Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 00:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Worm looks pimp Succubus looks pimp(although will have to see how the tracking holds up) Cruor looks confused but has some definite possibilities. DD and Dram were already pimp.
Overall solid collection of updates. I love the use of new bonuses. I can't wait to see the cruisers. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 00:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Seems like the people arguing for the "5 drone vanilla Worm" don't really explain why besides just repeating "That's how it is supposed to be!" ad naseum. Any chance one of them comes up with an actual reason besides "Cuz..."? |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 00:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:Seems like the people arguing for the "5 drone vanilla Worm" don't really explain why besides just repeating "That's how it is supposed to be!" ad naseum. Any chance one of them comes up with an actual reason besides "Cuz..."? "Cuz..." it fun to use 5 drones with 5 spares? Why not change the new Worm to only use one drone with 600% bonus?
Not sure how having 5 drones is any more fun that having 2 and your 1 drone version has 7 effective drones instead of the proposed 8 effective drones. The proposed Worm is better than the old one in every way. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 00:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:Seems like the people arguing for the "5 drone vanilla Worm" don't really explain why besides just repeating "That's how it is supposed to be!" ad naseum. Any chance one of them comes up with an actual reason besides "Cuz..."? because if my dps is in 2 drones, what happens if someone webs one and stops it getting within 8km? also, what of tracking disruptors vs drones? and if this is the way it needs to be to make combat drone ships good, why is this a guristas-only thing?
So ewar being a workable counter to drones is bad? Seems to me(I may be wrong) that having your opponent use his ewar on your drones instead of you is a good thing. TDing ships will effect part of your DPS but your missiles will still hit them and the other drone will too. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 00:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:Vaju Enki wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:Seems like the people arguing for the "5 drone vanilla Worm" don't really explain why besides just repeating "That's how it is supposed to be!" ad naseum. Any chance one of them comes up with an actual reason besides "Cuz..."? "Cuz..." it fun to use 5 drones with 5 spares? Why not change the new Worm to only use one drone with 600% bonus? Not sure how having 5 drones is any more fun that having 2 and your 1 drone version has 7 effective drones instead of the proposed 8 effective drones. The proposed Worm is better than the old one in every way. Again, being better is different from being fun. The current Worm sucks for most people, but it's my favorite ship of the game because it's a 25/50 drone shield tank frigate.
You keep saying that the 25/50 Shield tank frigate is what makes it fun, How does it being a 10/25 Drone Shield tank frigate that does more DPS and has more survivable Drones ruin that? |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 01:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:of course it's bad. drones are supposed to be pretty much ewar-proof.
Drones are pretty much EWAR proof, that doesn't mean they are supposed to be. I don't believe I have ever seen a Dev say that they want drones to be immune to EWAR. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 01:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:I like using 5 drones on a frigate, i like micromanaging 5 drones plus 5 spares during fights, only having 2 active drones ruin the fun of this ship for me (the current Worm is my favorite ship of the game).
I don't share your enthusiasm for micromanaging drones mid-combat but I can understand it. However one persons joy at micromanaging drones is not a point that the Devs should use in balancing their game. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 01:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:of course it's bad. drones are supposed to be pretty much ewar-proof. Drones are pretty much EWAR proof, that doesn't mean they are supposed to be. I don't believe I have ever seen a Dev say that they want drones to be immune to EWAR. that would make no sense. combat drones need love, not to be made less interesting and worse.
Combat drones might need a little love. Different and interesting bonuses are a step in that direction. Not having them get one shot by smart bombs is a buff imo. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 02:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:On the other hand applying the same trick to the Rattlesnake with heavy drones will not work, you would need to either remake the Rattler as a super close range brawler or give the heavies a massive speed buff for them to even have a slight hope of staying alive fighting at the ranges a Rattle will typically fire from.
The MWD Torp/Ogre II Rattler is already decent, with a similar rebalance they would be pretty good I think.
|

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.02.26 06:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Storm Novah wrote:Just wanna touch on the major thing that really bothers me about the changes to the succubus. I have no issue with dropping a high slot... I understand and actually agree with it. What I don't understand is why you put it on the lows? I know everyone is going to jump in and be like "damage mods duh" but seriously... who needs 3 damage mods on a frigate that has the kind of damage bonus this one has on the hull already? I think the extra slot would be more beneficial to the mid slots due to the adding of the AB bonus which will practically guarantee anyone fitting a succubus will def be using an AB. Just my thoughts.
TE's, Nanos, OD's, Heat Sinks, DCU, CPU Upgrades, reactor controls, PDU's or an outside the box armor tank. Plenty of use for 3 lows. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 01:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fabulous Rod wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Fabulous Rod wrote: If themes are continuous, rattlesnake torpedo viability will decrease significantly if the missile velocity bonus is removed. Additionally, a lot of overall DPS will also be lost for sentry and cruise missile users since the delay between a missiles launching and a target being exterminated will increase, significantly delaying the damage application on a new target.
The guristas have the only shield tanked and drone missile ship in the game. They are already unique and the apparently moronic devs want to move them in a "new and unique" direction after people have spent years training these overly skill intensive ships? **** that.
They still are shield tanked with missiles and drones. It's the same direction but with a new method that still uses all of those same skills in pretty much the same ways. Yes the Ham Gila/Torp RS/Rocket Worm will suffer range challenges, at the same time their peak damage output would go up (assuming the changes get carried upwards). In the case of sentries your instant damage goes up as well. lots of assumptions combined with negligence of significant nerfs.
You aren't at all excited about the potential for Brawling Torp Rattler with Super Ogres/Berserkers? |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 01:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Fabulous Rod wrote: Maybe if its torpedo viability weren't getting so significantly nerfed. I've never had a problem managing my drones and sentries. Guristas are getting **** on for .5 more of a drone and nich application of DPS.
Why do they need to remove anything from Guristas? Pull your heads out of your assholes, devs.
Did you just discount a 50% damage increase for 2 of 4 damage types for the very weapon you are complaining about as a "nich application of DPS?"
He is against almost 900dps with no implants, rigs, or damage modules... |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 01:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Fabulous Rod wrote: Maybe if its torpedo viability weren't getting so significantly nerfed. I've never had a problem managing my drones and sentries. Guristas are getting **** on for .5 more of a drone and nich application of DPS.
Why do they need to remove anything from Guristas? Pull your heads out of your assholes, devs.
Did you just discount a 50% damage increase for 2 of 4 damage types for the very weapon you are complaining about as a "nich application of DPS?" He is against almost 900dps with no implants, rigs, or damage modules... Mr Fabulous actually has good point (if poorly communicated). The navy dominix is a pure DPS play using drones and guns. Its damage output is over 1000dps before any implants or damage mods, and yet it sells for only 500 million or so - not far from the current rattlesnake's price. This seems to show (to me) that people will not pay a large (pirate) premium for mere dps. I think he's right. The rattlesnake will need more than just DPS to make it truly desirable and fearsome as a pirate battleship ought to be. I mean, when I see a rattlesnake right now my first thought is, "gank it!". If I see a vindicator or machariel, my first thought is, "I need to be careful here..."
Both the Rattler and it's drones would be supstantially harder to kill than the NDomi and it's drones. Ogres with that bonus would have insane eHP.
That said until we see what they do with the actual hull stats it is hard to argue bonuses. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 02:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
ECM bonus would give us a 3rd ECM BS... Do we really need a third? |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 02:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Kapytul Gaynez wrote:ECM bonus would give us a 3rd ECM BS... Do we really need a third? The only remotely comparable battleship would be the Widow, which requires a great deal of training and does not offer the longevity or damage potential of an equivalent rattlesnake. The scopion has a very different role - ECM at extreme range, while the rattlesnake lends itself to brawling. I think the rattlesnake would be a more favourable choice, unless you happened to need the ability to bridge covops ships. ECM would give it a way to control the engagement while being strong enough to stay if it wished. Perhaps a bonus to ECM burst only (range and strength) - that would be reasonable, allowing the ship to punch above its weight at the vanguard of a small to medium fleet.
I think that eats into the widow's niche pretty substantially and I don't think there is enough clamor for ecm BS's to warrant 3 small variants. I could be alone in that line of thought though. Where I am not alone is thinking that 3x new ECM ships would too much and basically ruin most low-sec fights that are already at about 50/50 shot of having a falcon involved. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 22:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Figuring out if the Cruors mis-matched bonuses can work together or not is really the only major issue I see with the proposed changes. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 01:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Syrias Bizniz wrote:Y'all gingers got no clue bout the Cruor. The bonuses work wonderful and will synergize into a ship that will dictate anything but a Daredevil*.
*Limitations may apply, such as Blaster-Daredevils s*cking donkeyballs and thus are easy prey.
The issue is that you can't use both bonuses at the same time. As soon as you get into nuet/nos range you are in normal web range and once again slower than everything else. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.01 05:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Lucine Delacourt wrote:Harvey James wrote:Silivar Karkun wrote:still saying, the Sanshas should have a caldari bonus for SHIELD TANKING!........either 4% aditional resistances, shield boost amount or a new bonus for shield tanking modules....... or shield HP Why? well guristas have the shield resistance they won't give it to sansha aswell .. but a shield HP they might
Why any shield bonus at all? |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.02 05:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So 51 pages in... what'd I miss? Yay or nay, or are we pegging our hopes on the second iteration?
Most people are intrigued and are waiting to see how they function once they hit the test server. Then a select few are trying to get bonuses changed for nit picking or completely irrelevant reasons. The exception is the Cruor. Most are confused/concerned by it's conflicting bonuses. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.03 23:01:00 -
[20] - Quote
You say your aren't trying to build a super Incursion Nightmare but every thing you suggets plays perfectly for one... The fact is that if the Nightmare becomes any slower it will never be used in PvP at any point. The speed makes it too vulnerable for solo/small gangs and the cost makes it too expensive to be a ship of the line. The Bhaalgorn has a niche, the Mach is a BC on roids, the Vindy has ultimate range control with 90% webs and the Rattler is cheap enough to catch occasional small gang PvP or hostile area PvE use. The current Nightmare and your proposed Nightmare have none of those things and will remain anchored in High Sec running incursions unless changed. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 01:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
FoF missiles, even if the AI was good will still be a down grade from regular missiles. They would be better than nothing when jammed but would supply inconsistant damage to any one target when not jammed. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 03:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
The niche use you are describing is both small and already performed better by the Astero and Ishkur. As is, I just don't see that being signifigant enough to impact the Worm changes. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 03:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
They already said they don't want to give bonuses to EWAR drones until they have a chance to fix them.
As for the fleet assist issue, as long as they don't give the Rattler a bonus to sentries it shouldn't be an issue. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 23:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
I really think the actual effectiveness of the Cruor mis-matched bonuses will remain a mystery until we get them on the test server. Their are definite pros and cons when looking at it on paper. To a lesser extent the effect of the proposed changes to the Worm and Succubus will also be interesting when they are actually flown instead of us just modifying our fitting tools. |

Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 03:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Spr09 wrote:They look decent for the most part, with the exception of the worm. A ship with small 5 drones out and a 10% bonus to hp and damage makes it equivalent to having 7.5 drones out at one time. However, you need to be able to kill 5 drones for it's dps to drop to 0. With the worm, the 300% bonus with 2 small drones makes it equivalent to 8 small drones out at once, but small drones are extremely easy to kill, and killing one drone effectively halves the ship's dps.
The 2 super drones would be harder to kill than the 5 normal ones because of their eHP advantage. Specifically ship fitting smartbombs would have a much harder time getting Worm drones off of them. |
|
|