| 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) |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
   |
Posted - 2013.08.05 02:23:00 -
[811] - Quote
my buddy in IT tells me it's a "thing" to break something on the network, in a way that he knows exactly how to fix and will make people complain & seek him out. fozzie.
Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Bullet Therapist
Fox Clan
Imperial Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 03:54:00 -
[812] - Quote
I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
65
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:14:00 -
[813] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships
I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids.
5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:17:00 -
[814] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids. 5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it
what's wrong with the same layout if they have the same job and weapon system
I think fozzie wants us to think the nighthawk's resist bonus compensates for -1 mid, still not sure about the PG.
Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Bullet Therapist
Fox Clan
Imperial Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:24:00 -
[815] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids. 5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it what's wrong with the same layout if they have the same job and weapon system I think fozzie wants us to think the nighthawk's resist bonus compensates for -1 mid, still not sure about the PG.
I dunno, maybe it does, I just feel like the extra low is kind of wasted. Very few people are going to use anything like a nano in that low slot, and the extra BCU that you can fit there is at such a low effectiveness given the stacking penalties. Compared to another mid slot, which would take a lot of heat off of a player trying to fit tackle, tank, mobility etc I just don't think its all that useful. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:24:00 -
[816] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:I like most of the changes, though the nighthawk still seems like it needs to have a low slot changed to a mid to keep its tank in line with the other command ships I agree but then the claymore, Vulture and nighthawk would have the same slot layout, I wouldnt mind a 7-7-3 layout, it would kinda gimp its lows to make up for the crazy amount of mids. 5 lows on a missle ship is kinda waisted if its not fast enough to warent putting a nano on it what's wrong with the same layout if they have the same job and weapon system I think fozzie wants us to think the nighthawk's resist bonus compensates for -1 mid, still not sure about the PG.
In all honesty I think the night hawk was orininaly designed to be pasivly shield tanked and has more lows for more shield rechargers, but As times changed it became lost and confused. I personaly wouldnt want the same slot layout just because they would feel way to similar with only a resist bonus and active tank bonus setting them apart..... if Fozzie took away its damage aplication bonus on the claymore and gave it a doble tank bonus, then gave the Night hawk an active tank bonus it might feel like their rolls where more set apart.
Regaurdless 5 lows lends itself better to gun bloats so they can fit damage and trackign mods.
|
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers
Dirt Nap Squad.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 04:46:00 -
[817] - Quote
Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:14:00 -
[818] - Quote
Battlingbean wrote:Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing.
why would anybody want less than 4 lows on the ship???? |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
Viro Mors Non Est
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 05:16:00 -
[819] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Battlingbean wrote:Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing. why would anybody want less than 4 lows on the ship????
What this guy said, 3 lows on cruisers and up, esp hacs/CS is worse than having 3 mids in many cases. |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:01:00 -
[820] - Quote
I'm just saying 6 mids. not too interested in highs, I think it could do with just 1 utility
for shield gangs, however, I think I got it: you have two claymores, 1 vulture:
Claymore:
Evasive Maneuvers
Rapid Deployment
Shield Harmonizing (so that it gets the resist and maneuverability bonuses)
Claymore:
Interdiction Maneuvers
Active Shielding
Shield Efficiency
Vulture:
Info links
so your sig/speed/resists start at the top, and the squads still have the bonuses to reps/logi
needs 2x navy mindlinks, 1 info mindlink
pick your engagements
Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Battlingbean
Star Frontiers
Dirt Nap Squad.
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:03:00 -
[821] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:Battlingbean wrote:Caldari ships live and die by their medium modules. A 7/7/3 Nighthawk would be an inverse Absolution with 7/3/7 so it shouldn't be overpowered. Now that I think of it 6/6/3 Cerberus could be a thing. why would anybody want less than 4 lows on the ship????
Basically on a Caldari shield tanked missile ship medium slots are more valuable than lows. 3 slots still allows for DC, BCU and maybe fitting modules.
But this is my Opinion. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:05:00 -
[822] - Quote
Just from toying around, Abso can run with a plate, 2 hardeners, EANM and DCU, 2 heatsinks, scram, mwd, med cap booster, 5 HPL and 2 med neuts, one ancil rig and a trimark. It's nice with some 180k EHP linked, 680dps using conflag and dualmed-neut. :|
I only correct my own spelling. |
Rain6637
The Kissaki Syndicate
1636
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:12:00 -
[823] - Quote
how's 6 mids on a nighthawk overpowered compared to a claymore or vulture with 6 mids, or the rest of the command ships
post fit
Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Viribus
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 06:35:00 -
[824] - Quote
A 6-mid nighthawk with full tackle would have around 90k ehp, hardly overpowered considering how slow and expensive it is. Way less than an absolution at least, and only about 10k more than a buffer-fit claymore.
Honestly even with 6 mids the nighthawk will still be mediocre as long as HMLs are garbage |
Silenciel
Penguins at school
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:10:00 -
[825] - Quote
So... the Nighthawk is going to do average 12,7% less DPS* than... a Cerberus ?
HAS new specs
Cerberus wich is going to snipe at average 120km.
errrrrmmmm....
* Base 100 on one heavy launcher (ROF bonus is equal for the both ships) :
Nighthawk - 5 launchers and 10 kin dmg bonus : 550
Cerberus - 6 launchers and 5 kin dmg bonus : 630 |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:13:00 -
[826] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:how's 6 mids on a nighthawk overpowered compared to a claymore or vulture with 6 mids, or the rest of the command ships
post fit
@work.
however, 7 mids highly OP, 6 mids are borderline imo. Never said a word about 6 mids, full tackle and 160k EHP.
2 invulns, 2 LSE, CDFE and EM-rig II used to achieve 160k EHP selflinking w mindlink.
In comparison, the claymore achieves 110k EHP with DCFE and kin-rig II.
So, while HMLs are crap (more or less), HAMs are not. And that still leaves you with 510 dps (navy scourge) on a boosting brickhawk. If you still want to break the nighthawk further apart in terms of fleettank, sure go ahead. Doubt it's the smart choice though.
I'll get back to EFT to make a comparison of gangboosters I guess. Would be helpful if people would look at fitted ships to draw conclusions instead of complaining about slots and bonus.
I only correct my own spelling. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:19:00 -
[827] - Quote
Was away for the weekend and iPads are absolute crap as forum whoring tools!
Damnation: What happened to the idea of allowing them to either link or go face-melt-time? It has more EHP than badly fit carriers but less damage than the Sacrilege. Was kind of expecting it to be an upgrade to the drone based Prophecy, leaving Mims/Cald to wield the missile spamming secondary hulls but 'meh'.
- All the other former triple link hulls got a massive damage/application boost but not the brick, why?
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.
Caldari: No real comment, looks solid enough. Nighthawks will flood the hi-sec mission space and pose a very real threat to tackle elsewhere while Vulture has the potential to be a very nasty secondary dps boat in brawls.
Ass-tart: Looks good, maybe lower sig some as it is far too big for a ship that is presumably meant to armour rush or you could lower the mass to allow for DP fits that will allow active tank to catch up while staying under the guns.
Eos: Finally found an excuse to push it back into OP-land with five heavies, good on you! Don't really see what ship that doesn't rely on heavy neuting will be able to beat these but then I don't really see a reasonable alternative so I'll hop on the "neuts on everything" train.. last person remaining on that particular platform as far as I know 
Minmatar: With ASB's they will forever be broken, 'nuff said. Otherwise respectable tweaks, good to see you deemed missiles worth carrying over from the BC hull for them when you didn't think the Amarr drones were .. one out of two aint bad, not good either though
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol
Polarized.
946
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:00:00 -
[828] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Eos:
Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints (was 5% MHT damage)
Command Ships skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone tracking and microwarp velocity (was drone bay bonus)
7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking (was link bonus)
I really don't get this new style of bonus you're giving to drone boats all of a sudden. If you are going to do stuff like this then the Eos should get a tracking bonus to heavy AND sentry drones.
Personally i feel it should just have bonuses to drone damage and hit points. You should leave it up to players to improve drone tracking/speed through the use of drone upgrade mods.
Putting work in since 2010. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries
Dark Stripes
663
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:14:00 -
[829] - Quote
so how are the new new cs's coming?
you know the ones that either brick for fleet work or dps/tank for small gang fun
OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:14:00 -
[830] - Quote
Yeah Scout Drones and Heavy/Sentry should the only kind of Drones.
If you CCP start splitting the Drones like Missiles you have to revamp the Drones ASAP!! |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:16:00 -
[831] - 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. |
Atrium Akvidus
Red's Swashbucklers Corp
Nia Lando
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:28:00 -
[832] - Quote
Nighthawk
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:37:00 -
[833] - Quote
Atrium Akvidus wrote:Nighthawk
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
because all commands have 5 weapons now, thats why you get better bonuses.
the extra turret its just CCP being funny |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:09:00 -
[834] - Quote
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.. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1078
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:13:00 -
[835] - Quote
In the end doesn't really matters/cares for me how much my opinion here is worth or not, I'll be flying the next OP one because I can.
2 active tank galletne SCs? no worries I will not be boosting fleet or gang anyway but ganking with tanky BC's 
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:15:00 -
[836] - Quote
To mare wrote:Atrium Akvidus wrote:Nighthawk
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
because all commands have 5 weapons now, thats why you get better bonuses. the extra turret its just CCP being funny
That or because Fozzie is an admitted strong Amarr fan...go armor! and slogans "no one should ever consider missiles as a weapon not even as 3rd palce or compromise." |
Kane Fenris
NWP
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:19:00 -
[837] - Quote
To mare wrote:Atrium Akvidus wrote:Nighthawk
Slot layout: 7 H, 5 M, 5 L , 2 turrets (+1), 5 Launchers (-1)
What a stupid change :( Why you removing laucher slot and adding turret slot for a rocket ship? I really cannot understand why.
because all commands have 5 weapons now, thats why you get better bonuses. the extra turret its just CCP being funny
its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:25:00 -
[838] - Quote
Kane Fenris wrote:its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to
Good thing you remembered to put that "most" in there, otherwise the Absolution and Eos would come pay you a visit in the dead of night .. but then consistency was never one of CCP's virtues so I reckon leaving 1/4 of the hulls out of a new scheme makes 'CCP SenseGäó'
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:35:00 -
[839] - 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..
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4444
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 16:13:00 -
[840] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:its because the most command ships were given enough slots to fill the 2 high slots with unbonused weapons if they want to Good thing you remembered to put that "most" in there, otherwise the Absolution and Eos would come pay you a visit in the dead of night .. but then consistency was never one of CCP's virtues so I reckon leaving 1/4 of the hulls out of a new scheme makes 'CCP SenseGäó'
Most likely the thinking is that those two be more geared towards putting in NOS or Neuts instead of extra damage, and balanced accordingly.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
| |
|
| 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 |