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) |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:09:00 -
[691] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:DeadDuck wrote:The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.
Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher. The funny thing is.. Sacriledge that almost dont use cap.. has a cap bonus. While amarr laser boats... like apoc do not anymore :/ strange days we live in...
I only saw dual rep fits but cap recharge bonus is not that strong there. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:11:00 -
[692] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Alright, I did some EFTwarrioring today.
......
The Sacrilege is good.
......
What fit did you use? I always seem to miss some cpu
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:11:00 -
[693] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Alright, I did some EFTwarrioring today.
The Cerberus' grid is pretty low. 2x LSE fits are pretty much mandatory on cruiser-sized shield ships. It should be possible on the main shield HAC.
The Eagles' grid is a bit low too. A rack of Railguns + LSE needs a 3% PWG implant. Of course you can downgrade the railguns but then you lose 10km range.
The shield RailDeimos is interesting. It still needs a 3% PWG implant to fit even with meta 4 LSEs. You get a 22+32km range. A slight PWG bump would help the Deimos' case and wouldn't be a powercreep.
Regarding the Ishtar...well, CPU really is an issue. PWG isn't really optimal either.
The Sacrilege is good.
The blasterDeimos is ok too. But I still think the speed gap between the Vagabond's speed and the Deimos' speed is too large. The Deimos goes at 1.8km/s, the Vagabond goes at 2.4km/s. The Deimos should go at about 2.1km/s imo.
More feedback to come when I get back home.
Deimos DPS is WAYYYYYY larger than vagabond. It woudl need to loose DPS to get that extra speed. |
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:13:00 -
[694] - Quote
ISHTAR
The proposed changes make this easily the most overpowered subcapital for fleet fights that has been since the nano ages. It is a Dominix class focused damage projector with enough speed/sig to make it untouchable for anything except for other HACs, with damage projection unrivaled by the other HAC fleets. It can drop the assisted sentries in patterns that are not vulnerable to bombs thanks to the speed that allows wide distance between drone drops.
The only thing holding Ishtar back from complete dominance is CPU now. If the changes go live as is, CO-processors will see use. Buffing that CPU would be a mistake.
|
Perihelion Olenard
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:18:00 -
[695] - Quote
Prices of HACs begin to soar. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Regat Kozovv
Alcothology
29
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:19:00 -
[696] - Quote
With regards to HACs in a sniper role, would a bonus to scan resolution not be unreasonable? (in the place of the MWD bonus?)
Replacing speed bonus with the ability to get off the first shot (or shots) gives it a viable sniper role against small targets, and could quite possibly create a nice conflict pitting the skills of a fast tackler against the quick, long reach of a rapid-locking sniper.
Might be a direction to consider instead of the brawling/speeding angle. |
Naoru Kozan
The humbleless Crew
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:28:00 -
[697] - Quote
Guys, just because a ship fits an XLASB does not mean it has to brawl! Shocking I know.
The new Vaga looks interesting. But after having a play with it in EFT it is crying out for a tiny bit more CPU and power grid. The damage application feels rather weak since the TE nerf. Maybe boost the falloff bonus by a few % points?
Have to say overall the changes look good and actually have me excited about the prospect of flying HACs again |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
1731
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:42:00 -
[698] - Quote
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1308
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:46:00 -
[699] - Quote
Will drones as a whole ever see a balance pass? I am sure it makes it quite hard to try to balance drone ships with such a broken and neglected weapon system. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
David Kir
Tailender
57
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:51:00 -
[700] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Then please do so. Most of us do not really see where does the Eagle fit in, as well as many other HACs. |
|
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:52:00 -
[701] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:DeadDuck wrote:The Sacrilege needs more DPS output, besides the change to HML (that will solve the range problem but will agravate the DPS one) a solution would be add a 6th laucher to be on pair with the other hacs out there. On the trade off reduce the drone bandwit from the proposed 50 to 25.
Lets be honest you are proposing 6 lauchers to the cerberus that will have the the hability to kite the damage. The sacrilege will not have that hability but it will have the armor bonus , but again misses the 6th launcher. The funny thing is.. Sacriledge that almost dont use cap.. has a cap bonus. While amarr laser boats... like apoc do not anymore :/ strange days we live in...
It was a massive active tanking laser ship a few years ago, basically a maller with twice the tank. I in general like the extreme good cap on the Sac, because it lets you run mwd, active tank or even 100mn AB fittings without the cap booster, what frees up a med slot, that most other hacs have to spend on a cap booster.
However as long as it overlaps the role of the HAM drake it will be not worth the cost, like posted a few pages ago, role in the cap bonus, give it 15-20% missile velocity for HAMs per level, remove the damage bonus for HMs, add a 6. launcher or a bit higher damage bonus(in exchange for the drones) and maybe make it a little faster(since it is very slow once you plate fit and armor rig it). It wasn't bad a HAM ship before the HAM range nerf, it just has no real role to fill what other ships can't fill cheaper and better currently. While tanky HAC with ok dps at 20-40km range might be not the most frequent to fill role in eve, but it was a lot better than close range hac with A no tank or B no dps. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 11:54:00 -
[702] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Shocking that a Gallente ship is the first to be looked at (judging from your previous post). Their BS's were immediately fixed in their tieracide while the other races went 100+ pages with no meaningful iteration. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
442
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:03:00 -
[703] - Quote
The same CPU issue will arise in the vagabond if you try to use the cap boost bonus.. |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
127
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:04:00 -
[704] - Quote
For clarification:
Sacrilege
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault Missile damage 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 15% velocity to Heavy Assault Missiles 7.5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2300(+212) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount)\Recharge : 1650(+25) / 214s(-54) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 215(+17) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 140
Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Kane Fenris
NWP
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:05:00 -
[705] - Quote
Chessur wrote: Vagabond:
AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.
It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.
ill quote myself here:
Kane Fenris wrote:the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.
id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent
and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that
when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it.
and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
224
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:09:00 -
[706] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Chessur wrote: Vagabond:
AC boats were already struggling. Then the TE nerf happened, and all AC boats took a nose dive when trying to apply damage outside of scram / web range. The vaga shares the same 10% increase in falloff as its stabber cousin, and just like the stabber cannot kite. Even though this is considered a kiting ship- its pathetic DPS at range means that it is outclassed by other ships. The MWD sig bonus makes sense here, and the vaga is certainly fast enough. However what I don't understand is the active tanking bonus. The vaga is a 'kiting' ship that according to you, should have the ability to get up close in scram / web and face ****. The active tanking bonus (while nice) is really going to shut down the vagas play style.
It seems that you are really encroaching on the SFI's world, of fast, hard tackle. In fact the vaga may do the job even better, so what would be the point of ever flying an SFI anymore? The idea of a 290m/s base speed cruiser with the ability to run a really powerful dual LASB tank with an MWD scram, is simply going to be a nightmare for any solo / small gang pilots. SFI's were annoying enough, but adding in a ship that has this nice speed, and a secondary tanking bonus is going to make this ship really, really difficult for players to fly against- as nothing can run from it.
ill quote myself here: Kane Fenris wrote:the vaga is non contradictory ship as purposed.
id rather see it comepletly in the old role with pg for fitting for arty tracking instead of falloff so you can kite with its speed as before while useing arty to shred your opponent
and eventually some increase in longpoint (exclueding scram! so you cant use scram/acs for same purpose and abuse it) range about 20% would suffice but could easily be op so im not sure about that
when you make arty useable you should provide us with a ship to use it. and dont tell me we have the munin for this... munin will suck if it does not get reinvented (not reworked!)
While I agree that the Muninn isnt very good and the Vaga change is ****, making another Arty boat just because the current one is **** is derp, the Vaga should always be an AC boat, it just needs some improvement in that role. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:16:00 -
[707] - Quote
The Djego wrote:..... give it 15-20% missile velocity for HAMs per level, remove the damage bonus for HMs, add a 6. launcher or a bit higher damage bonus(in exchange for the drones) and maybe make it a little faster(since it is very slow once you plate fit and armor rig it). It wasn't bad a HAM ship before the HAM range nerf, it just has no real role to fill what other ships can't fill cheaper and better currently. While tanky HAC with ok dps at 20-40km range might be not the most frequent to fill role in eve, but it was a lot better than close range hac with A no tank or B no dps.
Not a bad suggestion actually.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
166
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:18:00 -
[708] - Quote
Add me to the chorus of folks calling for more CPU for the Ishtar. Apart from that, I like the changes to that ship. As someone with HAC V and all racial cruiser skills to V I am excited about these changes to one of my favorite ship classes. Not totally thrilled about the MWD dig radius bonus - I'd rather see a bonus to AB's. |
Kimentor
Bite Me inc Bitten.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:19:00 -
[709] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Sounds like an excellent time to do some remove-ECM balancing
#yolobalancing #ccprisingswag |
Rynnik
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:20:00 -
[710] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Take your time imo. Your nightmares make me inclined to sleep very well, knowing now that Ishtar fitting will be reviewed.
I would love to read the high level strategy stuff as well - I always find it the most interesting of your folks posts on balancing. Thanks for all your hard work! |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
734
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:24:00 -
[711] - Quote
David Kir wrote:...400+ dps at any range below 40 km, instantly changeable ammo, 70+k ehp tank (sans links/boosters/environmental effects) with an awesome resist profile... And then you run into a frigate that knows just how bad HPII w. Scorch tracks and has a clue about approach .. or any ship with a spare mid (ie. essentially all non-Amarr hulls) with a TD .. or any ship with utility neut .. or ... (been there, done that .. on both sides of the fence )
Zealot is quite awesome provided it is allowed to do its thing without its numerous weak crippling-points being abused .. that is partly why it works so well in swarms, the individual ship has the chance to do what it does best, project hurt. Zealot remains one of, if not the, best balanced HAC as it has tremendous potential with massive holes for an enemy to exploit. But it should not be the only one with that kind of balance, either buff it to be level with the rest or introduce achilles heels on all the other hulls .. guess which will get the most traction around here. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
66
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:27:00 -
[712] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info. Shocking that a Gallente ship is the first to be looked at (judging from your previous post). Their BS's were immediately fixed in their tieracide while the other races went 100+ pages with no meaningful iteration.
Cause the gallente boats were literally THAT BAD |
Capqu
Love Squad
163
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:37:00 -
[713] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
hi rise, can you confirm whether or not you intentionally removed light missiles from the 4th bonus on the cerb (assault & heavy missile flight time on TQ - this includes lights)
i don't think the cerby really needs a nerf http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Ral en Thielles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:40:00 -
[714] - Quote
Vagabond Dead... was fun wile it was usable. That's prior TE changes and Now THIS ...
After TE nerf, nor cynabal nor the vaga can be called a frig killer ... What are they good for then ?
Changes now: 7.5% shield boost bonus.??? Why? The one hac that has big cap problems when using MWD module, now gets Active Tank bonus... Active tanking vs ship that can take you out in two shots, its just not possible! (Talos anyone... ) I think it useless to put Active tanking bonuses on frigate and cruiser size ships at all.
Deimos MORE SPEED PLEASE
Can someone please explain to me the roles thing again... I just can not understand how T2 ship can be worse then it's T1 variant! Or maybe we should only use hacs with armor and AB, so we can use that extra resists.
I am disappointed ...
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
71
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:46:00 -
[715] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
Typical CCP putting things off and not committing and breaking things! I demand an ice cube tray in my pod as compensation! *rabblerabblerabble*
(I thought this thread could use some more emo rage, fake as it is) CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty...
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:48:00 -
[716] - Quote
About sacrilege really i have try to make a lot of fitting but i really think this ship is not terrible.
It's no bad but also not good in all.
Perhaps to remove one high slot (turret slot and add one low), like deimos, or give to them some better sig or speed.
But now the tanking is not terrible, the dps very low or very short range the speed not very good and the sig a little high.
I believe you need to increase one this point (not all).
Personally i believe they can be a very nice short range ship .
But in this case you need to increase a little the speed to be near of the vagabbon. But you keep the bonus only on the heavy assult missile.
Quote: SACRILEGE - Highlights here would be the increased drone bay, increased PG, and the addition of HML to the Cruiser damage bonus. Hopefully the result is a ship that can more comfortably fulfill its heavy tackle/utility HAC role without sacrificing quite as much as it used to when compared to combat BCs or other HACs. We concede that the cap recharge bonus is a bit strange, but feel the ship actually doesn't need another standard bonus like damage application or range to make it work.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses: 5% to Heavy Assault Missile 4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 5% reduction of capacitor recharge time 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers Fittings: 1150 PWG(+120), 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(+7) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2) Capacitor (amount) : 1650(+25) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 250(+52) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 312 / 7 Sensor strength: 15 Radar Signature radius: 130
|
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
46
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:55:00 -
[717] - Quote
Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ?
^ This.
If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster.
Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1109
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 12:56:00 -
[718] - Quote
Arushia wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
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
And it's still inferior to the Gila in almost every way. Ishtar wastes a bonus slot to get a 375m3 drone bay. Gila has a 400m3 drone bay built in. Ishtar gets a built-in drone link augmentor II. Gila has an accessory high so it can fit a drone link augmentor II. Gila has a tank bonus. Ishtar has none. If anything, build the ridiculous drone bay size bonus into the hull, and give it a rep bonus, as well as +1 low, -1mid so it can fit a decent armor tank and drone damage amps. I want to fly an Ishtar over the Gila for its sexy paint job, but without real buffs I have a hard time seeing why I should switch.
The Gila has not been nerfed..yet.
I have realized that these HAC's will start looking OK once CCP gets done trashing the pirate versions and the T3's. Which just means everyone will fly the vanilla or Navy versions.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:02:00 -
[719] - Quote
CCP Rise
Are there any manufacturer changes for these ships? Cerb should be kaalakoita it would look nice being black and red 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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
324
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 13:04:00 -
[720] - Quote
Gnoshia wrote:Altrue wrote:290 m/s for the vagabond while kiting cerberus (for instance, but every other is also around 200) has 205, so almost 50% less ? ^ This. If the Cerberus is going to be a kiting ship it needs to be noticeably faster. Not impressed with the Cerberus changes TBH. Also change the bonus to include rapid light missiles pls. Ty.
Indeed i think CCP need to give up the ghost on trying to not make them T2 attack cruisers .. yes you can keep the T1 attack cruisers as the faster option but you cannot handicap HACS with combat cruiser speed and lower .. not if you want people to take you seriously
OR fly them 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. |
|
|
|
|
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 |