Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 18:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Not sure where to put this, but the Oracle's camera center needs some adjustment, it is too "in front" and needs a quick look to centralize it. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
At least the Oracle has tracking problems (even with tracking rigs fitted), when any propulsion mod is active, and even with base speed it is obvious that the tracking is affected.
For the Oracle, remove the cap usage per level and replace it with a tracking bonus. It should have the damage per level bonus and a tracking per level bonus.
|

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Meh I hate to see fantastic art and magnificent models wasted on a niche role, whose practical warfare use is questionable. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 11:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fix the Naga please, subpar dps, lacking weapon systems, and the tank leaves much to be desired compared to other tier 3s. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:15:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jill Antaris wrote:Since the Thread gone a bit off topic during the last page, I like to repost some stuff here:
Oracle
The old concept was better. Don't get me wrong, I love pooping blaster hulls with 1200+ DPS during her endless crusade to get into a range they never reach. However this is simply over the top, for a mobile hull like the Oracle. Hitting anti support at 50km isn't so hard anyway. You not going to prevent this in a big fight, and it is rather moot point outside of this for a fleet ship like the Oracle. Give it back it's range + tracking bonus(buff the cap a bit to compensate for the lack of the 2. cap use bonus) and make it a notch faster so you end up with a faster Apoc/long range Harbinger instead of a Abaddon that also can control the engagement range(what makes it extreme powerful) and is fairly cap stable in practical game play.
Naga
I'm still waiting for a change. With torps it is nearly useful, however it still lacks the higher velocity bonus to bump up the range a bit so it can compete with other tier 3 BC short range weapon setups(except the Talos) and a explosion velocity bonus to bring it down to 337.5m. You still have damage reduction by speed and sig for most BCs. BC and BS are the most common fleet ships today for DPS. If you want a torp naga on the field it must be able to project solid damage against them(w/o throwing 1-2 painter, a scram and a web on every target you shoot, it isn't this good dps wise to justify this).
The slot and fitting nerf was uncalled for. I'm still looking for a update on the speed penalty for javelin torpedo's.
Tornado
It is over the top with the the best mix of tank and gank mounted on the fastest hull of the tier3(by quite some margin), if you insist to keep the falloff bonus, reduce the turret count or remove a low slot to bring the overall damage down a notch.
Talos
Add a 5. med(and some fitting to use the slot, overall it is very short on CPU for a shieldtank) and buff the tracking bonus to 10% per level to make it a halve way ok rail ship for medium ranges, that can at least compete against beam fittings w/o the damage bonus or puls setups with scorch(it is to far off with the tracking atm and lacks the 5. med for a reasonable tank).
I mostly agree.
I also think that the Naga is the most underwhelming of the four. It is desperate for attention. It simply can't compete with anything.
|

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 08:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
LT Alter wrote:In my opinion, ships will never always be used for their determined roles. At the end of the day we will still see the these battlecruisers ripping apart ships smaller ships than just battleships. Honestly, I can't argue the removal of the web bonus on the talos, it would have been fun and useful and I was a little deflated to see its removal but, it would have made killing small ships incredibly easy and in fact TOO easy. The drone bay, in my opinion, should not be removed from the talos, but this would increase its ability to fight smaller ships so it's been removed. My suggestion, though I will probably get chased off this thread with a shotgun on this suggestion but I'm going for it anyway, we give the talos a fighter. Yes, I said it, a single fighter without to ability to replace it with a bunch of small drones. Much like the fighter bay on the mom nerf coming up. 5 hobs without ship boosts do almost exactly the same as a single fireblog (about 100dps). This would allow the talos to put some dps on the floor outside it's gun range yet keep it away from smaller ships, I like the sound of it, just time to do some research now...
10 minutes later after some research: There are several problems with this suggestion I will say from the start, this bay would be useless to new players as they wouldn't have the skills for fighters. Not to mention that the fighter would cost about 1/3 the price of the ship once prices settle down. It's a good idea in concept but in the reality of TQ it wouldn't work. I don't know where to find any common ground to make this work other than the fighter being part of the ship and you miracusly get new one when you dock, not to mention a reduced skill requirement for new players.
I'm open to suggestions and this entire post is speculation so do please take a minute or two and give it some thought before trolling me right off this thread. Thanks for reading!
Sorry if this post is 100% geared toward gallente, it's all I ever fly. Many people may have no love for gallente but it's what I fly and I like it.
I can't wait to see the troll posts in reply to this, sigh.
It's new and interesting, I like the sound of it, using a sole fighter as an extension of the ship but like you said it's not very feasible or practical and can lead to issues.
I still think the Naga needs love, it can't make use of this double bonus without being set up as a failfit.
Like an above poster said, I too would like to have an option other than the stupid drake, that boring ship with its massively boring missile effects, lack of launchers (real ones anyway, because the mockery on the sides is just lame). The other caldari ships just suck too much, and the Naga seems to be honoring the tradition so far... |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 11:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
The Naga as a hybrid platform is a very good decision, well done CCP!
It might need some extra powergrid/cpu though. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 18:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Turning the Naga into a hybrid platform was a very good decision, one that I fully support. The bonuses seem fine. The only thing, as with the rest of tier3 bcs, that may need some attention, is careful tuning of powergrid and cpu to ensure that several viable fitting are possible.
However, as some other suggested, adding some missile launcher hardpoints may be a good idea, to offset the complete specialization, allowing it to sport some missile fire. Essentially, keep the hybrid bonuses as they are, but add the possibility of launcher hardpoints on the hull for those wanting to make a mix with torps as support.
- Tier3s may need careful Powergrid/CPU tuning to ensure a wide range of viable fittings for different situations is viable (and that they can actually fit T2 weapons)
- The Naga changes were very good and the ship is now usable, and feels excellent as a hybrid platform.
- It is a good idea to let the Naga have a few missile launcher hardpoints as a support weapons system, but without bonuses to avoid the mess, so it can have some flavor and satisfy - at least partly - missile users.
|

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 13:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yankunytjatjara wrote:After sleeping on it, I confirm my thoughts: keep the 8 launchers and the fitting bonus, then the naga is cool.
All other caldari hybrid ships have a mixed weapons option, keep it on the naga too!
My thoughts exactly, keep the hybrid bonuses, but add the launcher hardpoints to open versality.
|

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
28
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Keep the Naga as is, just add two bonuses for torps and missile hardpoints.
Problem solved. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 08:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Keep the Naga hybrid bonuses and just add two torp bonuses.
Problem solved. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 10:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
Raven Ether wrote:Keep the Naga as is, just add two bonuses for torps and missile hardpoints.
Problem solved.
Raven Ether wrote:Keep the Naga hybrid bonuses and just add two torp bonuses.
Problem solved.
For the millionth time.
and forget those ******** damage type specific bonuses, they are relics of 2003, might as well suggest something more universal.
Cruise Missiles DO NOT and WILL NOT follow the ship class design, CCP has said so, end of story.
Torps as a secondary close range weapon choice is good enough. So you have railguns for long range, blasters/torps for close. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 14:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
Fact- Caldari use both hybrids and missiles.
Ask for both. |

Raven Ether
Republic University Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 11:54:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'll say it again..
- Naga keeps all hybrid bonuses
- 8 missile launcher hardpoints are added to the Naga
- Torpedo ship and fitting bonus added
=> You have a ship with railguns for long range, blasters AND torpedoes for close range combat.
Really, how complicated it is to understand? |
|
|