| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Maya Rkell
   |
Posted - 2006.03.24 19:57:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Nafri
sorry, but a 300mio ISK ship just to be decent at killing frigs is bull****. A caracal with precision missles does the same job as a Nighthawk, for only 20million isk.
Which is why prescisions are being nerfed, yes.
Lifewire> 8000 m/s, even battleships can do this |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 20:51:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Naal Morno
But your argument is still not valid since ALL OTHER field command have higher tankability AND higher damage over Nighthawk. This is not the case with Nighthawk. Why are you arguing it is ok when it is not?
Because even after the prescision nerf it will retain the ability to sweep frigates from the sky. This is extremely potent, and should not be acompanied by deacent firepower against larger targets.
Lifewire> 8000 m/s, even battleships can do this |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 21:28:00 -
[3]
Heh j0.
You know as well as I do that even with nerfed prescisons it's gonna be godly against frigs, and better still be able to do that at long range.
Some T2 ships are highly specalist. I don't really see this as a problem. People want a Caldari ship which swats frigates, and the Nighthawk IS that.
Lifewire> 8000 m/s, even battleships can do this |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 23:38:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 24/03/2006 23:41:23
I can't see a good reason why they're slower than the normal ones, admitedly. That could use fixing.
Nafri: The one a dev mentioned. Sigh, we REALLY need a deacent search on these forums.
Lifewire> 8000 m/s, even battleships can do this |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.24 23:53:00 -
[5]
Yea.
Hm, that is kinda an issue.
And well, a frig outside 30km ain't scrambling and such. I'll have to think about that one though.
Lifewire> 8000 m/s, even battleships can do this |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.26 21:05:00 -
[6]
Denrace,
Prescision cruise are being nerfed. NH will then be the best ship. Still considering the bouses it SHOULD have.
Also note the important point in that quote: "of many"
Whereas a HAC dominates smaller engagements.
The CBC and HAC should have different roles.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.26 22:42:00 -
[7]
Try this bonus set as an idea:
BC:
5% to missile RoF per level
5% to shield resistances per level
Command ship:
10% to missile explosion velocity per level
15% to missile speed per level
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.26 23:06:00 -
[8]
My idea has Missile RoF (hence not tied to any damage types) and a BIG damage bonus versus frigs.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 00:42:00 -
[9]
And?
Some ships are different. Some ships are interesting.
Given a high velocity bonus and big bonus versus smaller targets, it gives them a clearly defined role rather than the boring, generic and broken role of the UberHAC. They're NOT a HAC, they're a CBC and should do entirely different things.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 01:00:00 -
[10]
Except, of course, when using the prescision missiles, even post-nerf. Which is my point.
And sorry, I think that the higher end T2 ships are FAR too generalist.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 01:05:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 27/03/2006 01:05:27
It's not a frigate. It's a CBC, far tougher than any frigate, and with the secondary options which a frigate does not have.
My views on the sillyness of the bomber being anti-frigate are known.
The Caldari cruisers won't be that good anti-frigate post-prescision nerf.
And we are, at some point, expecting heavy rockets which will add a lot to cruiser-sized missile ships.
And I simply haven't examined them sufficiently at this time to say, j0, and to be entirely honest I will only really be able to venture an opinion for the ones I can fly (Caldari and Minmatar) in any case.
(There's an element of devils advocate here - if the heavy presision missile cruiser is as necessary as has been claimed elsewhere, then people should be up in arms supporting me, since it'll be the best thing by far with my suggested bonus post prescision missile nerf)
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 19:22:00 -
[12]
j0, the range thing is why I suggested a *15* % per lvl there, which would give them a considerable range. And you'd not be limited to kinetic missiles either with a RoF damage bonus.
And I'd oppose another T2 destroyer, I think the specality role is FINE. If you introduce a uber frig killer, you utterly depreciate the current one, which is called the "assualt frigate".
Mack Dorgeans, there's a trap there, bluntly. You shouldn't have classes which interact exclusive with ships of their own size. Bombers should pound larger ships. There should be some expensive ships which sacrifice firepower against their peers for firepower against smaller ships...it is more diverse and interesting than a system where it's easty just to ignore taking a class of ships because they only interact with themselves.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 20:02:00 -
[13]
*BZZZZT*
Heavy missiles are mid/long range weapons. They WILL do less damage than close range turrets.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 21:27:00 -
[14]
j0sephine, hence my suggestion. And versus a frigate, well..
Yuki, in case you haven't noticed the devs seem heck bent on removing the assualt launcher in favour of the heavy rocket, so that'll be GONE when they get round to it. And the Eagle is only useful for anti-frigate work at range, and has other uses as a long range sniper.
Note that I said I don't agree with the entire UberHAC concept and would like to see the other CBC's changed as well.
And again, given the "small ships are overpowered" whining...say, where ARE those people.   Um yea, anyway, anti-frigate IS a real T2 role and you're beith both short sighted and narrow minded by dismissing the value of a Nighthawk if it was given a better bonus set rather than turning it into a bad copy of the Cerb.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 23:46:00 -
[15]
Let me put this in small words.
It won't soon.
No more assualt launchers.
Nerfed prescision cruise.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.27 23:53:00 -
[16]
They shouldn't be. That is NOT after all their description, and they're new enough that they're changeable.
I have suggested better bonuses and pointing out that the competition's being nerfed.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.28 00:02:00 -
[17]
Um?
I say that a CBC should NOT BE a UberHAC. That the Nighthawk SHOULD be the damage level offered by all the CBC's, and the difference made up in their command abilities.
They are new ships. They CAN be changed, and I belive they should be.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.28 19:17:00 -
[18]
It's on CCP's agenda.
Plus I'd note that that bonus set limits the Nighthawk to ONLY short range weapons...not good.
And j0, it's been catagorically stated (I completely agree with you on this, but...) by CCP in several threads that it will replace the current assualt launcher.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.30 21:36:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
I'm sure there are those who will say this makes the ship too uber, since missiles are not as limited by range concerns and other mitigating factors as turrets are. What would be another alternative then?
Something which was useful for a group, rather than solo.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.01 00:58:00 -
[20]
Screw the price. The appropriate way to balance them is to adjuse them to the correct level - NH with my suggested bonuses is the power I'd like to see them ALLL have, and let the price fall where it will.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.01 23:07:00 -
[21]
Yea, if you accept the idea that a Command BC should be a better warship than a Heavy Assualt Cruiser.
Sigh. Logical disconinuity (sp) there - it's also bad for gameplay, and they're new enough to fix.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.02 21:34:00 -
[22]
Denrace,
A Field *COMMAND* ship is still a Command ship, and it should not be able to outdamage a HAC. I agree that it's not enough command right now...I believe I posted a suggestion about that earlier in the thread (Fleet= 3 modules, 10% bonus per lvl, Field = 2 modules).
There is every justification from my POV for altering all four ships.
And I'd again point out that once there are no assualt launchers firing light missiles, and prescision missiles are nerfed, it WILL have a unique role (and yes, it needa a missile speed bonus).
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.04 23:42:00 -
[23]
"more towards out-and-out combat" | "UberHAC"
Mack Dorgeans, the devs get things wrong all the time. Take...missile armong distance. Remember THAT? I do...if I think they're wrong, I will dissent. A COMMAND BC has no reason, stated or otherwise, to seriously outperform a HAC in damage (I'm fine with them being able to tank well, and indeed it's necessary.)
In the end, no, it's not a critical issue - but I do think it's worth making my feelings on the matter clear.
Denrace,
As had been stated many times before - assualt launchers are being replaced with heacy rockets, and prescision missiles nerfed. Caracals and Cerbs will NOT be able to fill that role...and the Nighthawk WILL. And it shouldn't be an "upgrade" on the Cerb, it's not an assualt BC, it's a command one. It should have a different role.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.08 20:42:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jagaroth
I'm a bit disappointed with mine... because it's no better than a Ferox for command links. As long as it has a good tank and the ability to bum its way onto a killmail I won't be too bothered IF it confers a useful set of bonuses on the rest of the gang.
However, at the moment it even doesn't do that very well. 
*Jagaroth wanders off to go and buy a Vulture.
Right. And THAT's the department they need boosting in.
Although, yes, RoF rather than kinetic damage plz.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 20:09:00 -
[25]
Jim, or they could be command ships like they're supposed to be and not retarded UberHAC's.
Gee!
Why is it that 3 of the ships are very broken and one only mildly so, the other way? Not sure, but it needs fixing.
Plus, since you've evidently not read it... prescision missiles are being nerfed. NH will maintain the sweep capacity, other missile ships WON'T. Yes, it needs some fixing - my suggestions for that are earlier on in this thread.
And expecting a COMMAND BATTLECRUISER to be better than combat than a HEAVY ASSUALT CRUISER is the real joke here.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 20:47:00 -
[26]
Jim Raynor,
Maybe. But I have a different view and they're new enough to change. So afaik it's worth saying.
And who's said it? The names of the ship classes, maybe, just MAYBE? Y'know, read them again. Sure, there might be a more capeable T2 ship in Eve than the HAC, given time, but a COMMAND BC shouldn't be it.
And yes, have you gone back and read my suggested bonuses? Also, yes, 1/3 damage...at under 10km. Right. Just clearing that up. And if you look through the thread, the nerf thing's been linked a bunch of times. And I hope they DOUBLE the penalties if they keep them as they are, because the retarded thing is missiles doing more damage as T2.
And OHNOES, HASSLE FOR A FEW MOMENTS when you can sweep a 100km are arround you clear of frigates. My heart bleeds. Oh wait, that's my nose.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 21:13:00 -
[27]
Jim,
It's just that I'd like CBC's to be good at commanding things. Is that really so much to ask? Because right now, they're...not so hot for cost, compared to a normal BC. If there's a T2 assualt BS, then sure it's going to be nasty. But there are also more...interesting things to do with T2 BC's. Game balance dosn't need MORE uber combat ships.
Also, "competition" won't really drop HAC prices unless it makes them obselete. Look at interceptor prices and how they've held up. And no, not nerfing so they're "weaker", improving them so they're useful as COMMAND BC's, rather than UberHAC's. There's an unsubtle difference.
As for T2 amo, it's stupid and it's broken. Remove it, replace with T2 amo which does secondary effects rather than more damage (and hence needs no stupid penalties) and add faction missiles. Or nerf it into uselessness, either way works for me.
And yes, a few moments CAN kill you. But you WILL be able to sweep the floor with enemy interceptors (PS, Cruise, not torps).
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 22:14:00 -
[28]
No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.19 22:24:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Maya Rkell
No, the bottom line is that none of them are what they say on the tin, COMMAND ships.
There are two t2 battlecruisers per race, one is the one you are speaking of, the other is the uberHAC variant. We are discussing the uberHAC ones, the Nighthawk sucks at that role.
k thnx bye
It's still called a command ship, and there is still no reason for it to be a UberHAC. (Uber tank with deacent firepower? Sure.)
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.20 20:51:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Denrace
The UBERHACs you so speak of are a necessary part of EVE.
No, complete fallacy. They are ONE way of doing CBC's. Other, perfectly viable ways have been suggested. I'd boost tanking and command abilities in place of the game they should never of been doing in the first place, thanks!
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 21:01:00 -
[31]
Once MORE: Prescison is being nerfed. The other missile ships are losing much of that capacity.
Does the NH need bonuses changing? Yes
Do the other CBC's need changing into true CBC's rather than UberHAC's? Yes
Equivalent damage to the HAC, far better tanking and command abilities plzkthx.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.15 23:31:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari
I'd say the Vulture doesn't just need a targetting range increase...it also needs an extra turret hardpoint, it has the exact same DPS as the Eagle...what's up with that?
Nothing whatsover. That's great, fine and brilliant. It it can tank better than the Eagle and use command modules with a deacent bonus, that that's what a CBC *should* be. And the others should be adjusted to its level.
"The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.30 00:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Easy fix:
Role bonus: 90% reduction in cruise launcher powergrid needs.
And that helps its damage how...oh, it dosnt. Sigh.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.06.30 00:09:00 -
[34]
Somebody hasn't bothered, as usual, to actually do their maths. They haven't bothered to check what setups you can actually FIT. They haven't bothered to realise that giving up a bonus for that is going to further nerf the ship.
Somebody is accusing ME of living in a fantasy world? Yea, I think they need a mirror, too.
|
| |
|