|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Wizzard117
Viziam
Amarr Empire
2
   |
Posted - 2013.08.29 20:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
2 cents
Default movement modes (warping, flying, jumping) does not require any fuel, but every other special movement type (siege mode etc.) does
Bastion mode is not a default way marauders fly, so for the sake of consistence it should consume some resources whether it's heavy water or ozone or whatever else
Adding extra fuel bay is a way to go |
Wizzard117
Viziam
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 21:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Another 2 cents
I'd rebalance Bastion module and make it depend on Bastion Trasnformerthingie skill even more like
+4% armor, shield and hull resistance per level (since 4% resistance bonus/lvl is a current standard bonus)
+2.5% to turret optimal and faloff per lvl (somewhat balancing with different turret types)
+5% to turrent tracking per lvl (to keep up with optimal/faloff bonuses)
+5% to missile flight time (since velocity bonus is already a Golem's bonus)
+2.5% to missile explosion radius (which on lvl5 will almost equal T1 rigor rig, is the only one missile damage application bonus left thus making it on par with CNR)
+5% cycle reduction on Bastion module activation per lvl
EDIT:
+15% to effectiveness of shield and armor repairers per lvl
and mb even up to
+20% chance of neutralizing enemy ewar attempt (so training this skill to lvl5 makes it ewar immune) |
Wizzard117
Viziam
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.04 17:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Golem's web bonus is bad and illogical bcuz
1. Golem already have expl velocity bonus which somewhat helps to apply damage against fast targets. Do not really need a 2nd bonus of the same group
2. Cruise missiles can fly quite a long even with all4 skills and hit their targets for equal dmg regardless of the actual distance to them. However webs works in close range compared to that so that benefits only close range combat. Does not benefit the cruise setup that much.
3. We may not always want to shoot at close targets, we sometimes may want to let our light drones do the job without wasting ammo and without extra web micro. With the skills, drones may even kill a bunch of targets faster than {ammo_recharge,target_painter,webifier} modules cycle.
4. It looks a little bit better in a torpedo Golem, but
- torpedo Golem looks for a close fight
- with proposed speed nerf I believe even carriers can easily keep Golem at range of 50 km, and theres no way it can jump close enough to fire torpedoes. To approach Golem will have to use AB and be slower than every other BS with AB, or fit and MWD and be slower than an average frigate with no propulsion module at all or any cruiser with AB |
Wizzard117
Viziam
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 20:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
How to rebalance marauders, Wizz style ^^
Version 1
Role: specialized to work under "unsafe" conditions. Can do stuff in PvE due to damage application bonuses.
Role bonus:
100% to damage
25% damage absorbed by overheating modules
25% reduction to nanite paste consumption while repairing modules
20% bonus to modules repair speed while using nanite paste
Racial BS skill bonuses (both indirect damage application of primary weapon system)
+7.5% expl radius
+7.5% expl velocity
or
+7.5% tracking speed to respective turret type
+5% faloff and optimal
Marauders skill bonuses
+7.5% primary tanking type boost amount
+5% bonus to overheated module primary effect *
*Non-overheated AB gives for example 200m/s, overheated 250, overheated with Marauders5 200+(250-200)*(1+0.05*5) = 262.5
Fits into: survivability in hostile space. Requires a careful selection of what to overheat and when thus requires high piloting skills. t2 resist profile and repair bonus, making it imba sustainable tank, but intentionally left prone to alpha
CCP, tell me u just didn't said u have not enough imagination ^^ |
Wizzard117
Viziam
Amarr Empire
10
|
Posted - 2013.09.30 16:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
ok, I'm done posting any feedback cuz CCP just made everyone look stupid
- first revision happened, got feedback
- based on this we got 2nd revision
- and a feedback for that 2nd revision
- based on this we have reverted to first one
- and we're going to put this on SiSi asap
- to get some feedback on 1st revision
- again
220+ pages (most active ship rebalance topic for quite some time) seemed to be completely ignored |
|
|
| |
|