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) |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
409
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:29:00 -
[961] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Nice changes to the nighthawk bonuses. I honestly wasn't expecting a DPS increase. If I might ask, though, what's the reasoning behind not moving a lowslot to a mid? Do you feel that it would step on the toes of other ships? Are you concerned that it might be overpowered?
Personally, I can't imagine the Nighthawk being worth the ISK if it continues to have only 5 mids; even the Drake has more. As such, even with the bonus changes, I can't see myself purchasing one. I'll probably stick to my Sleipnir and Absolution, and maybe throw in a Claymore. Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:31:00 -
[962] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Love the changes... except for... WHY you no make vulture worth flying out side of link only fits?!? Its an eagle with two utility highs. please give it a bigger damage bonus, or maybe take a range bonus to a trackign bonus, or anything to make people atempt to brawl ocasionaly with it. in the ATXI it was used with missiles ..... tell you something about those optimal bonuses at all fozzie??? Well, to be fair, medium rails will be getting a buff which should make them more attractive. One thing those optimal bonuses allow is the use of short range ammo at much longer ranges, which does have it's advantages. I think I'd be happier if one were a tracking bonus (as that would help with blaster fits as well), but we'll see how it plays out.
I'm sick of caldari gun boats being forced into fitting Rails ....... i would like some good blasterboats ffs..... they seem to stop at the Moa. When you look at the awesome Vulture hull you think it should be a monster of a ship not some pitiful ship pinging spike from 150km what is the point of that??? 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. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:32:00 -
[963] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Wrayeth wrote:Nice changes to the nighthawk bonuses. I honestly wasn't expecting a DPS increase. If I might ask, though, what's the reasoning behind not moving a lowslot to a mid? Do you feel that it would step on the toes of other ships? Are you concerned that it might be overpowered?
Personally, I can't imagine the Nighthawk being worth the ISK if it continues to have only 5 mids; even the Drake has more. As such, even with the bonus changes, I can't see myself purchasing one. I'll probably stick to my Sleipnir and Absolution, and maybe throw in a Claymore. Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce.
If Fozzie wants the nighthawk to remain a tankless wonder that only kites than why does the damnation get the velocity bonus???
Seriously Fozzie why does the damnation get a range bonus for??? its a brick that wants to brawl .... 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. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:33:00 -
[964] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Unless you are trying to keep that module off hulls larger than cruiser size - are you? Yes. RML's need to be deleted a Navy caracal can do the job with its bonus quite well .... although javelins could do with a damage buff.
It's true. Missile users don't deserve nice things. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:34:00 -
[965] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce. I'm afraid I don't see that in any way balancing out the Nighthawk's lack of ability to fit a good tank at the same time it fits the necessary tackling/utility gear for PvP. Range is not in any way my priority interest on the NH - we have the Vulture for that. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:36:00 -
[966] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Keep 5 lows for when tracking enhancers affect missiles. Presto! Longer range Nighthawk! But seriously, since it's definitely a shield ship, 5 mids is pretty scarce. I'm afraid I don't see that in any way balancing out the Nighthawk's lack of ability to fit a good tank at the same time it fits the necessary tackling/utility gear for PvP. Range is not in any way my priority interest on the NH - we have the Vulture for that.
Can you even fit Rails on a vulture along with links???/ but more to the point why would you want to ??? 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. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
393
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:36:00 -
[967] - Quote
I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
128
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:38:00 -
[968] - 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[969] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
Yeah, it's almost as if the EOS does not even have a 4th bonus. Tracking on 4 turrets? Come on now fozzie |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[970] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Unless you are trying to keep that module off hulls larger than cruiser size - are you? Yes. Hmm. Makes me curious that you (or someone) is getting ready to swing the nerfhammer on RLML or light missiles in general. Can you provide any insight into that? I know it's off topic but... *curious*. Also add grid to the NH. It needs at least 100 more to make it not pathetic next to every other ship in the class (it will still have the lowest by a decent percent at that point). I have a feeling that as far a ships that sport medium sized missile hard points goes, they would prefer cruiser hulls be the weapon of choice vs small vessels... with CS filling a different role.
I could well be off base with that though. 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. |
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:42:00 -
[971] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Love the changes... except for... WHY you no make vulture worth flying out side of link only fits?!? Its an eagle with two utility highs. please give it a bigger damage bonus, or maybe take a range bonus to a trackign bonus, or anything to make people atempt to brawl ocasionaly with it. in the ATXI it was used with missiles ..... tell you something about those optimal bonuses at all fozzie??? Well, to be fair, medium rails will be getting a buff which should make them more attractive. One thing those optimal bonuses allow is the use of short range ammo at much longer ranges, which does have it's advantages. I think I'd be happier if one were a tracking bonus (as that would help with blaster fits as well), but we'll see how it plays out. I'm sick of caldari gun boats being forced into fitting Rails ....... i would like some good blasterboats ffs..... they seem to stop at the Moa. When you look at the awesome Vulture hull you think it should be a monster of a ship not some pitiful ship pinging spike from 150km what is the point of that???
I've never understood this. Do blasters not benefit from an optimal range bonus? Since they have the lowest optimal in the game it seems as if they would. Or is it expected that you're basically sitting right on top of the target when brawling? I probably need to make a separate thread somewhere that discusses this... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:43:00 -
[972] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Harvey James wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Harvey James wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:Love the changes... except for... WHY you no make vulture worth flying out side of link only fits?!? Its an eagle with two utility highs. please give it a bigger damage bonus, or maybe take a range bonus to a trackign bonus, or anything to make people atempt to brawl ocasionaly with it. in the ATXI it was used with missiles ..... tell you something about those optimal bonuses at all fozzie??? Well, to be fair, medium rails will be getting a buff which should make them more attractive. One thing those optimal bonuses allow is the use of short range ammo at much longer ranges, which does have it's advantages. I think I'd be happier if one were a tracking bonus (as that would help with blaster fits as well), but we'll see how it plays out. I'm sick of caldari gun boats being forced into fitting Rails ....... i would like some good blasterboats ffs..... they seem to stop at the Moa. When you look at the awesome Vulture hull you think it should be a monster of a ship not some pitiful ship pinging spike from 150km what is the point of that??? I've never understood this. Do blasters not benefit from an optimal range bonus? Since they have the lowest optimal in the game it seems as if they would. Or is it expected that you're basically sitting right on top of the target when brawling? I probably need to make a separate thread somewhere that discusses this... Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better. 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. |
SkyMeetFire
The Rising Stars The Initiative.
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:46:00 -
[973] - Quote
May be a stupid idea but - have you considered something like giving all the command ships a role bonus of +5% shield, armor, and structure per level, and then changing the Damnation's 10% armor bonus to a sort of damage application bonus?
That would somewhat narrow the gap between the Active vs Resist tanked CS for fleets, and could make the Damnation not stand out as the only major fleet CS, while also giving the Damnation a better status as a real fighting CS. |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:47:00 -
[974] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.
Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus.
Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting.
Also, \o R1. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1302
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:49:00 -
[975] - Quote
Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others.
Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges.
Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly.
Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based) BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:50:00 -
[976] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.
I guess I can see your point - though falloff is equally tiny (~5k falloff for ~3k optimal for medium blasters unbonused). Now that I think about it, it seems silly to have a single family cover both the shortest and longest range weapons. Maybe optimal range bonuses for hybrid weapons should list the bonus for blasters and rails separately? I don't want to discuss this too much here to avoid taking this thread off the rails (so to speak). |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:50:00 -
[977] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
I'm telling you, this tracking bonus would be PERFECT to turn into +10% Armor HP per level.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:54:00 -
[978] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:PinkKnife wrote:I thought we were doing away with split weapon bonuses? Why then is the Eos STILL stuck with a hybrid bonus when it was and is always has been, a drone boat?
I'm telling you, this tracking bonus would be PERFECT to turn into +10% Armor HP per level.
Only way this would be reasonable is if the additional hp granted to the eos in the most recept proposal was reverted to the original proposal.
|
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:55:00 -
[979] - Quote
Hello,
Thanks for all the work on everything of late.
I think the premier shield tanking command ships should follow the Drake and have of 6 mids. The Nighthawk will also be shooting missiles after all.
It makes no sense to me to have the Caldari missile command ship mirror the hybrid weapon T1 battlecruiser model of 5 mids while the hybrid weapon T2 Vulture has 6 mids. Nighthawk still seems to suffer from the old tier issue of being based on the lower tier BC hull.
My suggestion would be to move one low to a mid.
Regards, Sparks Applied Creations is recruiting. Mystic Volundar says, "It could be you! " |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:07:00 -
[980] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better. Thought on making the Vulture more versatile: change one of the two optimal bonuses to falloff. Then it will have both an optimal and a falloff bonus. Disclaimer: I've yet to fly a Vulture, so this is all theorycrafting. Also, \o R1. 07 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. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:15:00 -
[981] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others.
Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges.
Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly.
Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based)
Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists.
But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need
These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4459
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:27:00 -
[982] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Any chance you might address the fact that some of the bonuses ships get are just inferior to others.
Like on a Vulture, a 50% optimal range bonus doesn't actually give you more dps at range than a ROF bonus. You feel like it should but it really doesn't, if you equalize ranges on different ships you will find that a DPS bonus >> optimal range at pretty much all ranges unless you're trying to shoot into SEBO'd ranges.
Just look at the ferox vs the brutix. Even though the ferox has one more physical gun and a double optimal range bonus the brutix wins the dps race at pretty much all ranges. The brutix outdpses the ferox to ******* 60km and beyond that the ferox only pulls ahead slightly.
Should make optimal range bonuses higher (could also make railguns less falloff based) Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists. But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet I appreciate what you are saying, but therein lie's a slippery slope.
Rare, expensive, but much superior ships end up having entire fleets dedicated to them in short order. 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. |
Ersahi Kir
The Eminence Front SpaceMonkey's Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:30:00 -
[983] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists.
I think he was talking about the vulture and not the ferox.
Harvey James wrote:But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need
These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet
We don't need fleets of command ships wrecking all comers, we need command ships to give fleets boosts. Unfortunately, we have the well designed damnation and 7 other ships that are over-sized HAC's. The real issue here is that command ships, HACs, and T3 ships are still going to be stomping over each other because they all fill the same niche. Too bad the obvious command ship niche of 'fleet booster able to survive fleet sized alpha' was ignored in favor of shoving more ships into the medium sized brawler niche. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
98
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:32:00 -
[984] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time! ... I recognize that a lot of people are unhappy with the existence of active repair bonuses on half of these ships, but I think that giving all command ships buffer bonuses isn't the right way to go. I believe that the four skirmish bonused command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.
Fozzie, the players don't mind if half the command ships have an active tanking bonus, as long as it's split 50/50 for each race. i.e. each race gets a 'skirmish' and each race gets a 'fleet' CS.
Of course we all know, and I know the evidence is there in your logs to support this position, no-one, just no-one ever did or every will fly a command ship with an active tank bonus in any kind of real pvp 'skirmish'. Active tank bonuses are useful in hypothetical 1v1 or 1v2 confrontations. These actually almost never happen other than under contrived circumstances on the test server.
In addition, given that a command ship is only useful in a fleet, it is further rendered useless on a command ship. Either,
your gang will gank a single solo ship - in which case you don't need local reps at all, or
your gang will engage another gang, and their combined firepower will render your local rep bonus completely irrelevant.
You know this full well. We know that you know it, and I think I can speak for the entire Eve community when I say we think you are wrong to persist in your current position.
Sorry to say this mate. Your previous work has been great. On this issue, for the good of the game, you need to relent.
|
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy Gentlemen's Agreement
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:33:00 -
[985] - Quote
Quote:Blaster optimal is so small that a bonus to it gives virtually no noticeable advantage. I do agree that it certainly doesn't hurt, but falloff serves it much better.
Discounting blaster nagas, of course. I'm pretty sure a vulture with dual 150s might pack a modest punch for what it is. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:49:00 -
[986] - Quote
The nightwk and Astarte damage buffs are nice and so are the small up shuffles But come on you missed a lot with this "update" Eos is still lacking a slot which it needs, -1 slot when it has only 4 unbounded turrets? That's laughable... And why a damage application bonus for guns when it has no damage to apply? And give all the commandships +1 slot They should have one more slot than their t1 counterparts
Tl;dr +1 slot to all commandships Then ontop of that add a second slot to the eos to make up for the lack of anything but drones, or give it a better 4th bonus
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:15:00 -
[987] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:Harvey James wrote:Well ferox gets 1 optimal bonus the other is sh resists. I think he was talking about the vulture and not the ferox. Harvey James wrote:But yes surely CS should be geared towards brawling .. thus range bonuses aren't particularly useful more tank and gank is what CS need
These ships should be flagships in a fleet ... rare, expensive but much superior to the rest of the ships in the fleet We don't need fleets of command ships wrecking all comers, we need command ships to give fleets boosts. Unfortunately, we have the well designed damnation and 7 other ships that are over-sized HAC's. The real issue here is that command ships, HACs, and T3 ships are still going to be stomping over each other because they all fill the same niche. Too bad the obvious command ship niche of 'fleet booster able to survive fleet sized alpha' was ignored in favor of shoving more ships into the medium sized brawler niche.
There could always be a limit per fleet so say 3 CS one for each booster FC/WC/SC. or maybe 1 per fleet in the highest boosting position and the other 2 slots would have to be filled by T3's or T1 bc's 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. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:17:00 -
[988] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time! We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.
Astarte: +100 Armor
Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now). Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
This has one problem though.
You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage. But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets.
Any plan to compensate? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:28:00 -
[989] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time! We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.
Astarte: +100 Armor
Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now). Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
This has one problem though. You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage. But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets. Any plan to compensate?
Yes another thing Fozzie has ignored is the small cargobays on some of the ships yet one CS has 700... 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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
512
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:30:00 -
[990] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Update time! We've also got updates in the gang links and bonuses thread that you will all probably want to read.
Astarte: +100 Armor
Shifting strength between the bonuses adds an extra 1 effective turret (11, vs 10 in the initial proposal and 10.9 on TQ now). Medium Hybrid damage bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Gallente BC Medium Hybrid RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
This has one problem though. You are giving astarte 11 effective turret for damage. But at the same time you are increasing its 7 turrets to 8 effective turrets considering cap and ammunition consumption. yet astarte has smaller cargohold than brutix with 6 effective turrets. Any plan to compensate?
Increasing the cargo capacity to 475m3 should be pretty much mandatory. The increased cap consumption can easily be offset by the usage of a nos tho. Other than that, I don't think the Astarte needs any more attention. It's faster, tanks better (against kin/therm) does more dmg, and has the option to fit missiles for even MORE dmg, or fit nos/nuets for offensive/defensive cap warfare. In short, it's looking very sexy. |
|
|
|
|
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 |