| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Joerd Toastius
   |
Posted - 2006.01.24 20:21:00 -
[1]
While I can see the "fun setups" line, I'd suggest that if you want to play with a real Amarr/Caldari hybrid, get your hands on a Sansha ship or two. Ships for "multi-racial setups" already exist in the various faction ships. I'd much rather have Amarr T2 ships be properly Amarrian rather than the current Khanid Amarr/Caldari bastardisations.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 14:00:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Weirda
with all due respect, while it may be about 'fun setup' for some, it is really about the point of fitting a ML on the ship at all. with missile ROF switched to laser bonus... you are now just talking about another amarr hac that can fit 2 nos with it 4 lasers instead of just one... there is really no point in that, is there? 
'pure amarr' wouldn't be flying khanid ship anyways ffs. many amarr (and other race that like flying khanid amarr) see the benefits of the hybrid layout differently. as someone else pointed out, having ML on their sac is really one of the only way to break a minnie HAC tank for example...
I'd consider myself "pure Amarr" and you're right, I don't fly Khanid ships. Which is the point I'm making - if I stick with the combat philosophy I chose Amarr for, I've only got one T2 ship in each category. This makes me a sad panda.
In related news, would it be heretical to maybe give the Sac a bonus to small lasers? Maybe up its agility too, and turn it into more of a dedicated anti-frig tanker. Allows it to 1) keep or have given back the title of "best tanker", 2) do "good" damage in its intended role while 3) not threatening the HAC damage kings on their own turf. This would mean that with small guns it'd have kinda T1 cruiser-ish damage but with frig tracking, so it'd be an even better anti-frig-mobile without posing any real threat to other HACs. I'm not sure how desirable this is in terms of overall balance - frig pilots might have some strong objections - but it's a more out-of-the-box solution, no?
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 21:09:00 -
[3]
I don't have the skill points to diversify out across multiple weapons systems to any great degree yet - time spent training up missiles for two ships (Vengeance and Sac) is time not spent training skills that will apply to every other ship I fly. I can see the argument for more diverse weapons systems for Amarr, and I don't have a huge problem with it if it's implemented properly, but as it is it's just a few marginal ships which are of questionable value anyway which don't really justify the training time to someone who's trying to catch up skills-wise.
As to the tentative proposal in my serious post, it'd be a considerably better tank than an AF while losing the maneuverability. Most cruiser pilots claim that Sacs don't bother them much due to the low damage output, but as a frig pilot they scare the hell out of me because if they have small guns you're never going to break their tank (they're probably mounting a 1600mm anyway) and they'll shred you if you try anyway. If that's what it does well, then why not make the bonuses reflect that?
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.04 22:21:00 -
[4]
Also true. Mixed load outs by and large suck, which doesn't help matters certainly. And I'm not sure you could justify a "just launchers" Sac because it'd be the only ship in the fleet apart from the Inquisitor (which few people ever use) and the Purifier (ditto) to do so. With Caldari yes, there's missiles and rails, but there's a rail frigate, a rail cruiser, a rail HAC, a pair of rail AFs etc etc.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 11:34:00 -
[5]
I agree that the lack of Amarrian diversity is a fairly serious issue, but I don't agree that diversity just on expensive T2 ships is the way to solve it. If we're going to have a second primary system of some kind fine, but IMO it'd make a lot more sense for it to filter through from the beginning rather than just throwing it at players in late-mid game and saying "oh, if you want to use half of the really shiny stuff, you have to train missiles up from scratch". It just seems a backwards way of doing it.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 17:42:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Joerd Toastius on 05/02/2006 17:45:40
I'm aware that, in fluff terms, it's a hybrid ship. However, hybrid ships already exist, with fairly well-established parameters, and one of those parameters is that they require skills for both races, and as pirate faction ships don't take up a "slot" in the main fleet's inventory.
{edit} Moreover, as has been pointed out, hybrid-weaponry ships are generally rubbish and the general move is away from them. If you wanted them to be truly hybrid, then either lasers + shield tank or missiles + armour tank would be the way to go. As it is, the Khanid designs are just plain sloppy from a naval-architecture point of view. The Sac as it is currently has bonuses to armour but better shields, and split bonuses across two different weapons systems which makes both function suboptimally because neither gets all the bonuses it needs to be competitive. It's just a bad design, that's its biggest problem - it doesn't fill any specific useful role or roles.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 19:29:00 -
[7]
(I assume you do mean "laser" and not "beam")
No, I'm not saying that the proposed changes will give it a proper role as anything other than a poor man's Zealot (which as a poor man I have no objection to, but it's not a good use of resources). It needs a proper redesign to be really useful IMO. A better set of changes might be to make the Sac a pure missile boat with an armour tank and maybe turn the Omen into a missile platform too - it's currently suffering as a cheap maller with a drone bay.
I'm not actually convinced that it isn't possible to keep both ships (Zealot and Sac) similar in weapons-systems terms and diversify in other areas. A shield-tanked Sac would be one possibility. Another would be to give them comparable damage output but make the sac a much better tank while giving the Zealot a thinner tank but with more speed and/or maneuverability. (It might be easier to do it the other way round, but the Sac looks like a tanker while the Zealot looks like it ought to be screaming into the fight on MWD/AB/whatever.) There is also potential for other tweaks, such as an Ewar boost on one or both, a Nos bonus, an AB/MWD bonus (possibly even along the lines of a mass reduction on plates or something) or even if you want to go crazy something like a cap injector bonus. I agree that Amarr need more diversification in combat, but I'm not convinced this requires variation of weapons systems. There are plenty of other variables to play with.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.05 20:43:00 -
[8]
I wouldn't give speed bonuses to the sac, because I don't think it looks the part. I'd give them to the Zealot instead. Yes, traditional Amarr ship design is slow&heavy, but read the description of the Executioner. There's no sensible reason not to have a speed-boosted Zealot if you wanted to go that way, and if nothing else it'd look frikking awesome.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 15:46:00 -
[9]
While it's damage output remains a low-level threat, a better tank won't make a huge amount of difference in PvP...
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 19:51:00 -
[10]
Read the description again. It's the first signs of the Amarr navy coming round to the idea of needing faster ships to deal with Matari raiders. There's no reason for there not to be another fast ship in the fleet, particularly when it's a bleeding-edge T2 design
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.06 20:29:00 -
[11]
Yes, it makes it an exception to the rest of the fleet, but it also makes it the start of a new design philosophy. As to speed, I'm not saying it's the best idea but it's an idea and could be a good one, possibly.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.07 10:42:00 -
[12]
Sounds like a plan :) I'm half-tempted to suggest that the Zealot gets another turret slot or something and loses most of its lows - make it a lot more fragile but put it back on top of the DPS pile. Combined with a more effective tanking Sac, you'd have a good lineup there. Part of the problem atm is that the Zealot has a lot of "spare" lows it didn't used to have, which is giving it a much stronger tank than it had pre-RMR - I know that's the trend CCP are trying to encourage, but I'm not yet convinced that it's the right solution for the Zealot
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.08 16:04:00 -
[13]
Because the Zealot does everything you'd expect out of an Amarr ship (tank+gank, wheras prior to the RMR change it was mainly gank), leaving the Sac no room to make itself useful.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 13:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: dazedandconfused
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Because the Zealot does everything you'd expect out of an Amarr ship (tank+gank, wheras prior to the RMR change it was mainly gank), leaving the Sac no room to make itself useful.
Tanking and ganking is not the only thing that is to be done by a ship. Most HACs can do both actually, though their gank methods vary such as drones vs blasters, or missles vs rails.
How was the Zealot changed in RMR?
Tank and gank are the only two things you currently expect from an Amarr ship. Hence the long discussion on diversifying Amarrian combat tactics.
The Zealot changed in RMR because of the stacking changes. No more 7 HS II setups means more slots for tanking, plus the HP changes etc.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.11 00:23:00 -
[15]
Mixed weapons setups suck :P
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.11 12:58:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Mixed weapons setups suck :P
hmm when I look at minmatar ships most of them(if not all) will have to mix turrets and launchers whenever they want to get maximum damage possible.
Yup. Mixed setups suck on Matari ships too. Down with mixed setups!
Originally by: Kldraina
So many complain about the lack of focus in the Sacrilige. Personally, I think it would be better to instead increase versatility instead of increasing focus. My idea? Replace the missile RoF bonus with a bonus to shield resists, and add one missile hardpoint. This way the Sacrilige truly can do anything.
Currently it suffers from not really being able to be a missile boat with only 4 missle Hardpoints. It also is not practical to use it's heavy shields for defense when it has a resistance bonus on armor. So adding a bonus to shield resists, and adding a missile hardpoint, would allow it to use missiles, lasers, shields, or armor, or some crazy combination of all of them.
Actually, now that I think about it a bit more, it might fit better to keep the missile rof bonus and ditch the energy weapon range bonus. Then the first bonus set is clearly amarr (Laser energy cost and armor bonus) while the second is more caldari (missile rof and shield bonus).
And yes, I know I'm insane, and that this would probably never work, as it doesn't really address the complaints people have. It does address some of my complaints though. :P
That just makes it rubbish at everything rather than merely being rubbish at a lot of things :P
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.11 21:18:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Nessa Aldeen
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
Mixed weapons setups suck :P
Only if u dont train them...i like mixed weapons so there!
Mixed weapon setups lose out on effectiveness due to not enough bonuses.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.13 14:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: DarkStar251
EDIT: Reason #2 why mixed weapon ships suck, is that any Dmg mods or weapon buffing modules that you fit will not affect all your weapons (as these ships are missile/gun and not Gun <x>/Gun <y>). If Tracking computers also reduced the explosion radius of missiles....
Had completely forgotten about that. Good point
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.16 01:36:00 -
[19]
Hadn't considered "doubled up" bonuses. Good point.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 11:02:00 -
[20]
People complain about not being told stuff, and when CCP tell the players stuff people complain about not being listened to...
|
| |
|