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) |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:09:00 -
[421] - Quote
Love how Rise has ignored the rage after the first three pages where players start to come to terms with the utter lack of actual fixes. I'm sure this itteration will be ignored for 4 weeks and then addressed as, "we're out of time, we'll launch with this and monitor."
You were given specialized roles by multiple players that actually made these ships intersting. If you don't like my proposal in the last thread, fine... but for god sake, how about you take one of the other proposals and actually run with something good rather than continue down this line of crap.
Simple fact, the EWAR resistance boost you gave these ships means absolutely **** all in the current game climate. The sensor damps, jammers, and TD will be hardly phased by this pathetic attempt.
The ships should be highly defensive either through range or tank... right now they are neither.
For the cost, most people would rather use T1 options, or Tech 3 because of the insanely skewed stats in favor of their cost. Nobody wants some **** middle ground.
Define HAC's with an actual role. Fix the ones that need to be fixed, and stop making retardedly OP drone boats. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:11:00 -
[422] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Love how Rise has ignored the rage after the first three pages where players start to come to terms with the utter lack of actual fixes. I'm sure this itteration will be ignored for 4 weeks and then addressed as, "we're out of time, we'll launch with this and monitor."
I knew a 3rd round would be needed i hope RISE doesn't do what he did with ABC's and BS and just sweep the issues under the carpet with a we'll see ... at a later date nonsense 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. |
Ender Wiggan
The Scope Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:13:00 -
[423] - Quote
Don't be assholes guys. They're clearly trying to iterate towards a solution that works for as many people as possible. No balance pass is going to make everyone happy.
That being said, there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this current iteration. The Sac changes proposed by Sarkelias come to mind. The weird bonuses on the Ishtar as well. The sig explosions from T1 to T2, specifically on the Deimos but on other HACs as well just don't make sense. The Eagle is still a red-headed step child. It's not fast enough to kite (and its damage is aneimic), it's sig + shield tanking reduce the effectiveness as an up close brawler.
Good steps, but at least another iteration to go still. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
767
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:13:00 -
[424] - Quote
15m3 cerb bay makes me cry harder and harder with each page. |
Sol Mortis
An Heroes
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:13:00 -
[425] - Quote
Deimos MWD bonus is broken in many ways:
1. The MWD bonus is more useless now than any point in EVE history. First came the long ago nano nerf, and all MWD have the same speed, and now the difference between them is cap penalty. To mitigate cap penalty just use different meta levels.
2. Cap Recharge increase to Deimos makes MWD cap penalty even less relevant.
3. Cap usage of hybrids was reduced, making MWD cap penalty less important.
4. Role bonus of sig bloom. This bonus makes the Deimos the ONLY HAC that will be ignoring TWO bonuses by fitting an afterburner. If you fit an AB on the Deimos, not only are you losing out on the sig bloom bonus, but you actually have a SMALLER capacitor amount than if you had an MWD. This is coercive to players, and takes away the ability for us to choose different fittings.
Please give the Deimos the tracking bonus that was given to the thorax for all of these reasons. I have the skills to use any HAC near perfectly. I haven't touched the Deimos in years and the ship is a joke, and after all the other HACs are made even stronger it will be even funnier.
It just isn't fair to practically FORCE Deimos pilots to fit a MWD with not just the role bonus, but the MWD cap bonus too. The role bonus is less frustrating because you don't train for it unlike a cruiser or HAC skill. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:14:00 -
[426] - Quote
Ender Wiggan wrote:Don't be assholes guys. They're clearly trying to iterate towards a solution that works for as many people as possible. No balance pass is going to make everyone happy.
That being said, there are a lot of improvements that could be made to this current iteration. The Sac changes proposed by Sarkelias come to mind. The weird bonuses on the Ishtar as well. The sig explosions from T1 to T2, specifically on the Deimos but on other HACs as well just don't make sense. The Eagle is still a red-headed step child. It's not fast enough to kite (and its damage is aneimic), its sig + shield tanking reduce the effectiveness as an up close brawler.
Good steps, but at least another iteration to go still.
That is utter bull. they didn't do hardly anything on the 2nd take even when players offered up good suggestions. They refuse to budge from their point of view even when most seasoned players are calling them out on it. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1173
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:17:00 -
[427] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:No change in price then, so they stay exactly where they are (the junk drawer)
Was wondering when you would show up There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1714
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:19:00 -
[428] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:No change in price then, so they stay exactly where they are (the junk drawer) Was wondering when you would show up
Sorry im late was sleeping off a hangover from drinking for the first time really in a long time
|
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
317
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:22:00 -
[429] - Quote
CCP Rise: There was a lot of talk about rebalancing the cost fo HAC so maybe they aren't 10-15+ times the cost of their T2 variant.
In Jita: Caracal: 10.3 mil Drake: 44.4 mil Naga: 62.3 mil Cerb: 187.8 mil (usually around 160 mil though) Raven: 164.9 mil
Even at 160 mil for a Cerb it appears to be an outlier in price. Any thoughts on the matter?
And while we are talking about cost of T2 ships any thoughts on making T2/T3/Pirate insurance not terrible? "tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:24:00 -
[430] - Quote
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...
I wish we had a dislike button for the post you quoted there... Fozzie! Make it so! Dislike button here we come! How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
175
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:25:00 -
[431] - Quote
I think the only way you are going to solve this problem is to define these ships similarly to Heavy Interdictors. Add a module that removes Remote repairing ability in place of more defensible statistics such as AB speed and active tanking modules for a reasonable duration (~1-2 minutes). It lets players define what they want... more speed and self reliant tank, or lower speed, and more reliance on group warfare. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:27:00 -
[432] - 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 |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:29:00 -
[433] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:But looking at all this..
What is the point of the HAC's?
What role do they serve? Because they seem to be expensive mini bc's with high res.. and that just isn't very interesting. Lets not forget that they only have 1/2 the EHP of a BC though. Smaller sigs, higher speeds, and much better resistances compared to bcs means they will have much much much stronger fleet level tanks (with logi of course) than a BC. The game is a bit more involved than just comparing ehp values, just an fyi :P
Yea, damage is also a role. And HACs have worse damage AND worse EHP than BCs. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Alizebeth Phoenix
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:30:00 -
[434] - Quote
Why does the Cerberus have the pain to keep that silly kinetic bonus? c'mon ccp, just make it gone and give her some useful damage bonus! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1174
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:30:00 -
[435] - Quote
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? There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
219
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:31:00 -
[436] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:18 pages of griping... guess that means they should be left as is.
Don't forget the 88 pages from the first thread! HACs need more slots, more EHP, and a bit more damage, THEN they will be flown. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:35:00 -
[437] - 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). |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
162
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:36:00 -
[438] - Quote
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.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:40:00 -
[439] - Quote
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.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
469
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:40:00 -
[440] - Quote
Rise, perhaps it would help if we had some idea of the goal or outcome of each ship; what it is supposed to be specialized for
Specialization means it does one thing very well and it sucks at everything else. The best example of a specialized T2 ship is the Logistics ship line. It throws reps out there and tanks. It doesnt tackle, it doesnt DPS, it throws out RR and it survives.
So what does the sacrilege do? Its armor resist and MWD bonuses lead me to believe it is a close range brawler, meant to get in there, latch onto something and never let go, but then it gets this strange missile range bonus and gets HMLs. Sure these bonuses make it more versatile but it isnt supposed to be versatile it's supposed to be good at one (1) thing, so what is it that this ship is supposed to be specialized in?
TBH we shouldnt even have to ask this question for T2 ships. If theyre super specialized, then it should be so blatantly obvious what theyre good at that even a fool could figure it out (see logistics ships)
TL;DR we need to know what you want these ships to be specialized to do in order to give good feedback. |
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:41:00 -
[441] - 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. |
Lua Mioukl
CCS9
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:42:00 -
[442] - Quote
Ah! now these are good changes!
Muninn still look somewhat inflexible but overall all ships probably will be flown extensively. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
117
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:45:00 -
[443] - 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. |
nikar galvren
Hedion University Amarr Empire
31
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:48:00 -
[444] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Rise, perhaps it would help if we had some idea of the goal or outcome of each ship; what it is supposed to be specialized for
Specialization means it does one thing very well and it sucks at everything else. The best example of a specialized T2 ship is the Logistics ship line. It throws reps out there and tanks. It doesnt tackle, it doesnt DPS, it throws out RR and it survives.
So what does the sacrilege do? Its armor resist and MWD bonuses lead me to believe it is a close range brawler, meant to get in there, latch onto something and never let go, but then it gets this strange missile range bonus and gets HMLs. Sure these bonuses make it more versatile but it isnt supposed to be versatile it's supposed to be good at one (1) thing, so what is it that this ship is supposed to be specialized in?
TBH we shouldnt even have to ask this question for T2 ships. If theyre super specialized, then it should be so blatantly obvious what theyre good at that even a fool could figure it out (see logistics ships)
TL;DR we need to know what you want these ships to be specialized to do in order to give good feedback. This. What are the HACs supposed to DO?
EDIT: 89 pages in the original thread and 23 pages and counting here clearly state that the balancing passes thus far are uninspired and insufficient. Please listen to the excellent feedback that can be found in both threads and give these ships a solid role to perform. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1175
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:48:00 -
[445] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote: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).
i did not mean tank vrs tracking... you said that tracking does not affect blasters and only rails... that was the wtf moment.
personally i would switch falloff for tracking and give it some sort of armor per level bonus for the mwd bonus. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
750
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:51:00 -
[446] - Quote
Tuxedo Catfish wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:I hear the armour rep bonus is immensely popular on the small scale at least after the AAR introduction (tongue in cheek .. or is it! ) Would certainly make it into the quintessential brawler. I realize you're probably joking but good god, no. CCP should retire the armor repair bonus and never put it on another ship ever again until such time as it's possible to fit upsized armor reps on a ship the way it is with shields. Or never at all, I'm honestly fine with either. Tongue was firmly in cheek, I don't hate Gallente that much If only they had managed to sort the off-grid issue before getting to the meat-n-potatoes HACs I'd have advocated a point range bonus, but with Loki's still in every system of note the interregnum would be devastating.
But if you don't want it, can I have it for my dual-rep Sacrilege instead of the redundant (stuff that stays far enough away to warrant it is also fast/small enough to ignore HAMs and never be caught) range bonus
The thought of the sheer power of a bonused MAAR/MAR tank on the Sacrilege, knowing what it can could tank with some selective heating makes me salivate .. will still hit like a girl, but one doing lots of cardio so keeps going all day long! |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
304
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:51:00 -
[447] - Quote
I think the changes are good on the whole, and will help HACs (especially long range HACs) become more competitive relative to their cost again.
The really glaring exception is the Deimos. My list of issues are:
1. Losing the utility high - with upcoming NOS changes its frustrating that the closest range brawler now can't fit that NOS to at least keep its guns going while getting neuted to hell. No other HAC has such a glaring vulnerability as having to fight the majority of fights within even small neut range.
2. The MWD cap bonus is still a crap bonus - It is something that should get rolled into the base stats and replaced with something useful.
3. Despite it having a crap tank you made it even weaker by removing 10% of its base armour (WTF?!) and 20% of its hull (Coz gallente hull tanking was always overpowered right?). It is awesome it now has a lower sig and is much more mobile and survivable in its long trek across a battlefield to get into brawl range - except then it dies even quicker in a brawl (which is its primary role).
These changes reduce this ship to some horribly role changing rail-kite obsenity, much worse than a vigilant, only arguably better than a Thorax. You nerfed it and it is probably one of the worst (but most loved) HACs in game already.
Please look again or further explain these horrible Deimos changes - Thanks. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:56:00 -
[448] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote: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. Remove a launcher, 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.
Another +1 for this. or add a 16th slot to all HACS, that would be great too. I do appreciate the CPU and PG buff on the sac, and the extra range for HAMs is also nice. Maybe extend it's bonus to RLMLs?
As for the other HACS;
Zealot: As things stand, the 2 I own will remain hangar queens. I don't fly with blobs, and the Zealot is lacking outside logi heavy gangs. It needs a bit more speed. The fact it's now slower than the Cerb is just wrong. A small drone bay wouldn't make it OP either.
Cerberus: get rid of the weird little drone bay or make it 25m3. I'd prefer to remove it. RLMLs already make this a ship frigates should fear. Other than that. It looks good. I'm looking forward to trying it out, especially with RLMLs.
Eagle: Still lacking. With the tanking bonus, it needs to be more of a brawler, which currently it isn't.
Deimos: Please stop trying to nerf it's sad little tank. Also, replace the mwd cap use bonus. It's an anachronism.
Ishtar: Drone bonuses seem a bit odd, but I'm willing to give it a try.
Vagabond: Don't know enough to comment
Muninn: Needs work. I predict almost no one will bother to fly it. While I think all the HACs need a 16th slot, the muninn would probably benefit the most.
I'm also very unimpressed with the blanket 50% MWD penalty reduction as a role bonus. For half these ships, fitting a mwd makes little sense, so why would they have a role bonus for it? And it is a weak and highly situational bonus indeed, as the graphs clearly show.
Each ship should have a unique role bonus. Otherwise if we're stuck with the MWD bonus should be more on the order of 75%. |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:56:00 -
[449] - Quote
Tracking is incredibly valuable for soloing in a blaster ship, because it determines whether or not your ship is ****** if you're caught by a lone frigate. (Or if you have to shed tackle quickly before his friends catch up.) This is more important than ever if the Deimos is losing the utility high slot.
I realize this may not have occurred to some of you as soloing in Gallente cruisers, t1 or t2, is essentially suicide. But it shouldn't be! |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 22:59:00 -
[450] - 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.
You know for a Goon you make good points that i agree with. I have always said that the Gallente boats needed to be shield and fast, or they needed to have range, falloff or tracking bonus on hulls to apply DPS. Right now outside frigates used inside Faction Warfare plexes, and the Talos it is too hard to apply damage to any other ship. I think that with the rail buff that is coming it, you'll see more people using medium rails on Gallente boats, and medium blasters will fall behind in pvp. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 89 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |