EVE Search - Vengeance changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Vengeance changes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2006.03.17 01:18:00 - [1] Why do we take away the only good bonus the vengeance has to give it a damage bonus? Take away its optimal bonus please, the 25% to capacitor recharge makes the ship almost worth using since you don't have to fit any cap mods to run guns/tank/disruptor. The lack of optimal for pulses would hurt but we'd survive a lot better thx :) Or better yet please just add one bonus to all afrigs, it'd be a lot easier (add missile damage to hawk, laser damage to vengeance, et cetera). -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Forsch	Posted - 2006.03.17 01:35:00 - [2] I don't understand why the khanid ships have to be made into weaker versions of their carthum counterparts when they're supposed to be different. This applies to both the Sacrilege and Vengeance. Why can't we have armor tanking missile boats. Please add launcher slots to both and change the bonus accordingly. ________________________________________________________________ Forsch Defender of the empire
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:05:00 - [3] I agree, don't get rid of the capacitor bonus. The ship lacks the low-slots for high capacitor, it lacks the mid slots for high capacitor, and if you remove it we end up with basically a gimped punisher t1 that has higher resistances. Please, please, please leave it as it or replace the optimal range with the damage bonus. Right now the combination of long-range weaponry and the cap recharge bonus means it's an excellent endurance tanker for 15-20k for beams+disruptor. By losing the cap recharge we can't tank nearly as long as currently possible and that means hell for our lowslots. --------------
Liet Traep	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:08:00 - [4] The cap bonus was the one I wanted it to keep. Giving it a range bonus just makes it a worse retribution. Cap bonus would be a lot more useful.
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:10:00 - [5] What I would do is: Change optimal to laser damage Increase grid enough so it can fit 3 medium t2 beams without gimping itself OR Add 2 launcher points, remove 2 turret points Change Optimal to missile ROF or EM missile damage Increase CPU about 10% Either way is hooray. Personally I think the Khanid ships should be missiles and armor tanking, as that's a genius combination (low grid, high cpu weapons and low cpu, high grid tanking). Lasers + shield tank doesn't work real well because most Khanid ships don't have the midslots, and Khanid shield resists are HORRIBLE for shield tanking. -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Arashi Miike	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:13:00 - [6] /signed The cap bonus makes the Vengeance unique. The last thing it needs is to become a weaker Retribution, and that's what replacing the cap bonus will do. Replace the optimal with the damage bonus, but please leave my cap bonus alone. I'd like to see the Vengeance (and all the short-changed AFs) get another slot and the grid/cpu to match. For the Vengeance, I think it should be another high with another launcher hardpoint. It would help the DPS (which needs it...worst DPS ftl) without making it overpowered, since it doesnt get a bonus to missiles. It would also fit with the Khanid feel of the ship (laser/missile hybrid) and wouldnt hurt the tanking any, so long as the grid and cpu were raised enough. The Vengence is a Khanid ship. It should feel like one. The last thing we all need or want is a crappier Retribution. "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/ scuttling across the floors of silent seas."
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:20:00 - [7] Quote: Add 2 launcher points, remove 2 turret points I agree, but would rather see a 2tur/2mis layout versus a 2tur/1mis/1utility slot. The utility slot ends up being wasted if you take advantage of its range bonus. A 2 turret 2 missile highslot with a bonus to EM missile damage (inquisitor bonus FTW!) would have me using beams and missiles for that combined khanid feel without removing the important aspect of capacitor from the ship. --------------
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:24:00 - [8] It already has one missile slot I believe so I'm advocating more of a 3 missile/1 turret, with a missile ROF bonus :) -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:32:00 - [9] See, what would be the point of one turret though? If it goes too far with missiles people are going to ignore the gun (like the inquisitor) because 3 missile launchers are a hefty plop of powergrid already, they may as well leave that one gun are a blank for a stronger tank. Even if it is only a different of 3-4PG, it's the feeling people have when seeing it. Think of this like the tristan I'd much rather see a 2/2 and leave the 3/1 for the inquisitor/purifier. That's just my fear, at least. --------------
Kyozoku	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:48:00 - [10] It should get it's chance to shine not be a crappy retri! Losing the cap bonus for dmg would be a huge mistake. If anything I think the cap bonus should be doubled like the mk2 punisher. Who the hell cares about laser range and cap use anyway.

Kai Lae	Posted - 2006.03.17 03:35:00 - [11] Things to do: Add +1 low slot Change the armor/shield hitpoints so it has more armor than shields Change optimal range to damage Enjoy.
Forsch	Posted - 2006.03.17 03:39:00 - [12] Originally by: Kai Lae Things to do: Add +1 low slot Change the armor/shield hitpoints so it has more armor than shields Change optimal range to damage Enjoy. Still too similar to the Retribution! ________________________________________________________________ Forsch Defender of the empire
Spartan III	Posted - 2006.03.17 03:43:00 - [13] Originally by: Kai Lae Things to do: Add +1 low slot Change the armor/shield hitpoints so it has more armor than shields Change optimal range to damage Enjoy. Can't have another slot m8, only the teir 2 AFs get 11 slots. Teir 1s: Vengeance, Hawk, Ishkur, Jaguar all get 10 slots total. The teir 2 AFs all get 11 slots. The rest of what you said is great. --- Wolven Elite Guard is recruiting - new and old players with high regard for high morals and values OMFWTFYarrBQPwn3d!!!11eleventy-one
Necrologic	Posted - 2006.03.17 03:54:00 - [14] Originally by: Spartan III Originally by: Kai Lae Things to do: Add +1 low slot Change the armor/shield hitpoints so it has more armor than shields Change optimal range to damage Enjoy. Can't have another slot m8, only the teir 2 AFs get 11 slots. Teir 1s: Vengeance, Hawk, Ishkur, Jaguar all get 10 slots total. The teir 2 AFs all get 11 slots. The rest of what you said is great. He's saying they should have the same number of slots. And they should. But i agree with forsch, give the vengeance a Med slot or high slot even, not a low. We don't need another retribution.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.03.17 04:17:00 - [15] Edited by: j0sephine on 17/03/2006 04:17:17 "See, what would be the point of one turret though? If it goes too far with missiles people are going to ignore the gun (like the inquisitor) because 3 missile launchers are a hefty plop of powergrid already, they may as well leave that one gun are a blank for a stronger tank." In short, 3+1 means there is clear primary weapon system with (typically) double damage bonus applied, and there's choice between secondary weapon or 'something else', depending what one feels like using. Skipping that secondary weapon means losing ~18% of firepower (1 / (3* 1.5 + 1)) or less if there's damage mod(s) for primary weapon. Think Crow. On the other hand, with 2+2 people feel forced to run two weapon systems fully fitted, because rarely there's a damage bonus to the both of them... so leaving out a weapon from any slot generally means losing 1/4th of their total damage. So in comparison to 3+1 it narrows range of possible setups they can fit. And less choices, usually less fun. Think Raptor. Overall it might not be very logical reasoning, but this is how things seem to be... so probably 3+1 layout is in the end nicer to have. Yes, this means some people will chose to skip that secondary weapon, while some will not. In the end, more variety than having everyone run with the same 2+2 weapons ^^;;
Kai Lae	Posted - 2006.03.17 04:39:00 - [16] Originally by: Spartan III Can't have another slot m8, only the teir 2 AFs get 11 slots. Teir 1s: Vengeance, Hawk, Ishkur, Jaguar all get 10 slots total. The teir 2 AFs all get 11 slots. The rest of what you said is great. Please show me where the harpy, enyo, wolf and retribution take assault frigate 2 or higher, or for that matter, anywhere where AF are described as having two "tiers". In practice this is correct because the others sans the ishkur are underpowered. However this is because of a balance issue and not due to actual design.
Arashi Miike	Posted - 2006.03.17 08:25:00 - [17] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 17/03/2006 04:17:17 "See, what would be the point of one turret though? If it goes too far with missiles people are going to ignore the gun (like the inquisitor) because 3 missile launchers are a hefty plop of powergrid already, they may as well leave that one gun are a blank for a stronger tank." In short, 3+1 means there is clear primary weapon system with (typically) double damage bonus applied, and there's choice between secondary weapon or 'something else', depending what one feels like using. Skipping that secondary weapon means losing ~18% of firepower (1 / (3* 1.5 + 1)) or less if there's damage mod(s) for primary weapon. Think Crow. On the other hand, with 2+2 people feel forced to run two weapon systems fully fitted, because rarely there's a damage bonus to the both of them... so leaving out a weapon from any slot generally means losing 1/4th of their total damage. So in comparison to 3+1 it narrows range of possible setups they can fit. And less choices, usually less fun. Think Raptor. Overall it might not be very logical reasoning, but this is how things seem to be... so probably 3+1 layout is in the end nicer to have. Yes, this means some people will chose to skip that secondary weapon, while some will not. In the end, more variety than having everyone run with the same 2+2 weapons ^^;; /me still supports a 5-slot, 3/2 layout. Vengence gets its missing slot, ups its dps, and feels more 'Khanid'. There's no definite primary weapon system (like the Harpy's 4/1) but it leans slightly towards lasers. Lots of fun for everyone! (Hell, even keeping the 4 highs, a 3/2 layout might be better...you can go mixed weapons, or keep lasers as a main) . "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/ scuttling across the floors of silent seas."

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.03.17 09:08:00 - [18] Yeah the cap recharge rate was about the only good bonus on this ship. However all assault ships have one range bonus. Then on the other hand I'm already proposing to remove the optimal range bonus on the Jaguar Like I said these changes in the thread are not final so this might change. What I'm going to avoid doing is drastically change these ships because they aren't really that bad. _______________

Usul Faust	Posted - 2006.03.17 09:49:00 - [19] IMO +optimal is pretty rubbish when you're using small lasers anyway, since the range is so small, a 50% increase still isn't that much. I normally find ships that are capable of sitting outside my optimal sit way out of range and spam me with missiles. no skills, just luck.
Helmut 314	Posted - 2006.03.17 10:02:00 - [20] To fix the Vengeance, just add another lowslot and change the optimal bonus to a 5% laser damage bonus. ___________________________________ Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson

Cpt Abestos	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:06:00 - [21] The problem with the vengance is that it isnt nearly as good as its counterpart. It seems with these changes that the vengance is just a retrebution that can't tank can't do as much dmg but has 3 mids and a ton of useless sheilds. I think that the best fix for this ship is to it an ammatar ship. The vengance should get this layout 5 highs (3 turret 1 missile) 3 mids 3 lows Powergrid Upped from 47mw to 52mw Cpu Dropped from 150 to 140 Armour Increased from 625 to 825 Sheild Decreased from 688 to 325 Capactor Capactiy Increased from 300 to 325 Speed Increaed from 230 to 270 Mass Decreased from 2075000 kg to 1800000 10% to small laser range bouns replaced with 5% small laser dmg 5% cap recharge bouns replaced with 5% reduction in noferatu/neut cycle time This would change the ship alot but I think with these changes you would still have a ship thats very amarr and yet is completly different from the carthium ships, instead of a half caldari half amarr ship that cant fill either role very well. It seems that even with that change, the vengance is still barely better than the punisher and you can't buy vengances for 250k.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:35:00 - [22] Originally by: Tuxford Yeah the cap recharge rate was about the only good bonus on this ship. However all assault ships have one range bonus. Then on the other hand I'm already proposing to remove the optimal range bonus on the Jaguar Like I said these changes in the thread are not final so this might change. What I'm going to avoid doing is drastically change these ships because they aren't really that bad. I have seen a jaguar once. That was just after you released the BPO. Then I havent seen one yet
Artica Silverfox	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:38:00 - [23] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Tuxford Yeah the cap recharge rate was about the only good bonus on this ship. However all assault ships have one range bonus. Then on the other hand I'm already proposing to remove the optimal range bonus on the Jaguar Like I said these changes in the thread are not final so this might change. What I'm going to avoid doing is drastically change these ships because they aren't really that bad. I have seen a jaguar once. That was just after you released the BPO. Then I havent seen one yet That is because the model is a bit bugged. When you zoom out a bit it looks exactly like a wolf.... There are a few out there, good luck finding them.
Hellspawn01	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:44:00 - [24] Originally by: Tuxford Yeah the cap recharge rate was about the only good bonus on this ship. However all assault ships have one range bonus. Then on the other hand I'm already proposing to remove the optimal range bonus on the Jaguar Why remove the bonus then if its the only good one??? Originally by: Tuxford Like I said these changes in the thread are not final so this might change. What I'm going to avoid doing is drastically change these ships because they aren't really that bad. I remember you said something similar about a certain other ship thread and in the end you did what you planned and not what ppl suggested after 11 pages. Imo, the vengeance is fine as it is. ------ Ö Ship lover
Chackle	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:44:00 - [25] Ok, replace Optimal range for the Damage bonus, up shields and reduce armor (we want something very different from Retri) an an extra med slot anyone? www.eve-files.com/media/0603/Chacklesigy.png[/IMG] Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 kbs, ty - Cortes
Cpt Abestos	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:47:00 - [26] Edited by: Cpt Abestos on 17/03/2006 11:47:46 Originally by: Chackle Ok, replace Optimal range for the Damage bonus, up shields and reduce armor (we want something very different from Retri) an an extra med slot anyone? that wouldnt work well because of ammar t2 resits.
Leandro Salazar	Posted - 2006.03.17 12:29:00 - [27] Just please keep the Khanid feel and don't do again what happened with the Sacrilege. No more half-assed copies of the Viziam/Carthum ships. So 2mis/2turr with a missile RoF or damage bonus in place of the optimal one seems fine. ___________________________________ Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?
Wild Rho	Posted - 2006.03.17 13:30:00 - [28] I have to agree with a number of other posters. The Vengeance isn't bad right now but it can do very few things that the retribution can't already do better. Make it a shield tanking laser or an armour tanking missile user. Heck you can go for somthing slightly different and change some of its low slots to mid slots and give it some EW bonuses to ecm or tracking disruptors to compensate for it's poor damage. Don't try and make the vengeance just a less inferior version of the retribution but give it a unique role that people may consider it more useful for.
BillyBong2	Posted - 2006.03.17 13:41:00 - [29] Originally by: Wild Rho I have to agree with a number of other posters. The Vengeance isn't bad right now but it can do very few things that the retribution can't already do better. Make it a shield tanking laser or an armour tanking missile user. Heck you can go for somthing slightly different and change some of its low slots to mid slots and give it some EW bonuses to ecm or tracking disruptors to compensate for it's poor damage. Don't try and make the vengeance just a less inferior version of the retribution but give it a unique role that people may consider it more useful for. I am Wild here, give it a unique rolse to play. I use it as an expensive tackler because I am pure Amarr specced curently. I used it to tackle, scramble, web and nos other tacklers. Put a small tank in the lows and can survive getting in. Other then that though I have been real hard pressed to find a role for the Vengeance. I like ships to unique, like the Retribution with its 1 mid slot. Talk about pulling your hair out. _________________________ Siggy by Esturary
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.03.17 13:44:00 - [30] Originally by: Tuxford What I'm going to avoid doing is drastically change these ships because they aren't really that bad. That's highly subjective :) There used to be a sig here, but I got bored of it.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.