EVE Search - New ships and modules - what do you think of them ?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

New ships and modules - what do you think of them ?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 35	Posted - 2011.10.26 08:14:00 - [1] - Quote In this link: http://altruist.azual.co.uk/2011/10/new-battlecruisers-and-balance-changes.html You can see some of the potential changes to ships. In all I love many of the changes, especially the destroyers. What do you guys think about the hybrid and ship rebalancing ? I think CCP gone and done good.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire 647	Posted - 2011.10.26 08:15:00 - [2] - Quote Link does not work? GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' Follow me on Twitter @Chribba

Headerman Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx 284	Posted - 2011.10.26 08:51:00 - [3] - Quote http://pastebin.com/TkY3rY6q is the paste bin of the changes drafted so far. The doods fact about the agility buff are wrong, they are being nerfed agility a bit, but get a speed buff The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why?
Pr1ncess Alia Perkone Caldari State 32	Posted - 2011.10.26 08:55:00 - [4] - Quote I can't seem to find much of a fault in anything I've looked at. This must mean I haven't looked close enough Very good things happening. Will have to see how everything performs after the dust settles to make a proper judgement however, that said, I'm excited.
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 35	Posted - 2011.10.26 08:55:00 - [5] - Quote Link seems to work fine - can anyone else confirm linky broken ? (I don't wish to doubt the mighty chribba)
Alara IonStorm Caldari State 192	Posted - 2011.10.26 09:00:00 - [6] - Quote I love the new fitting stats on the Blasters.
Headerman Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx 284	Posted - 2011.10.26 09:01:00 - [7] - Quote I LOVE to stats of the T2 Siege... but it still comes with a tracking nerf The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why?
Aamrr HnL Enterprise 111	Posted - 2011.10.26 09:05:00 - [8] - Quote What's the deal with T2 triage? 11 targets instead of 10 and 20% more lock range on a ship that's immune to sensor dampening and has twice the lock range as it can rep anyway? Did CCP really think that through...?
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 35	Posted - 2011.10.26 09:17:00 - [9] - Quote I love this: Destroyers receive increased HP and capacitor, and significantly decreased sig radius Destroyers no longer have a rate of fire penalty
Zarnak Wulf Amok. Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2011.10.26 09:43:00 - [10] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: I love this: Destroyers receive increased HP and capacitor, and significantly decreased sig radius Destroyers no longer have a rate of fire penalty The easier fittings for rails and blasters will make the Caldari and Gallente destroyers worth a revisit.

Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 59	Posted - 2011.10.26 10:42:00 - [11] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: Zoe Alarhun wrote: I love this: Destroyers receive increased HP and capacitor, and significantly decreased sig radius Destroyers no longer have a rate of fire penalty The easier fittings for rails and blasters will make the Caldari and Gallente destroyers worth a revisit. Now newbies will fly some more interesting stuff than only riters with that kind of change, more ships being used and more roles to fit by either newbies has older players, I'll fit some catalysts for the lols and try those for sure if the stats come out live around those numbers. Also important and interesting for flycatcher and eris, duno the amarr counterpart, haven't seriously looked in to all those numbers yet since they are probably changing.
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 36	Posted - 2011.10.26 10:56:00 - [12] - Quote Screw newbies - I wanna train destroyers to 5 now ^_^ Also hybrid boosts means more tristans, incursus, merlins. Thorax, vexor, UGLY DUCK TOASTER MOA, Ferox, ROKH! T2 modules for probes etc. argh - winter needs to get here faster.
Tefries Lurgoyf Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 11:15:00 - [13] - Quote The oneiros change is bad and makes it a worse ship than before. I think you wanted to buff it since nobody flies it. The oneiros had only one good role, supporting other logis with projected ECCM and providing some light repping on its own. The problem is you made it more similar to guardian. Which dont sound bad since guardians rock. However, guards in that role are still way superior than oneiros. Guards brings- Great repping power Great tank Unlimited cap (unless ECM'ed) Oneiros brings- Utility (mid slots) Crappy tank in comparison (40k EHP compared to 90k EHP of a guardian) Decent repping power Has cap problems, needs a guardian to support. You removed the utility of the oneiros and all those things that the guardian is better still remain. So what really is the point of a flying a ship that has absolutely nothing going for it compared to the guardian? With that said, i can't possibly imagine people would fly the oneiros more. I think it would be flown less. I mean whats really the point of flying a similar cost ship thats inferior in everyway. What fleet doctorine would call for oneiros now? It would be really hard to overbuff the oneiros since it has cap issues unlike the guardian. So perhpas just give it an extra lowslot with no nerf to the mids. Or just give it more natural armor.
Knoppaz Rens Nursing Home 2	Posted - 2011.10.26 11:16:00 - [14] - Quote The Thrasher already passes the 300dps mark. Without the RoF-penalty it will be pure evil, especially with the tank boost..
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 36	Posted - 2011.10.26 11:19:00 - [15] - Quote Oneiros change seems good to me: Oneiros lowSlots: 4.0 => 5.0 maxVelocity: 214.0 => 230.0 medSlots: 5.0 => 4.0 powerOutput: 850.0 => 1050.0 signatureRadius: 80.0 => 70.0 warpSpeedMultiplier: 1.0 => 1.25 More grid, smaller sig, faster - seems tasty. More lows also means greater tank. As for dessies - Gallente dessie with ions and overheat + faction anti matter is going to do a obscene amount of damage.
DarkAegix Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 166	Posted - 2011.10.26 12:11:00 - [16] - Quote I think it's time I began training hybrids.
Grimpak Midnight Elites Echelon Rising 102	Posted - 2011.10.26 12:18:00 - [17] - Quote Alara IonStorm wrote: I love the new fitting stats on the Blasters. still not enough tbh. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img] [quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Chum Tea Steuerparadies San Matar 4	Posted - 2011.10.26 15:10:00 - [18] - Quote Missing a buff to hybrid T2 ammo.
Thelron Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 1	Posted - 2011.10.26 15:39:00 - [19] - Quote OK forums... let's see if you can wake up... Not sure where that came from, but if it's accurate it has a lot of nice stuff (though IMO the agility changes sprinkled around, while nice, don't actually make a ton of sense to me... I'd have tweaked a couple other things on the Rokh first, for example). IMO the "it's the ships/mechanics and not (as much) the guns" folks are right about hybrids though- the changes listed here are certainly nice, but don't address either the main issue with rails (their supposed advantage is nullified by the inane range banding on the ammo + rail-platform inability to control range if you're working the "starts firing sooner" angle, and by scanning and really short warp-to distances if you're working the sniper angle) or with blasters (if you don't have a warp-to for your target, you get to take a beating while you close range, generally more than you can make up for once your guns actually hit). Destroyers losing their penalties and getting a bit harder for the big stuff to kill is nice, though I wonder if they could use a built-in tracking bonus as well to make them really extra good at clearing out fast frigates (our SBs and Interceptors (really any fast-but-flimsy ships meant to give cruisers/BS a hard time) are essentially the equivalent of the torpedo boats and subs r/l destroyers were developed to kill and it should be a role anyone running around with a few cruisers and up want filled... though that's a big mess in and of itself)?
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 59	Posted - 2011.10.26 15:51:00 - [20] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: The oneiros change is bad and makes it a worse ship than before. I think you wanted to buff it since nobody flies it. The oneiros had only one good role, supporting other logis with projected ECCM and providing some light repping on its own. The problem is you made it more similar to guardian. Which dont sound bad since guardians rock. However, guards in that role are still way superior than oneiros. Guards brings- Great repping power Great tank Unlimited cap (unless ECM'ed) Oneiros brings- Utility (mid slots) Crappy tank in comparison (40k EHP compared to 90k EHP of a guardian) Decent repping power Has cap problems, needs a guardian to support. You removed the utility of the oneiros and all those things that the guardian is better still remain. So what really is the point of a flying a ship that has absolutely nothing going for it compared to the guardian? With that said, i can't possibly imagine people would fly the oneiros more. I think it would be flown less. I mean whats really the point of flying a similar cost ship thats inferior in everyway. What fleet doctorine would call for oneiros now? It would be really hard to overbuff the oneiros since it has cap issues unlike the guardian. So perhpas just give it an extra lowslot with no nerf to the mids. Or just give it more natural armor. You're wrong. They will probably and finally be flown more than before if those stats stay like we can read on that sheet. And I will no longuer hear or read some idiot telling me if I want to do logistics is Guardian or stay at home.

Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 59	Posted - 2011.10.26 15:58:00 - [21] - Quote Grimpak wrote: Alara IonStorm wrote: I love the new fitting stats on the Blasters. still not enough tbh. The weapon it self changes in conjunction with ammo changes might has well give some boost but like you I think it's not enough since all other T2 ammo like projectiles also loose that drawback, they will til have the best dmg application in all ranges. We'll win some tracking with the removal or penalty on T2 ammo and this will now improve overall dps because we will miss/half hit less, some tracking and base dmg modifier but still not range. Will this be enough to make Blasters work better in the fall off after all fitting mods/implants/skills whatever, I'm not sure but it's a very good first step if you add agility speed and bonus modifications for the hulls. Let's give it a try on SISI, might well bring blasters competitve, witch is exactly what I wanted, instead of omgpown witch is what we never asked for. Edit: Also lowering the fitting requirements for the guns like PG Cap or CPU means We can now admit the possibility active tanking becomes an interesting option, while I agree the rep cycle/amount doesn't cover the buffer of a single plate for the average fight this change might well open a new vision and tactics for the whole gallente line up. Unortunately I still can't see web bonus on blaster hulls other than the new BC
Magosian Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 16:29:00 - [22] - Quote I don't mean to stir the hornet's nest, but seriously, is this a joke? Blasters get a tracking buff, but a web is pretty much necessary to make them effective in the first place, thus the tracking bonus is moot. The range stats on blasters remain untouched, so CCP completely ignores THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTING FACTOR which makes blasters ineffective: range. Speed and agility bonuses to blaster ships is a step in the right direction, but from what I can tell, Minmatar ships will still be able to outrun them, and considering autocannons still provide more than triple the effective range of blasters (as does Scorch, but I'll get to that), I don't see how anything really changes. In addition, changes to ship stats does nothing in terms of getting the most out of tracking enhancers and tracking computers. At present, hybrids get the least out of these fittings because THE BASE STATS OF HYBRIDS IS FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN! Railguns get their damage increased from "crap" to "slightly above crap," which I guess is a good thing, but the problems by railguns wasn't only damage. First and foremost, railguns do not bring anything unique to the table. Artillery dons the alpha crown and lasers don the ammo-free, instant-reload crown. Railguns have nothing like this. In addition, railguns [and blasters for that matter] receive a fairly even split in their optimal and falloff stats, whereas projectiles are primarily falloff and lasers are primarily optimal. This may not seem like a big deal at a glance, but what this means to a seasoned pilot is a hybrid user must boost TWO stats to match the effective range of projectile counterparts (who only need falloff) and laser counterparts (who only need optimal). This is illustrated best when looking at T2 ammo for short-range turrets. Null does not hold a candle to the effective ranges of Barrage and Scorch, and it is primarly because the bonuses applied don't have to be split between optimal and falloff. Splitting the bonuses from other range-increasing fitting mods and having to chase down twice as many rigs and implants to match effective range simply MAGNIFIES the problem. Ultimately, with the proposed changes, hybrids still hold the most negatives in terms of fundamentals: -requires cap: let's face it, a cap-usage reduction is really just sugar-coating on a rotten egg. Cap use is cap use. -requires ammo/reload -fixed damage type Honestly, I really do appreciate the effort, but I find myself wondering if devs/testers who implemented these changes actually PLAY Eve. My money would be on "not really."
Haleuth Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 17:16:00 - [23] - Quote Magosian wrote: I don't mean to stir the hornet's nest, but seriously, is this a joke? Blasters get a tracking buff, but a web is pretty much necessary to make them effective in the first place, thus the tracking bonus is moot. The range stats on blasters remain untouched, so CCP completely ignores THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTING FACTOR which makes blasters ineffective: range. Speed and agility bonuses to blaster ships is a step in the right direction, but from what I can tell, Minmatar ships will still be able to outrun them, and considering autocannons still provide more than triple the effective range of blasters (as does Scorch, but I'll get to that), I don't see how anything really changes. In addition, changes to ship stats does nothing in terms of getting the most out of tracking enhancers and tracking computers. At present, hybrids get the least out of these fittings because THE BASE STATS OF HYBRIDS IS FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN! Railguns get their damage increased from "crap" to "slightly above crap," which I guess is a good thing, but the problems by railguns wasn't only damage. First and foremost, railguns do not bring anything unique to the table. Artillery dons the alpha crown and lasers don the ammo-free, instant-reload crown. Railguns have nothing like this. In addition, railguns [and blasters for that matter] receive a fairly even split in their optimal and falloff stats, whereas projectiles are primarily falloff and lasers are primarily optimal. This may not seem like a big deal at a glance, but what this means to a seasoned pilot is a hybrid user must boost TWO stats to match the effective range of projectile counterparts (who only need falloff) and laser counterparts (who only need optimal). This is illustrated best when looking at T2 ammo for short-range turrets. Null does not hold a candle to the effective ranges of Barrage and Scorch, and it is primarly because the bonuses applied don't have to be split between optimal and falloff. Splitting the bonuses from other range-increasing fitting mods and having to chase down twice as many rigs and implants to match effective range simply MAGNIFIES the problem. Ultimately, with the proposed changes, hybrids still hold the most negatives in terms of fundamentals: -requires cap: let's face it, a cap-usage reduction is really just sugar-coating on a rotten egg. Cap use is cap use. -requires ammo/reload -fixed damage type Honestly, I really do appreciate the effort, but I find myself wondering if devs/testers who implemented these changes actually PLAY Eve. My money would be on "not really." These changes are well thought out, when you consider that most gallente ships have a superior slot layout that gives the pilot many fitting options+drone damage or larger bays. Anything more and they'd be overpowered hence the overhaul of the deimos. And to answer your question about devs playing this game, most of them do pve, the reason is because if they do pvp/join an alliance etc someone finds out and starts calling "hacks" or "unfair advantage" everytime they get shot at.
Magosian Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 17:32:00 - [24] - Quote Quote: These changes are well thought out, when you consider that most gallente ships have a superior slot layout that gives the pilot many fitting options+drone damage or larger bays. Anything more and they'd be overpowered hence the overhaul of the deimos. And to answer your question about devs playing this game, most of them do pve, the reason is because if they do pvp/join an alliance etc someone finds out and starts calling "hacks" or "unfair advantage" everytime they get shot at. I'm not seeing any significant change to the Deimos, aside from the slight increases in speed and agility, but this is the same as all of the other hybrid turret ships. I DO see a "Deimos Old," so there's some implication that it's being changed, but as to those details, I have no idea. Do you have a link with more info? Also, I hope you're not suggesting speed and agility increases to the Deimos makes it a powerhouse. Even with the fitting requirements lessened for blasters, I'd still take a Vagabond/Zealot/Muninn/Sacrilege/Ishtar over it. Blaster range is the Deimos shortcoming, as is the case presently with any other hybrid ship. Still, I'll admit my partaking in supposition here; I'd like to see proposed changes to the Deimos if you have them. Thanks BTW
Nimrod Nemesis Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2011.10.26 17:51:00 - [25] - Quote I agree on both sides, tbh. The work-in-progress seems to be on the right track, but what's being submitted thus far still doesn't do much to dethrone the almighty minmatar for skirmishing or amarr for raw mid-range dps. I can see some gallente ships going from joke to viable. What I don't see are most gallente or ANY caldari hybrid platforms going from joke/viable to competetive. Certainly a step up for the likes of the rokh, but nothing close to what is required for that ship to deserve that high material cost. Looking forward to more information as it becomes avalible.
Kaaeliaa Frikt Ikke 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 18:18:00 - [26] - Quote It's a step in the right direction, but I still think that rails and blasters need some extra mojo, some reason to actively choose them instead of just saying, "Ah @#$% it, I trained hybrid skills and don't wanna cross-train right now so let's go with it." It's time to get creative. Maybe weapon systems should have certain effects that go beyond damage, although NOT random-chance effects. Something like rails doing 0.1% of their damage directly to the hull of subcaps. Blasters increase the cycle time of their targets' weapon systems by 5% to counter the damage the blaster boat took while getting in range. Sure, they're ridiculous ideas; I know that. But my point is that CCP should make us want to use rails and blasters in certain setups, instead of just making them slightly less crappy and less vomit-inducing than they are now.
Tefries Lurgoyf Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 18:39:00 - [27] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: You're wrong. They will probably and finally be flown more than before if those stats stay like we can read on that sheet. And I will no longuer hear or read some idiot telling me if I want to do logistics is Guardian or stay at home. No, i am not. Give an explaination perhaps. The oneiros had a niche role of supporting other logis before. With those changes it removes that. Now what is it? A ship that is inferior the guardian in every possible way and without that niche role. Its really not hard to understand. Post an oneiros fit you've flow before for lols.
Jacob Stov 1	Posted - 2011.10.26 18:56:00 - [28] - Quote Oh joy, the Naga gets only range and precision bonuses in a shipclass that is made for full out gank and papertank. But hey, there is a choice between failing with hybrids or failing with torps.
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 60	Posted - 2011.10.26 19:28:00 - [29] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Tanya Powers wrote: You're wrong. They will probably and finally be flown more than before if those stats stay like we can read on that sheet. And I will no longuer hear or read some idiot telling me if I want to do logistics is Guardian or stay at home. No, i am not. Give an explaination perhaps. The oneiros had a niche role of supporting other logis before. With those changes it removes that. Now what is it? A ship that is inferior the guardian in every possible way and without that niche role. Its really not hard to understand. Post an oneiros fit you've flow before for lols. Where does the simple fact of having more pg and better tank makes you think sutch silly things? sriously? PS: haven't seen blasters T2 ammo get rid of tracking penalty? -T2 missiles, crystals and projectiles yes...
Gabriel Karade Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 1	Posted - 2011.10.26 19:31:00 - [30] - Quote Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula ~~works~~ up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face War-Machine

Jill Antaris Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 14	Posted - 2011.10.26 19:41:00 - [31] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula works up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face +1 even the lesser people do deserve more(j/k I love people that willingly come to my tackle range, I really do) I did a write up on the new BCs in the feedback official thread. Overall the blaster changes are not really impressive on gallente hulls and is still somewhat useless on caldari hulls, the Oneiros change is pretty subpar and should focus a lot more and capacitor, speed, fitting and drones(a lot more like 75m or even 125m drone bandwide).
Magosian Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 19:42:00 - [32] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula ~~works~~ up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face It'd be pretty hilarious if the speed and agility increases on hybrid ships outweighed the increase to blaster tracking, making blasters even worse than they are now. And this is NOT some far-fetched theory once MWDs are in play....
Brynhilda Massive PVPness EntroPraetorian Aegis 60	Posted - 2011.10.26 20:00:00 - [33] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: Zoe Alarhun wrote: I love this: Destroyers receive increased HP and capacitor, and significantly decreased sig radius Destroyers no longer have a rate of fire penalty The easier fittings for rails and blasters will make the Caldari and Gallente destroyers worth a revisit. Now if we could only buff the Coercer... How may I drug you with drugs?
Dessau 5	Posted - 2011.10.26 20:03:00 - [34] - Quote Interesting proposals. Better still, the commentary here. Too soon to dust off all those Tristans I've amassed, but Destroyers V looks like a worthy goal.
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 38	Posted - 2011.10.26 20:17:00 - [35] - Quote uh - why wouldn't you fly a tristan even as is ? That little thing is crazy insane at friggin killing stuff. I should know, it's my mainstay ship.
Templar Dane Amarrian Retribution 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 21:30:00 - [36] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: PS: haven't seen blasters T2 ammo get rid of tracking penalty? -T2 missiles, crystals and projectiles yes... Tiny correction.... One shortrange ammo was changed, hail. It was the longrange gun ammo that was changed, except for that. IE. Conflag/scorch/null/void/barrage unchanged, though I am sure they are working hard to buff barrage as we speak.
FloppieTheBanjoClown The Skunkworks 197	Posted - 2011.10.26 22:02:00 - [37] - Quote You people are overlooking the best part of this: T2 remote hull repair. Hull tanking spider fleet of DOOOOOOOM.
Carmen Martino Wormhole Exploration Crew Transmission Lost 0	Posted - 2011.10.26 23:54:00 - [38] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula ~~works~~ up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face Have you ever flown ANYTHING that uses hybrids? My guess is no.
Dro Nee The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 00:55:00 - [39] - Quote T2 ganglinks.... So a BoosterLoki now gives a 49% increase to tackle range? Hopefully my math is off. Otherwise: WTB Booster Alt
Cunane Jeran 17	Posted - 2011.10.27 01:47:00 - [40] - Quote Looking forward to the hybrid changes in there, should open up some interesting new PvE and PvP fits for Gallente. Happy they went with a damage increase and the fitting reduction on Rails instead of tracking increase Also all the Gallente getting a speed and Agil boost, very tasty. Though I suspect this is all very subject to change.

Zarnak Wulf Amok. Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2011.10.27 03:07:00 - [41] - Quote The Caldari rail platforms all got a serious boost. The eagle and ferox look like they can fit the largest set of rails and a LSE tank as well - with only one fitting mod. A 150mm Rail II fit Cormorant with faction antimatter looks like it can get within 13 DPS of a 280II Arty thrasher with double the optimal.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 85	Posted - 2011.10.27 03:16:00 - [42] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: The Caldari rail platforms all got a serious boost. The eagle and ferox look like they can fit the largest set of rails and a LSE tank as well - with only one fitting mod. A 150mm Rail II fit Cormorant with faction antimatter looks like it can get within 13 DPS of a 280II Arty thrasher with double the optimal. It's the volley, not dps... Yeah, rails still suck
Tefries Lurgoyf Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 03:17:00 - [43] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: Where does the simple fact of having more pg and better tank makes you think sutch silly things? sriously? PS: haven't seen blasters T2 ammo get rid of tracking penalty? -T2 missiles, crystals and projectiles yes... Its a worse ship with those changes thats why. The PG is nice, the slot change blows. Here is the only good oneiros fit currently, pre changes. [Oneiros] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor Explosive Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 10MN Afterburner II Phased Muon ECCM Caster I Phased Muon ECCM Caster I ECCM - Magnetometric II ECCM - Magnetometric II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Centum A-Type Medium Remote Armor Repair System Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Armor Maintenance Bot II x5 It helps two guards and gets cap from one of them, and is actually pretty useful to field this setup. You get 3 logistics pretty much immune to ECM. Now show me a Oneiros fit that would have a place in a organized fleet that isnt inferior to the gaurd. You said you wanted to fly a oneiros without being told to get into a guard... Show me a new fit that people would be happy to see in fleet instead of a guard for any reason.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 85	Posted - 2011.10.27 03:33:00 - [44] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Tanya Powers wrote: Where does the simple fact of having more pg and better tank makes you think sutch silly things? sriously? PS: haven't seen blasters T2 ammo get rid of tracking penalty? -T2 missiles, crystals and projectiles yes... Its a worse ship with those changes thats why. The PG is nice, the slot change blows. Here is the only good oneiros fit currently, pre changes. [Oneiros] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor Explosive Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 10MN Afterburner II Phased Muon ECCM Caster I Phased Muon ECCM Caster I ECCM - Magnetometric II ECCM - Magnetometric II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Centum A-Type Medium Remote Armor Repair System Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Armor Maintenance Bot II x5 It helps two guards and gets cap from one of them, and is actually pretty useful to field this setup. You get 3 logistics pretty much immune to ECM. Now show me a Oneiros fit that would have a place in a organized fleet that isnt inferior to the gaurd. You said you wanted to fly a oneiros without being told to get into a guard... Show me a new fit that people would be happy to see in fleet instead of a guard for any reason. What's with all that eccms? Dude, your onerios fails.
Demon Azrakel Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck 44	Posted - 2011.10.27 03:36:00 - [45] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Tanya Powers wrote: Where does the simple fact of having more pg and better tank makes you think sutch silly things? sriously? PS: haven't seen blasters T2 ammo get rid of tracking penalty? -T2 missiles, crystals and projectiles yes... Its a worse ship with those changes thats why. The PG is nice, the slot change blows. Here is the only good oneiros fit currently, pre changes. [Oneiros] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Armor Explosive Hardener II Armor EM Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 10MN Afterburner II Phased Muon ECCM Caster I Phased Muon ECCM Caster I ECCM - Magnetometric II ECCM - Magnetometric II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Centum A-Type Medium Remote Armor Repair System Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Armor Maintenance Bot II x5 It helps two guards and gets cap from one of them, and is actually pretty useful to field this setup. You get 3 logistics pretty much immune to ECM. Now show me a Oneiros fit that would have a place in a organized fleet that isnt inferior to the gaurd. You said you wanted to fly a oneiros without being told to get into a guard... Show me a new fit that people would be happy to see in fleet instead of a guard for any reason. Lol, I got bashed hard for linking what is pretty much the same fit (lazy low slots for multiboxing, prob actually would have used faction or c-type eanms given the t2 rigs I used for 4x rr) in the Onieros vs the world thread ...
Tefries Lurgoyf Republic University Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2011.10.27 03:58:00 - [46] - Quote Goose99 wrote: What's with all that eccms? Dude, your onerios fails. 2 are projected eccms. You can post a better oneiros fit too :) gohead dont be shy man.
Auria McGlennen Saberick Interest and Development FreiTek Heavy Industries 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 04:06:00 - [47] - Quote Really upset that they didn't touch the Keres and Hyena. Compared to the Amarr and Caldari versions of Electronic Attack Ships these two are pretty scattered bonus wise. A focused bonus for the two mentioned would have been easy, and nice.
Hungry Eyes Ministry of War Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 05:07:00 - [48] - Quote people, the gallente arent getting agility buffs, theyre getting agility nerfs. minor speed buffs. hybrids look like they might work. blasters are still not nearly as competitive as pulses and AC's. hope to see more changes soon.
Shayla Sh'inlux Aliastra Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2011.10.27 09:39:00 - [49] - Quote I think it's buffs, actually.
Deerin Blackwater USA Inc. Against ALL Authorities 6	Posted - 2011.10.27 10:35:00 - [50] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Goose99 wrote: What's with all that eccms? Dude, your onerios fails. 2 are projected eccms. You can post a better oneiros fit too :) gohead dont be shy man. For small armor gangs with mandatory MWD, the "Lonely Medic" Oneiros [Oneiros, Solo Logi Oneiros] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Photon Scattering Field II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I For larger armor fleets, the "Free of Chains" Oneiros [Oneiros, Free of Chains] Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 10MN Afterburner II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I I'm not claiming that it is better than Guardian. But it is a viable alternative that although lacking in ECCM it makes up for it by being independent of chains, thus being able to disengage without endangering logistics energy chain core.

Jerick Ludhowe Shadow Legion Industries Dark Phoenix Rising. 9	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:21:00 - [51] - Quote Not going to start freaking out and posting CCP hate tirades quite yet as all info is subject to change. However I do have to say that the prelim stats on the BC are beyond broken... They have the speed and sig of a large Cruiser however each has 8 turrets/launchers (wtf) and enough range to obsolete many of the current hacs and BC gangs.... Sorry CCP but if you want these ships to be at all balanced they are going to need the speed and sig of a BC, not a cruiser.... As well as 6-7 turrets max. We don't need 1400+ dps ships that fly at 2k/s and cost sub 50mill... Oh yeah, one other tid bit. Why the ** is it easier for a BC to fit a full rack of Highest tier guns when compared to a BS? As far as the changes to hybrids... Not a bad start. The fitting req changes and increased dmg to rails and tracking to basters should most certainly make a notable difference. I'd still opt for a small increase in either blaster range or damage but these changes are a good start. Now about the changes to Gallente ships. Speed increase is nice but nothing significant however the nerf to agility is just a ***** slap in the face... I demand an answer CCP... why are these ships being nerfed in such a ridiculous manner?
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 42	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:26:00 - [52] - Quote The agility isn't getting nerfed. The stat called agility in the dump refers to inertia modifier - higher IM the better. Also new BC's have way less tank by the looks of it (half or third as much depending on ship and fittings). Also no drones to help defend against smaller ships. so put down the keyboard and step away from the computer and take a deep breath.
Jerick Ludhowe Shadow Legion Industries Dark Phoenix Rising. 9	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:43:00 - [53] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: The agility isn't getting nerfed. The stat called agility in the dump refers to inertia modifier - higher IM the better. Also new BC's have way less tank by the looks of it (half or third as much depending on ship and fittings). Also no drones to help defend against smaller ships. so put down the keyboard and step away from the computer and take a deep breath. LSE buffer tanks are easy enough to fit on these leaked ships... If anything the increased range, speed, and reduced sig will allow these ships to have greater survivability than many of the current BCs while getting close to 50% more dps...
Bull Eramix Mimidae Risk Solutions 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:47:00 - [54] - Quote There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 42	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:47:00 - [55] - Quote Lets use the gallente ship as a example - with LSE buffer it has about 24K EHp - that's almost the same as some T1 cruisers. Hardly the equal of a drake or hurricane. If you make the ship tankier than it has about the same HP as a brutix with slightly higher damage (marginally). Hardly 50% more dps with same tank and greater speed. So please stop fear mongering. EDIT: Bull Eramix I can't see any of your posts - error parsing BBC code.
Bull Eramix Mimidae Risk Solutions 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:48:00 - [56] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: The agility isn't getting nerfed. The stat called agility in the dump refers to inertia modifier - higher IM the better. Also new BC's have way less tank by the looks of it (half or third as much depending on ship and fittings). Also no drones to help defend against smaller ships. so put down the keyboard and step away from the computer and take a deep breath. Are you sure? From: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Acceleration "There are two attributes which determine how quickly a ship accelerates; mass and an Inertial Modifiers, both of which can be helped using an Inertia Stabilizer on your ship. The product of mass and the inertia stabilizer values gives the ship's agility which determines how quickly the ship accelerates (and thus how quickly it turns); lower values imply better acceleration and turning speed." Tech II Inertia Stab from: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Inertia_Stabilizers_II -20% to Inertia modifier Within a class you can compare as ships have closer masses. Between classes IM is a 'fudge factor' adjusting the ships mass' to the desired agilities.
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 42	Posted - 2011.10.27 12:52:00 - [57] - Quote Compare a thorax to a stabber - thorax has higher IM. but the stabber is more agile - It's due to the increase in mass over stabber. If you look at all the high speed frigates they have IM stats over 4. EDIT - I realize that fitting I stabs in game brings the modifier down. I 'm looking at it from the info dump perspective where high value = better.
Jerick Ludhowe Shadow Legion Industries Dark Phoenix Rising. 9	Posted - 2011.10.27 13:09:00 - [58] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Hardly 50% more dps with same tank and greater speed. You're the one who said this, not me champ. Never did I say that a Tier 3 is going to have the "same" tank as a lesser tier BC. I said that they will probably have MORE survivability than the lesser tier BC due to significant range, speed, and sig advantages...
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 42	Posted - 2011.10.27 13:14:00 - [59] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Zoe Alarhun wrote: The agility isn't getting nerfed. The stat called agility in the dump refers to inertia modifier - higher IM the better. Also new BC's have way less tank by the looks of it (half or third as much depending on ship and fittings). Also no drones to help defend against smaller ships. so put down the keyboard and step away from the computer and take a deep breath. LSE buffer tanks are easy enough to fit on these leaked ships... If anything the increased range, speed, and reduced sig will allow these ships to have greater survivability than many of the current BCs while getting close to 50% more dps... You are the one mentioning LSE buffer. You are the one mentioning 50% greater dps.
Jerick Ludhowe Shadow Legion Industries Dark Phoenix Rising. 9	Posted - 2011.10.27 13:24:00 - [60] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: You are the one mentioning LSE buffer. You are the one mentioning 50% greater dps. Thanks for letting me know what i posted bro. Honestly done with responding to this drivel. If you're unwilling to use more than an ounce of that brain stew you got upstairs then this debate is done. GL running the numbers and eating your foot.

Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 42	Posted - 2011.10.27 13:33:00 - [61] - Quote Good riddance. Stepping away from Battlecruisers for the moment - is anyone else excited about T2 probe launchers and T2 Drone modules ? Also what the heck is this ? [+] Data Subverter I [+\|n] hackOrbital [+\|n] medPower [+\|n] online [+] accessDifficultyBonus: 15.0 [+] capacitorNeed: 20.0 [+] capacity: 0 [+] cpu: 20.0 [+] duration: 10000.0 [+] hp: 40.0 [+] mass: 0 [+] maxRange: 5000.0 [+] metaLevel: 0 [+] power: 1.0 [+] requiredSkill2: 21718.0 [+] requiredSkill2Level: 1.0 [+] techLevel: 1.0 [+] volume: 5.0 It looks like some kind of hacking module, I see it mentions orbital in one of the lines. Perhaps it's something that allows you to hack Planetery Custom's offices and temporarily switch off the taxes, or steal a portion of the taxes. What do you guys think it's for ?
Bull Eramix Mimidae Risk Solutions 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 14:02:00 - [62] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Compare a thorax to a stabber - thorax has higher IM. but the stabber is more agile - It's due to the increase in mass over stabber. If you look at all the high speed frigates they have IM stats over 4. EDIT - I realize that fitting I stabs in game brings the modifier down. I 'm looking at it from the info dump perspective where high value = better. I don't understand where you reach that conclusion from. The agilities in the info dump correspond to the existing inertia modifiers in game. Lower inertia numbers mean a better acceleration when everything else is the same. The Stabber is more agile because is has a higher max velocity, and a lower IM. If the thorax is plated the stabber may also receive the mass advantage. The reason the frigates have higher IMs is to actually slow them down relative to their low mass, and high max velocities. IM's can't be compared between hull sizes due to the huge mass differences. I also ran some numbers on base stats to see what the effects would be, speeds from 0 in .5 second intervals DISCLAIMER: I realize these numbers aren't final, but it was a good exercise in how the numbers impacted things. Formula form the WIKI Vt = Vmax * (1 - e^(-t * 10^6 / (I*M) ) MATHS: Thorax Thorax w/o speed change New Thorax Stabber V Max 170 170 180 231 IM (agility)0.585 0.61425 0.61425 0.48 M 1128000011280000 11280000 11400000 time (s) velocity 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.5 12.41 11.84 12.53 20.17 1 23.91 22.85 24.19 38.58 1.5 34.57 33.09 35.04 55.38 2 44.45 42.62 45.13 70.72 2.5 53.61 51.49 54.52 84.72 3 62.10 59.74 63.26 97.49 3.5 69.98 67.42 71.38 109.15 4 77.28 74.56 78.95 119.79 4.5 84.04 81.21 85.98 129.50 5 90.31 87.39 92.53 138.36 Summary: Without the top speed changes the new thorax would be slower, however, with them, they will get a slight boost to their speeds at any given time. Granted I'm not sure how turning works and the impact of the higher IM here. It also looks like they will be slower to align out since the 75% of max velocity is the warp point. The stabber still travels 40% faster after 5 seconds, so you wont be wanting to drag race any of them. I apologize for the formatting, it should be exportable to excel as space delimited however.
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 42	Posted - 2011.10.27 14:11:00 - [63] - Quote Bleh I shouldn't post in a hurry. I got some of the numbers mixed up. Thorax less mass, higher IM. Stabber More mass, lower IM. Either way you might be right - as far as I can discern the info dump higher = better. But what you are saying makes sense so it's possible I'm wrong. Either way I think the change benefits gallente. I wonder what the heck that data subverter is for - hacking that can affect enemy ships ?
steave435 Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 27	Posted - 2011.10.27 14:39:00 - [64] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Bleh I shouldn't post in a hurry. I got some of the numbers mixed up. Thorax less mass, higher IM. Stabber More mass, lower IM. Either way you might be right - as far as I can discern the info dump higher = better. But what you are saying makes sense so it's possible I'm wrong. Either way I think the change benefits gallente. I wonder what the heck that data subverter is for - hacking that can affect enemy ships ? Yeah, you're wrong. Multiply the mass of th Thorax with its IM and then do the same for the Stabber. The result for the Thorax is 6 598 800, while the Stabber gets 5 472 000, that is why the Stabber is more agile. These changes will mean that it can reach a certain speed while fighting much faster, but it will take a while to turn around and start burning in the other direction. Personally, I'd welcome going further with this. For example, if pushed far enough, you could have a Deimos with the top speed of a Vagabond so that it's very good at burning in a straight line at the enemy to get in blaster range, or burn away from something to stay at sniper range, but the much worse agility would mean that it can't go faster then it can now if it's trying to maintain an orbit at 20k or so like the Vaga can. Minmatarr would be able to zip around on the field, turning fast in addition to going fast to maintain range, while the Gallente would burn in a straight line either in towards the center of the fight or away from it to decrease/increase range depending on its weapon type.
Alexei Orlov School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 15:02:00 - [65] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: [+] accessDifficultyBonus: 15.0 I think this is the key part. Some sort of amplifying module for Codebreakers or Analyzers... or both? Edit: Since there's also a range stat in there maybe I'm way off. Since I'd probably have seen that if I were awake, I think I'll crash now. Happy speculating!
Naso Gomez Astral Edge 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 15:24:00 - [66] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Perhaps it's something that allows you to hack Planetery Custom's offices and temporarily switch off the taxes, or steal a portion of the taxes. What do you guys think it's for ? I think your on the right track, but It's prob just to see if there is anything good inside there.
FlinchingNinja Kishunuba Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.10.27 15:45:00 - [67] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Good riddance. Stepping away from Battlecruisers for the moment - is anyone else excited about T2 probe launchers and T2 Drone modules ? Also what the heck is this ? [+] Data Subverter I [+\|n] hackOrbital [+\|n] medPower [+\|n] online [+] accessDifficultyBonus: 15.0 [+] capacitorNeed: 20.0 [+] capacity: 0 [+] cpu: 20.0 [+] duration: 10000.0 [+] hp: 40.0 [+] mass: 0 [+] maxRange: 5000.0 [+] metaLevel: 0 [+] power: 1.0 [+] requiredSkill2: 21718.0 [+] requiredSkill2Level: 1.0 [+] techLevel: 1.0 [+] volume: 5.0 It looks like some kind of hacking module, I see it mentions orbital in one of the lines. Perhaps it's something that allows you to hack Planetery Custom's offices and temporarily switch off the taxes, or steal a portion of the taxes. What do you guys think it's for ? Looks like something to hack rogue drones imo.... Maybe dreaming though....
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 63	Posted - 2011.10.27 16:25:00 - [68] - Quote Deerin wrote: Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Goose99 wrote: What's with all that eccms? Dude, your onerios fails. 2 are projected eccms. You can post a better oneiros fit too :) gohead dont be shy man. For small armor gangs with mandatory MWD, the "Lonely Medic" Oneiros [Oneiros, Solo Logi Oneiros] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Photon Scattering Field II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I For larger armor fleets, the "Free of Chains" Oneiros [Oneiros, Free of Chains] Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 10MN Afterburner II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I I'm not claiming that it is better than Guardian. But it is a viable alternative that although lacking in ECCM it makes up for it by being independent of chains, thus being able to disengage without endangering logistics energy chain core. Now this looks like what I call "fits", not the lol stuff full eccm and EM energised platings...seriously who's the ****** and/or stupid fc who brings oneiros to remote eccm and rep guardians.... Let me guess: "in vangard sites this works well" .....holly god...
Tefries Lurgoyf Republic University Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2011.10.27 19:18:00 - [69] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: Deerin wrote: Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Goose99 wrote: What's with all that eccms? Dude, your onerios fails. 2 are projected eccms. You can post a better oneiros fit too :) gohead dont be shy man. For small armor gangs with mandatory MWD, the "Lonely Medic" Oneiros [Oneiros, Solo Logi Oneiros] Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Capacitor Power Relay II Damage Control II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Photon Scattering Field II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Large Remote Armor Repair System II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I For larger armor fleets, the "Free of Chains" Oneiros [Oneiros, Free of Chains] Damage Control II Armor Explosive Hardener II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 10MN Afterburner II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I I'm not claiming that it is better than Guardian. But it is a viable alternative that although lacking in ECCM it makes up for it by being independent of chains, thus being able to disengage without endangering logistics energy chain core. Now this looks like what I call "fits", not the lol stuff full eccm and EM energised platings...seriously who's the ****** and/or stupid fc who brings oneiros to remote eccm and rep guardians.... Let me guess: "in vangard sites this works well" .....holly god... Hi man. Let me see here... Shield tank oneiros cute. no other comment The other one.. is not bad... Until you realize it doesnt bring anything to the table besides repping like the Guardian. And then gets COMPLETLY SMASHED int he FACE with ECM and Neuts. Something REALLY UNCOMMON for sure. Im sure you will pull distance from those neuting ships however with your plate and AB. Oh were talking about fail FCs now.. Well for one, Carbon Fury and Viper Siz something zle (PL FCs) field the projected ECCM version with great success :) Deerin, a lot of BUSA members were formely Hull Miners who flew with those FCs in cry havoc. Its possibly they only time a member of BUSA flew an oneiros in a actual non-LOL mannar. IRONY hehe
Gabriel Karade Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 1	Posted - 2011.10.27 19:32:00 - [70] - Quote Carmen Martino wrote: Gabriel Karade wrote: Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula ~~works~~ up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face Have you ever flown ANYTHING that uses hybrids? My guess is no. My friend, I've flown nothing but Hybrid ships (and by that read: mostly blaster boats) since 2004 - there were indeed fitting issues back '04-06 ish but those were resolved (e.g. Megathron powergrid boost, CPU reduction on blasters e.t.c). Fitting is not the core issue for blasters today. War-Machine

Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 63	Posted - 2011.10.27 22:32:00 - [71] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: stuff Ok. I understand now why those Oneiros are so badly used/fitted
Headerman Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx 287	Posted - 2011.10.28 01:09:00 - [72] - Quote Hasn't been seen yet i think, but i am REALLY looking forward to the Naga! just crafting on EFT with a Scorpion (as it also has no damage bonus), the Naga SHOULD have: 8 highs, 8 launcher turrets, 4 lows. That means T2 sieges, 4 x CN BCUs, 1 T2 loading bay accellerator + T2 torps (not that anyone uses them) = 1268 DPS without implants With a 6% RoF implant, that goes up to 1350... that is a lot. I was training up Hybrids but gonna continue on missile skillz now :D The Apostle : I want a kangeroo Captain Kirk : Silly Austrians Sarmatiko : Let me guess: you're from US? Captain Kirk : Yeah Riverside IA - why?
Desudes Pixelmoon The Star League 6	Posted - 2011.10.28 02:00:00 - [73] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: Carmen Martino wrote: Gabriel Karade wrote: Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula ~~works~~ up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face Have you ever flown ANYTHING that uses hybrids? My guess is no. My friend, I've flown nothing but Hybrid ships (and by that read: mostly blaster boats) since 2004 - there were indeed fitting issues back '04-06 ish but those were resolved (e.g. Megathron powergrid boost, CPU reduction on blasters e.t.c). Fitting is not the core issue for blasters today. Take a look at this: 5x meta neutrons on a thorax with max skills leaves you with 105ish pg, t2 leave you with 70ish pg 7x meta neutrons on a brutix leaves you with 150ish pg, t2 leaves you with 100ish pg the megathron stands alone with its blaster brothers as it has 5000pg after meta neutrons, it can fit something worth a damn the Hyperior is a tighter fit then mega, only having 3200ish pg the domi has minus 1000pg with a rack of meta neutrons, forget t2 Blasters usually come with MWDs, reppers, cap boosters and plates, all requiring pg that only the mega can somewhat spare if its going to go with good dps. Reducing fitting requirements works with the hallmark of Gallente close range ships: high DPS with heavy tanks. FOR THE DESU!!!
Tanaka Sekigahara United Space Marine Corp 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 06:28:00 - [74] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: In this link: http://altruist.azual.co.uk/2011/10/new-battlecruisers-and-balance-changes.html You can see some of the potential changes to ships. In all I love many of the changes, especially the destroyers. What do you guys think about the hybrid and ship rebalancing ? I think CCP gone and done good. I agree that CCP has done good.I am happy with them overall, but like most players i would like to see a tweak or 2 that benifts me and my playstyle. i can't help but notice that while Gallente hybrid boats got a speed and agility buff, Caldari only got agility.Many ships in general got speed tweaks, except for Caldari. The problem with this is simple:If the advantage that Caldari has is range, it is negated by the fact that its ships do not have the speed to dictate the range. Therefore, it is no advantage at all after the opening moments of the engagement. They are already about the slowest in game, and now the gap has widened further. Another question i have is this: If, on average, the change to tracking speeds for gallente ships are 20%, is that a greater benifit than the 10% increase in damage that the rails are getting??? Overall I think the changes are significant and good. I think the net effect will be to make this into the wargame that i came to play in the first place.No more will fleets be able to just drag out their moms and titans and neglect all other ships types and dominate the battlefield. It is my opinion that subcaps will play a huge role in fleets fights in the future, to the extent they may determine victory, and whether or not the capitals even enter the field. Going forward, it seems the battlefield will now have to be prepped, or " shaped" ( in military parlance).Sub capitals will enter the field first, and try to establish a superiority independent of what the capitals do, as when the capitals enter the fray they will be subject to being tackled and held by subcaps in a way they have not been previously. A mom and a dread will be able to do little against a tackling ceptor. cruisers and AFs will have to deal with them. BCs will attempt to drive the cruisers off the field and The battleships will become relevant again as they enter the figth and try to win the subcap fight.Carriers will be important as they will have to try and kill the heavy cruiser to BS sized ships, nd the moms will be deployed only when that fight has been largely settled, and from here on in there will be real risk in deploying supercaps as they wont be able to logoffski and wont be able to effectively fefend themselves from subcaps any longer. The dreads will resume their intended role as primary isntallation attackers, ans secondarilly will go after the battleships to clear them or drive them off, and the carriers will be obliged to defend the dreads when they become imperilled. Moms wil go after the other caps once they are engaged and the titans will be deployed to decide the issue in the role they were probably originally intended for. The enagements will be longer and take longer to develop, as only the most foolhardy of FCs will deploy his caps at the outset of the engagement.Morale will become a factor as the engagement drags on.Courage will become an issue for FCs as they decide whther or not they have the goolies to deploy their titans.the risk of losing them will be higher than before, and the net effects of engagements will be more decisive, as when it goes **** up for one side they will lose caps that in the past they could simply log off in. Tempo, an oft overlooked aspect of combat will become one of major importance, as commander s decide when they want to deploy there BS and the caps, then supercaps. Individual effort and achievement will again be of relevance as the subcaps once again have a role, and a role of great importance. surving subcaps on the field towards the end of the fight may make a dif in caps kills overall as there may be that many more caps tackled on the field waiting there turn to die like so many trapped Romans at Cannae.Individual survivng ceptors and cruiser may make a diference of a couple of bil for each one left on the field, and there absence may mean one more carrier or mom the enemy is able to get away with to live to fight another day. Communicatiosn beyond calling primaries will assume even greater significance. The ability of individual FCs will be decisive, even moreso than now, as the situation on the battlefield will not be as important as what the opposing commanders think it is. What they beleive the situation to be will be all important as to when they deploy the supercaps.If they deploy them on a field where the subcap fight is lost, or soon will be lost, those ships may be doomed the moment they enter the battle.
Tanaka Sekigahara United Space Marine Corp 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 06:29:00 - [75] - Quote Even ships that got no tweaks or changes will have a specific role, the possibilities for tactical applications and combinations of ship types and how they are used will be limited only by the imaginations of the commanders.overall composition of the fleet and how it is commanded will assume more importance in relation to simply the total overall size of the fleet. Some alliance out there is gonna be the first to put a major emphasis on what ships they bring and in what proportions, and the smart ones will develop a staff devoted to that, and coming up with a general battle plan, leaving the FC to implement it on the engagement. The days of one ship fits all roles is over, and the same applies for one man being bale to handle everything, and just issuing a call to arms and simply leading them onto the field. Preparation and planning will assume greater significance, as will leadership in general. In short i think the planned changes will bust the game wide open and in fact make it fun again.Increased DPS for dreads mean shorter sieges on POS' ,eliminating some of the boredom with POS takedowns.The skill of subcap pilots may well be decisive.
Arthur Frayn Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 11:47:00 - [76] - Quote I just noticed the base hitpoints of the new battlecruisers. Roughly half of what the tier 2 BC's have. It's like CCP designed these ships with the specific role of being nuked in one shot by anyone in an insta-lock tempest with 1400s. A triple trimarked, triple 1600 rolled tungsten + EANM and damage control will be the only remotely survivable fit for the Talos and Oracle. The Tornado can rely on numbers and sensor boosters/amplifiers in every slot that can't fit a gun in order to kill targets before it even gets locked. The Naga is **** out of luck.
Songbird 35	Posted - 2011.10.28 13:22:00 - [77] - Quote Caldari are the slowest but only before the fits go into the ships. Both gallente and amarr are armor tankers - plates and armor rigs will slow them down. Caldari otoh only fear bloated signature.
Cambarus Clearly Compensating The Dark Triad 14	Posted - 2011.10.28 15:08:00 - [78] - Quote Tefries Lurgoyf wrote: Tanya Powers wrote: Now this looks like what I call "fits", not the lol stuff full eccm and EM energised platings...seriously who's the ****** and/or stupid fc who brings oneiros to remote eccm and rep guardians.... Let me guess: "in vangard sites this works well" .....holly god... Hi man. Let me see here... Shield tank oneiros cute. no other comment The other one.. is not bad... Until you realize it doesnt bring anything to the table besides repping like the Guardian. And then gets COMPLETLY SMASHED int he FACE with ECM and Neuts. Something REALLY UNCOMMON for sure. Im sure you will pull distance from those neuting ships however with your plate and AB. Oh were talking about fail FCs now.. Well for one, Carbon Fury and Viper Siz something zle (PL FCs) field the projected ECCM version with great success :) Deerin, a lot of BUSA members were formely Hull Miners who flew with those FCs in cry havoc. Its possibly they only time a member of BUSA flew an oneiros in a actual non-LOL mannar. IRONY hehe TBH the only oneiros fit I've ever flown is the shield tanked one, but the idea of using it as an ECCM platform makes sense. That said, assuming it works (which tbh it should, not sure why there's so much eccm hate here given that ecm is pretty much the only counter to logis in small-medium gangs), it basically means that the oneiros has 2 useful setups: 1 entails being fast, agile and cap-independant, useful for smaller gangs that insist on armor tanking 1 entails being an eccm provider to help keep the guardians going/stop the cap chains from going down. BOTH require an abundance of midslots to be viable BOTH will be nerfed should they move a mid to a low.
Magosian Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 15:43:00 - [79] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: My friend, I've flown nothing but Hybrid ships (and by that read: mostly blaster boats) since 2004 - there were indeed fitting issues back '04-06 ish but those were resolved (e.g. Megathron powergrid boost, CPU reduction on blasters e.t.c). Fitting is not the core issue for blasters today. ^ Is this Alex? If it is, hi Alex <3 ANYHOW...! Agreed. Fitting issues were not a major complaint, at least not that I am aware. Not to mention, if fitting issues really existed, it would make a lot more sense to tweak the ships which are geared to use those turrets (which IS what they did a few years back). If I read the data right, the summary of proposed changes by CCP to make hybrids viable includes: -making Gallente ships slightly faster (which are still considerably slower than anything sporting autos) -reducing cap requirements per shot (although autos still require no cap) -tweaking fitting requirements for hybrids (what??) -slightly increasing railgun damage (yet range wasn't addressed, hybrids as a whole are still ineffective, thus unappealing) Projectiles will remain vastly superior. Why? Artillery provides alpha, which further provides the pilot and his friends with extra planning dynamics, such as alpha fleets and suicide ganking. Autocannons are not the kings of dps, but this is often overshadowed due to the flexibility in choosing three of the four damage types available through changing ammunition. Projectiles altogether do not require cap, making them a viable choice for any ship or fleet who relies heavily on buffer tanks or to those who would be otherwise concerned about cap restrictions. Lasers, while not quite as grandios as projectiles, have enough benefits to also put them significantly above hybrids in terms of preference and effectiveness. Scorch crystals provide what is largely considered the most effective t2 ammo in the game. The instant swapping of crystals only plays to the advantage scorch provides: a very high and linear rate of damage can be applied at ranges outside the norm of short range turrets. Should anything close the gap, the ability to swap from scorch to conflag/faction-multi is HUGE, allowing [pulse] laser turrets the incredible capability to change its effectiveness and dictating combat dynamics instantly. Just as important, lasers happen to have the most significant relationship to racial ship type, as Amarr vessels specialize in armor tanking. Armor is significantly better than shields for large engagements simply because augmented armor buffers often double the effective hitpoints of their shield counterparts. This alone makes lasers the weapon of choice for large fleet engagements. Scorch and instant ammo swapping is just icing on the cake. So, what does this all mean? In my eyes, hybrids will still be the red-headed step-child of turrets because they do not answer fundamental questions when fitting ships and planning for combat. Some of those more common questions are below: alpha?projectiles (artillery) reducing cap usage?projectiles flexible damage types?projectiles compliment/negate neutalizers/repair?projectiles capital turrets?lasers prolonged sieging/fleeting?lasers least logistical headaches?lasers Specifically speaking to the changes proposed in the OP's link, I get a strong impression CCP still does not understand the underlying weaknesses of hybrids. They are: -Blasters need to be practical. They either need improved ranges which will allow them to compete with autos and "scorch'd" pulses or they need to be on the fastest ships. It's that simple. -Railguns, and to a certain degree blasters, need something which fits a niche. Most of the questions every pilot/gang/fleet asks themselves when fitting a ship is, how is using weapon-type X going to give me an advantage on the field? In most cases (shown above), the answer is amost always projectiles or lasers. Hybrids need to be the answer to at least a couple of these questions. Presently, they do not.
Julius Foederatus Hyper-Nova 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 16:36:00 - [80] - Quote Magosian hit the nail on the head. If your guns are going to have the shortest range, you have to have the fastest ships. Period, end of sentence. Nerfing agility is fine and dandy, as long as you're the fastest in a straight line. This helps kill any chance of kiting rail brutixes/myrms running around. However, if you don't make them the fastest, they'll still get **** on by just about everything else that a) is faster and b) has better ranged guns. Granted I don't think I went through the whole thing thoroughly, but I didn't see anything about changing the speed penalty on armor rigs, didn't see a small damage buff on blasters themselves, didn't see buffed speed numbers that approach anything close to what is necessary. If CCP wants to make blaster ships viable, they have to give up this stupid fluff about Minmatar being the fastest, and make Gallente ships the fastest, armor plates or no. Give em an extra agility penalty if you want, that will enable Minmatar to stay viable in skirmish pvp, but as it is now Gallente ships are not the best at anything. It's either give blasters range like ACs/pulses and have everyone be playing RvB with different skins, or we make close range ships actually be able to get into a fight on their terms. All that said, the changes are in the right direction. Hybrids needed more tracking, the ships need more speed. Also the Oneiros changes look awesome tbh. I don't know what you people are bitching about, having a ship that can actually fit a buffer + 4 large reppers and doesn't run out of cap because someone else got jammed is awesome.

Gabriel Karade Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 1	Posted - 2011.10.28 16:42:00 - [81] - Quote Desudes wrote: Gabriel Karade wrote: Carmen Martino wrote: Gabriel Karade wrote: Not convinced on the blaster changes - #1 : Since when has fitting been the primary issue?. As far as #2 goes, the 20% tracking buff, to put it into context you have to recall the 400% change that occured with QR in 2008 and the way the tracking formula ~~works~~ up close. Once you do that, you see it really doesn't change much at all... sad face Have you ever flown ANYTHING that uses hybrids? My guess is no. My friend, I've flown nothing but Hybrid ships (and by that read: mostly blaster boats) since 2004 - there were indeed fitting issues back '04-06 ish but those were resolved (e.g. Megathron powergrid boost, CPU reduction on blasters e.t.c). Fitting is not the core issue for blasters today. Take a look at this: 5x meta neutrons on a thorax with max skills leaves you with 105ish pg, t2 leave you with 70ish pg 7x meta neutrons on a brutix leaves you with 150ish pg, t2 leaves you with 100ish pg the megathron stands alone with its blaster brothers as it has 5000pg after meta neutrons, it can fit something worth a damn the Hyperior is a tighter fit then mega, only having 3200ish pg the domi has minus 1000pg with a rack of meta neutrons, forget t2 Blasters usually come with MWDs, reppers, cap boosters and plates, all requiring pg that only the mega can somewhat spare if its going to go with good dps. Reducing fitting requirements works with the hallmark of Gallente close range ships: high DPS with heavy tanks. But you are assuming blaster fit = neutrons, when really there's no need to cram neutrons onto every single fit. At most you gain ~6% over Ions, 10% over electrons and indeed some Ion fits do equal or more DPS by virture of the more relaxed fitting requirements. I stand by my point that fitting is not the key issue for blasters and therefore the proposed 'fix' is not convincing. Also, I'm not Alex, I'm Gabriel and always have been War-Machine
Magosian Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.10.28 16:47:00 - [82] - Quote Gabriel Karade wrote: Also, I'm not Alex, I'm Gabriel and always have been Yea sorry about that. I glanced at the last name at the time and I swear I saw "Karrde," so I thought perhaps you were an Alex alt. My apologies :(
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts 30	Posted - 2011.10.28 17:40:00 - [83] - Quote Quote: Specifically speaking to the changes proposed in the OP's link, I get a strong impression CCP still does not understand the underlying weaknesses of hybrids. They are: -Blasters need to be practical. They either need improved ranges which will allow them to compete with autos and "scorch'd" pulses or they need to be on the fastest ships. It's that simple. -Railguns, and to a certain degree blasters, need something which fits a niche. Most of the questions every pilot/gang/fleet asks themselves when fitting a ship is, how is using weapon-type X going to give me an advantage on the field? In most cases (shown above), the answer is amost always projectiles or lasers. Hybrids need to be the answer to at least a couple of these questions. Presently, they do not. I agree completely. Hybrid simply have no role - there is no situation where you say "we need blasters/rails", and CCP's changes do not address this in the slightest. This is because the roles that hybrids had have been usurped by ACs and lasers. This cannot be fixed by boosting hybrids by any sensible amount, because the problem isn't really hybrids, it's ACs and lasers. Hybrids are balanced because the have defined roles - the others are overpowered because they are too good in too many situations. In general, the utility of a weapon as fleet size increases is in proportion to its range. In a blasterboat, you can't afford to sped all day MWDing about, when you can just sit still and fire Scorch. This straight away means that blasters need to be better than ACs in solo combat, as ACs are better as gang size increases. But, of course, they're not, because if you're soloing, you want mobility and the ability to apply damage from outside web range - hence you want Minmatar hulls and ACs. If you choose blasters, you have a slow ship with no ability to apply DPS from outside web range, and the requirement to go into web range yourself to apply your DPS. Tackling yourself in every fight, with no ability to GTFO when Teh Blob arrives, when a Minmatar AC option is available, is basically a complicated form of Russian Roulette - brave and exciting, but foolish. Even despite this, if blasters really had a damage advantage close up, they would have a minor niche. But thanks to slot layouts, the greater viability of shield gank fits on AC boats and selectable damage, they don't. ACs are supposed to be used in falloff - so why do they have such high damage and tracking close up? I've run numbers on the new t3 BCs and, ignoring tracking, a shield gank Tornado with Hail will kill a Void Talos even if the fight starts at blaster optimal. It has less raw DPS, sure, but the damage-type selectability and ease of fitting LSEs means that Talos runs out of EHP first. If those are the final stats, then it's just stupid. The only proper fix will involve one race with fast ships and short-ranged weapons, and the other with slower ships and high falloff. The fast ships will be able to use their speed to avoid unfavourable fights and choose favourable ones, but they'll have to go inside web range to apply their DPS. The slower ships will not be able to get tackle or avoid tackle nearly as easily, but will have better DPS application at range in compensation. You'll know when blasters and ACs are balanced because you'll face a tough decision about whether to fly a Vaga or Deimos. Call it the Deimos test - if the Deimos is not balanced with the Vagabond, then blasterboats and AC-boats are not balanced. As for rails, well, they're pointless in a world that instant probing and on-grid warping to eliminate the ranged niche. But even if you fix the "warp-to-enemy" problem, then Tachyons on optimal-boosted hulls have still usurped rail's long-ranged role.
Tsubutai The Tuskers 18	Posted - 2011.10.28 18:24:00 - [84] - Quote Gypsio, it's utter nonsense to say that ACs are "meant to be used in falloff;" if that were the case, they'd be strictly inferior to both lasers and missiles, both of which give them a thorough spanking at kiting ranges. They're supposed to be flexible - weaker than blasters but stronger than others at point blank, and weaker than lasers/missiles but better than blasters at range. The only one of those that doesn't hold at the moment is "weaker than blasters at point blank", and that doesn't point to a problem with ACs, it shows that blasters are not doing enough effective damage at the ranges where they should be the undisputed champions. This isn't just an issue with ACs - for example, even in scram range, a geddon can tank and gank about as effectively as a mega (while a tempest, whether armor or shield tanked, can't keep up with either). Also, your comment about having to make a hard choice between a vaga and a deimos is silly, although the sentiment behind it is sound. It's perfectly possible for two ships to both be good but in very different ways; you'd never have a hard time choosing between a guardian and a scimitar, for example, even though they both belong to the same class of ships and are both good at what they do. Same goes for pest versus abaddon or zealot versus vaga.
Tac Mannall Defenders of Order 0	Posted - 2011.10.29 07:53:00 - [85] - Quote Personally i think the balances listed are going to be quite powerful for Blaster boats. The the change to the Inertia Modifier and the speed increase both are paired to play to the blaster boat's role. The whole point of being in a blaster boat is to get into blaster range, and that means running right at your target more often than not. On the surface only the speed upgrade really works for this but it's once you get into scram range that the Inertial Modifier really comes into play. Diving right towards the enemy you don't really need to move from side to side too much but once it hits scram and your MWD shuts down you'll start to slow down but with the increased Inertia the drop in speed happens much slower and that means you can coast right into blaster range quicker and easier. The drop in fitting requirements and the cap usage drop are both also benefits the Blaster boat. The fittings probably won't affect the guns too much, but what it will do is leave more fitting resources to fit more of a strong tank. You're throwing yourself literally into the face of the enemy's guns, you need a strong tank to handle the damage as your closing. Plus the massive drop of cap usage means that an Active tank setup is more of a valid option. It could be a racial trait, Amarr have buffers, Gallente have active tanks. Also, I have to say, I love the possibility of the new Destroyers. I finally can use my Catalyst without being laughed at. :p
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 43	Posted - 2011.10.31 15:08:00 - [86] - Quote Looks like I was indeed right: CCP Tallest wrote: Tristan North wrote: Please specify in that blog if it is an Agility Nerf or Agility Buff. Most players are confused about it. The agility change is an agility buff. The ships will be more agile. AGILITY AND SPEED BUFF WOOOOOOT
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 86	Posted - 2011.10.31 17:59:00 - [87] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Looks like I was indeed right: CCP Tallest wrote: Tristan North wrote: Please specify in that blog if it is an Agility Nerf or Agility Buff. Most players are confused about it. The agility change is an agility buff. The ships will be more agile. AGILITY AND SPEED BUFF WOOOOOOT Yes very interesting indeed but don't forget this, witch is the most important factor killing blaster ships: you accelerate faster, you have overall better speed when MWD'n ! -right ! Now must I remeber you the 500% sign penalty when using mwd making your thorax get almost the double sign radius of an orca and makes you get in tha face 110% dmg knowing untill you get in your ridiculous blaster range engagement, everyone and his cat is blowing your face?
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 43	Posted - 2011.10.31 19:19:00 - [88] - Quote Do or die - the gallente way.
Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 86	Posted - 2011.10.31 19:55:00 - [89] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: Do or die - the gallente way. Diemost, that's why
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 44	Posted - 2011.10.31 20:18:00 - [90] - Quote You should check prometheus's video - he absolutely wreck people's **** in a diemost.

Tanya Powers Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 89	Posted - 2011.10.31 23:47:00 - [91] - Quote Zoe Alarhun wrote: You should check prometheus's video - he absolutely wreck people's **** in a diemost. I've seen a few ones but I can't just look at without being critic, duno if those were from that guy but most I saw were older enough, maybe before several nerfs, then all others are very specific situations and some blind could figure out most piloting mistakes from targets. Also diemost works fine with logis and friends webing scraming. Stil, I rather use vaga's or cynabals every day.
Acorn FB Puppeteers of Doom Real Life Rejects 0	Posted - 2011.11.01 00:20:00 - [92] - Quote I think CCP may have finally learned the hard way to make a change part of the way to where you expect the issue to actually lay rather than overbuff. A second round buffs can be done easily a round of nerfs are more problematic. The buffs to both lasers and projectiles overshot the goal, so caution may be a good idea. I do think that with buffed hybrids people wil use them more and some tactics may appear/reappear now that they are closer to their competiors. The problem they are just to weak in raw terms to make anything work, give them a buff and you never know. I also think the Gall BC tier 3 is going to get a lot of use, big webs tons of firepower - .
Zoe Alarhun The Proactive Reappropriation Corporation 45	Posted - 2011.11.01 06:23:00 - [93] - Quote Tanya Powers wrote: Zoe Alarhun wrote: You should check prometheus's video - he absolutely wreck people's **** in a diemost. I've seen a few ones but I can't just look at without being critic, duno if those were from that guy but most I saw were older enough, maybe before several nerfs, then all others are very specific situations and some blind could figure out most piloting mistakes from targets. Also diemost works fine with logis and friends webing scraming. Stil, I rather use vaga's or cynabals every day. I was thinking of the ones where he solo's enemy gangs in his diemos, takes out vaga's and cynabels by the dozen.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.