| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
853
   |
Posted - 2013.08.30 08:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jackie Fisher wrote:Bastion module is grossly overpowered for hi sec PVE. The penalties for use, no movement for 60 sec + weapons timer, are trivial for L4 missions. Large number of missions you don't need to move in anyway so that's no loss. Likewise it takes a Marauder plenty of time to warp to a gate/station so most of the weapons timer will have gone without any delay to the pilot.
It's almost entirely irrelevant to highsec PVE. There is no tanking problem running L4s, so the additional tank during bastion mode is unimportant. It's only the range bonuses that make a difference, but it's not a huge one, really. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
853
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 14:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:So, just for fun, I have knocked up a little cyno bait vargur fit in pyfa - this uses existing stats:
So this is a 1.6M hitpoint cyno bait ship, before considering bastion mode.
If you switch on bastion mode, the constant tank becomes 3.3k and total effective hitpoints come to around 4.4 million.
More than a carrier.
Note that this is just a T2 fit. No links, no implants. With crystal and blue pill we're looking at closer to 8 million effective hitpoints. Add some faction hardeners and it's more like 10 million.
I'll say that again. 10 million effective hitpoints.
I was under the impression we wanted to get rid of this kind of thing from the game?
Please take this nonsense back to the drawing board.
Your epic cyno bait has no way of holding its target, so your argument is invalid... also, alpha.
Even if it did have tackle - so what? It's a cyno bait ship. It needs enough tank to gain tackle, light a cyno and then survive until RR lands - feats which are already readily possible with very many ships. It's just an unnecessarily expensive and obvious way of doing the same old trick. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
853
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 14:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:So, please find a different bonus to replace the painter bonus, or change it to an optimal bonus. Thanks. 
Painters are not short-ranged, they have 45 km optimal and 90 km falloff, this means a 77% hit chance at 100 km. An optimal bonus to painters on the Golem would be stupid.
How about a comedy bonus to ECM Burst range and strength instead though?  |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
853
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 15:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:So, please find a different bonus to replace the painter bonus, or change it to an optimal bonus. Thanks. Painters are not short-ranged, they have 45 km optimal and 90 km falloff, this means a 77% hit chance at 100 km. An optimal bonus to painters on the Golem would be stupid. How about a comedy bonus to ECM Burst range and strength instead though? I quite like your comedy bonus. And frankly it would be more appropriate. And some might even prefer it.  But anyway, would you have this ship keep a strength bonus on painters? It makes no sense either way imo. But it makes less less sense to make it an optimal bonus. 
I agree that the painter strength bonus is incongruous - but so is one to painter optimal. As you say, painters are supposed to be Minmatar. I suppose the alternative to the painter bonus is to give it an explosion radius bonus to replicate some or all of the painter effect. The main effect of this would be to free up a medslot, for tanking or tackle etc. On the other hand, with links you can get 80% painters, equivalent to, er.... a 44% bonus to explosion radius? Realistically, the maximum precision bonus that you'd get is 25%. Plus you have the option to fit a second painter - or none at all.
I dunno, the precision bonus is simpler and less incongruous, but the painter strength bonus is more variable and offers more tactical options. I quite like it. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
853
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 17:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:The other thing I really do think you need to do is add a fuel bay. All capitals(minus Orca cause Orca) have one, and the only other T2 BS class does as well. Doesn't have to be a huge bay, but a bay. 50 stront/Cycle? Bay holding up to 250 or something.
As quickly as this class has fallen into the 'Mini Dread' classification, it really should follow the same 'siege' mechanics, aka need fuel. This fuel need also adds layers to the strategic Value(or lack thereof) of fielding these over say, a standard BS fleet.
A damage increase in Bastion would be nice too, since they are also following the 'can't be remote supported by anything' route.
They're not mini dreads, which is why they don't have these things. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
855
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 09:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
marVLs wrote:What's the sense of keeping TP bonus on Golem when You (CCP) planning to bring new modules for missiles  srly who will use TP when he can fit tracking computer (for missiles) module?
Presumably for the same reasons that people choose to fit a painter over a TC when using turrets - ignoring the multiple modules and stacking argument, that is.
The skilled painter gives a bigger bonus to tracking than a tracking-scripted TC (37.5% (or 40% for a 20 mill RF one) and 30%), but ofc the TC has the option of the range script. If a missile guidance computer follows this path then it'll give less to precision than a painter, but have an option for a script to increase missile velocity or flight time. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
877
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 14:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Ager Agemo wrote:so a dominix is still better than any marauder for making isk, and for fleets? why is it so hard to just turn marauders into marauders and make them oversized HACs?
bastion is a death sentence in fleets, no one is going to use them on true fleets. That's the point though. They're intended to be solo ships, which makes them niche in pvp.
They're hardly solo ships, they're much more like small gang ships. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
895
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 15:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
This thread makes a pretty convincing argument that highsec incursions were a mistake. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
907
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 13:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
Daishan Auergni wrote:
The new command ship / mindlinks and new marauders will let me field MORE dps with the same logi. Is that trolling? Over 100 billion isk to date... is that stupid?
Wasting your valuable online time grinding ISK that you don't need? Er, yes? |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
921
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 08:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
The Djego wrote:consider marauder 5 as wasted SP and calling it a day.
If you use Marauders every day, then Marauders V wasn't a waste of skill points. |
| |
|