|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
0
   |
Posted - 2011.11.04 16:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Two step wrote:My reply got eaten, here goes again.
T2 triage mod is still underwhelming (as mentioned on the CSM forums...). It needs to either boost local reps or remote rep range, plus it should be 2 more targets than T1. Another option would be less cap use on local/remote reps.
+1 This is something that needs to be addressed now and not next year please. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 03:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Dondoran wrote:CCP come on T2 gang links thats just to much  35.2% bonus from a tech3 WIN  FIX off grid boosting its the right thing to do  remember fleet command ships  Agreed. Tech III command subsystem stepped all over command ships. Possibly the increased cpu requirements of tech II links will negate some of the tech III faggotry, but probably not enough of a fitting cost to prevent the tech III idiocy. Tech III should not do command, hac, recon, etc better than tech II. You really ****** this up. Make links only work on-grid and that will restore command ships to their rightful place at the top of providing buffs.
if you took the time to invest in your skill plan properly you would see that FCS' still are better than t3 booster
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 19:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
most of the time energy is the number one concern of a triage pilot. the rep bonus would be nice but unnecessary. anything makes it easier to fit tank or increase cap ammount and reduce the ammount of slots dedicated to pure cap recharge is fine by me. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 07:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
the two platforms are intended to fight in two completely different scenarios. carriers rely on being the focal point on the battle field and logistics ships fly on the out skirts of a fight.
triage carriers create bubbles of control on a battlefield. if you extend their range they become overpowered |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 04:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
57km radius is a huge volume of space covered by massive reps as it is. decreasing the cap use of RR's in triage would be a significant increase in capability but, it would not be overpowered. the gangs backed up by triage are still fairly limited in their offensive capacity because that rep radius is not changing but once every 6-7 minutes or so ( i say 6-7 minutes because at best a carrier could go in and out of triage in 5 and with webs be moved about the field via warp ins)
the gang backed up by logi's however can move around a much larger area on grid and rep a larger area on said grid and never have to worry about moving out of rep range (assuming the logis and dps dealers arent derp)
that being said. range would give the group too many possibilities offensively while cap would simply allow for longer straight up brawl. a couple of dreads or enough sub caps are still going to overwhelm the local tank |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 20:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
you contradict yourself. you say t2 is supposed to merely improve upon t1 yet, you still want a range bonus added to a t2 module that does not exist on its t1 counterpart.
that little tidbit aside, we use these ships in triage mode almost daily and if the range was increased, it would be a very bad thing for everyone else in wormhole space against us. we could warp our carrier in at 100 and have mid range vessels with factions points holding you down 70km from that carrier andyou wouldnt be able to do a damn thing about it.
as funny as that sounds. it would get boring very very quickly because it would be very OP.
i dont have a problem with t2 modules having a bonus that t1 does not but rep range is not the answer.
also, most triage carriers used in brawls are being used in wormhole space and i can tell you that most of them are being used in a cap stable form. so, more cap stability is not analogous to rep ammount, we are all already repping the max ammount possible all the time (until the baahlgorns get there)
I respect what you are trying to say but, the practical knowledge AHARM has accumulated on the subject is probably close to the most comprehensive in EvE. Also, if you can figure out how to scrounge up the fitting for the 3rd local you mention for an archon or any other armor carrier, let us know.  |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 21:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
yeah, our average fit is about 12 bil cheaper and still stable. that was our ceo's pimp fit one. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 23:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
the sc quandry will never happen with carriers for two reasons. 1) changes to aggro mechanics so, its there till its dead or the group gives up 2) carriers do not have a small towers worth of EHP.
with these two changes a SC or anything like it will never be able to just ride it out for 2 to 15 minutes depending on the situation ever again. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 23:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
i wish that could be achieved but , that will never happen. if i had to guess what ccp has in mind for cap reduction, the changes might make it so a baahl squad needs a minute or so more to cap out the carrier.
baahls are powerful tools in the battle for energy. typically one with talismans can do the trick and two is just hastening death. with aggro changes i doubt we'll need many more than two in a fleet at a time except on very special occasions. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 13:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:yeah, our average fit is about 12 bil cheaper and still stable. that was our ceo's pimp fit one. Can you link this fit, for science? 
meh, i tried to link it for you but, ccp doesnt like hyper links to kbs so much. you can find it on our kb under two steps losses however. not too hard to find it. |
|
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 03:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
ssshhhhhhh |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 21:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
not throwin you under the bus TS. i know some others have lost some too but, i knew you did for sure and i can not remember who the others were off the top of my head. just was using yours as a reference.
|
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
getting really close to patch day and there is no word on the final state of T2 triage... |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
from what tallest said today on the hybrid thread we are indeed. oh well |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 16:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
i dont like on grid bonus idea at all. defenders should have the upper hand and what you propose takes some of that advantage away from them.
online while warp would be bad as well. you could appoint one guy in fleet to just sit there and warp from bookmark to bookmark. he could fit then fit a paper thin tank, all nanos in the lows, low friction nozzles in the rigs and 6+ command links just because it will never be caught.
removing the capability to become unscannable in a ECCM fit command or T3 was a good change but these will be unreasonable |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 22:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
fighters really are not all that useful for triage ships though. it would be nice to see the module balanced in a more defensive manner. such as the idea for decreased cap or increased local rep.
fighters would have to be told to engage targets or assigned to people in the fleet. the fighters would be a ***** to monitor while repping folks and switching targets to where the dps is being applied. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 16:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
wow, these changes are incredible! thanks for listening.
do you know what tallest has been up to in regards to his two areas of balancing? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 04:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
the tengu may get a double damage bonus however, asides from it's superior range, it is merely competitive with the others in terms of damage output. shield slaves would not imbalance this paradigm. it would more or less even out the playing field. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics
K162
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 15:36:00 -
[19] - Quote
In regards to all this carrier discussion going on here. Trip local rep archon is not what I would call an ideal setup. Triage carriers primary function is to keep the fleet alive. If that means keep the fleet alive at the risk of dying so be it. It typically is being used to support ships that cost nearly as much as the carrier itself and in some cases even more.
As far as the other carriers go and using them. The only one that we have labeled with a big AVOID is the thanatos. For a triage platform it has a bonus that does not complement the role very well. All of the other carriers get a useful fourth bonus whether it be extra resistances or more RR amount per cycle in the case of the nid. But, yes, the nid and chimmy are not going to be able to take withering fire from multiple dreadnaughts like an archon can. Unless of course your using a chimera with an officer fit or in a pulsar.
They sure as **** are fun in a pulsar though. Allow me to direct you to these vids.
Ash alliance pulsar
Strag3s pulsar |
|
|
| |
|