Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
502
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 18:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote: Which is still likely more than you've seen any NM/Vindi fleets or even ships used in PvP.
I've flow a vindi in PvP. Unfortunately our cyno got popped and I actually missed the fight that time. Which is to say, you've flown a Vindi once in PvP, but you didn't even get to fight. On the other hand you've flown in more than one Machariel fleet, and I've heard nothing about PvP Nightmares.
By all means though, link some battle reports of all of the mach fleets that are roaming all over tearing up the universe.
Bet you don't find one that is much more than a gank, because they may be faster than battlecruises, they have less tank. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
680
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 19:36:00 -
[92] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote: Which is still likely more than you've seen any NM/Vindi fleets or even ships used in PvP.
I've flow a vindi in PvP. Unfortunately our cyno got popped and I actually missed the fight that time. Which is to say, you've flown a Vindi once in PvP, but you didn't even get to fight. On the other hand you've flown in more than one Machariel fleet, and I've heard nothing about PvP Nightmares. By all means though, link some battle reports of all of the mach fleets that are roaming all over tearing up the universe. Bet you don't find one that is much more than a gank, because they may be faster than battlecruises, they have less tank.
The pricetag that is not supposed to be a balance factor might have something to do with those ships not seeing THAT much use but that does not eman they are good/bad/OP/UP. With all the people waying null is super dangerous with the risk of "hotdrop o'clock" happening, maybe people don;t want to go around in 1bill fitted ships even if they good. |
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Angry Mustellid
369
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 22:09:00 -
[93] - Quote
Onictus wrote:By all means though, link some battle reports of all of the mach fleets that are roaming all over tearing up the universe.
Bet you don't find one that is much more than a gank, because they may be faster than battlecruises, they have less tank.
Wait have I just been imagining Snuff Box for all these years? Capital Shop temporarily closed. |
Angsty Teenager
Broski North Black Legion.
177
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 03:05:00 -
[94] - Quote
I hate people who claim ships need to be nerfed because they can't use their brain to determine the weaknesses of the ship and then exploit them.
Literally makes me so mad.
The mach is one of the most balanced ships in the game that fulfills it's role, doesn't need a buff, and doesn't need a nerf. It is strong when used in the hands of a competent player, and utterly terrible when used by somebody who doesn't have a brain, exactly how it should be.
There are no good reasons to nerf it.
It's not that fast, battlecruisers are the same speed, it's fine to have a battleship that goes BC speeds, why not? It's not like it can't be easily caught by virtually all ships being flown nowadays. (All frigs, all cruisers, all HAC's) The only thing that can't catch it is another battleship, lol. And please don't whine about it's linked speed, that has nothing to do with the ship itself.
It's not tanky, it has t1 resists and it's not really feasible to run an active shield tank to a great degree of effectiveness due to the fact that you can only have two mid slots to tank with and even then you don't have enough cap to burn your MWD and use the booster.
It's damage application is not good. People look at EFT and say OMG SO GOOD DAMAGE, 900dps at 50km, but apparently nobody understands how falloff actually works, and don't understand how big the role of tracking is in actual damage application (the mach's tracking is pretty bad, just fyi).
In short the mach can easily be destroyed by any competent player. You really shouldn't be expecting to solo it in a talos, but it's quite easy to take down with two ships, or one ship that exploits it's weaknesses (cap life, reliance on an MWD, low tracking, low tank).
For example, just a couple days ago I was killing a mach, and would have killed it had his friend not warped in with a vigilant and webbed me so the mach could track me. It's laughable that people call nerf on ships that barely get flown in the first place. Doesn't make sense. If machs were being flown left and right and owning evreything, sure, but they AREN'T in either respect. |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 03:19:00 -
[95] - Quote
Angsty Teenager wrote:
There are no good reasons to nerf it.
You can down play the Mach as much as you want (I agree to a certain extent) but that still doesn't change the fact that it is better than almost all other ships in it's class. No amount of morons trying to cruise solo in a BS makes up for the fact that it is better when used properly than the other Pirate BS's.
Now if you think the other pirate BS's should be buffed up to the Mach's level than I can get behind that but you can't honestly think the Nightmare is on the same level as the Mach right now. |
Goldensaver
Personal Defense LtD.
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 03:31:00 -
[96] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Angsty Teenager wrote:
There are no good reasons to nerf it.
You can down play the Mach as much as you want (I agree to a certain extent) but that still doesn't change the fact that it is better than almost all other ships in it's class. No amount of morons trying to cruise solo in a BS makes up for the fact that it is better when used properly than the other Pirate BS's. Now if you think the other pirate BS's should be buffed up to the Mach's level than I can get behind that but you can't honestly think the Nightmare is on the same level as the Mach right now.
Hell, I'm not really putting an opinion as to whether it should be nerfed or not, really. This is basically what I keep saying. Earlier on page 5 a whole discussion started because someone stupid said "if you nerf the Mach then nerf the NM and Vindi!"
That really doesn't make much sense. The Mach is simply better than the other two, so I don't see the sense in that. I don't fly the Mach. I've considered it, but I don't. I can't argue for nerfs too much. I can complain about things, but it's largely/completely unfounded. I'm just getting sick of people arguing that the other pirate BS's are on par with the Mach.
The Vindi's good, but not quite as great. The Bhaalgorn? It has its uses. The NM and Rattler? Yeah, I wouldn't PvP in them. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
503
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 04:50:00 -
[97] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:Angsty Teenager wrote:
There are no good reasons to nerf it.
You can down play the Mach as much as you want (I agree to a certain extent) but that still doesn't change the fact that it is better than almost all other ships in it's class. No amount of morons trying to cruise solo in a BS makes up for the fact that it is better when used properly than the other Pirate BS's. Now if you think the other pirate BS's should be buffed up to the Mach's level than I can get behind that but you can't honestly think the Nightmare is on the same level as the Mach right now.
Whoa wait, better how....and for what?
NC. Is running rattler fleets as a main doctrine. Vindi was war deccer candy for a long long time......not sure if they still use them.
So yeah mach can be fast, so what. It doesn't push the dps of vindi or nightmare, doesnt have the tank of any of them.....it just goes fast.
ZOMG ZOMG NERF!!!!!!!!
Pathetic. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 11:01:00 -
[98] - Quote
Slaved Lovechild wrote:Got it it's way better than the Maelstrom. I don't think you'll get any argument to that. The Mach is also over a billion ISK. Of course it's better!... If it wasn't why would anyone pay that. By some posters logic the navy version of the Hurricane is OP. How about T3 cruisers...
Anyways this is all moot because it's just rumor till it's announced by CCP. The Mach was already nerfed and I don't see any major nerf happening.
It's way better than a Vargur too, except in lack range and active tank, and it has such a massive extra PG it's not funny.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
506
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 12:53:00 -
[99] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Slaved Lovechild wrote:Got it it's way better than the Maelstrom. I don't think you'll get any argument to that. The Mach is also over a billion ISK. Of course it's better!... If it wasn't why would anyone pay that. By some posters logic the navy version of the Hurricane is OP. How about T3 cruisers...
Anyways this is all moot because it's just rumor till it's announced by CCP. The Mach was already nerfed and I don't see any major nerf happening. It's way better than a Vargur too, except in lack range and active tank, and it has such a massive extra PG it's not funny.
And maelstrom makes both of their available PG look like a joke.
That has anything to do with it....how? Other than Vagur sucks (good luck with that in F&I) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1447
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 13:19:00 -
[100] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Whoa wait, better how....and for what? - better for lvl4s because of selectable damage type, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for incursions because of higher alpha, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for small scale pvp because of selectable damage type, capless weapons, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for fleet pvp selectable damage type, higher alpha, higher scan resolution, speed and agility.
you're welcome.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
506
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 13:46:00 -
[101] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Onictus wrote:Whoa wait, better how....and for what? - better for lvl4s because of selectable damage type, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for incursions because of higher alpha, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for small scale pvp because of selectable damage type, capless weapons, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for fleet pvp selectable damage type, higher alpha, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. you're welcome.
- pretty debatable, I could run at the same pace with either a Domi or a CNR neither of which I have to chase ship to ship.....or do you use T2 barrage with everything? I don't because it sucks outside of angel missions. -Wrong the the incursion crew favors the Nightmare and Vindis for pretty much all things over vangards, and in vans Vargur/vindi is often better for their tracking and web bonuses respectively - Wrong again, it IS better as a nano battleship, because it is the best nano battleship, and to GET the speed numbers the neurosurgeons in this thread keep quoting you have to knock its eHP down to the around 70,000 eHP a well tanked battlecruiser. Not to mention with **** PERFECT cap and nav skills your cap lasts all of 1:45 without getting fancy with implants. So after fitting a point, MWDand CAP booster and point where do you put the tank pray tell? - So incorrect on that last one I won't even get started. I've lived in null for a couple years now ...y'know doing fleet stuff....and even though Goons had a mach doctrine I never actually saw them field it despite being in a war with them at the time. My OWN allaince(s) I have never seen "mach fleets" beyond the corp roam level with less than 20 main ships and an equal number of support.
I know NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1452
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 15:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
i'm done arguing with idiots for today. just one last thing: the fact that you personally never saw mach fleets has 0 impact on the question whether or not they are better fleet ships than vindicators.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Angsty Teenager
Broski North Black Legion.
177
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:01:00 -
[103] - Quote
Daniel Plain,
Regardless of how the mach performs in PVE (tbh I couldn't care less and if CCP is going to balance the game around PVE I'm literally going to shoot myself), it's really not evreything you claim it is for pvp.
Why don't you try joining some alliance dumb enough to let you take out a mach fleet and see how well it does. Fact of the matter is that the tornado can achieve the same thing for significantly less cost. The mach has terrible tank, terrible cap and will die so fast in a fleet fight it's not even funny. No reason not to use a tornado which DOES THE EXACT SAME THING.
Second, in a small gang pvp fight (which is arguably the strongest situation for the mach), the mach still suffers from terrible tracking. Capless weapons hardly matter when you have to burn your MWD constantly to avoid dying (because your tank is abysmal), and enjoy outtracking yourself with your MWD because AC's have bad tracking and you get no tracking bonus.
You stupid people on this forum are the reason this game is being homogenized. God forbid that the mach is a fast battleship unlike other battleships. What you want is for CCP to nerf it's speed to the speed of the vindi, and then fix it (because nobody will fly it after that change) so that it does the same dps as other BS's at close range.
WHOOPDEEDO now we can just have a bunch of battleships that are slow, boring and excel at tanking and doing damage within 20km. Goddamn I hate you. Like I said before, NOBODY EVEN FLIES THE MACH RIGHT NOW, WHY WOULD YOU NERF IT. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
363
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:18:00 -
[104] - Quote
Do you guys realise the devs themselves have said they believe it's overtuned and it's not just a big conspiracy/player hate?
Mind you they said the same thing with HML and well......I think I have some under the dust somewhere...
This isn't meant to be sarcastic, just this is one of the rarer ones where there's a Dev citation and not just rabblerabblerabble. |
Bastion Arzi
Dat Tax
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:20:00 -
[105] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Onictus wrote:Whoa wait, better how....and for what? - better for lvl4s because of selectable damage type, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for incursions because of higher alpha, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for small scale pvp because of selectable damage type, capless weapons, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. - better for fleet pvp selectable damage type, higher alpha, higher scan resolution, speed and agility. you're welcome.
the mach is meant to be fast hence its name
also selectable damage type still takes you 10 seconds to switch
If the mach is so good at small scale pvp how comes i only ever saw one in the few months i lived in null? and guess what ...it got blown up.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
506
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:25:00 -
[106] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Mind you they said the same thing with HML and well......I think I have some under the dust somewhere...
At the time of the HML nerf they were absolutely correct...... ......so they went and buffed the turret LR systems to were HMLs used to live, without giving HMLs the damage back.
Derp.
So now we have a red headed step-child. |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
853
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 16:28:00 -
[107] - Quote
Selectable damage types, plural, with an s. It always does kinetic, which half of New Eden is stacked against naturally.
Claiming that selectable damage types is a benefit in incursions is akin to saying "I don't know anything". Claiming that selectable damage types is an advantage in PvP when it ALWAYS does kinetic is more of the same.
The Mach rips Angels to shreds. Its par for the course against all else. Eve is Real |
Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
26
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 17:10:00 -
[108] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Selectable damage types, plural, with an s. It always does kinetic, which half of New Eden is stacked against naturally.
Claiming that selectable damage types is a benefit in incursions is akin to saying "I don't know anything". Claiming that selectable damage types is an advantage in PvP when it ALWAYS does kinetic is more of the same.
The Mach rips Angels to shreds. Its par for the course against all else.
Fly a laser boat. Projectiles are selectable damage type and it is a huge advantage in PvP and PvE. Try running a NM in anything besides Sansha/BR/Drones.
1. Mach - Very good boat. Either use it as the base for Pirate BS's or a very slight nerf to bring it to the Vindy's level 2. Vindy - Pretty close to the Mach but less versatile. Small buff if Mach stays the same. 3. Rattler - God tank and decent damage that applies well. Small buff in fitting or drone control range would be cool. 4. Bhaalgorn - Dominant at one very small thing and close to useless at everything else. 5. Nightmare - PvE in very specific parts of space and Incursions are all you see it doing. Not sure exactly what it needs though.
This pretty much works for all the pirate ship lines. Switch out the Mach for the Cynabal and etc. Similar complaints down the line except the Sansha ships stop even being useful for PvE. |
Marcus Walkuris
Aww yeahhh
17
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:00:00 -
[109] - Quote
I'll say it again cause no one else seems to. The rattler being a drone boat does not deserve to be in the slowest speed category, especially considering it has only 4 launchers. There is no tracking increase from kiting, and being chased or kited by an 4 launcher fitted BS without bonuses isn't even close to scary. As is a rattler is stationary with sentries, or point blank with heavy drones the latter I can't imagine happening much. Both cases make a point for turning the rattler from an asteroid into a battleship and increase its maximum speed. Since we are all adding what is missing from other pirate BS. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2779
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:26:00 -
[110] - Quote
I'm not going to ask CCP to not nerf my beloved Machariel (bless be it's holy name, amen), I'm going to ask that they not OVER-nerf it. It's a pirate BS based on JoveTech that you can only aquire via null sec sources, it's supposed to be awesome. |
|
Goldensaver
Personal Defense LtD.
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 18:55:00 -
[111] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Slaved Lovechild wrote:Got it it's way better than the Maelstrom. I don't think you'll get any argument to that. The Mach is also over a billion ISK. Of course it's better!... If it wasn't why would anyone pay that. By some posters logic the navy version of the Hurricane is OP. How about T3 cruisers...
Anyways this is all moot because it's just rumor till it's announced by CCP. The Mach was already nerfed and I don't see any major nerf happening. It's way better than a Vargur too, except in lack range and active tank, and it has such a massive extra PG it's not funny. And maelstrom makes both of their available PG look like a joke.
And even with its immense PWG, for comparison a full rack of arties takes up 98% of a Maels max PWG, a full rack of arties takes up 101% of a Mach's PWG. But the Mach also has 1 more Low+Mid slot, and has a utility high. So they have a similar % allocation to weapons, but the Mach has effectively 2 slots more.
Sorry, but I really don't like these kinds of arguments. Yes, it has more PWG. But it also has 1 more gun. All that PWG only really matters when fitting Arty anyways (autos are dirt cheap PWG wise, barely taking over half the PWG in both cases), and if fitting arty the simple matter is you'll need Reactor Controls and/or ACRs to fit them (with anything else at all). |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
506
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 19:53:00 -
[112] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:[ Sorry, but I really don't like these kinds of arguments. Yes, it has more PWG. But it also has 1 more gun. All that PWG only really matters when fitting Arty anyways (autos are dirt cheap PWG wise, barely taking over half the PWG in both cases), and if fitting arty the simple matter is you'll need Reactor Controls and/or ACRs to fit them (with anything else at all).
Slit hairs much?
Mael can fit a full rack of 1400s and a full tank + prop mod without a fitting mod at all, which ISN'T going to happen with a Mach.
My point stands. |
Goldensaver
Personal Defense LtD.
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 21:30:00 -
[113] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote:[ Sorry, but I really don't like these kinds of arguments. Yes, it has more PWG. But it also has 1 more gun. All that PWG only really matters when fitting Arty anyways (autos are dirt cheap PWG wise, barely taking over half the PWG in both cases), and if fitting arty the simple matter is you'll need Reactor Controls and/or ACRs to fit them (with anything else at all). Slit hairs much? Mael can fit a full rack of 1400s and a full tank + prop mod without a fitting mod at all, which ISN'T going to happen with a Mach. My point stands. ... Afterburner? Do those even go on Battleships, let alone long range fit BS's? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
506
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 23:44:00 -
[114] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote:[ Sorry, but I really don't like these kinds of arguments. Yes, it has more PWG. But it also has 1 more gun. All that PWG only really matters when fitting Arty anyways (autos are dirt cheap PWG wise, barely taking over half the PWG in both cases), and if fitting arty the simple matter is you'll need Reactor Controls and/or ACRs to fit them (with anything else at all). Slit hairs much? Mael can fit a full rack of 1400s and a full tank + prop mod without a fitting mod at all, which ISN'T going to happen with a Mach. My point stands. ... Afterburner? Do those even go on Battleships, let alone long range fit BS's?
are you shitting me?
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1460
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 23:58:00 -
[115] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Claiming that selectable damage types is a benefit in incursions is akin to saying "I don't know anything". that's why i did not say it.
Quote:Claiming that selectable damage types is an advantage in PvP when it ALWAYS does kinetic is more of the same. so it always does 100% kinetic? no wait, is it 50%? OH RIGHT it's somewhere between 10% and 20% while the rest goes straight into the resist hole unless you were too stupid to switch ammo while warping. and i know i know, now you will tell me how you often have to fight against several enemies with different resist holes and all of them have like 110% kinetic resistance so you're actually healing them with your shots. it's amazing how many mental contortions people will go through when they don't want to lose their ticket to the gravy train.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Goldensaver
Personal Defense LtD.
231
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 00:19:00 -
[116] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Onictus wrote:Goldensaver wrote:[ Sorry, but I really don't like these kinds of arguments. Yes, it has more PWG. But it also has 1 more gun. All that PWG only really matters when fitting Arty anyways (autos are dirt cheap PWG wise, barely taking over half the PWG in both cases), and if fitting arty the simple matter is you'll need Reactor Controls and/or ACRs to fit them (with anything else at all). Slit hairs much? Mael can fit a full rack of 1400s and a full tank + prop mod without a fitting mod at all, which ISN'T going to happen with a Mach. My point stands. ... Afterburner? Do those even go on Battleships, let alone long range fit BS's? are you shitting me? In my experience many battleships won't use AB's. They'll opt for either an MWD for better repositioning when required, or for a MJD for the nice effect. I can think of a couple situations where an AB would be useful, but there aren't many where an AB would be chosen over an MWD for a BS. It's not like your BS's are AHAC's where you need to intentionally keep your sig as small as possible to avoid enemy BS fire as in most cases it won't make a difference anyways. Only time it really makes a difference is against Dread blapping...
Of course if you can show me how in history that people will largely use AB's over MWD's in fleet BS's (and if you can show me even solo Maels with 1400's opting to use AB's over MWD's, of course you'll have to prove that they get used more than MWD Maels) then I'll believe you and agree that AB's are definitely real things that everybody should use on their Artillery Battleships, and that the Mael has a huge advantage due to this. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1460
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 00:22:00 -
[117] - Quote
Lucine Delacourt wrote:5. Nightmare - PvE in very specific parts of space and Incursions are all you see it doing. Not sure exactly what it needs though. the only 'special' pvp feature of the nightmare are the two extra highs. you could try to buff its cap to make neuts or RR more worthwhile but you'd have to be careful not to overbuff it so much it becomes irrelevant in pve. you could also buff its agility to keep up with the other pirate hulls but that would kinda kill its flavor. a unique and more homogenous shield resist profile could be a fun experiment to make omnitanking easier, but then again, it's already strong enough in pve.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
854
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 09:47:00 -
[118] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Claiming that selectable damage types is a benefit in incursions is akin to saying "I don't know anything". that's why i did not say it. Quote:Claiming that selectable damage types is an advantage in PvP when it ALWAYS does kinetic is more of the same. so it always does 100% kinetic? no wait, is it 50%? OH RIGHT it's somewhere between 10% and 20% while the rest goes straight into the resist hole unless you were too stupid to switch ammo while warping. and i know i know, now you will tell me how you often have to fight against several enemies with different resist holes and all of them have like 110% kinetic resistance so you're actually healing them with your shots. it's amazing how many mental contortions people will go through when they don't want to lose their ticket to the gravy train.
1. I didn't say you said anything. Guilty conscience maybe? I couldn't tell ya. Other people said it though.
Mickey Knox wrote:This aint about you ya egamaniac 2. Its less of an advantage than 100% selectable damage for certain. 3. If you were paying any attention at all you would no its not "my gravy train". Its my ship of choice for what it excels at. For example if you nerf it more than ever so slightly and buff the RS slightly there will be zero reason to fly it. Same with the Vargur post winter expansion. Same with Domi. Eve is Real |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
508
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 11:09:00 -
[119] - Quote
Hell I haven't even used my Mach in over a year, its to much of a pain in the ass to haul around so I just leave it in low sec. (I actually lost it and spent an hour trying to figure out which toon had it).
Its SO overpowered that I have no use for it.
I seriously don't get the pitchforks. |
Ariel Dawn
F9X
1123
|
Posted - 2013.09.14 14:40:00 -
[120] - Quote
They're fantastic in PvE for L4 missioning (1040 DPS using normal ammo and 700m/s), very cheap to kit out since all you need is a decent afterburner, so you can avoid mission gankers who are in it to get shiny modules.
They're just too fast/agile for a battleship, so it's likely they'll be brought more in line with their counter parts. They shouldn't be able to be more mobile than battlecruisers! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |