| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
105
   |
Posted - 2013.07.29 12:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:I like it, but why is the Diemos(t) loosing tank?
The Deimos still dies if anybody looks at it |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
Move the diemost tank out of structure and shield and put it in the armor. It makes it possible to brawl the ship and not get alpha off the field, also if people raill/shield fit it. Well some inane ball of fire reference. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
107
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 17:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails.
Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
108
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 18:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Except for the Deimos, seems everybody is ok with the changes, minus personal tweaks.
I see the intention of the Deimos though, they don't want it as a point blank brawler. They want this gallente ship to use rails.
The thorax, both rail and blaster platform, decentish tank, it dies no big deal.
The Deimos. Rail platform (the Ishtar would never make a viable pure rail platform, (rail sentry sure but not pure rail). Blasters is somewhat considered suicidal. Tank issues
Proteus, blaster platform (cause most don't fit rails), good tank for surviving at point blank.
If the above was the intention of CCP in regards to the Deimos, thorax and proteus... Great job, balance and you gave the ships identity.
If (and if that was your intention), with the gallente race, you nailed it. The falloff bonus is totally wasted on rails. Then I have nothing to tell you cause I would not send that ship in at point blank range to go shoot a target with ion blasters... I'll bring a thorax, shoot it with neutrons, and laugh as the ship blows up. The Deimos will not survive under fire
Before I start ranting, I'll say this..
1) I like quoting myself.
2) The Deimos is in somewhat of a bad place, and its not inherently the ship, its the play style people want from it. You really do have two camps here regarding this ship. The first is the point blank blaster max damage fit, the second is this shield fit kiting rail fit. Now the kiting fit isn't a big issue, but there is a very VERY large camp out there that do not want the Deimos to be the Gallente Version of the Eagle. Now there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship....
It really isn't. With Blasters, it really does not have the projection with damage, even with the fall off bonus, and the reason isn't because of the range that blasters get, its because it will Die in a ball of melted scrap because it has to get into range. Now if your flying a thorax, its not a big deal, 10 million isk ship, few modules, probably 30 mil. This ship is 150 million at the lower end. Its chiefly the main complaint that people have in regards to using a regular industrial vs using a deep space transport.
"Why am I going to use a 150 million isk ship vs a 1 million isk ship if they both get caught and blown to hell. They'll both die in a ball of fire if someone catches them."
Now this arguement has been argued.. ALLOT, but its specifically pertinent to the Deimos as you have to fly this ship, as a blaster setup, at 10km to apply viable damage, which is both in Scrambling Range (shutting down MWD propulsion), and also its in POINT BLANK RANGE of the fleet/fighters. This is not the ship you want to put in the frontline, as it does not have the defenses to survive as a frontline ship.
The Diemos would need the following IF you want this to be a viable frontline HAC.
1) Don't split the Hybrid Turret damage into two different bonuses, merge them into 1 (instead of 5%, just make it 10% bonus Medium Hybrid Turret Damage.
2) With the free slot you have by combining the above (moving it all into Gallente Cruiser), increase its hit points. I'd say about 5% per level. It should bring the typical 35 to 50k ehp Diemos to around 68 to 75k ehp, giving both some dynamic to fitting active reps, or a passive tank, and giving it enough time to brawl its way through the fire to actually land a shot or two.
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
5% Armor Hit Points per level. "Do it here as it forces people to level up Heavy Assault Cruiser if they want a brawling Deimos."
I hate (actually i REALLY hate) doing the whole hit point bonus with a ship, but this is really the only way I can see this ship living as a blaster boat. It needs the buffer, which gives it about an extra 10 to 15 seconds under fire, to get in range. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
113
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Diemos is still a flying coffin with the words (I brought it on the field and I have blasters, kill me please) written on it. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:A tracking bonus only helps a rail Deimos and not the blaster variation. The bonus itself does t save it (or even assist it) in surviving under fire.
Tracking, no it doesn't need it. It needs a tank, or a way of surviving. It doesn't have it yet Wtf? You have played eve before yes?
Yes and even with a tracking bonus the ship still derps and is melted into Ashe at point blank range.
The ship doesn't need to be navyfied (tracking bonus). It needs to survive (a tank of some way, shape or form). |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:Ok I have now fiddled with the latest EFT file.
I do like the electronics buff and the cap makes a big difference.
Ishtar will be my first choice HAC (always was) and has basically sat in the hanger from the point where I no longer needed itGÇÖs T2 resists for the old DPS heavy FW complexes.
Not completely convinced by the bonus to heavy drone speed, will need a further Navi comp and to not use ogres I think for heavies to be used in that fashion and be viable.
Fitting buff is huge so I will not complain about the odd bonuses.
Like the cap bonus on the Deimos gives it a great run time.
Sac may have lost some of its uniqueness and strength without the cap bonus, honestly it was a very strong ship when used correctly already.
Eagle could still do with 20% optimal and gaining a tracking bonus.
I do like the Vaga. 425mm Autos plus pulsing a LASB for tank at skirmish range with reduced sig.
I think these are generally improved combat wise and sitting at the correct level, more and they will out shadow other ships by far.
It is however a missed opportunity.
They are just another combat vessel nothing really unique, I will have a couple lying round but there is nothing really to justify the cost.
Some of the previous thread ideas such as scram immunity, microjump drives may have been overpowered but there was still a spot here for a unique bonus to shake up the meta and I think that is still missing. I would have gone for immune to non-targeted interdiction and I am not even a nullsec/wormhole player.
I agree with you that they are missing a uniqueness, but it is not the immunity. I don't quite get why people want combat ships to be immune to bubbles, scrams, etc.
They could add something unique to these ships though, as these are the only ones CCP can really just go nuts with regarding unique, distinctive bonuses. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:Diemos is still a flying coffin with the words (I brought it on the field and I have blasters, kill me please) written on it. Well considering medium Railguns are about to do near blaster level dps (******* fail ccp), I'd just fit those and kite at 30km... Blaster Deimos will be just about as bad after the patch as it is now.
I addressed this before. If ccp's intention is to remove the Deimos as a blaster platform (I know its possible but not everybody is that crazy to dive a Deimos headfirst into a fleet), then CCP did good.
As I listed before:
Thorax, rail and blaster platform
Deimos,Rail platform
Proteus, Blaster platform
If that was ccp's intention, they got it right. If not lord that ship will never see the light of day. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
119
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Blastil wrote:I like these much better. At least gallente have ONE working HAC. Now as for the other one:
I'm not sure why you're nerfing the diemos so hard on hitpoints? why the mad dash for this? its already a fragile ship, and giving it a 4th mid won't make it a shield tanker through magic and pixy dust.
Its only hope is to be like the taranis: omni tanked, relying on high damage and high hitpoints to do anything significant. At least give me my honor structure tank back rise...
.... I have no clue....
Put the hit points in its tank. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
Boss McNab wrote:Soo is CCP RISE MIA, it`s been over 500post from plays, alot good feed back and ideas and it seems he has had nothing to say?
Just saw the Command Ship changes.
Welp I won't even bother with HAC's. Just jumping the shark and going with the Command Ships.
Though a army of hacs and command ships would be..
I would not want to fight that....\
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
You have any method if addressing the isk spike of these ships. They've jumped from 140 million to 200 million and they haven't been released yet. The same with the command ships. Yes people are speculating on both the value and the increased mineral and moongoop these ships will cost |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
136
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
Makoto Priano wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Rise.
Please address this point:
COST!
Many thanks
Lall Do you mean-- how the speculators are speculating, and this is causing a price spike? As it always does? Prices will settle back to equilibrium soon enough.
And that equilibrium is??
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
The Deimos... Ok let's see. It's massively cap hungry, and everybody hates armor rep bonuses, but the most recent changes to reppers maybe enough to use it....
Maaaaybe... |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 14:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Xequecal wrote:
Actually, it's because WH fights have a tendency to be fought at very close ranges, namely within 5km of a WH so you can GTFO whenever you want, warping to zero on a ratter, etc. That makes blasters exceptional and means the long range of pulse lasers isn't worth much. Also, Proteus cloaky subsystem is actually good, unlike Legion.
Range does matter sometimes in WH, but generally you are right. But don't tell me the slot layout is not making Prot a better ship. Also most dps legions in WH are HAM ones. And for CCP Rise: Im Amarr! I want my ships slow and tanky! I don't need hi or med slot as I don't want't to fly jack of all trades ship. I want a heavy brawler and Sac needs a 6th slot for that role. Not for tank but for dps (BCS).
Ideally, yep, but people will just fit more tank to it.
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations
Surely You're Joking
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 16:49:00 -
[17] - Quote
The Eagle is amazing!!!
There 2nd person who said its awesome.
... why? No fking clue.
Its name is great.... I'll never fly it, touch it, undock in it....
But yea amazing. Balance achieved :-P. |
| |
|