EVE Search - Sticky:[Rubicon] Interceptors

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rubicon] Interceptors

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Teth Razor Chicks on Speed 6	Posted - 2013.10.05 16:47:00 - [241] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Niko Lorenzio wrote: You dont think bubble immunity will make ceptors extremely OP? I mean they got the speed to get out of the bubbles anyway so it's not like they slow them down much. No more OP than covops ships. That statement is completely wrong. What makes covops not op is the fact that you can still bubble them and try for the decloak, or if a covops is not smart he will warp strait gate to gate and hit drag bubbles. When I bubble camp I catch more covops and bombers then any other ship. Nullified intys on the other hand can jump in to a system and instantly warp out of a bubble on the gate. On top of that the pilot will not even have to think about the out gate being safe. Nullified intys create and reward dumber pilots. We already have nullified T3s, we DO NOT NEED NULLIFED INTYS.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 383	Posted - 2013.10.05 17:19:00 - [242] - Quote Teth Razor wrote: I bubble camp you have no honour
Udonor Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 38	Posted - 2013.10.05 17:29:00 - [243] - Quote Sorry but this change seems to smack of WOW. magic. I sort of understoond things when bubble immunity was a T3 option. If you made T3 interceptor I could still have bought it. But bubble immunity in tiny low cost T2 packages? Makes me ask why not available to all T2 ships then. Heck why not a T2/T3 module for some upper end T1 ships similar to cloak. Need to fly through bubble and still be fast? Great. I think high normal speed and a built-in high efficiency MWD would have been a better option. Basically something with performance of old nano-ships and similar hits proportionate to size. Extremely hard to hit with big guns. Give it special rocket based defenders vs missiles where it takes only proximaty damge while ammo lasts. But immunity to warp bubbles and not even T3? Does not seem very balanced or storyline related to other ships. But if you are going to do this... why not pirate faction interceptor immune to CONCORD warp disable during outlaw flag at T2 frigate costs?
Proddy Scun Renfield Inc 33	Posted - 2013.10.05 18:16:00 - [244] - Quote Hmmm... maybe you should publish a new ship attribute called "warp signature" warp signature could be used to explain which type of ships will potentially be immune to warp bubbles and other warp phenomena. It could be a product of hull mass, drive technology (T1, T2, T3), inertia factor and certain module or subsection modifier effects. It might logically lead to certain predictions and logical changes -- like obviously t2 shuttles would be warp bubble immune but maybe T1 shuttles should be immune too. Maybe no ship larger than cruiser will be bubble immune under T3. A warp signature also might lead to a warp tracking torpedo which could be fired at ships that just warped out -- within a certain number of seconds depending on warp signature. Coupe De Grace fleet shot for PVP. So when are you introducing T2 shuttles? What point point do you expect 2million ISK?
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 797	Posted - 2013.10.05 19:17:00 - [245] - 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.
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 664	Posted - 2013.10.05 19:25:00 - [246] - Quote Why do Gallente get a high-DPS inty with tackling bonuses, while the other races have either/or? Why are you making yet another set of ships bubble-immune? You should be hard at work deleting interdiction nullifier subsystems from the game, not adding more bubble-immune hulls so the game can include even more un-killable ships. I like the new warp mechanics, but I just hate the idea of bubble-immune ships. They're a fundamentally bad idea, but they're an especially bad idea on hulls that take less time to align than it takes a fast decloaking ship to burn out to them when they try to warp off a gate. Nullfied T3s are bull (I say this as someone who exploits them on a regular basis and maintains a personal fleet of them across multiple characters), nullfied inties with 2-second align times and miniature sigs will be bull as well. Death to anything that can't be drag-bubbled or caught on a gate; hell, even without bubble immunity inties have always been extremely hard to catch when they don't feel like tackling you.
DeadDuck Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 60	Posted - 2013.10.05 20:46:00 - [247] - Quote Seems to me that giving the malediction a bonus to light missile launchers and not giving the ship the proper PG boost to fit them will have to be reviwed.
Major Killz La Fraternite 246	Posted - 2013.10.05 20:56:00 - [248] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: Seems to me that giving the malediction a bonus to light missile launchers and not giving the ship the proper PG boost to fit them will have to be reviwed. What the fu*k are you talking about? I'm able to fit them with no issues now. If anything more CPU is needed. - Killz Combat Log: http://www.youtube.com/user/kdsalmon/videos - Pantaloon II: Violins (Jun 23, 2013)
Xirin Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension 8	Posted - 2013.10.06 00:01:00 - [249] - Quote I don't see the point of bubble immunity. Any interceptor worth it's salt is going to be able to fly out of a bubble before anything can even lock it... Can we get some kind of change to how easy they are to hit? Tranversal and sig radius aside, it seems a bit silly that an Oracle can blap a 5.2 km/s interceptor at 30 km...Seems like that should be something destroyers and other frigates should be doing... Also, can the point-range interceptors get their range bonus extended to webs too? Pretty please? :D
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction 551	Posted - 2013.10.06 00:06:00 - [250] - Quote Ganthrithor wrote: Why do Gallente get a high-DPS inty with tackling bonuses, while the other races have either/or? Why are you making yet another set of ships bubble-immune? You should be hard at work deleting interdiction nullifier subsystems from the game, not adding more bubble-immune hulls so the game can include even more un-killable ships. I like the new warp mechanics, but I just hate the idea of bubble-immune ships. They're a fundamentally bad idea, but they're an especially bad idea on hulls that take less time to align than it takes a fast decloaking ship to burn out to them when they try to warp off a gate. Nullfied T3s are bull (I say this as someone who exploits them on a regular basis and maintains a personal fleet of them across multiple characters), nullfied inties with 2-second align times and miniature sigs will be bull as well. Death to anything that can't be drag-bubbled or caught on a gate; hell, even without bubble immunity inties have always been extremely hard to catch when they don't feel like tackling you. Because these immune to bubbles hisp are exaclty intende dto **** large alliances full of empty space like yours!!! Its a great idea because promotes small gangs combat. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon Mentally Assured Destruction 551	Posted - 2013.10.06 00:07:00 - [251] - Quote Xirin wrote: I don't see the point of bubble immunity. Any interceptor worth it's salt is going to be able to fly out of a bubble before anything can even lock it... Can we get some kind of change to how easy they are to hit? Tranversal and sig radius aside, it seems a bit silly that an Oracle can blap a 5.2 km/s interceptor at 30 km...Seems like that should be something destroyers and other frigates should be doing... Also, can the point-range interceptors get their range bonus extended to webs too? Pretty please? :D What? You have never been in gate amps where there are 20 or more large anchorable bubbles ? "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!"
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1466	Posted - 2013.10.06 01:56:00 - [252] - Quote Teth Razor wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Niko Lorenzio wrote: You dont think bubble immunity will make ceptors extremely OP? I mean they got the speed to get out of the bubbles anyway so it's not like they slow them down much. No more OP than covops ships. That statement is completely wrong. What makes covops not op is the fact that you can still bubble them and try for the decloak, or if a covops is not smart he will warp strait gate to gate and hit drag bubbles. When I bubble camp I catch more covops and bombers then any other ship. Nullified intys on the other hand can jump in to a system and instantly warp out of a bubble on the gate. On top of that the pilot will not even have to think about the out gate being safe. Nullified intys create and reward dumber pilots. We already have nullified T3s, we DO NOT NEED NULLIFED INTYS. Awh, your 20 bubble camp won't catch anything? You cant continue your cancerous existence, a damn shame.. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Sleepy Buddha Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2013.10.06 03:56:00 - [253] - Quote Xirin wrote: I don't see the point of bubble immunity. Any interceptor worth it's salt is going to be able to fly out of a bubble before anything can even lock it... Can we get some kind of change to how easy they are to hit? Tranversal and sig radius aside, it seems a bit silly that an Oracle can blap a 5.2 km/s interceptor at 30 km...Seems like that should be something destroyers and other frigates should be doing... Also, can the point-range interceptors get their range bonus extended to webs too? Pretty please? :D heh ... i would love to ... just theorycrafting kiting ares with extended web range .... isnt that really really op?
Tampopo Field Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 33	Posted - 2013.10.06 09:59:00 - [254] - Quote Making light missilens a usable choise for Interceptors ir a really nice addition. However there are a few problems I see with the current proposed rebalance, mainly concerning the missile platforms. Firstly the mixed weapon system bonus on the Ares. Mixing weapon systems is a bit like mixing tanks: usually a really stupid idea, but works well in a very few well thought out fits. I'm not convinced that mixed wapon system bonuses are the way to go. The second problem I see is that all the missile boats are also stuffed in the fleet role. While the Raptor may, as a rail boat, be ill suited to the fleet role and requires a role change to make it usable, having all missile platforms stuffed in the same role is not good. And as the Taranis serves quite well in its current role, making the swap of roles between it and the Ares an unwelcome move, there is always the third option. Swap the roles between the Malediction and the Crusader. This would give us the missile interceptor in a combat role. Notification: Because I'm lazy, I have a tendency to post without proof reading. This may result in various errors including but not limited to typos, weird typos, grammatical errors, bizarre sentence structure, words written repeatedly, mislocated paragraphs, pointlessly complicated explanations, general incoherency, and abrupt endings.
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 935	Posted - 2013.10.06 10:40:00 - [255] - Quote Good change! The Tears Must Flow
DeadDuck Macabre Votum Northern Coalition. 60	Posted - 2013.10.06 10:51:00 - [256] - Quote Major Killz wrote: DeadDuck wrote: Seems to me that giving the malediction a bonus to light missile launchers and not giving the ship the proper PG boost to fit them will have to be reviwed. What the fu*k are you talking about? I'm able to fit them with no issues now. If anything more CPU is needed. With a buffer ? Cause the stilleto's and all those ones are able to fit a biffer also ...
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 386	Posted - 2013.10.06 12:23:00 - [257] - Quote Tampopo Field wrote: Firstly the mixed weapon system bonus on the Ares. Mixing weapon systems is a bit like mixing tanks: usually a really stupid idea, but works well in a very few well thought out fits. I'm not convinced that mixed wapon system bonuses are the way to go. It's fine with lots of fitting and lots of hardpoints, ares has neither.
Vesan Terakol Sad Face Enterprises 18	Posted - 2013.10.06 15:36:00 - [258] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Tampopo Field wrote: Firstly the mixed weapon system bonus on the Ares. Mixing weapon systems is a bit like mixing tanks: usually a really stupid idea, but works well in a very few well thought out fits. I'm not convinced that mixed wapon system bonuses are the way to go. It's fine with lots of fitting and lots of hardpoints, ares has neither. Technically, its not a mixed weapon platform in its old iteration, as it doesn't have the slots to fit both guns and missiles to full capacity - its 2 weapons + utility, which you might decide to be the second available weapon - nobody forces you to do this, in order to optimally use your ship, tho (as was the case with the old split weapon platforms). Its just more flexible at no added cost.
Drake Doe SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 276	Posted - 2013.10.06 17:11:00 - [259] - Quote The ares could still use a bit more fitting and a third hardpoint for turrets and missiles, since I doubt it'll be changed from a mixed weapon platform. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Drake Doe SVER True Blood Public Disorder. 276	Posted - 2013.10.06 17:28:00 - [260] - Quote Teth Razor wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Niko Lorenzio wrote: You dont think bubble immunity will make ceptors extremely OP? I mean they got the speed to get out of the bubbles anyway so it's not like they slow them down much. No more OP than covops ships. That statement is completely wrong. What makes covops not op is the fact that you can still bubble them and try for the decloak, or if a covops is not smart he will warp strait gate to gate and hit drag bubbles. When I bubble camp I catch more covops and bombers then any other ship. Nullified intys on the other hand can jump in to a system and instantly warp out of a bubble on the gate. On top of that the pilot will not even have to think about the out gate being safe. Nullified intys create and reward dumber pilots. We already have nullified T3s, we DO NOT NEED NULLIFED INTYS. So you're upset that you have to actually try and plan for nullified ships when you camp? "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Teth Razor Chicks on Speed 6	Posted - 2013.10.06 19:18:00 - [261] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Teth Razor wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Niko Lorenzio wrote: You dont think bubble immunity will make ceptors extremely OP? I mean they got the speed to get out of the bubbles anyway so it's not like they slow them down much. No more OP than covops ships. That statement is completely wrong. What makes covops not op is the fact that you can still bubble them and try for the decloak, or if a covops is not smart he will warp strait gate to gate and hit drag bubbles. When I bubble camp I catch more covops and bombers then any other ship. Nullified intys on the other hand can jump in to a system and instantly warp out of a bubble on the gate. On top of that the pilot will not even have to think about the out gate being safe. Nullified intys create and reward dumber pilots. We already have nullified T3s, we DO NOT NEED NULLIFED INTYS. So you're upset that you have to actually try and plan for nullified ships when you camp? No I am not. But I am upset that bubble camps that you see now will turn in to remote seboing instalocking legion / loki / huggin / lachesis gangs. That will be a down grade in play style and a lot less noob friendly. Camping with a drag bubble is one of the first things a new player can effectively do on his own. By adding nullified intys (null sec shuttles) you take away lots of the action these new players can enjoy.
Kenpo 61st Angry Angels 16	Posted - 2013.10.06 19:30:00 - [262] - Quote Love the idea of sliding in unhindered by bubbles, I shall rename my Taranis "suicide suppository". Caution, rubber gloves and faceshield required when handling this equipment.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 386	Posted - 2013.10.06 21:27:00 - [263] - Quote Teth Razor wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Teth Razor wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Niko Lorenzio wrote: You dont think bubble immunity will make ceptors extremely OP? I mean they got the speed to get out of the bubbles anyway so it's not like they slow them down much. No more OP than covops ships. That statement is completely wrong. What makes covops not op is the fact that you can still bubble them and try for the decloak, or if a covops is not smart he will warp strait gate to gate and hit drag bubbles. When I bubble camp I catch more covops and bombers then any other ship. Nullified intys on the other hand can jump in to a system and instantly warp out of a bubble on the gate. On top of that the pilot will not even have to think about the out gate being safe. Nullified intys create and reward dumber pilots. We already have nullified T3s, we DO NOT NEED NULLIFED INTYS. So you're upset that you have to actually try and plan for nullified ships when you camp? No I am not. But I am upset that bubble camps that you see now will turn in to remote seboing instalocking legion / loki / huggin / lachesis gangs. That will be a down grade in play style and a lot less noob friendly. Camping with a drag bubble is one of the first things a new player can effectively do on his own. By adding nullified intys (null sec shuttles) you take away lots of the action these new players can enjoy. Everyone who does this stuff is terrible.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 61	Posted - 2013.10.07 01:05:00 - [264] - Quote All interceptors need a massive lock range bonus. Seriously. The speed and point range of these ships demand it. As for the specifics. 1. Crusader needs a low switched to the mid. This will make it a more effective fleet interceptor AND will also make it a more effective solo brawler because the extra mid helps with range control. 2. Not sure about the split weapons system for the Ares (or for Roden ships in general for that matter). It's good that you won't turn the Enyo into this kind of ship (I always thought it was more of a Duvolle Labs ship) but if this design philosophy moves on to affect the Phobos later on I predict some rage. Either way for the Ares I don't think anyone will care since it won't really affect its main role as a fleet ceptor and rockets destroy drones quite well. 3. Great job on the Crow, Raptor and Malediction. 4. Everything else is pretty unchanged. Claw remains kind of crap IMO, Stiletto still does it's job very well, Taranis nerf unneeded TBH (after the t1 frig buff, a decent amount of t1 frigs could already kill it) but it is still a viable high damage anti-support/solo ceptor.
LuisWu 25cm sin bonus 47	Posted - 2013.10.07 01:38:00 - [265] - Quote Helicity Boson wrote: The summary here, is that no pirate will be able to catch a smaller vessel once it warps to a gate/far away point And no pirate fleet will ever escape a FW blob again, due to the fact FW can deploy interceptors to tackle them on gate, and pirates can not. This seems a bit lopsided to me. This Edit: also I can-¦t understand why some ceptors still have bigger Signature than some assault frigates.
Azrael Dinn The 20th Legion Mildly Sober 171	Posted - 2013.10.07 08:03:00 - [266] - Quote Not saying this is a bad idea but sounds alot like you are not supose to rat in carriers idea. After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Susitna Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 1	Posted - 2013.10.07 09:15:00 - [267] - Quote Please leave the utility high on the malediction. You buff the nos then you start removing the slots? The slot layout on the malediction is fine as is.
Denuo Secus 175	Posted - 2013.10.07 12:37:00 - [268] - Quote Please give the Ares 3 missile and 3 turret slots! Like you did on the Scythe Fleet Issue. I hoped this is the new approach for dual weapon bonus :( To go full damage on the Ares I'd need to fit different damage modules, which would gimp my fit. But being able to choose to go full missiles or turrets would offer some nice options/unpredictability/flexibility - the Gallente way.
Bouh Revetoile TIPIAKS 369	Posted - 2013.10.07 12:41:00 - [269] - Quote Denuo Secus wrote: Please give the Ares 3 missile and 3 turret slots! Like you did on the Scythe Fleet Issue. I hoped this is the new approach for dual weapon bonus :( To go full damage on the Ares I'd need to fit different damage modules, which would gimp my fit. But being able to choose to go full missiles or turrets would offer some nice options/unpredictability/flexibility - the Gallente way. You just misspelled Minmatar into Gallente. Interesting typo. :-)
Denuo Secus 175	Posted - 2013.10.07 13:05:00 - [270] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Denuo Secus wrote: Please give the Ares 3 missile and 3 turret slots! Like you did on the Scythe Fleet Issue. I hoped this is the new approach for dual weapon bonus :( To go full damage on the Ares I'd need to fit different damage modules, which would gimp my fit. But being able to choose to go full missiles or turrets would offer some nice options/unpredictability/flexibility - the Gallente way. You just misspelled Minmatar into Gallente. Interesting typo. :-) In my book Gallente combat philosophy is about flexibility. If you refer to the missile bonus itself...I for one would like 3 turret slots and no missile bonus/slot at all more that the current half-and-half concept.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,27s, ref 20250913/1005
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.