HAC has the highest signature radius of any HAC, because this does not make sense either - and greatly limits it's use or utility in an AHAC fleet.
Ishtar: CPU on this ship is critically low and always has been. When it had 15 slots you could claim it was to balance out the fact that it had 15 instead of 14. But this is no longer the case, and in addition, the amount of CPU that drone modules use is extremely high, making it very difficult to use these in any kind of practical setup. Also the previous comment in the thread that having drone space added as a bonus on a ship that now only can use drones is much like having a zealot that adds a gun slot for every HAC level is quite astute. It makes no sense and makes me concerned exactly what your plan is with regards to the Eos, in that you may be planning on retaining it for this ship as well. In addition the bonuses added are quite useful for sentries, but are much less useful for non sentry setups. I strongly advise you to consider adding the drone space into the hull as a default amount, then changing the bonus to drone MWD speed to make non sentry drones more viable for kiting setups, or any setup that plans on relying on heavy drones to kill targets.
Long ranged HAC's overall: Consider increasing the lock range of these ships.
Last, another important point which has already been brought up, HAC cost. In no way, shape or form will HAC's that cost 150-180m ever be commonly used when you have T1 cruisers which can nearly do the job as well, but for a small fraction of the cost. You could buy 10 of them for 1 HAC. The situation is easy to see in today's meta where once you saw vagas, now you see SFI's - as vagas cost 160m and SFI's only 60. It used to be that HAC's cost 70-100m, which was reasonable given their performance. I believe that this as an overall price point for these ships is a good idea and that you should consider reducing the build requirements of these ships to achieve this overall cost, as without it they will unlikely ever be competitive in the overall meta against T1 cruisers/navy cruisers/T1 BC hulls. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3121
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:50:00 -
[619] - Quote
Why on earth did you have to ruin the Ishtar.
One less slot for drone ships is the most ******** thing in EVE, what is the reason for that? Because your main damage can be destroyed? Because it is slow to apply?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Vayn Baxtor
Ultra High Ping Crew R O G U E
64
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:54:00 -
[620] - Quote
Well, gratz to HAC Tiericide. I will stay out of this one mostly, but I find most of the stuff way too shiny. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1301
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 04:59:00 -
[621] - Quote
Roime wrote:Why on earth did you have to ruin the Ishtar.
One less slot for drone ships is the most ******** thing in EVE, what is the reason for that? Because your main damage can be destroyed? Because it is slow to apply? Because, in this case, you can give up almost all your damage to use some pathetic unbounded support or e-war drone that die way to easy. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Senn Denroth
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
86
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:05:00 -
[622] - Quote
So ummm... let me just throw this out there... Why the hell would anyone waste A LOT of time training for HACs at all when navy cruisers are better?
What is so HEAVY about these heavy assault ships you speak of?
Except the cerb.... so OP. LOVE IIIIT!!! |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3121
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:12:00 -
[623] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:YAYYYY Alright so for HACs (Heavy Assault Cruisers) we had a few goals: Increase viability for the worst ships (Eagle, Cerberus, Sacrilege especially) Support rather than disrupt current uses (AHACs) Make room for new uses when possible The biggest change here, and the one that affects all 8 ships, is a new role bonus. It is the same one that Assault Ships get, a 50% reduction in Signature Radius Penalty from Microwarp Drives. We feel this is a really nice fit because it doesn't boost afterburner variations that are already very strong, but it does add to resilience for most other uses. On top of that, many of the ships have gotten significant changes to slot layout or bonus. Also be sure to check out the MEDIUM WEAPON REBALANCE as it will have a big impact on HAC perfromance. Small note: All the weird tiny stat tweaks are just to make the numbers more even (originally a lot of arbitrary randomness was added for the sake of "realism" and we are just cleaning some of that up, which we've done for all the recent rebalances. ISHTAR - We are replacing the medium hybrid damage bonus with a drone bonus and removing one high slot to put its total 1 below the rest of the class, as is standard for drone-focused ships. Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to drone tracking and optimal range(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage) 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and Damage Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level 50 m3 extra Drone Bay per level Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers Fittings: 700 PWG, 285 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1600(-18) / 2300(+191) Capacitor (amount) : 1300(+175) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 185(-6) / .52 / 11700000 / 8.43s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 125 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 294 / 7 Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric Signature radius: 145
What new use does this nerf open? How can the Ishtar with that CPU fit four railguns that it could benefit from?
When will you fix drones, as you seem hellbent on turning all the good drone boats into PVE-only piles of crap?
Things that made the Ishtar great: dual damage bonus and slot layout.
Thanks.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
609
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:13:00 -
[624] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s
AB Bonuses are BAD. I thought we went through this the last time with the Assault Frigates
And just to sum up the thread; Leave the ******* Deimos as it is right now. If you need to make a change to it, give it more agility and stop ******* with it . -áwww.promsrage.com |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
556
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:32:00 -
[625] - Quote
A few remarks:
1. If you want useful feedback, post your modded version of Pyfa so that people can actually experiment with fitting the proposed ships. We are not computers and can't make sense of a vomited text-list of base ship stats.
2. Stop removing utility high-slots-- it makes the ships less useful and more predictable. It's a stupid idea.
3. One of the Sac's biggest problems is it's total inability to do decent damage to anything using any weapon system available to it. Your proposal does nothing to address that (though you did a good job of nerfing its ability to active tank with the -1% resist change). How does this solve anything?
4. Your comment regarding the speed increase on the Cerb is downsy: it is ships that have a narrow damage projection envelope that rely on good speed / agility to kite. Something that can start more than 100km from its targets can afford to run away relatively slowly. Personally I have a hatred for slow ships, so I won't complain about this change, but your reasoning there kind of sucks.
5. I don't know, these ships look pretty crappy to be honest. Thanks for buffing T1 stuff to death while giving us next to no reason to fly ships that cost 10x as much. I guess the AFK ratting crowd will be pleased with the Ishtar change. Oh, and way to go with that Vaga change-- I really look forward to everyone and their dog becoming an elite, solo-PVP hero by using the new Vaga in conjunction with the already-ridiculous ASBs. You know, because those setups needed a boost (get it? A boost? See what I did there?).
My bottom line: if you're going to maintain a class of cruiser that costs 10x as much as a T1 cruiser, but you don't want to contribute to power creep by giving them massive tanking or DPS output increases, then at least give them a more flexible slot layout. There has to be some compelling reason to fly these things over cheaper T1 options: there's a reason I haven't flown a HAC in several years, and I don't see these changes doing anything to change that. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1303
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:33:00 -
[626] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s AB Bonuses are BAD.I thought we went through this the last time with the Assault Frigates And just to sum up the thread; Leave the ******* Deimos as it is right now. If you need to make a change to it, give it more agility and stop ******* with it . And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
chris elliot
EG CORP Mass Overload
215
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:41:00 -
[627] - Quote
When is all this scheduled to hit the test server so we can fiddle with it and break it? |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:51:00 -
[628] - Quote
Considering the state of HACs going into this, I find the initial proposed changes fairly underwhelming.
THE SAC: T2 specialized not generalized: so why expand it's weapon bonus to short/long range weapons instead of just making it better at short range? T2 HAMs already have an acceptable kiting range if the user so desires to fly their sac that way. The issue with the Sac is that its DPS loss and sig increase over the Zealot are a steep price to pay for tank it gets in trade. Also, why is it getting SLOWER?
I dont know about other Sac pilots, but i was hoping to see the Heavy Assault Missile bonus kicked up to 7.5 and either a speed increase or sig reduction.
ZEALOT: Not much changed, but if it's to be MWD fit it might need a little love in the capacitor since it's an almost unacceptable sacrifice to fit a cap booster
CERB: Cool it has more speed so it can stay at extremely long ranges. You know, the ranges where missiles are rendered nearly useless. Nothing WRONG with that change but it doesn't address the Cerb's underlying problem: 200+km heavy missiles just aren't very compelling.
Replacing the flight time bonus with a second missile velocity bonus would give it a niche as the fastest time-to-target missile boat (and it could use some lock range). Another option could be to address it's grid problems and move it into a HAM mid-range brawler role.
EAGLE: The new Eagle is a much better brawler. For the sniping variant to really come back with those new rail changes i think it could use more lock range and scan res to make use of the Eagles immense range potential and it's niche of sniping against low sig targets.
DEIMOS: Giving it an extra mid while taking away armor in favor of shields is a pretty good indicator you want this GALLENTE BLASTER BOAT to be a shield ship? I had thought the balance team was trying to move Gallente ships away from that.
Switch the + and the - on those HP changes.
ISHTAR: I love the bonus change. The speed nerf, though slight, seems a really needless kick to the dog though.
VAGA: Rather than the little Sleiphnir that could, I think most Vaga pilots just want the vaga to do what it already does a tad better. A little more HP, a little more capacitor, perhaps a second falloff bonus. In light of the T1 Stabber, it could do with being a bit faster.
MUNINN: Grid and HP buff, consider it. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
609
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:56:00 -
[629] - Quote
@Alek How exactly is the new Eagle a better brawler? You're not gaining much hp, since you now need to fit an injector instead of a nos.
The blaster damage output is still sub-par, because it doesn't have the grid to sport bigger guns AND a comparable tank. The Cerb should lose those drones, and the Eagle should remain how it is but gain 5 lights and some grid.
This whole *buff* is all over the map, I can't even begin to comprehend where the Devs' heads are at. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1300
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 05:56:00 -
[630] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:So did a rough check with the MWD bonus. Ship one was a MWD Talos with Void Neutron blasters, it would have a 50% hit chance at Optimal + Falloff going 1529 M/s against a MWD Deimos going 1841 M/s using Null, which had a 80% hit chance.
With changing the MWD bonus to a 100% Increase to AB velocity bonus, the Talos could not hit the Deimos, the Deimos had a 80% hit chance while going 1120 m/s
Edit: A check using a Brutix and a Brutix navy issue, both were able to hit the AB enhanced Diemos. The Brutix had a 22% hit chance using Null @ 15km going 1231 M/s, the brutix navy issue had a 32% hit chance @ 15km going 1570 M/s AB Bonuses are BAD.I thought we went through this the last time with the Assault Frigates And just to sum up the thread; Leave the ******* Deimos as it is right now. If you need to make a change to it, give it more agility and stop ******* with it . And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank. Also, this might be a legit issue. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
|
|
|
|
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 |