EVE Search - Sticky:[Winter] Marauder rebalancing

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Winter] Marauder rebalancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 263 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 30 post(s)
CanI haveyourstuff Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 40	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:16:00 - [1801] - Quote Battle Cube wrote: Or will non-bastion mode be purposely unbalanced (nerfed) because of the possibility of fitting bastion ? problably that... it's the CCP way of doing things. and yeah as someone said, "MARAUDER" name does not fit if you want to make it into tiny cap ship. Give them god damn tank already, more dps, more everything, more sensor str.. make them worth pvp ships, they are T2 battleships for eff sake.. "MARAUDERSSSSS" mmaaarrraaauuudddeerrrssssss ?!?!?! hello? :D make them wanted, make them worth 1bil+, make them pvp choise no1.
Nano Quantum School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 7	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:19:00 - [1802] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Ewersmen wrote: Marauder for pvp lol The tank on all marauders is bad ....we don't need a new mode ..just increase the tank ...I fly a golem and I know you have to find the line between tank and dps . But should I have to find the line ..Its a t2 bs for god sake make the awesome ....not a transformer . They did buff the tank... The base tank was nerfed making them more likely to be alpha'd, but the tank on marauders was hardly what was holding them back for pvp.T2 resists would have been welcomed in any case and should be considered to offset of the base tank decrease. The base sensor strength of the ships staying the same is also a huge ???they ought to be made on par with T1 base hulls at the very least.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 2681	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:23:00 - [1803] - Quote Battle Cube wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Josilin du Guesclin wrote: Battle Cube wrote: when i speak casually of "dps" i mean applied dps. We realise it is better at projecting its dps, but it has a lower dps Cap if you are in the correct range with a higher dps ship, you dont have as much projection, but you are still applying more dps because you are in your shorter range. For example, a vindi has very high paper dps but poor projection.... so it moves into position to apply its dps. So you Can apply more dps in a ship with less projection. At range you wont apply it, and better projection would be better dps, but thats why we move to the correct range Of course, moving into range takes time, time during which your DPS is poor. Also, we're talking about applied DPS, which is not merely about range, but about landing damage. The Marauders have those nice tracking, explosion velocity, and/or painter bloom bonuses, which mean that any time the target is difficult to hit due to size, transversal, or velocity, the marauders' applied DPS is higher than that from a comparable battleship. What's more, if the marauders' hull bonuses are sufficient to allow good applied DPS without tracking mods or painters, well that frees up fitting for other things. Exactly. This is also why a Machariel kills things faster than a Malestrom even when their dps numbers are similar or a Navy Raven kills faster than the other missile battleships despite having "the same dps". This is a very major disconnect between what happens in game and what people say on the forums. it's a major reason why people's predictions about how ships will perform tend to be wrong. DPS isn't just only a guideline it's usually a MISLEADING indicator. a machariel has higher "paper" dps then a maelstrom...... Easy test then. Take of damage mods from the mach till it matches the maelstroms dps (replace those damage mods with whatever you like). Than take both DPS nomalized ships into some kind of pve content. Record which on STILL kills things faster. Hint, it's name starts with M and ends with achariel.
Zeus Maximo Mentally Assured Destruction 421	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:24:00 - [1804] - Quote So the marauder can now be deemed worthless to pvp? minus drone bay minus webs minus sensor strength minus HP minus ability to move with its bonus(What fool fights a fight sitting at zero speed?) In the future I picture a brand new category being brought to the market labeled PVE SHIPS. Marauders will be the first type in there and their name will have no relation to their actual purpose.
Battle Cube Cubes' Freakout Room. 28	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:27:00 - [1805] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Battle Cube wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Josilin du Guesclin wrote: Battle Cube wrote: when i speak casually of "dps" i mean applied dps. We realise it is better at projecting its dps, but it has a lower dps Cap if you are in the correct range with a higher dps ship, you dont have as much projection, but you are still applying more dps because you are in your shorter range. For example, a vindi has very high paper dps but poor projection.... so it moves into position to apply its dps. So you Can apply more dps in a ship with less projection. At range you wont apply it, and better projection would be better dps, but thats why we move to the correct range Of course, moving into range takes time, time during which your DPS is poor. Also, we're talking about applied DPS, which is not merely about range, but about landing damage. The Marauders have those nice tracking, explosion velocity, and/or painter bloom bonuses, which mean that any time the target is difficult to hit due to size, transversal, or velocity, the marauders' applied DPS is higher than that from a comparable battleship. What's more, if the marauders' hull bonuses are sufficient to allow good applied DPS without tracking mods or painters, well that frees up fitting for other things. Exactly. This is also why a Machariel kills things faster than a Malestrom even when their dps numbers are similar or a Navy Raven kills faster than the other missile battleships despite having "the same dps". This is a very major disconnect between what happens in game and what people say on the forums. it's a major reason why people's predictions about how ships will perform tend to be wrong. DPS isn't just only a guideline it's usually a MISLEADING indicator. a machariel has higher "paper" dps then a maelstrom...... Easy test then. Take of damage mods from the mach till it matches the maelstroms dps (replace those damage mods with whatever you like). Than take both DPS nomalized ships into some kind of pve content. Record which on STILL kills things faster. Hint, it's name starts with M and ends with achariel. yeah, lets assume we have 2 ships with exactly the same dps, and one has better projection. At equal ranges yes the higher projection one will do better, and there is no advantage in using the lower projection ship . But if you have the lower projection one have even a small amount more 'paper' dps, and you move closer then the projection ship, and all of a sudden you can do more damage. But we arent talking about a small amount of dps, we are talking about a significant amount of dps on ships whos projection is not terrible Yes! We understand that at the same range, better projection means better dps - but given many situations if you want the max applied damage, you will find it is possible(you will FIND A WAY) to get a ship in their proper range even if lower projection. Incursions are a fantastic example. 1400machs are great projection ships, but vindis and nightmares are preferred due to higher 'paper' dps. The fleet even has a special anchoring spot for the close range ships called the vindi anchor, and the good pilots move themselves.
Nano Quantum School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 7	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:30:00 - [1806] - Quote Zeus Maximo wrote: So the marauder can now be deemed worthless to pvp? minus drone bay minus webs minus sensor strength minus HP minus ability to move with its bonus(What fool fights a fight sitting at zero speed?) In the future I picture a brand new category being brought to the market labeled PVE SHIPS. Marauders will be the first type in there and their name will have no relation to their actual purpose. To be fair sensor strength was left alone not that is a good thing or maybe it is.....what I mean is the nerfs could have been worse for out of bastion mode just to make them balanced when they are in bastion mode.....
Onictus Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension 436	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:30:00 - [1807] - Quote Zeus Maximo wrote: So the marauder can now be deemed worthless to pvp? minus drone bay minus webs minus sensor strength minus HP minus ability to move with its bonus(What fool fights a fight sitting at zero speed?) In the future I picture a brand new category being brought to the market labeled PVE SHIPS. Marauders will be the first type in there and their name will have no relation to their actual purpose. But they can become EWAR immune.....and immobile at the same time
Zeus Maximo Mentally Assured Destruction 421	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:33:00 - [1808] - Quote Onictus wrote: Zeus Maximo wrote: So the marauder can now be deemed worthless to pvp? minus drone bay minus webs minus sensor strength minus HP minus ability to move with its bonus(What fool fights a fight sitting at zero speed?) In the future I picture a brand new category being brought to the market labeled PVE SHIPS. Marauders will be the first type in there and their name will have no relation to their actual purpose. But they can become EWAR immune.....and immobile at the same time Very logical..... I say this sarcastically. What is easier to hit? A moving target or a stationary one? Why jam something if it can't move to stay on top of its target to point/web it? This ship was made purely for PVE. PVP with these ships until winter.... Then retire them.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 94	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:40:00 - [1809] - Quote Zeus Maximo wrote: I don't recall mission runners having trouble tanking missions. Only reason for this buff that I can think of is that missions are about to be made harder. Could someone please explain to me how these changes are positive in a PVP aspect. -No 90% web = can't lock down target -In siege = can't move = no transversal = can't chase target running away -Used for POS shoots = Raven Navy has 400 more dps This is missions, targets don't run away. No one ever said this was intended for POS shooting, some player came up with that idea and everyone ran with it despite there being better things for the job (like an actual fleet setup) and a single ship shooting a POS taking ~14 hours to kill it. You can still lock down a target, you just need 2 webs rather than 1. Ager Agemo wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Are you familiar with "dread blapping"? yes I do, we used to do that In a WH corp I was at before. Lokis would hold the sleepers for the revelations and moros to disintegrate said sleepers. Then you should understand why CCP aren't going to give you a damage bonus for Bastion Mode. [quote=Ager Agemo]I m... and doesn't it strikes you as weird, that a simple super cheap T1 drone battleship, makes more isk per click AFK than an active combat T2 super expensive battleship? Unless you're worried about wearing out your mouse stop saying Isk per click if you mean isk per time unit.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 95	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:47:00 - [1810] - Quote Ravasta Helugo wrote: What about if we take it in the other direction: Bastion's range bonus makes blapping NPC's at range no problem, but what about closer NPC's that already have a little traversal built up? I think Bastion should confer a 25-30% Tracking/Exp Velocity bonus as well. I think this fits the damage application theme, without turning it into a Dread Blapper. The risk there is putting too much damage application on a single module. I agree that the tank ability combine with a focus on long range combat has a bit of a dichotomy to it but I'm not sure I like the idea of a holy-trifecta of range/tank/tracking either. Nano Quantum wrote: Q. Will bastion module/mode have a re-activation cool down? I did not read mention of it in the OP just the activation on time. Will there be capacitor use associated with activating it and running it or will the now stated no activation cost other than fittings stay? Assume no because none is stated, nor does any other siege module have one. For the second bit you'll find out if it changes when the rest of us do. Nano Quantum wrote: My current view is that the current plan of no capacitor and fuel costs stay as well as the plan to make that a separate new skill to learn. If anything i think the length of time on bastion mode at max skills is a bit high. Is there a chance that it be be say 45 seconds at max skills for it. Given that the weapons times limits one ability to dock or gate jump it should not matter at 45 seconds to run the risk of the ships becoming actual marauders. You missed the bit where there's no new skill anymore and it's a flat 60 seconds. You have to train a rank 5 science skill to 4. Also stop focusing on the definition of the ship name. They're called Marauders because it sounded cool, not because that's what they're balanced against.

Jasmine Assasin State War Academy Caldari State 25	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:51:00 - [1811] - Quote I don't think anybody actually said they would only use one of these to do a 14 hour POS bash. I think most people would take more than one. Or use these to supplement a normal fleet. What I imagine happening is using a group of these to take down POS defenses before the "main body" arrives to RF the tower. Especially in hisec where you can't have dreadnaughts.
baltec1 Bat Country 7797	Posted - 2013.09.03 18:52:00 - [1812] - Quote Zeus Maximo wrote: So the marauder can now be deemed worthless to pvp? minus drone bay minus webs minus sensor strength minus HP minus ability to move with its bonus(What fool fights a fight sitting at zero speed?) In the future I picture a brand new category being brought to the market labeled PVE SHIPS. Marauders will be the first type in there and their name will have no relation to their actual purpose. I dont tend to use drones in pvp anyway I dont use webs on any of my mega Its not that far from other battleships I have flown mega with less ehp these can get Every cap ship, hic, most snipers, many fleets, me when whacking things with blasters in antimatter range.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 95	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:00:00 - [1813] - Quote Jasmine Assasin wrote: I don't think anybody actually said they would only use one of these to do a 14 hour POS bash. I think most people would take more than one. Or use these to supplement a normal fleet. What I imagine happening is using a group of these to take down POS defenses before the "main body" arrives to RF the tower. Especially in hisec where you can't have dreadnaughts. For the same ISK cost and pilot SP you could bring enough logistics to take down a tower and more DPS. The only way these end up at all better is if you somehow forget to bring ECCM to kill an ECM fit POS.
Zeus Maximo Mentally Assured Destruction 423	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:09:00 - [1814] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: [ This is missions, targets don't run away. No one ever said this was intended for POS shooting, some player came up with that idea and everyone ran with it despite there being better things for the job (like an actual fleet setup) and a single ship shooting a POS taking ~14 hours to kill it. You can still lock down a target, you just need 2 webs rather than 1. You ran with the idea that I would shoot one by myself.... Also it's easy to burn away from a target that can't move. We all know 1 web won't stop a ship from getting back to a gate and how do you propose fitting 2 webs on these ships? Remove capbooster from an active tank? Get rid of propulsion? Very interested to here your "easy fix" response. baltec1 wrote: I dont tend to use drones in pvp anyway I dont use webs on any of my mega Its not that far from other battleships I have flown mega with less ehp these can get Every cap ship, hic, most snipers, many fleets, me when whacking things with blasters in antimatter range. Not smart Can't track Its' worse Poor fit If you can't move, how do plan on keeping a sniper in point range? A sniper isn't going to snipe from 20k and stay there to get shot? I am talking pvp here, not a PVE expert trying to PVP.
Xer Jin Sky Fighters 73	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:16:00 - [1815] - Quote these are all horibad changes to the marauders ITS A TECH 2 BS. they should be better than pirate BS your nerfing speed they should be faster. your nerfing dps they should hit the hardest (especially if you want them to truly be mini dreads ). they should have the best resists LIKE ALL OTHER T2 SHIPS. they need better cap again like all T2 this is just plain bad wrong and stupid. there are more ppl in this thread saying NO and much less saying yes if you're going to balance ships make sure it scales up not up half way along the t2 ships and then come crashing down with the most expensive class of ships in the t2 line this is a BIG NERF they are way too over tanked and under dpsed.
baltec1 Bat Country 7799	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:20:00 - [1816] - Quote Zeus Maximo wrote: baltec1 wrote: I dont tend to use drones in pvp anyway I dont use webs on any of my mega Its not that far from other battleships I have flown mega with less ehp these can get Every cap ship, hic, most snipers, many fleets, me when whacking things with blasters in antimatter range. Not smart Can't track Its' worse Poor fit If you can't move, how do plan on keeping a sniper in point range? A sniper isn't going to snipe from 20k and stay there to get shot? I am talking pvp here, not a PVE expert trying to PVP. I dont need them so why would I bother? Most times I take a flight of med armour repair or smalls. I track things just fine. And? Only if you are a poor pilot. Theres a reason theres a fleet named after me. There are things called freinds, you should try them they come in handy.
Battle Cube Cubes' Freakout Room. 28	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:23:00 - [1817] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Zeus Maximo wrote: baltec1 wrote: I dont tend to use drones in pvp anyway I dont use webs on any of my mega Its not that far from other battleships I have flown mega with less ehp these can get Every cap ship, hic, most snipers, many fleets, me when whacking things with blasters in antimatter range. Not smart Can't track Its' worse Poor fit If you can't move, how do plan on keeping a sniper in point range? A sniper isn't going to snipe from 20k and stay there to get shot? I am talking pvp here, not a PVE expert trying to PVP. I dont need them so why would I bother? Most times I take a flight of med armour repair or smalls. I track things just fine. And? Only if you are a poor pilot. Theres a reason theres a fleet named after me. There are things called freinds, you should try them they come in handy. so you would have support with you? like.... i dont know.... logistics? Sounds useful for a ship that blocks rr. I mean, im not a huge pvper, so i may be wrong, but i would probably want logi if i were bringing support
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 96	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:24:00 - [1818] - Quote Zeus Maximo wrote: You ran with the idea that I would shoot one by myself.... Also it's easy to burn away from a target that can't move. We all know 1 web won't stop a ship from getting back to a gate and how do you propose fitting 2 webs on these ships? Remove capbooster from an active tank? Get rid of propulsion? Very interested to hear your "easy fix" response. The ships that lost the web bonus are armor ships anyway, they have spare mids. 4 of them to be exact. You certainly have to made trade-offs if you want to fit a second web, but that's the nature of the game. If 1 web isn't enough to stop someone from burning back to a gate and escaping then you should have brought more DPS. Zeus Maximo wrote: Not smart Can't track Its' worse Poor fit If you can't move, how do plan on keeping a sniper in point range? A sniper isn't going to snipe from 20k and stay there to get shot? I am talking pvp here, not a PVE expert trying to PVP. No one said these things were supposed to be great solo PvP ships. It says 'Niche PvP role' right there in the opening post. Not 'PvP god-kings of ownage'.
baltec1 Bat Country 7799	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:28:00 - [1819] - Quote Battle Cube wrote: baltec1 wrote: Zeus Maximo wrote: baltec1 wrote: I dont tend to use drones in pvp anyway I dont use webs on any of my mega Its not that far from other battleships I have flown mega with less ehp these can get Every cap ship, hic, most snipers, many fleets, me when whacking things with blasters in antimatter range. Not smart Can't track Its' worse Poor fit If you can't move, how do plan on keeping a sniper in point range? A sniper isn't going to snipe from 20k and stay there to get shot? I am talking pvp here, not a PVE expert trying to PVP. I dont need them so why would I bother? Most times I take a flight of med armour repair or smalls. I track things just fine. And? Only if you are a poor pilot. Theres a reason theres a fleet named after me. There are things called freinds, you should try them they come in handy. so you would have support with you? like.... i dont know.... logistics? Sounds useful for a ship that blocks rr. I mean, im not a huge pvper, so i may be wrong, but i would probably want logi if i were bringing support Dictors, tackle, ect. I would take a kronos out with cruiser gangs and the like as either bait, sniper or scorched earth blaster fit.
Ravasta Helugo Republic University Minmatar Republic 22	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:28:00 - [1820] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Ravasta Helugo wrote: What about if we take it in the other direction: Bastion's range bonus makes blapping NPC's at range no problem, but what about closer NPC's that already have a little traversal built up? I think Bastion should confer a 25-30% Tracking/Exp Velocity bonus as well. I think this fits the damage application theme, without turning it into a Dread Blapper. The risk there is putting too much damage application on a single module. I agree that the tank ability combine with a focus on long range combat has a bit of a dichotomy to it but I'm not sure I like the idea of a holy-trifecta of range/tank/tracking either. There are four points on the square, the last being damage modification. That is deliberately absent- and I think we can agree it should be. That absence means that an increase in application, not just projection, wouldn't be excessive. I'd argue that it would compliment the theme of this new ship beautifully. The ship's theoretical maximum DPS would stay the same, but the ability to project and apply that DPS increases greatly in Bastion Mode. It makes sense, doesn't it?

Caleb Seremshur Angel of War Game 0f Tears 61	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:30:00 - [1821] - Quote Marauders as subcap dreqds was always a bad idea. It disgusts me to see CCP soothing the bleating lambs by giving them a ship better in places it didn't need improving and worse in every other way. Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread --- Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3503687&#post3503687 ----á for FW rebalance in 2013
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 96	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:31:00 - [1822] - Quote Xer Jin wrote: redacted to avoid quoting a rant-post They are better than Pirate Battleships, at tanking and damage projection and they do have good resists, just not as good as smaller T2 ships (no T2 Battleship has full resist bonuses). Not all T2 ships have significantly better capacitor, also these fit half the guns of most ships which is a major cap savings. T2 is not supposed to be strictly better than pirate or faction. (from this dev-blog)
Battle Cube Cubes' Freakout Room. 28	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:36:00 - [1823] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: Xer Jin wrote: redacted to avoid quoting a rant-post They are better than Pirate Battleships, at tanking and damage projection and they do have good resists, just not as good as smaller T2 ships (no T2 Battleship has full resist bonuses). Not all T2 ships have significantly better capacitor, also these fit half the guns of most ships which is a major cap savings. T2 is not supposed to be strictly better than pirate or faction. (from this dev-blog) they are worse in every scenario of usage, regardless of an individual quality.
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 96	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:37:00 - [1824] - Quote Battle Cube wrote: they are worse in every scenario of usage, regardless of an individual quality. Personally I disagree. Several other people seem to agree with me. You are welcome to post proof and supporting evidence (preferably with exact numbers rather than eyeballed estimates) as this can only help the re-balancing process. It's also worth noting that however these turn out the Pirate Battleships and Black-Ops Battleships are going to be balanced against these (possibly at the same time, we don't know what else is coming for Winter). This means the former are likely to get a nerf at the top end and a buff at the low end. The Black-Ops class is probably in for a re-work. CCP talked before about splitting the class into combat and support roles so it'll be interesting to see if that holds up. Ravasta Helugo wrote: There are four points on the square, the last being damage modification. That is deliberately absent- and I think we can agree it should be. That absence means that an increase in application, not just projection, wouldn't be excessive. I'd argue that it would compliment the theme of this new ship beautifully. The ship's theoretical maximum DPS would stay the same, but the ability to project and apply that DPS increases greatly in Bastion Mode. It makes sense, doesn't it? I'd be somewhat interested in what square you're talking about. I would say these ships are trading a little raw damage (they're still pretty high DPS) and mobility for overall heavier tank and better damage application along with pretty nice base ship stats. The Bastion further expands this with more tank and more damage projection at the expense of mobility. The reason I would argue we don't need damage application is because this frees up module slots for things like Tracking Computers, Target Painters, Tracking Enhancers, ect. With the addition of a tracking bonus this would still be true but you could get rather ridiculous tracking out of the ship and potentially make it too much of a threat to smaller ship classes in PvP.
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5748	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:41:00 - [1825] - Quote "Marauders are going to be useless for PVE/PVP!" Except I can think of how amazing a Kronos would be running Guristas sanctums, or how great these ships would be in an elite "Top-Gun" style skirmish doctrine. My Youtube Channel Latest video: August 25, 2013
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 96	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:43:00 - [1826] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: "Marauders are going to be useless for PVE/PVP!" Except I can think of how amazing a Kronos would be running Guristas sanctums, or how great these ships would be in an elite "Top-Gun" style skirmish doctrine. These ships have never been focused on mobility, if you want a "Skirmish Doctrine" then I suggest A-HAC gangs.
Jenn aSide STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries 2682	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:44:00 - [1827] - Quote Battle Cube wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Xer Jin wrote: redacted to avoid quoting a rant-post They are better than Pirate Battleships, at tanking and damage projection and they do have good resists, just not as good as smaller T2 ships (no T2 Battleship has full resist bonuses). Not all T2 ships have significantly better capacitor, also these fit half the guns of most ships which is a major cap savings. T2 is not supposed to be strictly better than pirate or faction. (from this dev-blog) they are worse in every scenario of usage, regardless of an individual quality. if the marauder is the BEST at doing something.... what does it matter if its drawbacks make it so it would be more EFFECTIVE to use another ship in that scenario? Might as well have a pickaxe thats lighter and easier to swing then any other - but shatters when it hits rock. Oh yeah, its best in one catagory... The bolded part is untrue. You wanna take a pirate ship other than the Rattlesnake into a DED 10/10 solo?
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1187	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:45:00 - [1828] - Quote Xequecal wrote: Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: -anoms? -no, bastion or not 13 Sensor makes it a joke still -structure grind? -maybe for lols and giggles -can it be done well/better in Vindi or Navy Mega? -sure -what's the point of this ship for while in null? -none except trying bastion stuff -can you fly it?- yes -do you fly it and where?- no way I waste a penny for, already wasted training time and isk in skills, that's enough! -would you fly it if current version hits TQ and where? -nope -what is this ship worth for in your opinion? -high sec PVE and POS shooting -Why am I even posting? -duno, maybe because I can What the hell does sensor strength have to do with anom running? It's completely irrelevant unless you're shooting rats that jam and bastion gives you EW immunity anyways so you don't have to care about jams. Locking speed is determined by scan resolution and 120 scan res is not a bad number for a battleship. The Vindicator has 100, for comparison. Yes please explain me more about Guristas null sec rating with uber Marauders with bastion module. That really makes all the difference and interesting indeed. removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
baltec1 Bat Country 7802	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:48:00 - [1829] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: "Marauders are going to be useless for PVE/PVP!" Except I can think of how amazing a Kronos would be running Guristas sanctums, or how great these ships would be in an elite "Top-Gun" style skirmish doctrine. These ships have never been focused on mobility, if you want a "Skirmish Doctrine" then I suggest A-HAC gangs. Megathrons wern't built for frigate gangs either but I fly in them non the less. The kronos will do just fine with skirmish fleets.
Ralph King-Griffin Var Foundation inc. 5	Posted - 2013.09.03 19:56:00 - [1830] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: James Amril-Kesh wrote: "Marauders are going to be useless for PVE/PVP!" Except I can think of how amazing a Kronos would be running Guristas sanctums, or how great these ships would be in an elite "Top-Gun" style skirmish doctrine. These ships have never been focused on mobility, if you want a "Skirmish Doctrine" then I suggest A-HAC gangs. Megathrons wern't built for frigate gangs either but I fly in them non the less. The kronos will do just fine with skirmish fleets. He gets it. If in doubt...do...excessively.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 263 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.