Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:10:00 -
[361] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm.
what i find odd about HM's and HAM'S is that HM furies do more dps than HAM javelins do .. whats up with that? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Onslaughtor
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:14:00 -
[362] - Quote
Sacrilege would be perfect if you moved the utility high to a low.
Deimos needs some more hitpoints. Thanks to natively poorer Gellente t2 resists it has a fairly weak AHAC tank even if you try.
Muninn is clearly designed for using artillery yet it has a hard time fitting them, Maybe change the 10% optimal to a 5% optimal and falloff per level. That or give it a bit more fitting space, tho I think that could be a bad idea.
Other than those things I like them.
Also just for the sake of bringing it up, the 2 rigs slots. Are there any plans on changing this? Because rigs as they stand play a HUGE part in how a ship preforms and because T2 ships are only able to fit 2 they have a harder time being better than their t1 counterparts and get horribly shafted when it comes to T3. Just wanted to bring this to your attention and let you think on it. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:18:00 -
[363] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Maybe because missile velocity bonuses are even more beneficial to HAM fits than to HML fits?
/facepalm and do not forget people this made it threw 2 rounds of csm feedback... boy do i miss last years csm. what i find odd about HM's and HAM'S is that HM furies do more dps than HAM javelins do .. whats up with that?
Because they should. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:22:00 -
[364] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters.... totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup.
The problem is the Gallente design model is fundamentally broken; big slow armor tanks and blasters with no range. It's a combination of bad and bad with no counterbalance, especially for cruiser-sized ships; battleships are always slow regardless of how they're fit (and have MJDs, which are a wonderful way around this problem), while frigates can get away with just fitting a damage control and perhaps some other resist mods.
Making armor faster isn't a good choice since it's the defining weakness of an armor tank, and when you start adding range to blasters you start looking suspiciously like Minmatar. The Talos is as good as it is, perhaps even overpowered, because it's un-Gallente: it has both range and speed.
The way I see it, there are two options: either redesign the Gallente HACs to have shield tanks with a decisive speed advantage and enough EHP to brawl at point blank range -- and I mean actually enough, not like the Thorax where shields + blasters means you'll explode instantly -- or leave them armor-tanked, but let them track well enough for railguns + antimatter to be at least somewhat competetive with Scorch and Barrage.
(To CCP's credit, I think the proposed Ishtar changes have already achieved this balance with drones, which just leaves the Deimos.)
I prefer the latter solution since I think ultra-fast shield-tanked blaster ships would be a great direction to take the Serpentis ship line, but that's just me. |
flind
Merhn Ghostly Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:22:00 -
[365] - Quote
RIP Sacra. Useless +25% to missile speed and loses its awesome capa bonus - yeah, she was imba before so CCP decided to nerf her. |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
394
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:26:00 -
[366] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:the sac still sucks, it either dosnt have enough tank or not enough dps.
move the utility high to an extra low.
love this ship, but you are not fixing it enough to make it worth flying
The last tunes to the Sacrilege are perfect. No touching it anymore pls. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Boss McNab
Tactical Chaos Corp Infinity Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:26:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP RISE & CCP FOZZIE,
I hope we will being seeing a third round revision thread before you guys launch it. that is, unless you plan on having to balance them again in the next year or two. You should really take the time, listen to all the great forum feed back, and make a purpose for all these ships. Yes the CSM is great but you have hundreds of players giving you great feed back. Please use it, and listen to what the majority is telling you, even if you individually or a few CSM`s want to to something different. Please take into account you have a whole community of players that have put alot of work it to helping you build amazing T2 cruiser class as well.
I am very disappointed, and I feel that the forums ideas aren`t been looked into enough. Despite so many people not liking the ``one size fits all`` 50% reduction to MWD sig radius bonus, you have kept it. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
113
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:28:00 -
[368] - 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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:31:00 -
[369] - Quote
flind wrote:RIP Sacra. Useless +25% to missile speed and loses its awesome capa bonus - yeah, she was imba before so CCP decided to nerf her.
Yeah buffer tanking and firing missiles requires so much cap. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:33:00 -
[370] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:there is a camp that wants the Deimos to be this awesome zippy Blaster Platform ship.... I don't know why we'd want a Gallente ship to reflect the Gallente play style of in-your-face with blasters.... totally right? silly gal for actually wanting a in your face blaster setup. The problem is the Gallente design model is fundamentally broken; big slow armor tanks and blasters with no range. It's a combination of bad and bad with no counterbalance, especially for cruiser-sized ships; battleships are always slow regardless of how they're fit (and have MJDs, which are a wonderful way around this problem), while frigates can get away with just fitting a damage control and perhaps some other resist mods. Making armor faster isn't a good choice since it's the defining weakness of an armor tank, and when you start adding range to blasters you start looking suspiciously like Minmatar. The Talos is as good as it is, perhaps even overpowered, because it's un-Gallente: it has both range and speed. The way I see it, there are two options: either redesign the Gallente HACs to have shield tanks with a decisive speed advantage and enough EHP to brawl at point blank range -- and I mean actually enough, not like the Thorax where shields + blasters means you'll explode instantly -- or leave them armor-tanked, but let them track well enough for railguns + antimatter to be at least somewhat competetive with Scorch and Barrage. (To CCP's credit, I think the proposed Ishtar changes have already achieved this balance with drones, which just leaves the Deimos.) I prefer the latter solution since I think ultra-fast shield-tanked blaster ships would be a great direction to take the Serpentis ship line, but that's just me.
I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos. Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:36:00 -
[371] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
Yeah, as I said I'd be happy with either. Doing it this way means Gallente get to keep their most iconic weapon system, plus it has a nice symmetry to it -- Amarr are all armor, Caldari are all shields, Minmatar and Gallente are hybrids.
Mind you, I think the Megathron changes are one of the best decisions the tiericide devs have made -- but that might just be because they made it good enough to be a nullsec fleet doctrine ship again, after all these years.
EDIT: To clarify, though -- the Deimos needs either mobility or projection. NOT both. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
309
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:38:00 -
[372] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:40:00 -
[373] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game.
no you are :P .... you and you're well detailed statements Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1211
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:42:00 -
[374] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote: I agree with the gallente armour and blasters combo not making sense it turns the mega into a fairly average speed battleship at best not very quick and attack like when the Hype goes quicker... I was disappointed the mega lost the shield option at least give the deimos the mobility and stronger projection to make it a mini but more resilient Talos... more shield tank aswell would help Serpentis make more sense as combat armour tanky ships with their web bonus switch the falloff on them for tracking like the vindi has.
You're everything wrong with this game. no you are :P .... you and your well detailed statements
Fixed. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:42:00 -
[375] - Quote
What's with all the people saying Deimos isn't meant as a blaster platform?
I'll quote the in-game description...
Quote:Name: Deimos Hull: Thorax Class Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser
Sharing more tactical elements with smaller vessels than with its size-class counterparts, the Deimos represents the final word in up-close-and-personal cruiser combat. Venture too close to this one, and swift death is your only guarantee.
Developer: Duvolle Labs
Rumor has it Duvolle was contracted by parties unknown to create the ultimate close-range blaster cruiser. In this their engineers and designers haven't failed; but the identity of the company's client remains to be discovered.
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level
My favorite part is this one...
[quote In this their engineers and designers haven't failed][/quote]
What? They didn't? Well, I guess to fair to those fictional engineers, they didn't have this post to read when they were designing this ship. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:47:00 -
[376] - Quote
While I still think that a falloff + tracking combination wouldn't be as unreasonable as CCP Rise claims, I wouldn't mind trading the falloff for tracking either. "Close range blaster platform" and all that. But you should still replace the MWD capacitor bonus with something, because it's awful. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:47:00 -
[377] - Quote
Devon Weeks wrote:What's with all the people saying Deimos isn't meant as a blaster platform? I'll quote the in-game description... Quote:Name: Deimos Hull: Thorax Class Role: Heavy Assault Cruiser
Sharing more tactical elements with smaller vessels than with its size-class counterparts, the Deimos represents the final word in up-close-and-personal cruiser combat. Venture too close to this one, and swift death is your only guarantee.
Developer: Duvolle Labs
Rumor has it Duvolle was contracted by parties unknown to create the ultimate close-range blaster cruiser. In this their engineers and designers haven't failed; but the identity of the company's client remains to be discovered.
Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage and 5% increase to MicroWarpdrive capacitor bonus per level
Heavy Assault Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage per level My favorite part is this one... Quote: In this their engineers and designers haven't failed What? They didn't? Well, I guess to be fair to those fictional engineers, they didn't have this post to read when they were designing this ship.
I suspect the Thorax or exqueror navy issue or the brutix navy issue even is better up close and personal than the deimos the falloff bonus and no tracking combined with unimpressive dps and lack of tank suggests a blaster kiter makes more sense but RISE doesn't seem to care much Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood
246
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:52:00 -
[378] - Quote
I'd perfer the diemost get either A, more dps by trading a damage bonus for a Rof one or B, an armor tanking one over the microwarpdrive bonus, whether it's a resist, armor amount, or armor repair bonus, it'll still be useful. Both would be preferred for me, but probably Op. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:53:00 -
[379] - Quote
CCP Rise: The Sacri slot layout is still a major problem in my eyes.
I am still of the opinion that removing a launcher, increasing the ROF or Damage bonus to compensate, and shifting a high to a low is the best solution. This will allow reasonable DPS, projected thanks to your changes, while retaining the utility high that makes the Sac such an awesome brawler.
I really think this would work perfectly. Change damage bonus to 10%, ROF bonus to 7.5%, and we end up with the same base damage; switch a high to the low, resulting in a 5/4/6 slot layout, and BOOM, every single problem with this ship is solved.
This really, really needs to happen. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1025
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 20:58:00 -
[380] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:X Gallentius wrote:These things are tanking beasts that cannot be easily disrupted. And they will have same or more dps than T1 cruiser variants.
They probably need to be even slower - halfway between T1 cruisers and T1 BCs. Fast enough to easily take on BCs and BSs, but slow enough to not catch and kill T1 cruiser hulls. (T1 cruisers need to have a clear mobility advantage on these HACs.).
So... Bad... Ishkur 287 m/s: Tristan 325 m/s: Ratio 0.88 Ishtar 195 m/s: Vexor 205 m/s: Ratio 0.95 Yes, the slowness of AFs is something of an issue. Not really, they (AFs) are borderline OP against other T1 frigates - but their slowness gives T1 frigates an area to be competitive. AFs (and HACs) should shine in logi situations - especially against ship hulls that are larger than they are. AFs do that really well, and their slowness makes sure they do not completely crush the engagement envelope of other frigates.
I think when we see people actually using hacs we can then decide that they need their speed nerfed. But the fact that they cost a 150 mill more than t1 should provide them with some additional benefit. Otherwise they will remain in the hangar. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Lorch
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:03:00 -
[381] - Quote
I must be one of the few people who like the Sac as it is. Its great for exploration combat sites - utility high for a probe launcher and enough cap to run a dual rep tank while leaving a rig slot open for a gravity capacitor. Oh and not to mention it can still fit a web and painter.
Yeah its admittedly a niche use but I'll miss the cap bonus and would definitely miss the utility high if it went. |
Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis Dragonaors
38
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:05:00 -
[382] - Quote
Since the sacrilege is basically a cruiser sized vengeance, why not make the Cerberus a cruiser sized hawk. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:07:00 -
[383] - Quote
Lorch wrote:I must be one of the few people who like the Sac as it is. Its great for exploration combat sites - utility high for a probe launcher and enough cap to run a dual rep tank while leaving a rig slot open for a gravity capacitor. Oh and not to mention it can still fit a web and painter.
Yeah its admittedly a niche use but I'll miss the cap bonus and would definitely miss the utility high if it went.
well they actually built most of that cap and more into the ship now ... although it makes no sense as sac's don't need cap ... not like the zealot who needs the most but again skewed approach towards lasers but nothing new there then. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
765
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:07:00 -
[384] - Quote
Take the Cerb's drone bay and make it go away, in return have the 10% kin damage turn into All missile types damage.
Or make it 25m3 please.
15m3 dronebays shouldn't exist. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:07:00 -
[385] - Quote
Shahai Shintaro wrote:Since the sacrilege is basically a cruiser sized vengeance, why not make the Cerberus a cruiser sized hawk.
couldn't be any worse than the flight time bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Catherine Laartii
Khanid Regional Directorate
26
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:08:00 -
[386] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Some positive changes there.
I still don't understand why you maintain the 4/5/5 setup on the Ishtar, though and not go 4/4/6 to get away from the predominant shieldtank - which is what the Gila is there for.
The heavy drone bonus might be useful one day - if you ever get to fix heavy/med drones in general, so they don't die while warping to their targets (or back into the drone bay in PvE).
They have that there for two reasons, first being that it allows for a generous fitting of drone upgrade mods on the mids, and the second being that if they gave it an extra lowslot over the sacrilege, which gets an armor resist bonus, EVERYBODY would call bullshit, and the sac would have to be changed too. That way that can keep both ships from getting potentially too overpowered. |
Fewell
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:09:00 -
[387] - Quote
If you want people to keep using the Vagabond as a skirmisher, why don't you give it another falloff bonus to help it in that role? We actually can't keep flying the old vaga, because the old vaga used the old TEs. With your new vaga we'll still have to use barrage for everything, ignoring projectile weapons advantage of picking damage types. We'll still be doing **** poor damage at point range because we don't have the pg to fit 425s(or arties, like that one crazy guy here wants). We'll still be flying the knife edge against cruisers that do 2ks or better and faction cruisers going 3ks. I'd much rather be doing that with more damage from a falloff bonus while they haven't caught me than with more tank when they do. Embrace specialization for the Vagabond. Give it another role bonus designed to make it a better skirmisher. Don't give it a bonus that takes advantage of one module , two fits, and which can be heavily abused by links. |
Devon Weeks
Deadspace Defense Initiative Initiative Associates
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:09:00 -
[388] - Quote
I'd actually be fine with the Deimos keeping its current powergrid if it got something useful in return, like the 4% resistance/level. You'd still not have the power to fit 1600+neutrons, but you'd then have heck of a gang ship with logi support. As it is, the Sacrilege already gets that resist bonus and fits a 60k ehp tank with AWU 5 to allow for the tech 2 1600mm plate. It can meta 4 the plate for 56k ehp and 81% omni tank with a thermic hardener and em rig. And, it's not considered vastly overpowered with that kind of tank. I can't think of any reason a Deimos would be considered overpowered with a similar resist bonus as you'd be eating through its tank long before it even got within range. I'm really failing to see why there is resistance to bringing the Deimos up to par. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1306
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:09:00 -
[389] - Quote
I like the direction with the increases sensor strength and lock range.
To be honest I also like the IDEA of the mwd sig reduction bonus but it's not strong enough. I've seen the graph, it's not compelling. The post-bonus sig bloom should be lower than BS gun resolution, perhaps somewhere between BC/CS and BS sigs.
Rise, what are your thoughts on a 75% MWD Sig Radius penalty instead of 50%?
Some questions/impressions:
Sacrilege Overall, positive. I think she still hurts from the % resistance nerf a while back but the reduced sig is welcome.
Question: Why not bring the entire capacitor bonus into the base stats? It was a very useful feature of the Sac despite not using cap for weapons (perma MWD, Neut, some level of resilience against cap warfare)
Cerberus
More speed and fitting is welcome but I'm still a bit unsure of its place among the other Caldari cruiser missile platforms.
Question: Has a double missile velocity bonus been considered and if so, thoughts?
Eagle
Great changes, should be what it needs.
Deimos
Speed is welcome, however I still strongly strongly feel the tank reduction is both unnecessary and counter productive. A flat 2000 armor would be just right.
Question: Why is the balance team reducing the tank on an already frail close range ship?
Ishtar
Replacing the drone bay bonus wasn't a bad idea. I dont even have a problem with what it was replaced with. HOWEVER reducing the proposed range/tracking bonus from 10% to 7.5% puts the Ishtar in a weird spot. At 10% it could synergize well with its Dominix big brother in sentry drone concept fleets.
Question: Why deciding to split out the Ishtar drone bonus, what was the intent behind weakening it? Is the balance team not concerned with its fleet role?
Vaga
The Cynabal isnt *just* the problem with the Vaga, it's that the Cynabal is doing what the Vaga used to be able to do and what everyone wants them to be able to do again. Nerfs to speed, nerfs to tracking enhancers, and buffs to the speed of other ships have edged the Vaga out of it's kiting damage role.
Question: Rather than a shield boost bonus, have you considered a second falloff bonus?
Muninn
It's...ok I guess? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 21:11:00 -
[390] - Quote
Fewell wrote:If you want people to keep using the Vagabond as a skirmisher, why don't you give it another falloff bonus to help it in that role? We actually can't keep flying the old vaga, because the old vaga used the old TEs. With your new vaga we'll still have to use barrage for everything, ignoring projectile weapons advantage of picking damage types. We'll still be doing **** poor damage at point range because we don't have the pg to fit 425s(or arties, like that one crazy guy here wants). We'll still be flying the knife edge against cruisers that do 2ks or better and faction cruisers going 3ks. I'd much rather be doing that with more damage from a falloff bonus while they haven't caught me than with more tank when they do. Embrace specialization for the Vagabond. Give it another role bonus designed to make it a better skirmisher. Don't give it a bonus that takes advantage of one module , two fits, and which can be heavily abused by links.
well the 40k range is pretty strong they just need to buff the damage bonuses on all HAC's really its the deimos who needs that extra/stronger falloff bonus Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |