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) |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:39:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Amarr = EM Caldari = Kinetic Gallente = Thermal Minmatar = Explosiv
I know some maybe different but thats the official Rule. |
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:08:00 -
[1082] - Quote
but i still want to know, why the amarr and minmatar ships gets a bonus to ALL damage types and the caldari just for kinetic? i find it a littlebit strange, that the scyte fleet has a 10% to all damage types and the osprey navy just 10% to kinetic.
the same with the damnation and nighthawk. i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
Balzac Legazou
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:19:00 -
[1083] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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 bonus command ships will all be viable for people who choose not to use the repair bonuses after this patch.
I don't think the issue is "the existence of repair bonuses on half of these ships". The issue is how that "half" is defined.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that command ships have two sub-categories, which are a perfect way to make that distinction:
- Give fleet command ships resist bonuses (and make them rely on the fleet for repairs).
- Give field command ships active repair bonuses (and make them self-reliant).
The actual bonuses can be differentiated by race, but this way not only does every race have both options, there is also a stronger sense of identity and role for field command ships vs. fleet command ships.
The issue people have is that some races seem to have two field command ships and zero fleet command ships.
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:25:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Malango wrote:Why is the nighthawk losing a launcher???........... what the hell is that about.
agreed. i want it to keep all 6. it looks better aesthetically and its better for when you need to change damage types in pvp or pve. shooting kinetic 24/7 doesn't ******* always help... so even if it does magically have the equivalent of 11 launchers (according to fozzie) with its 5. it doesnt matter because people arent always going to use that freaking damage type...
im a little less pissed about the just now updated, because the increased rate of fire will help out when changing missiles. but im still HEAVILY against the -(launcher)
i think they believe that these changes will make the nighthawk over powered in some way. but the night hawk is so ****** now because of the heavy missile uber nerf last December.... if they left the 6th launcher and added the changes.,all it would succeed in doing is making the nighthawk slightly useable.
leave the 6th slot fozzie, and the rest of the current changes, and all will be well.
atleast for the nighthawk....
sorry guys i cant help you fix the rest of your command ships. i have no experience with them, and im a firm believer in you shouldn't talk what you dont know about XD |
Grymwulf
Give Me Shelter From Taxes
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:41:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Has anyone considered that perhaps CCP should set it up that each race has a viable skirmish and fleet command ship? Instead of making Minmatar/Gallente kings of small gangs and Amarr/Caldari kings of fleet boosting, give each race one command ship with a resist bonus and the other with the local rep bonus.
This allows those who prefer a specific race to choose a ship based on not just it's weapon types, but on whether they will be doing small gang or fleet ops. I'm a jerk.-á Get used to it.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1112
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:45:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Shimbei wrote:Maybe it's a lack of direct experience? Why not open up a constellation or two in UUA-F4 with some dev group holding sov. We'll come and fight you I'm sure.
Up for this
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1112
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:58:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I
I don't like solo pownmobiles because it's always fun at a very large number of other players unfun, it's fun 5min then I get quickly bored, no challenge whatsoever.
But this could be really nice indeed to replace T3 command sub (never gonna happen anyway for what we see). I mean a T2 BC with that firepower and Cov OPs Cloak on top? -ho man I'd get a full hangar of those !! *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kane Fenris
NWP
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:02:00 -
[1088] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Nighthawk: +75 PWG
Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs) Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
thanks your the best! (missile bonus change) still i seem to need that reactor controll for a normal setup...
i hope your in charge for marauders?
|
Rain6638
Team Evil
571
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:30:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Rain6638 wrote:disambiguate.
-those command ships that didn't receive bonuses to links anyway -> assault battlecruisers (calling it a command ship previously was a misnomer, since all battlecruiser hulls can fit links. Field Command ships were literally T2, Assault BCs)
-those command ships that did receive link bonuses -> Command Ships
-if you want two racial command ships, give one a covops cloak. (Black Ops BC with bonused links; this fills a BC gap and command role in the covert line. I don't see why not--when recons have the modules used best with skirmish and info links, and have covops force recon variants)
Covops BC:
Primary Skill required Command Ships V
Secondary Skill required Black Ops I I don't like solo pownmobiles because it's always fun at a very large number of other players unfun, it's fun 5min then I get quickly bored, no challenge whatsoever. But this could be really nice indeed to replace T3 command sub (never gonna happen anyway for what we see). I mean a T2 BC with that firepower and Cov OPs Cloak on top? -ho man I'd get a full hangar of those !! since writing that I thought maybe the tier 3 glass houses would be a better option.
but covops only in the sense that they can take the covops bridge--and have the gimped cloak like those of the blackops battleships.
a sidetrack thought, in a muddy thread. [ 2013.06.21 09:52:05 ] (notify) For initiating combat your security status has been adjusted by -0.1337 yo dawg, we heard you liek industrials, so we put an industrial in yo industrial so you can loss while u loss |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15359
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:35:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:Mag's wrote:Split weapon systems suck chubby and I thought we were past them. I dislike the weapons change to the Astarte greatly and doubt if I'll now be using it again tbh. Wait wait Its primary weapons system gets buffed (read the effective turrets part) and you get two highs that *can* fit missiles and just as easily fit neuts/nos and you then complain about split weapons systems and how this ship is bad and you won't fly it can you even read? if not, how do you post? this is awfully confusing If you think going from 10.9 effective turrets to 10 is a buff to it's primary weapon system, then I'm not the one with reading issues.
But oh yea, I can fit nos or missiles and this makes it all better.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
|
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3249
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:49:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Mag's check the latest update:
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
<3
Along with the other changes, Astarte got a pretty major buff imho :)
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15359
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:09:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Roime wrote:Mag's check the latest update:
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
<3
Along with the other changes, Astarte got a pretty major buff imho :)
Ahh so it was changed yesterday, that explains the guys sh**ty attitude and reply. Shame he couldn't simply point out it had been updated.
Yea I agree, good buff mate.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:09:00 -
[1093] - Quote
The Astarte did get a nice buff, I'm pretty happy where it is except for the fact it along with all other commandships are missing a slot they deserve To reiterate T1 bc. 17 slots Faction. 18 slots T2 bc. 17. Slots
All other t2 ships get extra slots, so why don't commandships? I'd like to know why they didn't give the proper slot layout to these ships... |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:22:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The Astarte did get a nice buff, I'm pretty happy where it is except for the fact it along with all other commandships are missing a slot they deserve To reiterate T1 bc. 17 slots Faction. 18 slots T2 bc. 17. Slots
All other t2 ships get extra slots, so why don't commandships? I'd like to know why they didn't give the proper slot layout to these ships...
The large dmg bonuses and lower numbers of turrets/launchers is essentially giving you a slot tho. Also, your comparison is also not counting rig slots as slots, which it should...
so if we count raw slots w/o taking dmg bonuses into account
t1 20, t2 19, navy 21 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
756
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:25:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Ersahi Kir wrote:...If you think that damnations haven't been tested on grid in massive fleet battles, you haven't been paying attention.
Caldess wrote:...Its pretty simple how we know it. If you are almost able to headshot a Damnation, what do you think will happen to any other Commandship? And that can only be solved by bricking them?
How about fixing the Target Spectrum thingie and slapping a 4x effect on CC's as a role bonus alongside the 'Can fit links' bonus. Frees them all up to be gank or tank monsters as originally intended instead of having some being way over the top gank wise and others not even able to support to their own weight.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:41:00 -
[1096] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Nighthawk: +75 PWG
Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs) Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
Some moves in the right direction, thanks for these.
5 mids 5 lows is still an odd setup for a shield tanked missile boat. 1 low for the DC , 3 lows for BCS and 1 low for ? While shield gun boats aimed at damage ( sliep ) can make use of a 5th low with a te a missile boat has very little use for a 5th low.
Is the NighHawk designed from the outset to be the only CS that requires a Fitting mod ( RCU ) by default for decent fits , effectivelly leaving it a slot down over competitors ?
6 mids / 4 lows and 1000 grid is where the NighHawk needs to be.
or if damage is the game for the NH break the mold and go 8/5/4 giving the NH its damage potential from 5 launchers on a 3link boat.
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:51:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Even with nice damage bonuses (which t1 battle cruisers and maybe some cruisers have) it doesn't compensate for the loss of slots... And in the eos' case it gets standard drone dps bonus and nothing more, then they take a further slot away If they had gun dps bonuses that last part would make sense for the eos, but they don't
I'd rather have the eos's unique bonus lineup with the proper 18 (+ rigs) slot layout than going for a more standard drone and gun damage bonus eos with 17 slots
You guys did a good job figuring out what active armor tankers need to work, look at the Hyperion 7/5/7 The mid/low slot layout is what the eos needs
Give the eos a. 6/5/7 slot layout with current bonuses Or if you refuse to give the eos the 18th slot make it 5/5/7 with 4 guns and integrate a damage bonus into the mht tracking bonus
Other commandships should get their slots to where they need it Damnation +1 high/launcher Astarte +1 low Nighthawk +1 mid +more pwg Abso +1 mid seems like the consensus The others I don't know enough about them |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:07:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Even with nice damage bonuses (which t1 battle cruisers and maybe some cruisers have) it doesn't compensate for the loss of slots... And in the eos' case it gets standard drone dps bonus and nothing more, then they take a further slot away If they had gun dps bonuses that last part would make sense for the eos, but they don't
I'd rather have the eos's unique bonus lineup with the proper 18 (+ rigs) slot layout than going for a more standard drone and gun damage bonus eos with 17 slots
You guys did a good job figuring out what active armor tankers need to work, look at the Hyperion 7/5/7 The mid/low slot layout is what the eos needs
Give the eos a. 6/5/7 slot layout with current bonuses Or if you refuse to give the eos the 18th slot make it 5/5/7 with 4 guns and integrate a damage bonus into the mht tracking bonus
Other commandships should get their slots to where they need it Damnation +1 high/launcher Astarte +1 low Nighthawk +1 mid +more pwg Abso +1 mid seems like the consensus The others I don't know enough about them
In the case of the Astarte, the 2 dmg boni it gets most certainly do make up for the loss of a slot. In the case of the EOS, I most certainly agree with you tho...
|
FleetAdmiralHarper
The Caldari Independent Navy Reserves
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:17:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Nighthawk: +75 PWG
Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs) Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
Some moves in the right direction, thanks for these. 5 mids 5 lows is still an odd setup for a shield tanked missile boat. 1 low for the DC , 3 lows for BCS and 1 low for ?
the last low is for a power diag.. its exactly the set up it needs to be. or else you cant fit those command links, or get away with some fits.
you could also put a shield relay in that slot if in a pulsar or somthing.
the slots dont need change. and the 1 missile slot doesnt need removed... |
Serenity Zipher
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:17:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Fozzie!!! The absolution 1000% needs a +1 mid slot., especially if you want it fit beam lasers. Either add a mid for a capbooster/cap-recharger , increase capacitor recharge rate or reduce cap usage of beam lasers, any of these will suffice. |
|
Thalesia
System lords Collective
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:19:00 -
[1101] - Quote
The absolution absolutely needs another mid slot to stay competative, 3 mid slots on a battlecruiser and a tier 2 one at that is just ridiculous. Probably been said somewhere in here but cba to read thru 50 pages. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:22:00 -
[1102] - Quote
The only bad thing about the Astarte is the weak tank, even with the rep bonus, to get anywhere with the dps it has to murder it's tank, tho I have not done extensive eft warrioring, but if not a low perhaps a mid, but the Astarte is in a pretty good shape along with (what seems to be) the claymore and sleipnir
The eos, vulture, nighthawk, absolution, and damnation each seem to have a problem here or there Most of which a slot (or two for the eos) will fix Vulture seems to be lacking enough dps and nighthawk needs a mid and pwg |
Serenity Zipher
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:28:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Thalesia wrote:The absolution absolutely needs another mid slot to stay competative, 3 mid slots on a battlecruiser and a tier 2 one at that is just ridiculous. Probably been said somewhere in here but cba to read thru 50 pages.
I agree 100%, currently my absolution has to sacrifice 2 of its rig slots and 1 mid for capacitor recharge. Even then I am no where near cap stable, lasting 1 minute and 40 seconds with beams, a dead space repper and a dead space MWD all running |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
515
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:33:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The only bad thing about the Astarte is the weak tank, even with the rep bonus, to get anywhere with the dps it has to murder it's tank, tho I have not done extensive eft warrioring, but if not a low perhaps a mid, but the Astarte is in a pretty good shape along with (what seems to be) the claymore and sleipnir
The eos, vulture, nighthawk, absolution, and damnation each seem to have a problem here or there Most of which a slot (or two for the eos) will fix Vulture seems to be lacking enough dps and nighthawk needs a mid and pwg
No doubt that many of the ships are not in a "Great" place as of the most current proposal. The ones you listed, astarte, claymore, and sleipnir most certainly are "fine" with the current proposal beyond the fact that each race needs and hp bonus ship.
As for the eos, there is no justification for it having 1 less slot compared to the other commands. The golden rule of "well it's a drone ship" does not apply when other ships in it's class are receiving HUGE dmg buffs to limited numbers of turrets. It probably could use another midslot to allow for some more "flavor" compared to the astarte. However, if it would drop it's mongoloid tracking bonus for an hp bonus i don't think it needs any new slots at all.
Now for the abso... It looks reasonable, pretty much the same as it is on tq atm. The problem is that it should not just be "reasonable" it should be bad ass for it's intended focus which beyond providing links is obviously a close range armor brawler. I'm not really on board with adding slots anymore, I'd much rather see it get the same turret bonuses as the new Astarte, and move to 11 effective turrets rather than 10... It's lacking a range bonus compared to other laser ships which is extremely important in zealot/legion meta. Because of this it needs to be extremely destructive at close range and should rival the Astarte in terms of effective turrets.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:49:00 -
[1105] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:Dav Varan wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Nighthawk: +75 PWG
Shifting strength between the two dps bonuses adds 1 effective launcher (now 11) and especially increases damage dealt with non-kin missiles. Post-patch Nighthawk does the same damage with non-kin missiles as current nighthawk, and 1 more effective launcher with kin. (Plus all the other buffs) Kinetic missile bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Caldari BC Missile RoF bonus changed to 7.5% per level of Command Ships
Some moves in the right direction, thanks for these. 5 mids 5 lows is still an odd setup for a shield tanked missile boat. 1 low for the DC , 3 lows for BCS and 1 low for ? the last low is for a power diag.. its exactly the set up it needs to be. or else you cant fit those command links, or get away with some fits.
Thats the whole point, fitting mods are a choice on other commands not a neccessity.
Its neccessary to use 1 low for a RCU or PDU therefore making the layout effectivelly 7/5/4 compared to 7/6/4 for vulture/clay which dont need to boost there grid to fit. |
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:52:00 -
[1106] - Quote
I feel the eos would benefit more from an added low than mid but it should get both, and if it got an hp bonus then it has to choose which bonus to use, meaning it is still in bad shape, as it can only use 3 of its bonuses, the current bonuses and 5mids 7 lows would make it a very unique ship And I doubt it would go well with an hp bonus as it has a heavy drone tracking bonus, larger fleets would need sentries So you would end up using only two bonuses in larger fleets....
The abso needs a fourth mid, especially if its going for close range brawler mwd cap booster web point are required
|
Eldrith Jhandar
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:55:00 -
[1107] - Quote
The concern I have with the Astarte in terms of lows is active vs passive tank along with its nice dps 6 lows means a very weak tank either way, 7 lows means nice balance for dps and active tank, but might be too much passive tank, but without a resist bonus maybe not.... |
Tepalica
ACME-INC
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:05:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Each time I look at the Absolution or Zealot, or any Amarr laser boat (including the new Prophecy and Armageddon drone carriers which are now 100% better off with missiles and/or projectile turrets instead of lasers)....only one thing comes to mind.
Once and for all, REMOVE those stupid useless 10% bonuses to ****** Energy Turret capacitor use, give a special ability to ALL Amarr laser boats that give 50% of cap reduction for energy turret use to make their racial doctrine weapons usable too good effect only on Amarr hulls and give those ships a decent 2nd bonus - tracking, optimal, armor resists....all depending on the ship's role because right now, all you have are a bunch of cap hungry beasts with normal ship bonuses and a bunch of not so cap hungry gimped ships that only have 1 (3) bonus where there should be 2 (4).
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15365
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:13:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Eldrith Jhandar wrote:Even with nice damage bonuses (which t1 battle cruisers and maybe some cruisers have) it doesn't compensate for the loss of slots... And in the eos' case it gets standard drone dps bonus and nothing more, then they take a further slot away If they had gun dps bonuses that last part would make sense for the eos, but they don't
I'd rather have the eos's unique bonus lineup with the proper 18 (+ rigs) slot layout than going for a more standard drone and gun damage bonus eos with 17 slots
You guys did a good job figuring out what active armor tankers need to work, look at the Hyperion 7/5/7 The mid/low slot layout is what the eos needs
Give the eos a. 6/5/7 slot layout with current bonuses Or if you refuse to give the eos the 18th slot make it 5/5/7 with 4 guns and integrate a damage bonus into the mht tracking bonus
Other commandships should get their slots to where they need it Damnation +1 high/launcher Astarte +1 low Nighthawk +1 mid +more pwg Abso +1 mid seems like the consensus The others I don't know enough about them In the case of the Astarte, the 2 dmg boni it gets most certainly do make up for the loss of a slot. In the case of the EOS, I most certainly agree with you tho... You know it's been so long since I even considered the EOS, I didn't even look at the changes for it.
I agree that simply removing the high slot and not moving it, is a poor move. It's been a lacklustre ship for quite some time and removing a slot doesn't help change that.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
516
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:20:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Eldrith Jhandar wrote:The concern I have with the Astarte in terms of lows is active vs passive tank along with its nice dps 6 lows means a very weak tank either way, 7 lows means nice balance for dps and active tank, but might be too much passive tank, but without a resist bonus maybe not....
Part of the reason this is the case is how it can fit battleship plates but cruiser armor reps... (Imnot saying lets change that) but we need to take cruiser reps into consideration
I think the biggest issue with cruiser/bc sized active tanking is massive difference between medium and large cap boosters... I'd like to see a change allowing t2 medium cap boosters to fit 2x navy 800s.
As for the lows on the Astarte, I won't lie, I would "love" to see a 7 low astarte, however I see it being extremely op. right now, with a single dmg mod, the astarte can easily put out 1k dps while sporting a tanking that can deal with a couple BCs. In the case of kin/therm dmg, the astarte can tank 2 vindis if you're pilled and linked. |
|
|
|
|
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 |