EVE Search - [Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey 1.1] Command Ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 .. 70 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 46 post(s)
Harvey James Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 415	Posted - 2013.08.04 19:42:00 - [781] - Quote Panhead4411 wrote: I'm confused, so you wanted to make it so each faction would have one ship bonused with each of their weapon systems....yet... The turret ships now HAVE to fit launchers if they want to reclaim any of their lost DPS from the loss of their BONUSED weapon system...that just doesn't make sense. I don't want to be force to fly dual weapon ships because you (CCP) think "effective turrets" is the same as actual turrets. What i find odd is that they think navy should have an extra slot when these CS need that extra high so they wouldn't need to remove so many turrets/launchers. 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.
Swiftus Mahyisti Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. 1	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:05:00 - [782] - Quote Well the changes look great to me!! For fleet boosts its pretty clear that the damnation will till rein king, but I think people are under estimating the use of info links in a large scale fleet battle, just a thought though... On the flip side two the Eos and Astarte, I really like the changes, but to compensate for the new brutix, and removal of the turrets from the astarte, and the lack of a gun damage bonus on the eos, I would love to see a +1 low added, will make them be able to field a respectable tank in a fleet environment and still be able to do considerable dps. The t2 version of the brutix, should at least share a similar slot layout.. Just a thought! (Perhaps a bigger drone bay as well, 325m3 would allow two flights of heavy drones and them utility lights and what not)
Sarkelias Anophius Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement 32	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:13:00 - [783] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: Sarkelias Anophius wrote: So what's up with people calling the Foz cancer and telling him to kill himself? Is that what this thread is about? For the rest of those whining and crying, change is usually good, and most of these ships suck **** right now. They may need fixing later and the way they get used may change, but for christs sake, calm down. 90% of these changes are good and warranted; at least things are happening. Good god. Also, looking forward to ratting in my Eos, and owning an Absolution but never flying it. get out of here obvious troll. these are BAD changes. or do you think people rage on forums for just the fun of it?.... actually don't answer that.. but i can assure you THIS ISNT ONE OF THOSE TIMES. I'm not inclined to believe you have the slightest clue what you're talking about, since you don't state facts and don't use grammar. So I'm an incidental troll at best, legitimately confused by the ramblings of what for all intents and purposes appear to be people that fly around in hisec and have never done anything interesting. Also I think people rage on forums because they're incapable of calm, intelligent discourse. I am continually confirmed in this belief. As a final point, these changes did not break further anything that was already broken, and in fact improved a large number of things; so these are good changes.
Jerick Ludhowe trolllolcorp 504	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:14:00 - [784] - Quote Harvey James wrote: What i find odd is that they think navy should have an extra slot when these CS need that extra high so they wouldn't need to remove so many turrets/launchers. Well if we are being honest here, the Navy BCs actually have 2 more slots than the commands. Rigs are most certainly considered slots But I do agree, command total slot number should be normalized with their parent t1.
I'm Down Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 206	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:16:00 - [785] - Quote You guys need to understand, the devs have absolutely no clear vision of what is needed, nor what they want to do about it. Instead, they want to rush through changes that make little to no sense (hacs & commands) and promise us they'll watch them perform terribly and tweak later just so they can provide maximum "content" every patch. It's literally the Obama Care of Eve they way the push through this crap without any thought. What's most amazing is that they explicitly said Commands need a lot more survivability last year.... and look at the total fail they provided. Commands should be one of the few ship classes in game that are pretty easy to fit however desired, have silly tank, and some sort of legitimate role outside of bonuses so that more than 5 of them in fleet doesn't somehow defeat the purpose of having them in the first place. I'd actually be totally fine with the damage they project not changing (with the exception of the NH) if they would just add some constructive ways to make these ship actually useful. What's hilarious is that they could do some unique defensive things for the active tankers like a role bonus to fit larger repairers with reduced capacitor and fitting needs... thus making them super strong local tanks. People might actually care about the local repairs much more if they would do such a thing. They could also inflate their actual HP bases significantly so that these things would be solid bricks...and they could easily do t with an active module that boost resist and regen effects while turning off logistics support (a mechanic they already have in game with HICs) Personally, I think a 1-2 minute timer with an non-stacking big resist boosting modifier could be the ke... It basically becomes a mini siege style platform where the ship gains massive defense, but loses all support abilities from a fleet. If they had to take it further, It could also prevent any ECM effects meaning the ship would lose the ability to tackle, web, etc... allowing the opponents free movement and attack for the duration.. Something so simple like that would help to fix the majority of issues with commands.
Sigras Conglomo 487	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:16:00 - [786] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: @ Sigras i dont care about +10% damage to 1 damn missile type. everyone knows that in actual combat there are times where you need to fire the other types of missiles. so boosting the specific faction is pointless. it makes the ship weaker, as does taking away a launcher, are you going to fire kinetic at someone with a 85% resist??? or are you going to hit their hole be it, em, explosive or thermal at say 45%? well you're obviously ********, so you probably will try to make the square fit through the circle hole, and hit kin... but the rest of us arent like you. this is HURTING the ship and dps,. NOT HELPING. Please show me the idiots you are fighting that leave such a massive disparity in resists, or are you just assuming everyone fits ships like you do? The only ships you might be gimped against are T2 gallente ships . . . because so many of those are awesome.
Sarkelias Anophius Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement 32	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:19:00 - [787] - Quote Sigras wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: @ Sigras i dont care about +10% damage to 1 damn missile type. everyone knows that in actual combat there are times where you need to fire the other types of missiles. so boosting the specific faction is pointless. it makes the ship weaker, as does taking away a launcher, are you going to fire kinetic at someone with a 85% resist??? or are you going to hit their hole be it, em, explosive or thermal at say 45%? well you're obviously ********, so you probably will try to make the square fit through the circle hole, and hit kin... but the rest of us arent like you. this is HURTING the ship and dps,. NOT HELPING. Please show me the idiots you are fighting that leave such a massive disparity in resists, or are you just assuming everyone fits ships like you do? The only ships you might be gimped against are T2 gallente ships . . . because so many of those are awesome. I know, it's so funny that t2 minmatar has a giant kin hole. Shame no one flies them. Oh wait...
I'm Down Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 206	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:20:00 - [788] - Quote It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs... This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications.
Swiftus Mahyisti Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. 1	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:23:00 - [789] - Quote I'm Down wrote: It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs... This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. But this wont happen sooo, yeah would be cool, would change everything to do with fleets, so cool sure, likely to changes, no.
Sigras Conglomo 487	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:35:00 - [790] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: eve is the faggoty wow, cod or world of tanks of space games XD. its to easy, slow, takes to long to do anything fun, and the worst offense of all is its boring. well scratch that the worst is ccp raping **** every time your 14 hours from the ship, then moving it back a month, then saying 2 weeks later.. oh yeah were raping your ship again. the worst part, this is like the 19th time this has happened to me in the last year. if this launcher change is made to the nighthawk im done with you ccp. TL;DR WAH WAH WAH I WANT INSTANT GRATIFICATION, AND I DONT READ DEV BLOGS OR WARNINGS IN ADVANCE THAT CHANGES ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111ONEONE CCP is the most forthcoming about future changes of any game development company out there. It isnt THEIR fault that YOU fail to read the information they provide.
Jerick Ludhowe trolllolcorp 504	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:39:00 - [791] - Quote Sigras wrote: CCP is the most forthcoming about future changes of any game development company out there. Yeah, well, youn++ know, thatGÇÖs just, like, your opinion, man.
Izi55IzI TunDraGon 12	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:57:00 - [792] - Quote -50 cpu on the sleipnir is way too much Also why are you making both ships do the same thing? Clearly you need a different set of skills to fly field command or fleet command ships
Gallurtha Ministry of War Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.08.04 20:58:00 - [793] - Quote The dronebay on Eos is ******** small. It should have WAY bigger bay, or ishtarlike bonus to it.
Perihelion Olenard 174	Posted - 2013.08.04 21:05:00 - [794] - Quote Izi55IzI wrote: Also why are you making both ships do the same thing? Clearly you need a different set of skills to fly field command or fleet command ships There will be no field or fleet command ship anymore. Their skill requirements are now the same. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Battlingbean Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad. 17	Posted - 2013.08.04 21:37:00 - [795] - Quote I like the changes more or less. However, the nighthawk's slot layout is strange for a Caldari missile ship. Should be more like 7/6/4 or even 7/7/3 to make it more in line with ships like Hawk or Raven.
Sigras Conglomo 488	Posted - 2013.08.04 21:48:00 - [796] - Quote I'm Down wrote: It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs... This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier Suggestion Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645 The bonuses on the EOS would look similar: EOS: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Repair Effects (both incoming and local) 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Skirmish Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Thoughts?
Heribeck Weathers Caldari Provisions Caldari State 62	Posted - 2013.08.04 22:22:00 - [797] - Quote Sigras wrote: I'm Down wrote: It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs... This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier Suggestion Stuff No, just no
Doed Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est 29	Posted - 2013.08.04 22:29:00 - [798] - Quote Sigras wrote: I'm Down wrote: It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs... This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier Suggestion Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645 The bonuses on the EOS would look similar: EOS: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Repair Effects (both incoming and local) 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Skirmish Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Thoughts? This is amog the worst ideas I've ever seen on these forums, sorry.
Rain6637 The Kissaki Syndicate 1632	Posted - 2013.08.04 22:57:00 - [799] - Quote fozzie just tell us what the Nighthawk is for? it will be beautiful, but what does it mean?? (ooo double rainbow!) Rainf1337 on Twitch
Sigras Conglomo 488	Posted - 2013.08.04 23:00:00 - [800] - Quote Doed wrote: This is amog the worst ideas I've ever seen on these forums, sorry. Its helpful to give your opinion, its more helpful to say why that is your opinion
Heribeck Weathers Caldari Provisions Caldari State 63	Posted - 2013.08.04 23:11:00 - [801] - Quote Sigras wrote: Doed wrote: This is amog the worst ideas I've ever seen on these forums, sorry. Its helpful to give your opinion, its more helpful to say why that is your opinion There is Rolls, there is specilization, and then there is over specilization. This is eve where i can take a Exploration ship (heron) and pown in pvp with it. What we want is a ship that can do its intended roll well, but not be so locked into it that it can never escape. Oh and imune to ewar Is a terible idea, and needs to never be put on another ship besides the ones its already on. What most people are arguing for is for each race to have at least one comand ship that can be fit "Alittle" over tanked so its a bad instant primary for the oposing fleet, at the cost of some dps potential, but not for it to not have any other options open to it liek your sugestion.
Niko Lorenzio United Eve Directorate 268	Posted - 2013.08.04 23:43:00 - [802] - Quote I don't understand why the extremely specialized (T2 Command Ships) get worse bonuses in the area they were created for (Gang links) than the supposedly generalized T3 Cruisers?
Ersahi Kir The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance 262	Posted - 2013.08.04 23:52:00 - [803] - Quote Niko Lorenzio wrote: I don't understand why the extremely specialized (T2 Command Ships) get worse bonuses in the area they were created for (Gang links) than the supposedly generalized T3 Cruisers? T3 cruisers are getting nerfed to 2% per level, but that bonus will apply to 3 kinds of links. When they're done the command ships will give stronger fleet boosts.
Niko Lorenzio United Eve Directorate 268	Posted - 2013.08.04 23:58:00 - [804] - Quote Another question if I may... why are there so many T2 ships which have the first skill bonuses that affect ship stats? I mean you need those skills to level 5 to be able to fly the bloody thing, so what is the point of adding say.. "4% bonus to all Armor Resistances" per Amarr Battlecruiser skill? Just incorporate it into the ship stats and give it another bonus, or swap it with a command ships skills bonus? There's dozens of ships with these kind of bonuses and it's annoying as hell. Basically it's a wasted bonus "slot". The only time it would make sense is if you got podded without upgrading your clone and lost that specific skill, and then wonder if you should retrain Amarr BC5 for those extra bonuses.
Heribeck Weathers Caldari Provisions Caldari State 63	Posted - 2013.08.05 00:03:00 - [805] - Quote Ersahi Kir wrote: Niko Lorenzio wrote: I don't understand why the extremely specialized (T2 Command Ships) get worse bonuses in the area they were created for (Gang links) than the supposedly generalized T3 Cruisers? T3 cruisers are getting nerfed to 2% per level, but that bonus will apply to 3 kinds of links. When they're done the command ships will give stronger fleet boosts. This, CCP wanted T3s to be able to do more things at once but be worse at it, like a Swis army knife. They rep more than normal logi but dont have the range, They Can give more links but not as strong of links, They have Ewar subsystems but not as good as recons, and so on. But they went alittle to far and gave them all a HP + amount sub system and a gank sub system that could be paired with it, combined with a over the top fitting sub system, they where able to fit far mor tank and gank on one ship than i think was really intended. They should have made certain sub systems not able to be paired on the same fit, like the tanky one with the ganky one, or the cloaky one with the interdiction nullifyed one. Force them in to slightly more generalized loadouts and less into the uber specialty ones.
Ersahi Kir The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance 263	Posted - 2013.08.05 00:03:00 - [806] - Quote Niko Lorenzio wrote: Another question if I may... why are there so many T2 ships which have the first skill bonuses that affect ship stats? I mean you need those skills to level 5 to be able to fly the bloody thing, so what is the point of adding say.. "4% bonus to all Armor Resistances" per Amarr Battlecruiser skill? Just incorporate it into the ship stats and give it another bonus, or swap it with a command ships skills bonus? There's dozens of ships with these kind of bonuses and it's annoying as hell. Basically it's a wasted bonus "slot". The only time it would make sense is if you got podded without upgrading your clone and lost that specific skill, and then wonder if you should retrain Amarr BC5 for those extra bonuses. For consistance? Many ships have stats that don't translate into hull stats, but affect modules instead. Shield boost, gun mods, etc would still have to be listed. And people would whine if it wasn't explicitly stated, because they would think they were getting less ship bonuses.
FleetAdmiralHarper The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves 16	Posted - 2013.08.05 00:07:00 - [807] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: Rain6637 wrote: i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily. the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3 i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD I know, right? Especially when you take a look at the Eagle... barf yeah, why does the moa class ship look like a r3tar-o-sarus-rex?
Goldensaver ArTech Expeditions 221	Posted - 2013.08.05 00:52:00 - [808] - Quote Sigras wrote: I'm Down wrote: It would also be really cool if command ships were the primary link for communications within a fleet. In other words, if you were missing a squad command ship... your squad would have diminished broadcasting abilities for targets and repairs... This way, attacking enemies command ships could actually cripple fleet communications. This goes along with my idea of a specialized fleet command ship that would be ideal for fleet commanders to fly. Something with a massive tank and a bonus to targeting range / being unjammable / number of targets locked, so he can broadcast targets and keep tabs on people everywhere on grid. At the cost of all damage output. This ship would have no damage output and very few utility slots making it only attractive to fleet commanders. It occurs to me that this ship might not be very fun to fly, but fleet commanders already have enough to do, so that doesnt really matter. My Earlier Suggestion Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Information Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Slot layout: 6 H (-1), 3 M (-1), 8 L (+2) , 0 turrets (-4), 0 Launchers (-5) Fittings: 1200(-390) PWG, 500(+25) CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 6000(+1395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 120 (-30) / 0.7(-0.004) / 11500000 (+1000000) / 18.18s(+5.0) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 (-25) / 0 (-25) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 150km (+100) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645 The bonuses on the EOS would look similar: EOS: Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances +5 max locked targets per level Command Ships skill bonuses: 7.5% bonus to Repair Effects (both incoming and local) 3% bonus to effectiveness of Armored and Skirmish Warfare Links per level Role Bonus: Immune to Electronic Sensor Effects (E-war, Sensor Dampening, remote sensor boosting), Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules Thoughts? You don't see whats wrong with a ship with almost Max locking range and is immune to EWar and can mount a painter and locks in a reasonable amount of time and has that good of electronics? Everybody just assign drones and leave it at that. You've made an unstoppable drone bunny.
Viribus Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 167	Posted - 2013.08.05 01:04:00 - [809] - Quote Cool changes. However as a certified elite pvper and one-time ATXI participant, I have ideas: Amarr: The slot layout and tiny drone bay of the abso screams fleet dps ship, but with horrible mobility and no range bonus it kind of sucks at applying DPS. The damnation theoretically fills this role, but has the slot layout and drone bay of more of a brawling ship, and pretty bad DPS. It's great at its current roleGÇöan obligate link shipGÇöbut as DPS it can just be ignored because it doesn't do any damage compared to its massive tank. Ideally amarr would have one CS that's a good brawler and one that's a good mid-range fleet ship, but right now they have two that are mediocre at both. The abso should have an optimal bonus instead of a cap use bonus, and the damnation should get another damage bonus instead of the useless missile range bonus. Then you have a great fleet ship and a great brawling ship. Caldari: It doesn't make sense that what is essentially the T2 drake has only 5 mids. As a HAM boat, it's an inferior Claymore because of its wonky slot layout and smaller drone bay, and as a HML boat it just sucks because HMLs got nerfed way too hard, and it's only going to suck more with the buffs to medium rails, arty, and beams. It needs HMLs to get un-nerfed and a 7/6/4 slot layout. No one is going to use the nighthawk in its current state. Gallente: My problem with the Eos and Astarte is the same as my problem with the Myrm and the Brutix: they're basically the same ship, it's just that one is better than the other. If the Eos got a 5/5/6 layout and became a super Ishtar and the Astarte maybe got a tracking bonus or a mid moved down to a low they could be differentiated a bit and have their own strengths and weaknesses, instead of just being the same ship with the same tank and DPS. Minmatar: as usual they get two decently powerful yet different ships that have good bonuses and slot layouts for their particular niches
Rowells Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities 59	Posted - 2013.08.05 02:15:00 - [810] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: Rain6637 wrote: i bought two just now. 1 to keep to look at, and the other to resell when the hull change happens and they go up like the Eos, albeit temporarily. the only ship that could be more beautiful and closer to my heart would be a kaalakiota merlin. I already have the kaalakiota cormorant and love it very much :-3 i like the hookbill, they say its the ugly duckling of the caldari, but the IRONY of it being one of the few good looking ships, that actually looks like a ship, psychically hurts me XD I know, right? Especially when you take a look at the Eagle... barf That's why it has dual range bonuses. Don't want to get within viewing range

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 .. 70 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.