| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
   |
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Absolution: Again, you want either links or face-melt, so what is with the 2 empty highs it is left with when fitting guns .. doesn't seem like much of a choice scenario to me when you practically force links in there (NOS = useless, Neuts = cap out).
- Move a high to the mid slot. Make the choice a real one and give it far more options in regards to both fighting and linking .. mids make the world go around. Alternatively add the missile slots back or add a gun.
Well, using links is the general idea of Command Ships. That's the entire reason they've changed the ships to have the utility highs and improved the damaged bonuses to compensate for less guns 
I'd kinda like the Eos to have the sentry tracking bonus, but after seeing how deadly they can be with it in the Tourney I'm half worried about it - even though sentries are nowhere near as deadly on TQ.
I don't think the Nighthawk really needs a huge change, certainly not to it's bonuses or highslot layout. I'd not complain at a low being moved to a mid though. Would allow it to buffer very nicely providing it got some extra grid which would please anyone wanting to shield blob anywhere :)
I'm quite happy with Gallente and Minmatar not having any buffer bonuses on a second thought. You use the Caldari/Amarr ships for the big blobs and accept lower maneuverability and use the more mobile Gallente and Matari ships for smaller scale skirmishes. It fits the race characteristics fine, it's the same with the T2 logi cruisers.
Can the Damnation lose it's missile speed bonus and have another damage mod if it is struggling for raw dps? It's a big fleet ship with huge tank so I think it should be fine to get up close for a more brawly range and punch hard. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Proddy Scun wrote:IDK if these are really supposed to be comamnd ships I think they should have ganglink slots or similar restrictions. At least a strong as a bias toward the role specific slot use as SB get toward torps and bomb launcher armament.
Maybe increase the fititng cost for using those utility slots for anything except ganglinks by a factor of x3..
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 21:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers"
On a more sensible note, I'm happy with how it is. I'm not convinced on the need to give Gallente/Minmatar Command Ships buffer bonuses with the dual sets of links. Like with Logistics there is a balance between races with Amarr/Caldari having the tough/slow stuff whilst Gal/Min have the skirmish flexibility. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 07:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Balzac Legazou wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Faster armour repairer Cycle time on the Asbo? Yeh I'd love that. Every time I've flown one I've always thought "what shall I do with this spare cap from all the lasers" On a more sensible note [...] Faster cycles don't make you use more cap. You spend the same amount of cap per cycle, and repair faster. If you're leaving your reps on indefinitely when you're at 100%, that kind of falls into "L2P issues".
Well yes, if you want to be pedantic they don't use more cap. You can even make them use less cap if you don't even turn the bloody thing on.
I fully realise this would open up extra options, but it is exactly the same as rate of fire bonuses on lasers. It massively hits cap usage when actually being used. I'd take 7.5% rep amount of 7.5% faster cycle time on an Absolution any day of the week despite the slightly lower peak tank - it's hugely more manageable. It's the same as chosing between the 2 active tank rigs. Aux Nano pumps are pretty much the way to go unless you can use dual cap boosters or don't have lasers to run.
I'll keep the resist bonus ta. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Remove the link bonus, on the ship class designed specifically for running links, that's based on the T1 class, that is for running links?
No. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Without digging out a calculator, 10.9 to 10 would be roughly 10% - I'm sure someone will come and give a more accurate answer if they can be bothered.
It's still going to have a lot of fire power, 2 utility slots on top of that is potentially brutal. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:48:00 -
[7] - Quote
lol @ point 1.
I get angry if my ships have odd placed guns. You'll find the ships do actually have as many turret slots as there are high slots though. If you just place the guns in the latter slots first they'll show in different places on the ship model :) |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 12:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ah ok I see what you mean. In that case, fix the model please CCP :D |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 19:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lasers seem pretty fine imo. You're going to be mainly flying these in a gang, just sit back a little and enjoy the extra damage projection you get over blasters and autocannons.
I wouldn't want the laser bonuses on the Absolution changed unless they were going to give it a role bonus for cap usage... Tracking would be kinda nice to set it aside from the Legion / Zealot mind. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 21:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
Have a +1 on that above post. I'd be happy with that :)
Extra buffer on the Claymore/Eos. Without losing the active bonuses, matches the Damnation.
Doesn't ruin any of the good things about any of the current field command ships. Thumbs up :)
Harvey James wrote:lasers are far from fine
-cap usage is 3 times that of blasters if not more
- tracking is poor, up close especially
- amarr ships usually lack mids for control
- amarr ships lack speed to stay at range
- lasers can be neuted out and TD'ed easily and very effectively
I'll point out Lasers are my favourite weapon by some way. I'm not suggesting they are perfect, but I'd laugh hysterically if they got a huge buff to cap usage, tracking or range. I'd like this game to be balanced, so here you go:
1) Cap bonus, Like I said, I wouldn't want to lose the cap bonus for the lasers without getting a role bonus to cover this. The use a lot of cap, deal with it. You don't need to carry a tonne of ammo and wait for reloads. Balance.
2) Tracking is perfectly good enough if you fight at optimal. Ofcourse they track worse than blasters/autocannons. Thing is, they can actually track similar sized targets at their optimal range unlike blasters and acs.
3/4) Yes this is true, it's a pain if solo. It's less of an issue in many fleet comps, can't have everything.
5) So can blasters, blaster ships also tend to have a smaller cap reserve than Amarr ships, they're also less regularly seen with a booster to make up for this. TD is effective against all guns.
Next please. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
128
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:ignored sleipnir being a armour alternative ( hurricane model) and the fact that minnie is 50/50 should be reflected here
Hell no. Don't change the Sleipnir from the awesome ship it is now to an armour ship. |
| |
|