| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 46 post(s) |
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
13
   |
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Any chance of looking at the skill requirements to fly these things? Nine months of training just to undock one, over a year for Command Ships V and full effectiveness is frankly absurd, and the majority of those SP will not provide any benefit to you the vast majority of the time. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Baren wrote:Xequecal wrote:Any chance of looking at the skill requirements to fly these things? Nine months of training just to undock one, over a year for Command Ships V and full effectiveness is frankly absurd, and the majority of those SP will not provide any benefit to you the vast majority of the time. LOL go home. you prolly only have 10mil sp and are butt hurt you cant fly one.
They require more "wasted" SP that gives you no benefit at all 99% of the time than a dreadnought.
EDIT: I posted carrier instead of dread for some stupid reason. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:The skills requires for a CS are link skills, which fit in its role, and Minmatar BC 5, and the racial (hull size) skill to 5 is standard on all T2 ships.
So they don't waste SP at all.
Well, the point is that all those link and leadership skills do not help your character in any way when you're flying any other ship. Hell, the majority of those SP do not help you in any way even when you're flying THAT ship, since you can only reasonably fit 1 or 2 links on it anyway if you're not offgrid boosting.
BC V lets you fly other battlecruisers, so that one isn't "useless." The link skills are just like Advanced Spaceship Command and Jump Drive Operation, near-zero benefit skills that function entirely as timesinks to get into a dreadnought. I just think it's kind of dumb for command ships to have MORE deadweight SP than a capital ship. IMHO, they should each just require V in the two link skills they're bonused towards. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Die Warzau wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:M1k3y Koontz wrote:How much of an effect will the decrease in number of turrets/increase in DPS bonuses have on the DPS of command ships like the Sleipnir/Astarte/Abso? You can look at in terms of effective turrets. Sleipnir goes from 11.6666 effective turrets to 11.25 Astarte goes from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 Abso stays at 10 effective turrets Hey Fozzie, where are you getting 11.25 for the Sleipnir? I get the same answer as you for the "before" picture: 7 turrets * 1.25 (+25% damage) / 0.75 (+25% RoF) = 11.66 But for after I only get: 5 turrets * 2 (+100% damage) = 10
The two damage bonuses are multiplicative, 1.5 * 1.5 = 2.25 = +125% damage. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Each race should have one command ship that has a bonus to local reps and one that has a passive tank bonus!  Rather not. Amarr is quite bad at passive tanking because lack of med slots required for shield tanking. And you can't passive tank a armor tanker. I don't think you get passive tanking. Passive tanking = no repair, so any armour buffer tank is passive tanking. Amarr is by far the best race at passive tanking. I think you are thinking of shield "passive" tanking which relies on shield regen. Whether it is actually passive tanking depends on how you define passive. The shield is regening, so its certainly not fully passive, but the player is not controlling it so it is passive on the pilots part.
Armor doesn't regen, so if you passive tank armor you're done after one fight, win or lose. You have to go back to a friendly station to repair, and that could be far away. If you passive tank shield you can survive in enemy space forever and keep killing until someone finally beats you. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:The cerb is still shit.
You're clinically insane.
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 20:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Mr Floydy wrote: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. 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
None of these things (well, except TDs) matter if you're shooting from scorch range. Lasers are fantastic compared to, say, the **** that is ACs right now. On a range-boosted ship, my medium lasers do full DPS out to 30km without range mods, while ACs are down to half damage at 20km. Even at point blank the raw damage of ACs is worse, only their tracking is better. |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.08 23:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:By all means. All ships have their pros and cons. The astarte does indeed have 1300 (just about) dps at range 3km only. That fit also has 30k less buffer than the asbo and no neuts.
I don't think we're having a 1v1 pissing contest here, just looking to optimise the asbo for small gang use.
In comparison with the astarte, the asbo gains in utility and damage projection what it loses in pure dps under perfect conditions.
I favour blaster ships, it's what I've always used to. But blasters are by no means the last word in pvp.
In a gang fight, I'd prefer to have laser ships around me - because they will get more damage on more targets sooner. In an entire confrontation I'll probably get 1 perfect volley from my blaster ship. The rest will be in falloff or with a little too much transversal.
The problem with medium laser and AC platforms right now is with skirmish links a fed navy web, which isnt even that pricey, goes to >25km. That means a blaster ship typically has no problem getting into close range and can't really be kited unless the laser or AC platform has a range bonus. |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 22:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Not at all, your arguments are very true. Than again with all their pros and cons lasers ARE underutilized. I'm not asking to make them overpowered. I'm asking that they have a certain role that no other weapon system can fill (So one day I can hear a FC say: we need laser for that :) ). Won't elaborate further as there are a lot of topics on lasers.
The only laser ships that see real use are the ones that don't waste a bonus on cap use. Abaddon, Apoc, nOmen, nAugoror, nHarbinger are about it. Zealot is the only real exception and those aren't going to be used at all anymore once people figure out that an RLM Cerb is better in every conceivable way. |
| |
|