| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
792
   |
Posted - 2013.10.04 10:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Awesome, now one can fit the big pulses on the Crusader, do MOAR! paper damage and DIAF from only being able to apply a fraction of it due to tracking. DLP's with tracking bonus is just able to do the furball tango, no way in hell same will apply with bigger guns. resulting in extra fittings going unused if one want to actually hit stuff.
Remove cap bonus (or see point three);
- Gun count.
- Some of extra fittings
+ Extra 5% damage or change to 7.5% RoF keeping cap bonus (depends on whether you actually want the Crusader to be on par with Taranis/Claw of course)
+ Dollop to base capacitor.
= Tracking version of Slicer sans range.
NOTE: It only has ONE midslot for Goddess sake, it needs at least the same considerations as the Claw to be competitive seeing as it has worse base tracking and a cap requirement for guns with the inherent vulnerability.
Why would anyone in their right mind ever fly the Malediction if the Gallente overbuff Ares is available?
Only minute variations in numbers throughout with both being equally proficient with rocks/missile but Ares has a built-in gun option while keeping its utility high.
Rocket crow will be devastating .. scram range out to max flight range, TD and ASB for tank. You sure you want to add tank and not remove some? 
Raptor looks good provided it will have enough room to run some light rails and not pigeoned into blasters. Maybe make the gun bonuses 7.5/7.5 rather than 5/10, in the very least change damage to RoF .. it comes off as a "tanky interceptor" which is absurd.
Taranis as is, reckon you might even add a drone without doing harm assuming the horrible EC-XXX are finally removed from game or made relevant (read: balanced) again.
Ares gets the overbuff. Must have been hard to restrain yourselves and not do same to Taranis so kudos to you all  It needs a sacrifice somewhere, saying that it is either gun boat or missile boat when both configs perform on equal terms with dedicated hulls is naff.
Decide which toes to cut (ex. 50+% less cargo) and get to it ..
Claw and Stiletto not getting more than cosmetics is good, already incredibly strong (Claw) and versatile (Stiletto) largely due to capless weaponry. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
794
|
Posted - 2013.10.05 12:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Oh and dont give in to the whiners, who wants more lock range.
They can fit modules/rigs. That should be enough.
Speaking of which, assuming that rigs will be polished at some point in conjunction with tiericide, wouldn't it be prudent to let small rigs deviate from M/L/XL to take into account the generally much smaller numbers involved?
Example: The FW sensor implant sets are awesome, but you shoot yourself in the foot by going HG when flying small stuff as the flat bonus often is better than the % bonus, especially when taking slot/fitting allowance into account.
Same could be done with small rigs where applicable. Interceptors for instance does not gain nearly as much from a +25% lock range rig as a cruiser up ship would whereas they would benefit greatly if it gave them a flat +km number, say 10-15km.
All the percentage based rigs are identical to the bigger version and thus utterly pointless to even consider on small hulls with lower numbers.
PS: Same concept could be used for larger rigs to provide meaningful boosts where none currently exist like scan resolution on BS/Capitals where a % is a drop in the proverbial bucket thus artificially forcing people to always go for cookie-cutter options (mainly raw EHP).
PPS: Medium rigs to stay as is more or less, cruiser classes are damn near perfect to use as baseline for all others with its tons of fairly well balance options. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
797
|
Posted - 2013.10.05 19:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Udonor wrote:...But bubble immunity in tiny low cost T2 packages?...
So you have a problem with bubble immune ships that has half the tank of T1 frigs and approximately the same dps output but not bubble immune ships that have BS tanks, BC/CC dps with option to run covert cloaks .. and all based on T2 vs T3 .. me'thinks you need to a reality check
Interceptors can be sneezed out of the sky and only pose a clear and present danger to lone ships with poor tracking and/or otherwise lacking frigate counters .. something you are will be hard pressed to find in a bubble situation.
Sure they will be able to be used as forward scouts and move around with impunity if people who wants to stop them has no boosted fast lockers but when that is the case then where does the fault lie?
One thing I would suggest for balance sake, as I don't want swarms of the things running rampant in null (avoiding "real" risk) either, is to add a little special sauce to bubble immunity in general as it is a pretty powerful ability:
- A bubble immune ship has its agility halved while within a bubble. Explain it away by ship needing to divert a significant amount of engine power to warp-core to counter the bubbles effect.
Hard nerf to T3 nullifiers (provided that even stays in game) and ought to be enough to remove the 'boosted' requirement to fast lockers against *new* Interceptors and makes the coffins Interdictors as hard a counter to Interceptors as possible without breaking balance everywhere else. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
802
|
Posted - 2013.10.12 23:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Teth Razor wrote:Randy Wray wrote:a bubble that catches nullified ships sounds kinda like a cyno jammer jammer to me. In other words its a ridiculous idea. Ok smart ass! Give us a good idea for a counter to nullified intys! I dare you to come up with one. And no, due to module delay remote seboing a interceptor is not a counter!
If the interceptor is just running around then who cares, ignore it and go about your business. When/If he engages and points anyone he is pointed back and probably (hopefully) summarily destroyed.
Nullifying as a bonus is pretty powerful, question that should be answered is not what new stuff should be added to counter it but at what cost is should be given to a hull .. easy enough to do with the T3s when the times comes (subsystem conflicts) but what should the price be for other hulls sporting the bonus. Answer that and we are in business.
Personally still think that nullified ships should be hit with a significant inertia/agility penalty while under the influence of a bubble that would otherwise have applied tackle to them.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.15 14:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Helicity Boson wrote:Yeah, honestly I don't think THAT many people will elect to use the rigs either, but just for the sake of fairness/consistency it'd be nice :)
Small rigs on the whole needs special considerations and the extra Dev effort that follows. Gameplay considerations and wanted/avoided performance and attributes change drastically the second you enter a hull using small rigs, yet they are essentially carbon copies of the other sizes, completely ignoring the aspects that make light hulls light.
Wishful thinking: Would be pretty awesome if T2 frigates (or all T2 for that matter) were intentionally powerful (read: borderline), but left "a bit short" when it comes to realising that potential and then having rigs that could make one or the other facet shine like nothing else around. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 16:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
XavierVE wrote:Seth Hendar is very correct. This is again, why giving nullification to interceptors is a very, very big problem for small gang FC's. It fucks us and gives us no choice but to run interceptor-only gangs in null. Uncatchable, you'd be screwing over your gang by running anything else....
Only insofar that no reliable counter exists. Join the lobby in the Interdictor thread to have the time limited smart-bomb fodder bubbles from dictors override any nullifier effects that CCP adds to hulls now (currently T3 and Interceptors) and in future.
As for lowsec, you are partially right. Majority of LS action is FW related so gate guns are rarely a factor but in FW the post-tiericide T1 frigs are a better choice overall and if T2 is fielded it is EAS or AF as one almost never have need for the 'specials' that interceptors bring .. rest of LS will be largely unaffected, interceptors are not used outside of shuttle duty, might change when links come on-grid and the super performing points/sensors on everything that follow is nerfed. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.19 23:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
XavierVE wrote:Major Killz wrote:For those who're serious about rejecting the nullification changes to Interceptors. I suggest you flood this thread with comments rejecting the change.
I'm confident that if CCP sees a 200+ threadnought rejecting changes to Interceptors as is. They (CCP) will react.
So, I suggest you get more players on here to boycott this change. Otherwise it will go thru as is v0v ... Great cyno ship, great at blobbing small gangs roaming their space, invincible scouts. Your average large entity null-sec player likes the game to be easy, and this is the definition of easymode.
Nullification is extremely powerful as evidenced by T3 over the years, but nothing that cannot be sorted. Let interdictor bubbles actually interdict and you have the properly manned camp as a direct counter .. so 'meh'.
As for being perfect cyno ships .. perhaps that ought to be added to the 'cyno change' wishlist .. a higher (not much really) fitting requirement on the module itself would instantly kill off the majority of current and future gayness related to disposable cyno ships and nip that particular one in the bud.
Hell, you could probably just increase cyno fuel volume tenfold and sort it that way, no frigate would be able to open anything while the Recon bonus gets to actually matter .. double whammy in the general nerf to random omni-present hot drop capable ships as a logistics requirement will hit a lot harder than price tweaks since ISK is essentially infinite (ie: bots still around and PvE is simple as tic-tac-toe).
But the Major is right. CCP does have a rather consistent record of caving to threadnaught pressure .. not sure whether he is right in applying that coercion weapon in this case though. Besides, even if it does prove to be way too powerful a bonus on a sneeze-to-kill ship the threadnaught or Jita shin-dig can always be deployed to roll it back after the fact if CCP drag their feet |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 12:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
XavierVE wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Prevent anchoring bubble withing 40km of a gate won't prevent bubble bunkers when people take the time to place a dozen of them. Mobile Large Warp Disruptor II = 40km width across. Anchored 40km from a gate, it will not cover the spawn radius of a gate, even if you put them all the way around a gate. You will spawn outside of a bubble and be able to warp. So yes, restricting mobile bubbles from being anchored within 40km of a gate would prevent bubble bunkers and would be a much more artful and comprehensive solution to the problem of hell-bubbling a gate than giving interceptors nullification.
Or one could make bubble bunkers possible but 'tricky' and give Interceptors a very real purpose in relation to them without needing the nullifier bonus.
"Resonance in the warp disruption field caused by intersecting fields translate down into the generator causing material instability in the casing"
Translated: EHP of bubble is decreased by a massive amount for every overlapping bubble to a point where when ~4 bubbles touch each other the EHP is a single point (when one is popped the others will naturally regain some).
Should make Interdictors a lot more valuable for camping duty as well. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.21 23:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
Teth Razor wrote:I for one am VERY against nullified intys. But if CCP goes though with it, I plan on abusing the **** out of it.
My corp already has inty fits on sisi that are strong enough to kill most ratting ships with only a gang of 4-5 intys.
I don't get it, what is the opposition about. We are going from single ratter tank killing nullified covert cloaking ships with above average tanks to 4-5 nullified ships with zero tank.
Is the idea of old school roaming (ie. team work not involving superfluous Titan alts) that abhorrent?
To me it sounds like it will be an absolute blast, at least from the Interceptor pilots PoV and it will more than likely create a huge market for lowly ships such as Dessies as even ****-fit/-piloted destroyers will eat Interceptors as light snacks at a fraction of the cost.
Or what about the tiericided T2 frigates, most of them have roughly same damage as Inties but with tons more tank .. where is the nullifier crap when the primal part of the Inty pilots brain screams "Trololol, T1 frig snack time" before being shown the door?
Make no mistake, I dislike the idea of nullifier anything, not because it is extremely potent but because there is no real way to counter it .. even the Harry Potter wannabes with their cloaks can be disrobed but there is squat to be done against AoE tackle immune ships that will go to warp as fast as shuttles and cross the biggest systems in less 30s.
PS: I fully expect T3's to get hit with a lot of conflicts between the prime-grade-beef subsystems when tiericede reaches them so doubt they'll retain the cloak+nullifier, thus used as example only, status quo will change.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.22 12:22:00 -
[10] - Quote
Portmanteau wrote:...The reason ppl are saying there's no counter or only SBBS will do it is because they are fixated on blobbing single targets jumping thru gates. That is why they are conveniently forgetting that any inty gang who are a serious threat will at some point have to engage other ships and then the counters to them are too many to count. Just blow them up for God's sake
Carpet bombing a border zone because illegal immigrants are trying to cross .. wonder how that would play out in reality
Hint: It is not a counter but rather an indiscriminate area denial that affects everyone and not just the interceptors.
You are right however that they can be killed once they engage, but think about it .. actually don't bother, just read up on the Dramiel discussions as the similarities are too many to count. Biggest difference between the two is that the Dramiel was broken everywhere whereas the Interceptors will be so primarily in null.
Between basic agility/speed, new warp speeds, more tank/dps and nullification the Interceptors are looking like they will be even worse for the calm in the null sheep herds than the much pricier Dramiel ever was and we all know where that went (hint: Dodo's).
Here's another brainfart:
Anchorable eWar relay.
- Similar to anchorable bubbles but with next to no EHP. Any secondary eWar type (TP, Damp, TD, Neut) that is projected onto the unit is translated throughout the sphere of influence. First come first serve, only one effect at a time and no overlapping fields possible.
For example: An Inty gang is reported and a Large (26km) eWar relay is deployed in their path. One of the new 30km Sentinels can now neut the relay and thus apply neutralization to the entire sphere, preventing Inty gang from warping if timed right while staying clear of effect itself ...
Cat has plenty of skin left, lets experiment with how best to get its stuffz!
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
803
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 14:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alain Badiou wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:GREAT CHANGES!
I absolutely love how you guys are giving Roden ships selectable missile or turret damage, and these will perform in much the same way a few Minmatar fleet ships will.
+1 Except 2 gun slots and 1 missile slot is not "selectable missile or turret damage". It is the same split system as before with a lost bonus.
So you get double (was +5%) bonus on whichever weapon system you choose with what almost amounts to a built-in damage mod for the secondary 'filler' weapon and you consider the loss of tracking, a bonus that is pretty much redundant for all but the biggest rails which Interceptors can't even fit in the first place, too high a price?
And that is on the fleet hull, the one that isn't even expected to do much damage wise .. how much of an overbuff would it need to satisfy I wonder |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
806
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 11:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Meyr wrote:THANK YOU, FOZZIE! The re-thought Roden philosophy is going to make a great many Gallente pilots extremely happy. Now, if only patch day would arrive... 
Problem of course is that the Roden philosophy is now 95% similar to the DuVolle philosophy. Will the latter be changed to make it more drone oriented or is the entire Gallente lineup to be extremely hybrid centric?
Variety is the spice of life, sex, work and play .. and Gallente are supposedly the feinschmeckers of life, with their promiscuous drug enhanced lifestyles (how is that for racial slur!) so they too should have variety |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
807
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 12:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Randy Wray wrote:Crusader:...
Three lows will kill its viability, if you absolutely must have the web then duplicating the Ares slot layout and increasing bonus to compensate is the way to go.
Concur about the cap use bonus though, just not sure what should replace it as adding damage to an already rather nasty output (lasers with tracking) combined with the extra grid for MPII risks pushing it over the top .. what I could see working is slots staying as they are and cap use replaced with damage making it a proper auxiliary dps boat and a down right nasty counter to the tackling 'ceptors much like the Claw. |
| |
|