| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
125
   |
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:19:00 -
[61] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:According to this post, Machariel's theoretical weaknesses should be low ehp and poor damage projection. NPC Angel Cartel ships tend to be very fast, very short range, but hurt when close, so that means it needs to hurt up front, but lack the projection capability. This to me says "falloff needs to go". What to replace it with? Imo, the exact same thing the falloff bonus replaced, tracking speed. The idea is to push the Machariel pilots much closer to their targets, making both the poor damage projection and the low ehp more meaningful, as per Ytterbium's request, while using the ship's great speed to bring it close to the enemy for a strike, then away from danger again. By contrast, a Vindicator as its closest counterpart would get in, then keep the target in range as it pounds it to dust, while the Machariel would be fast enough to chase the target around, while dictating range and angle (think oversized Stabber)
Yeah, because you want to fly mach into a scram range.
Good idea...
Everyone knows mach as is as good as dead when something scrams it and orbits it up close, if it can't neut the ship out it can't do anything at all.
You carebears got your cruises buffed so your CNRs do more damage at greater range than mach does. I'm assuming you don't pvp because if you did you wouldn't make statements as stupid as that.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1287
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:16:00 -
[62] - Quote
ok i have removed one high slot and moved it the the mid slot. but at this point i am not adding any cpu.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
Winter Expansion new ship request |
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:30:00 -
[63] - Quote
Based on the OP's suggestions and others here it is clear that this thread is full of people that obviously don't fly the ship in the game.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1287
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ghost Phius wrote:Based on the OP's suggestions and others here it is clear that this thread is full of people that obviously don't fly the ship in the game.
thank you for the constructive feedback... now do you have anything usefull to say... or is it you like to troll
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
Winter Expansion new ship request |
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 18:11:00 -
[65] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Ghost Phius wrote:Based on the OP's suggestions and others here it is clear that this thread is full of people that obviously don't fly the ship in the game.
thank you for the constructive feedback... now do you have anything usefull to say... or is it you like to troll
No need to attack with name calling just because I am calling out an obvious nerf the faction Battleships thread for what it is. These types of nerf a ship I don't fly threads are subject to people calling BS.
If the only dev support for "any" changes to "any" of the twice already rebalanced, billion isk, double training top shelf Battleships is a 2009 post and we are at the end of 2013, then I call player nerf BS, which is exactly what this is.
|
Dave Stark
3641
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 18:40:00 -
[66] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Dave Stark wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Dave Stark wrote:probably replace 1 shield extender rig with another ACR rig, and nothing has changed except a slight drop in EHP.
8k ehp loss, meh. it's still better than any of the proposed marauders for incursions. so not enough ehp loss? what would you suggest if i have not gone far enough? all you did was take some of the fitting off, essentially nothing relevant was changed to address the gap between marauders and pirate battleships in an incursion environment. read again I also reduced the falloff plus increased mass and sig and slowed it down. .. now I ask again how much shield hp and armor does it need to loose? 500-1000?
yeah, so you did nothing relevant to address the gap in an incursion environment.
losing armour and shields does nothing but either make it obsolete, or still better than a marauder. the tank isn't the issue, and never has been. |
Rhea Rankin Nolen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
It already recieved significant nerf with TE change. You could also nerf Nightmare while you're at it. It's also "too awesome"! IMO Machariel is fine as is. Other pirate BS's might use a slight buff.
tldr. don't nerf mah Mach bro |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
272
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 15:35:00 -
[68] - Quote
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:It already recieved significant nerf with TE change. You could also nerf Nightmare while you're at it. It's also "too awesome"! IMO Machariel is fine as is. Other pirate BS's might use a slight buff.
tldr. don't nerf mah Mach bro
I really do think the mach offers a lot in one certain direction (mobility and flexible offense a la gistii) while still having to much of the rest. Mostly to much tank still, and to much drones. Two sets of mediums and a spare light is just unholy for a kiting ship. It's like a cynabal with endless support of EC-600s - given how untouchable you are while not tackled hard, and that a lot of solo/smallscale scenarios favor taking EC-600s along as it's you only *messup+correction* utility, it surely shouldn't be that well equipped on that side.
I agree that other ships might be in need of a correction aswell, mostly though less a buff/nerf, but rather a priceadjustment. Well and a 125mbit dronebay for the bhaalgorn, aswell as 7.5%-webs for the vindicator please :D
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3633385&#post3633385
- 15% more tank since the 1.1-patch. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |