|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
   |
Posted - 2013.10.02 17:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jon Joringer wrote:Wondering a bit about the supposed 'large' cargo capacity on the cruiser. 550m3 is on the larger side for cruisers, but I was really expecting something more along the lines of the Gnosis -- that huge 900m3 cargo bay would really let this ship stay off the grid and out exploring for a really long time.
That wouldn't make sense, the Gnosis was a battlecruiser. If there ever is a SOE-bs, it can have the gigantic cargo bay. Really, 550m-¦ for a cruiser is good enough. Especially in addition to the large drone bay.
And please don't remove the laser-bonus! Lasers are my favourite weapons and I'm suffering long enough for it already. |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 17:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:not sure if the ship needs that many high slots. i would get more use out of an extra low so i can fit more tank or more gank but no real need to split weapon focus here.
No thanks, 5 HighSlots are ideal. Not too much, not too little. Well, a damage bonus for lasers would be even better, or at least a compromise, something like 25% cap usage bonus and 25% damage bonus for lasers.
Someone can dream, right?  |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 17:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:MeBiatch wrote:not sure if the ship needs that many high slots. i would get more use out of an extra low so i can fit more tank or more gank but no real need to split weapon focus here.
No thanks, 5 HighSlots are ideal. Not too much, not too little. Well, a damage bonus for lasers would be even better, or at least a compromise, something like 25% cap usage bonus and 25% damage bonus for lasers. Someone can dream, right? honestly i thought split weapon system was a thing of the past....
I don't see it that way. Drones are not a primary weapon system for me, I use them more for utility (ECM, anti-frigate / anti-drone) then as an actual weapon. Even my Pilgrim has two heavy beam lasers I somehow forced in between probe launcher and cov-ops cloak! |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 17:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:I don't see it that way. Drones are not a primary weapon system for me, I use them more for utility (ECM, anti-frigate / anti-drone) then as an actual weapon. Even my Pilgrim has two heavy beam lasers I somehow forced in between probe launcher and cov-ops cloak! i would not remove the ability to fit lasors... just see no use in having a cap reduction bonus when its not the primary damage weapons system... if the ship had a lasor bonus instead of a drone damage bonus i would be with you on the utility argument... but ccp likes options... and if enough people are happy with it i am fine with the majority rules.
Yeah, as long as the new cruiser allows me to slaughter my fellow explorers if I happen to find them, I'm content as well. 
|
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 18:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The best slot layout would have to be 4/5/6.
The +5 virus strength is plenty, for null one would usually be better off with a T3 due to the interdiction nullifier.
The laser bonus I suspect will go mostly unused. But could be wrong.
I disagree. 5/5/5 is good, there is no reason to change things around. Especially since you can just lug your mobile depot around to refit on the fly in a safe spot. Besides be honest, you only think 4/5/6 is better because you use it for you favourite fit or something. |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The best slot layout would have to be 4/5/6.
The +5 virus strength is plenty, for null one would usually be better off with a T3 due to the interdiction nullifier.
The laser bonus I suspect will go mostly unused. But could be wrong. I disagree. 5/5/5 is good, there is no reason to change things around. Especially since you can just lug your mobile depot around to refit on the fly in a safe spot. Besides be honest, you only think 4/5/6 is better because you use it for you favourite fit or something. 5/5/5 and shield tanked will get you nearly 1k dps and decent tank still while being able to fly around cloaked (needs a cpu implant and some meta modules). by moving a high to a low, it cuts a decent amount of damage off or prohibits you from being able to warp around cloaked.
But the main purpose of those new cruisers is exploration, so they need the additional HighSlot to stay viable. Besides, if you move one HighSlot down to Low, it still doesn't change anything DPS-wise. People will simply start using a good-looking laser ship like a drone boat. In which case you could cut down HighSlots to two and it wouldn't change the drone dps one bit. |
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Darth Felin wrote: 4 medium slot are enough for armor tanker even if you will add scanning/hacking modules but 5 lows are not enough for any meaningful tank + damage mods. 6 low will greatly improve this ship.
P.S.
But even in current iteration this ship is overpowered above any reasons, and you called Angel ships "too good". IMHO 5 medium bonused drones + bonused highslots (change cap bonus for damage one please) will be more than enough.
The ship is too overpowered for your taste, and you want to fit a stronger tank? Can I have the drugs you are on? 
|
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
8
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 19:15:00 -
[8] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The best slot layout would have to be 4/5/6.
The +5 virus strength is plenty, for null one would usually be better off with a T3 due to the interdiction nullifier.
The laser bonus I suspect will go mostly unused. But could be wrong. I disagree. 5/5/5 is good, there is no reason to change things around. Especially since you can just lug your mobile depot around to refit on the fly in a safe spot. Besides be honest, you only think 4/5/6 is better because you use it for you favourite fit or something. 5/5/5 and shield tanked will get you nearly 1k dps and decent tank still while being able to fly around cloaked (needs a cpu implant and some meta modules). by moving a high to a low, it cuts a decent amount of damage off or prohibits you from being able to warp around cloaked. But the main purpose of those new cruisers is exploration, so they need the additional HighSlot to stay viable. As an exploration ship it needs mids, not highs. as a drone ship it doesn't need highs. As an armor ship it needs lows. But people can and will use this ship for what ever they want to use it for. it will be a real sweet low sec mission ship because of its ability to fly around cloaked and still have good dps.
And as a lazor-ship it needs Highs for maximum face-melting power.
I agree with the second part, though.
|
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
21
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 17:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:As has been said repeatedly.. If the Blaster/Drone combo is overpowered. Reduce the drone DPS and up the laser DPS. That ties it tighter to lasers which matches the stated design intent, as well as drops DPS a bit, since Laser DPS will be lower than the Blaster DPS, & tracking will be a bit worse at the blank point ranges people are talking to bump & drop heavy drone DPS instantly.
Alternatively applied drone DPS will be lower since heavies will have to travel. Giving the target time to counter web and pull range through higher base speed (assuming same number of webs almost any other cruiser fitted for PvP will pull range on the Stratios, especially if you MWD fit the Stratios for bumping, if you AB fit you then struggle to bump.) as well as lock & engage the heavy drones or Stratios directly before drone DPS gets applied.
Of course, all these 'OP' fits don't have an extended probe launcher, & most of them don't even have a normal probe launcher. So you aren't finding most of these supposed targets to start with and having that much DPS anyway. Unless you find someone ratting in low sec I guess. Which has always been a dicey game anyway. One thing all these OP uber-gank fits have been relying on is that there opponent will be attempting to flee. If the ship has to much DPS it needs to be set closer to normal drone ships stat wise. It needs -1 high slot, all drone ships have -1 slot and it usually is a high slot. Its turrets need to be reduced to 2, that will help with the LOL-gank setups. Its powergrid needs to be reduced accordingly, this will help limit dual prop mods, and huge shield buffers.
It doesn't need to be a drone ship. Simply divide drone bay and bandwith by half, problem solved. If the nerf is too strong, simply add another utility HighSlot to compensate.
|
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
21
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 18:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:mm... yes all drone ships have -1 slot so these should also lose a slot
But the cruiser isn't a drone ship, so it should lose (a lot) of it's drone bay instead. |
|
|
Owen Levanth
Federated Deep Space Explorations
21
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 21:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Harvey James wrote:mm... yes all drone ships have -1 slot so these should also lose a slot But the cruiser isn't a drone ship, so it should lose (a lot) of it's drone bay instead. The cruiser is a drone ship, 125mbps of bandwidth, 500m3 drone bay, 10% drone damage and HP per level of gallente cruiser. These things make it a drone ship, a 50% reduction (which most amarr players hardly call a bonus) does not make a laser ship.
Logically, if you reduce all this, it stops being a drone ship. Also, like the poster right above said, it's an exploration ship. Not a "drone ship". There already enough of those. |
|
|
| |
|