Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Soldarius
Peek-A-Boo Bombers
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 05:33:00 -
[181] - Quote
Emily Poast wrote:Just curious if anyone has tried them out against their intended victim - battleships? I saw a video of a Tornado v. a sniper Abaddon, but that doesnt really count. Has anyone tried them ac v ac setup, or blaster v blaster, etc? I am curious to see how that goes.
Facing 2 tier 3s of the same type and fit against each other is irrelevant. We're testing the balance of them in all situations. Doing a mirror match is entirely dependent on pilot skill, which we are not testing.
I have been wondering about tier 3 BC vulnerability to frigates. tbqh, I could probably kill a Tier 3 in an EAF. Definitely could do it in an AF. Dramiels and Daredevils will eat these things for breakfast as is. They really need a dronebay.
That being said, perhaps this is a stealth attempt at giving EAFs and AFs a role in PvP combat. /tinfoil? "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:03:00 -
[182] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Emily Poast wrote:Just curious if anyone has tried them out against their intended victim - battleships? I saw a video of a Tornado v. a sniper Abaddon, but that doesnt really count. Has anyone tried them ac v ac setup, or blaster v blaster, etc? I am curious to see how that goes. Facing 2 tier 3s of the same type and fit against each other is irrelevant. We're testing the balance of them in all situations. Doing a mirror match is entirely dependent on pilot skill, which we are not testing. I have been wondering about tier 3 BC vulnerability to frigates. tbqh, I could probably kill a Tier 3 in an EAF. Definitely could do it in an AF. Dramiels and Daredevils will eat these things for breakfast as is. They really need a dronebay. That being said, perhaps this is a stealth attempt at giving EAFs and AFs a role in PvP combat. /tinfoil?
Yeah, I understand - my post could have been a bit clearer. I was trying to suggest that someone try a short range T3 BC against a short range BS. And a Long range T3BC v a Long range BS. If they are meant to be anti BS platforms, lets see how they do. |
Kami Lincoln
THE KINGD0M Trojan Odyssey Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:46:00 -
[183] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:yeah right, if you use an oracle at 200km, you are going to hit cruisers regardless of sig.
farther you get the easier you hit. pretty common knowledge there fella
Not 100% sure, but Im pretty sure I saw the max targeting range on the Oracle at 80km, might have been 60km... getting it to 200km Im pretty sure is close to impossible... and if it isn't, it would prolly be as effective as a battleship so I fail to see the point. |
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:28:00 -
[184] - Quote
The Tornado is a real pwnmobile, if it goes live on TQ unchanged than most people will switch to Tornado and even CCP will have to put a hard nerf on it within a year.
Talos, not so much. Horrible range, since your 'hybrid fix' missed the blasters the damage is uninteresting, a ship that might be the last nail for the gallente ships coffin. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
231
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:32:00 -
[185] - Quote
revision 3 for talos.
20 more cpu 25m drone bay 7.5% to tracking.
Initial oracle
change 10% bonus to 5% and add a 5% tracking bonus. add 15 to cpu.
Initial tornado -
+10% to powergrid. |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:35:00 -
[186] - Quote
Again CCP.
You need to make some adjustement with the speed of each class of ship.
- Don't possible to fit one mwd or afterbuner higher than you ship class ( exemple 100mn on tengu etc) - The speed of BC is to high with mwd ( a lot of cruiser with mwd are slowest than BC, if you check the mass is it no possible). - Same for some BS (like tempest and machariel).
all skill V, 10 mwd
Hurricane 1311 m/s mass 12'500'000 216'000 m3 Maller 1366 m/s mass 11'550'000 118'000 m3 Eagle 1354 m/s mass 11'720'000 101'00 m3
The BC make more dps than cruiser T2 and cruiser T1 The BC are more tanking than cruiser T1 and T2
The difference of the mass between the both size is to small.
If you increase the mass of the BC, you got a better difference of speed beetween cruiser and BC.
The m3 of the BC are the twice of the cruiser and the mass is about only 10 % more ...
Increase the BC mass by 15 % |
Knoppaz
Rens Nursing Home
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:31:00 -
[187] - Quote
So far I only checked the Tornado and it was a really fun ship to fly. Everything felt just right. Not too flimsy, but no hard nugget either. Speed and agility were a big plus on the fun-factor, but definately not overpowered. I used a dual 425mm setup and though I don't have much experience with large guns since I prefer frigs and cruiser hulls, the damage was where I expected it and tracking surprised me a bit since I thought it would be worse. Fitting also seemed to be ok. It can fit a full rack 1400mm, but not without sacrifices, right as it should be..
Summary: Imho don't touch the Tornado and balance the rest accordingly (will test those later).
|
Gerri Mander
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:08:00 -
[188] - Quote
Falloff bonus makes Tornado OP - you've effectively created an Angel BC. Not sure the game will benefit from cheap insurable Angel BCs how ever much fun they might be to fly.
Replace with a tracking bonus as at least this is a traditional Minmatar tech 1 bonus. |
VeloxMors
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 12:36:00 -
[189] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:ok, went and tried the Naga. First impression was, if you have fitting issues with this, your skills need work.
Soldarius wrote:...I started running into issues with grid and CPU both...
|
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:13:00 -
[190] - Quote
VeloxMors wrote:Soldarius wrote:ok, went and tried the Naga. First impression was, if you have fitting issues with this, your skills need work. Soldarius wrote:...I started running into issues with grid and CPU both...
I think he meant that at first he had that impression because of the fit he tried... When, instead, he tried to run a sensible fit he started to feel the issues everybody was talking about. |
|
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:28:00 -
[191] - Quote
It would be best not to release any Tier3 BC with the next expansion.
Initial testing shows that they are horribly balanced, your 'hybrid-fix' is a joke and partly responsible for a broken Talos and possibly Naga while the Tornado was given far too much love.
The balancing obviously needs a lot more work and possibly some developers who are less minmatar-focused. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:36:00 -
[192] - Quote
I spent a couple of hours on SiSi last night playing with the Oracle, Talos, and Tornado. The Oracle is an amazing scorch-sniper, the Tornado is fast as anything and an amazing skirmish ship with 800's-- as agile as a Vagabond, fast enough to outrun most things that threaten it, good enough tracking/range to blap tacklers that try and burn after it-- it's a beautiful poor-man's Machariel.
Then there's the Talos, which is basically completely useless. Either it fits an armor tank and handles poorly or it fits a shield / nano fit, handles decently, but has the EHP of a wet paper bag. This wouldn't trouble me so much if it weren't for the fact that it seems totally incapable of doing any damage ever. It doesn't do damage to cruisers (cant track well enough to hit them inside its optimal, can't do enough damage to be relevant once it's far enough away to track), it can't hit frigates at all (even from 30+ km with null and a tracking enhancer) and although I guess it can hit battleships / other BCs by the time it gets into range and slows down to non-prop speeds to un-**** its tracking it's usually nearly dead anyway.
If the Talos had a 90% web bonus that allowed it to pin cruisers / bad frigate pilots and blap them the ship would be useful. If it had range bonuses that allowed it to engage with blasters at long enough ranges that its tracking wouldn't render the guns useless, it would be useful. If it kept its current configuration but with enough EHP to go toe to toe with bigger ships it can track, it would be useful. As is it's just awful. The Oracle was amazing for kiting + sniping cruisers and up for ~550 dps. The Tornado is just all-around excellent. I'll confess I didn't test the Naga because it's hideous and the only fit I'd fly would be a rail sniper (boring) or blaster boat (without as much tracking as the Talos, lolol like that's a thing). The Talos was aeons behind the other three ships in terms of usefulness. I was really, really excited about this ship but it looks like in actuality I'll probably fly it once on TQ for novelty value, lose it in the first engagement before I get to do any damage, and then stick to flying a Tornado for the rest of ever. |
Voith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:46:00 -
[193] - Quote
The whole "BS guns on a BC" should just be scrapped.
I would rather see a new ship type, and one with unique ships for each faction than for a dumb gimmick and regurgitation of 90% of the ships of the faction.
|
Rabid Minks
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 13:51:00 -
[194] - Quote
So far, I like the tornado, I can see a role for it.
But as many others have said, do something about the naga. The current split weapon format with split bonuses does not work. Possible fixes:
-Give dual bonuses to both rails and torps (may make too powerful given the versatility?)
-Make it a dedicated rail sniper ship, lose the torp bonus, add a second rail bonus (but will it be used? Tornado probably better in same role, so only viable to non-minmatar spec'd toons).
-Make it a dedicated in-your-face torp ship, lose the rail bonus, add a second torp bonus
-Make it an in-your-face blaster boat (but infringing on the gallente talos territory) |
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:45:00 -
[195] - Quote
Rabid Minks wrote: -Make it a dedicated in-your-face torp ship, lose the rail bonus, add a second torp bonus
-Make it an in-your-face blaster boat (but infringing on the gallente talos territory)
Remember though that caldari ships suffer from the same problems of gallente ships, even though they are shield tanked: we have the poorest speed and handling, perhaps comparable to a fully armor tanked gallente ship (Ok, amarr armor tanked ships have worse handling but they have pulse lasers, so it's not really an issue). Making the Naga a close range only ship will require fixes to its speed, handling and weapon systems as well.
Not saying that it's not an option (though I'd prefer versatility since the tornado is excellent both as a skirmisher and as a sniper), but it will need a lot of work. |
Aldap
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:03:00 -
[196] - Quote
I love destroyers, but I think you went a little too far :-) They now take out frigs way too easily. You're going to discourage the average new 'rifter pilots' players in fleets even more. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 15:13:00 -
[197] - Quote
My experience with the 4 new tier 3 battlecruisers :
The attributes of these ships are fantastic - They almost feel too good to be true. And when something feels wrong it usually is... Amongst themself the Tornado, Oracle and Naga seems well balanced but the Talos gets the stick a lot. Besides this the roles of the ships need to be far more specific and consistent. Battlecruisers with big guns simply isn't enough of a role for this eye candy!!
SPEED Currently the tier 3 battlecruisers are retardely fast and likely even able to outrun even cruisers!! Someone must have watched too much spaceballs: http://youtu.be/ZFqbAGqKTsE
The Tornado doing over 1600 m/s with a MWD and no speed mods is ridiculous and totally out of place. My Naga did over 1300 m/s and was faster than a plated Talos w/ Trimarks.
Yes, these new babies need to be faster than battleships, but IMO they shouldn't be able to outrun and kite T1 cruisers and battlecruisers. Also it hurts me to see the gallente Talos sticking to the last place when we know how important it is to get in range.
I would look into getting it it more in line like this (Base velocity with maxed skills) : Caracal 223m/s - Vexor 199m/s - Stabber 361m/s (w/ ship bonus) - Omen 226m/s - Average 252m/s Moa 205m/s - Thorax 213m/s - Rupture 240m/s - Maller 205m/s - Average 216m/s Ferox 175m/s - Brutix 181m/s - Cyclone 206m/s - Prophecy 188m/s - Average 187m/s Drake 175m/s - Myrm 181m/s - Cane 206m/s- Harb 188m/s - Avg = 187m/s Scorp 118m/s - Domi 124m/s - Phoon 163m/s - Geddon 131m/s - Avg = 134m/s Raven 118m/s - Mega 131m/s - Temp 150m/s - Apoc 118m/s - Avg = 129m/s
- NAGA should as a long range hybrid ship be between 175m/s and 223m/s (base velocity + skills) -> 180m/s base?
- TALOS should as a blaster ship be between 181m/s and 213m/s (base velocity + skills) -> 195m/s base?
- TORNADO should be between 206m/s and 240m/s (base velocity + skills) -> 190m/s base?
- ORACLE should be between 188m/s and 226m/s (base velocity + skills) - 185m/s base?
This said in general with a majority of minmatar ships fitting shield tanks and blaster boats being designed for armor I believe the velocity stats between gallente and minmatar should be reversed, however that belongs in a fix to blasters and not a tier 3 BC discussion.
SLOT LAYOUT : I kind of likes the slot layouts a lot. It looks rather balanced without neither pre-nerfing or boosting the ships. What worries me though are 2 things: The estetics of having a battlecruiser crammed up with heavy weaponry only the tier 3 battleships can rival and the danger of having battlecruisers with a devastating alphastrike. And well I also think it will be a great shame to have the ship cost punked up a great deal from 8!! large weapons.
In my opinion these ships would not only look much better, but also be more balanced fitting only 4 or 6 turrets and adjusting the damage over RoF role bonus. The leftover hi-slots should be removed to not allow any utility slots.
FITTING : I feel a bit sad to see these ships easily being able to fit the biggest short range weapons and also being able to fit the highest tier of long range weapons. In my opinion they should not be able to fit more than tier 2 long range weaponry even with maxed skills, rigs, reactor controls and implants...
BONUS : Usually the most debated part of ships and often one of the most important features of a ship. They should ofcourse fit the racial themes as well as supplementing the role of the ships - And it seems the current bonus are way off...
- First off the ships need the role bonus to fit the large weaponry - Make sure people cannot fit too big weapons without the use of fitting modules etc...
- We also need a role bonus to make sure the ships are capable of running their weaponry if they are using capacitor. I believe the current stats are too forgiving in regards to cap and should be a little more tight.
- Then if the ships get fewer actual weapons on their hulls we need a bonus to compensate. A damage bonus will break the purpose of cutting the number of guns down to avoid a high alpha, but 6 guns with a 25% ROF bonus will be equal to having 8 guns and 4 guns with a 50% ROF role bonus will also be equal to having 8 guns.
- Now what these ships REALLY need for a PROPER ROLE BONUS is a bonus to enable the weapons hitting while you have a higher transversal than the guns are designed for. All ships should get a 25% Tracking role bonus to help hit their targets while getting under the guns on battleships.
- TALOS and TORNADO should have an additional tracking bonus 5% pr level as their first bonus.
- NAGA is fine with the 10% optimal bonus as the first bonus (or is it 5%?).
- ORACLE is also fine with 10% cap bonus for the lasers as the first bonus (or is it 5%?).
- TALOS to set itself apart from the caldari counterpart should have a damage bonus 5% pr level as second bonus.
- TORNADO also deserves to be a damage dealer and should as second bonus have a ROF bonus 5% pr level.
- NAGA and ORACLE to support their ranged bonus should be granted a bonus towards 10% Shield/armor pr level.
Plz note that CCP can also use the amount of turrets to regulate dps in case one or more ships should need it.
TORPEDOS : I have nothing against torpedos, but it is such a shame to dedicate the tier 3 BC to torpedos when CCP have made a fantastic model with the ability to carry friggin beutiful huge guns... Should CCP decide to they can easily insert missile bonus, but keep in mind the ship need 2 bonus to whatever they decide. |
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:27:00 -
[198] - Quote
Honestly, I dont get your point.
The t3 BC's are fast, but thats just what they are ment to be.
T3BC:
a.) BS sized weapons b.) high speed
In exchange, thay sacrifice their resistance, so that they're on 5k HP, while orther BC's are at 10k+, seems fair that they can use the speed as a defense.
In addition, as fast as they are, they are completely sold out to frigs, and probably also to some really fast cruisers, like the stabber.
Know about all those saying that these new BC's will make it worthless to fly cruisers, HAC's or whatever, c'mon... its like saying a tanking Maller is pointless becasue there is the Abbadon or the Prophecy. The truth is, some ships are easily beaten by other, stronger ships, or by those who use tactics they cant match, thats just what makes eve beautifull, its not just hitting buttons, triggering skills, but about developing tactics, and using the adecuate ships/fittings.
And dont tell me the new BC's are gona be invincible, as an apocalypse can easily pwn al four of them if flown with some bit of skill, as a Maelstrom can (lets be fair, the tornado may be strong, but one artillery voley and he is done for).
Really, we can say the idea follows the correct trace, the only problem that remains, is that talos and naga, both are extremely nerfed; the talos because its imposible to get a decent hit on the enemy, no way how much you try, and the naga because of being completely underpowered and useless.
I would suggest giving the talos some kind of webbonus as it had at the begining, or/and giving its drone bay back, while with the naga we need either a significant CPU/PG upgrade, or the LS back that was taken away (to put in some kind of PG/CPU upgrade) and its ship bonuses need to be improved. It could easily be solved by adding a third bonus to the ships (such as the scorpion has) that works with both hybrids and torps (maybe the 5% resistances bonus or something in that direction) or just removing one of the spects, and making it either full hybrid or full torp. |
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:33:00 -
[199] - Quote
Cyvhiros wrote: And dont tell me the new BC's are gona be invincible, as an apocalypse can easily pwn al four of them if flown with some bit of skill, as a Maelstrom can (lets be fair, the tornado may be strong, but one artillery voley and he is done for).
Actually I'd say that the most likely candidate for T3 BC bashing are T2 BCs, not battleships. Nanocane and cookie cutter heavy drake should do the trick most of the time. |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:42:00 -
[200] - Quote
Torps range bonus is pointless, it just means it takes even longer for it to hit its target. I believe torps on the Naga should be a close range weapon and 2x Bonus's to reflect this(signiture, rate of fire...etc)
While having a resistances bonus defeats the object of the Tier3 BC, high damage-low defence! |
|
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:50:00 -
[201] - Quote
Phantomania wrote:
Torps range bonus is pointless, it just means it takes even longer for it to hit its target. I believe torps on the Naga should be a close range weapon and 2x Bonus's to reflect this(signiture, rate of fire...etc)
While having a resistances bonus defeats the object of the Tier3 BC, high damage-low defence!
About the 5% resistences bonus, that was just an example, it just popped up in my head, as anything else could've done.
Yet, the rage bonus gives torps the possibility of kiting somehow, as without the bonus both High damage and high precission are too low in range to do it propperly. I agree in the need of a bonus like explosionvelocity/signature, without torps are just pointless against non BS. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 16:57:00 -
[202] - Quote
My 8x Ion Blaster Cannon II Naga doesn't fall to the fitting problems your fancy torpedo Nagas do.
Eagle has a damage bonus to hybrids. So why can't the Naga? I'd support the addition of a hybrid damage bonus on it, as well as some other form of ROF or damage bonus for torps, as well as greater fitting requirement reduction for torps seeing as people are having some CPU problems with them.
Strongly against making the Naga a cruise platform, because that's silly in my opinion and would probably get it stuck in the 'PvE only' hole that loads of Caldari ships are already in. Would cruises honestly fit in anywhere in PvP outside of a sniping role?
|
Cyvhiros
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:04:00 -
[203] - Quote
Aglais wrote:My 8x Ion Blaster Cannon II Naga doesn't fall to the fitting problems your fancy torpedo Nagas do.
Would cruises honestly fit in anywhere in PvP outside of a sniping role?
Sadly problably not since 90% of its potential lost in this pointless 150km range; maybe cruises will make sense again if they set up a minimum warp distance of ~400km; same as the RG Rokh ;). |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:10:00 -
[204] - Quote
Cyvhiros wrote:Phantomania wrote:
Torps range bonus is pointless, it just means it takes even longer for it to hit its target. I believe torps on the Naga should be a close range weapon and 2x Bonus's to reflect this(signiture, rate of fire...etc)
While having a resistances bonus defeats the object of the Tier3 BC, high damage-low defence!
About the 5% resistences bonus, that was just an example, it just popped up in my head, as anything else could've done.
This wasn't a personal dig, its something I've seen alot of, the same as you say it just "popped" in your head, I feel the Naga isn't getting a hell of alot of thought put into it.
So far Naga has to be the worst of the 4. I'd like those that have experience/skills to just pretend that the Naga is the ONLY Tier3 they can fly and Missiles the only weapon they are good with, then think of what would be right for it as far as going up against the other 3 races!
The problem with Caldari I believe is that the Turret/Missile choice has been pretty much 50/50, unlike the other races which have had a focused weapon, so the Naga is also reflecting this with its dual weapon choice, but this also means it NEEDS 2x Bonus's for each weapon type. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:40:00 -
[205] - Quote
TALOS
General efficiency: we do realize it suffers from some problems next to the other hulls. Unfortunately, as some of you pointed it, the real issue here comes from blasters, and how they compete against similarly close ranged weapons like autocannons and pulse lasers. Thus, this is little more that can be done by tweaking the hull itself, since the problems mainly come from:
- Damage projection: blasters have issues projecting damage, especially considering Tech2 ammunition like Scorch and Barrage, which greatly empowers pulse lasers and autocannons and leave hybrids far behind for little increased damage to compensate. The issue is also widened because blasters benefit less from tracking enhancers and falloff related bonuses than their Minmatar close weapon counterpart.
- Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion ) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.
- Lack of usefulness in gang/fleet engagements: thus, because of blaster low damage projection and Gallente poor mobility when armor tanked, blaster ships are found lacking in gang warfare, as either your target or yourself are long dead before you can reach it. Besides, having blaster ships moving all around the battlefield to engage its target leads to coordination issues with the rest of the fleet, especially if logistics are implied.
So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.
For instance, let us give you a quick insight of the indirect problems we have to face regarding blaster balancing:
- Do we want to nerf Barrage and Scorch? If yes, by how? Wouldn't that kill their usefulness as a whole? If no, can we add even more falloff to blasters, knowing it may be over-inflating the balance of power again?
- Don't we need to have a look at shield extenders/armor plates as well? If we nerf them, are we confident with possible changes to passive tanking? Can't we make active tanking more useful on PvP setups, so that passive tanking is less used for blaster platforms and more on Amarr platforms, designed to be more static than Gallente? Doesn't that require looking into NOS/Neuts as well? How about Cap boosters? Overheating?
- Can we make Gallente ships faster than Minmatar knowing they also use railguns? Wouldn't that be defeating the original design goals for Minmatar ships?
Turning the Talos into a drone oriented ship: this ship is not supposed to be a drone boat, as it would allow it to hit smaller targets far too easily. We will maybe consider reintroducing its 25m3 dronebay if it is found really underperforming, but this is really unlikely for the moment |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:40:00 -
[206] - Quote
NAGA:
Dual bonuses: what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:
- Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
- Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
- Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat
Cruise missiles: initial reasons not to have them were because of the following combination:
- Hit smaller targets: may be made to reliably hit smaller targets with target painters/rigs
- Reliable projection: they have a fairly long range, within which the Naga doesn't have to worry about capacitor or transversal velocity
- Mobility: Naga can use points above to deliver long range constant damage while being quite difficult to catch itself
You could argue points above are not always applicable and you would be right, which is why cruise missiles are still being considered. However, it they are introduced into the Naga, hybrid bonuses most likely will be removed from it
Lack of fittings: first pass fittings were too generous, but we possibly squeezed them down too much in this version, more investigation must be made on this
TORNADO:
Is it overpowered? Well, that's tied to the comments made on the Talos. Considering swapping the falloff bonus to tracking (but it could hit smaller targets even more easily) or just reducing the falloff bonus to 5-7.5%. Again, nothing is fixed yet.
ORACLE:
Capacitor bonus: is fine, it helps this ship deliver damage in prolonged engagements.
Hope that helps a bit |
|
mkint
291
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:48:00 -
[207] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:TALOS It's not the Talos's fault, it's blasters' fault. Not my problem. Suck it.
FYP |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
100
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:52:00 -
[208] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:TALOS if the problem is mobility, how about allowing it to use drones that can only help here, but not the use of dps drones ? you want him to stay alive long enough to reach it target, and before it's killed by someone else. maybe allowing the use of only ECM drones or something like that ? a bonus to webifer drones ? or a bonus on mwd ? |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:NAGA: I agree with most that has been said in your post, but I would like to make a few points.
Quote:Dual bonuses: what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:
- Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
- Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat
Comparisons with Raven & Rokh -> These battleships are generally regarded as long range & low DPS battleships. Please don't punish the Naga for its family and reduce/remove the range bonuses for damage bonuses (providing of course that the Naga can still hit large towers with torps).
As for the Talos, I would recommend that the hybrid bonuses for the Naga should only be for Railguns. Can this be done? This would prevent the Naga from upstaging the Talos.
Quote:[*] Mobility: Naga can use points above to deliver long range constant damage while being quite difficult to catch itself These BC3 get their protection from speed, but I see a great amount of variation between them. Thus please boost the slower BC3s such as the Naga. |
Phantomania
Alien Ship Builders Caedite Eos
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:01:00 -
[210] - Quote
@ CCP Ytterbium
Thankyou for the detailed info, I now see the problems you face.
Now knowing you put so much thinking into the Ships I'll just leave it in your capable hands. (givng me a headache anyway)
If all you say about the Naga is correct, then fitting Cruise Launchers is the only way I'd fly this, if not I'd just get one to station spin and admire.
Keep up the good work!
Peace Out!!! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |