| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Samirol
   |
Posted - 2006.04.30 20:43:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: madaluap
allthough im not such a missile fan, especially for gallente, the ares IS and remains a missileboat, atleast make it usefull than so:
Ares MK2
CPU 150
PG 38
4/3/3 slot layout with 2 turret and 3 missile hardpoints
Fixed bonus (lvl 5 frig):
- 5% to Rof (thermal) light missile/rocket and
- 5% to missilespeed
Intybonus:
- 5% reduced signature
- 5% to explosion velocity missiles
seems good
i would switch the explosion velocity to gallente frig bonus and the ROF to inty bonus, or make it into a damage bonus
|
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 20:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Rockets are so short ranged that keeping out of web range while hitting with them practically requires a missile speed (or flighttime) ship bonus.
The problem is that with 2 mid slot interceptors you don't have the ability to put both a scrambler and a web on at the same time, unless you go AB or MWD-less (which would be a quite unusual setup). Given the choice most go for the scrambler - especially if you're going to be faster than the enemy, why do you need one. Unless you're using rockets of course. It's less of a gripe about ship bonuses and more that IMO CCP should change the rocket stats to give more speed and less flight time (so they have the same range) so that the speed range of one is comparable to a light missile.
|
Samirol
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 21:43:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kai Lae
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Rockets are so short ranged that keeping out of web range while hitting with them practically requires a missile speed (or flighttime) ship bonus.
The problem is that with 2 mid slot interceptors you don't have the ability to put both a scrambler and a web on at the same time, unless you go AB or MWD-less (which would be a quite unusual setup). Given the choice most go for the scrambler - especially if you're going to be faster than the enemy, why do you need one. Unless you're using rockets of course. It's less of a gripe about ship bonuses and more that IMO CCP should change the rocket stats to give more speed and less flight time (so they have the same range) so that the speed range of one is comparable to a light missile.
Ares is typically an AB-oriented frig too. Maybe a 2 launcher 1 turret design with the 3rd mid would be better.
|
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 11:07:00 -
[34]
Ya know, it might be nice for CCP to at least say that they know that these are problem children...
|
Tozmeister
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 09:54:00 -
[35]
Being as there are 2 interceptors for each race, I think they should come in 2 distinct 'flavours' in the style of recon ships and command ships. A fast, mobile and high damage variant (the true interceptor) and a tackler variant with less damage, slightly slower and role-specific bonuses.
I think the minmatar model is about right. Claw is the true Interceptor and Stilleto with 4 mids is the tackler.
Claw- fine 'as is' as the true interceptor, maybe shave a few kilos off?
Stiletto- drop the 7.5% tracking bonus and move the fall-off bonus to frigate based, then a -7.5% per interceptor level reduction to cap usage of any module requiring propulsion jamming skill (webs and scrams)
Crow- as is
Raptor- Swap one high slot for a mid, giving a 3/4/3 layout with 2 turret and 1 launcher hardpoints (its PG issues disapear then, but maybe +5 CPU). Swap the kinetic missile damage bonus for a +5% per interceptor skill level to range of any module using propulsion jamming skill. Caldari, being the long range race, should have a longer range scrambler.
Taranis- Scrap the drone bay (it does enough damage as is). Reduce mass to 1025000Kg.
Ares- Drop one high slot and both missle hardpoints and drop a lowslot. Add a mid slot,a turret hardpoint and give it a 20 m3 drone bay, making this the drone inty (when light webbifying drones are released this ship will be fine with a WMD and 2 scramblers in the mids and 4 light webber drones out). swap the 5% thermal missile damage for a +5% range bonus to range of any propulsion jamming module and the +5% damage bonus to a +10% falloff bonus and the +7.5% range to a +10% drone velocity on the frigate skill side.
Crusader- as is
Malediction- drop a high slot and both missile hardpoints. Add a midslot and a 10m3 drone bay. swap the missile bonus to a -7.5% cap usage for propusion jamming modules per interceptor skill level.
This is my theory for interceptors. it may not follow the research house dogma of XXXXX company making YYYYY-type ships but I think these designs would fulfil the role requirements better.
-----------------------------------------------
The Braying sheep on my TV screen
Make this boy shout, make this boy scream
- The Jam (1980) |
Bacchuss
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 10:01:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Bacchuss on 08/05/2006 10:00:46
ares is a great tech II shuttle...
**************************************
"What you gonna do, when I come for yoU?!"
**************************************
|
Oisin
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 19:40:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe
All the Ares needs imo is a 10m3 drone bay and 5 or 6 more grid.
Signed. Webber drones 4tw.
|
TuRtLe HeAd
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 19:50:00 -
[38]
I love the ares as it is.
But the Raptor Definately has room for improvement.
Nice proposed changes. However I do feel that the comparison used is pointless. Ares vs Taranis Raptor vs Crow ? They are different ships entirely.
I still feel that the malediction needs tweaking as thats got no damage output as well.
If we keep balancing ships all the time, theres gonna be no point flying one over the other.
it depends on what people use fitted as well, whats good for one person is useless for another. e.g. I don't have fitting issues on the ares.
Bottom line i suppose is that every one is trying to fit tech II these days which is why they are struggling to fit the ships. If we make the ships able to fit all out tech II We might as well do away with Tech 1. |
Phoenix Jones
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 20:18:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Phoenix Jones on 08/05/2006 20:19:36
Originally by: Oisin
Originally by: Jerick Ludhowe
All the Ares needs imo is a 10m3 drone bay and 5 or 6 more grid.
Signed. Webber drones 4tw.
Signed also. I'd move it up to 15mm though to drive it away from the taranis, and put a 25 to 50% damage increase.
|
Kindakrof
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 21:35:00 -
[40]
I don't know about the Ares but the Raptor lacks nothing but the pilot's imagination. It's a great ship and can compete with other interceptors.
--- --- ---
my sig is pr0
Thanks for the lemon |
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2006.05.08 22:02:00 -
[41]
Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd
I love the ares as it is.
But the Raptor Definately has room for improvement.
Nice proposed changes. However I do feel that the comparison used is pointless. Ares vs Taranis Raptor vs Crow ? They are different ships entirely.
I still feel that the malediction needs tweaking as thats got no damage output as well.
If we keep balancing ships all the time, theres gonna be no point flying one over the other.
it depends on what people use fitted as well, whats good for one person is useless for another. e.g. I don't have fitting issues on the ares.
Bottom line i suppose is that every one is trying to fit tech II these days which is why they are struggling to fit the ships. If we make the ships able to fit all out tech II We might as well do away with Tech 1.
I'm partial to the ares myself; if you have good missile skills it works. The problem is not the speed or slot layout IMO. The problem is that when you compare it to other interceptors it has very low grid. As I've already noted the issue is that when you fit one you almost always end up having to use a MAPC. This then negates whatever advantage that a 4th low slot gives. It became really noticable when I got my first claw - you mean I *don't* need a MAPC for this (though CPU is really tight)? When you look at the other 2 interceptors with the same slot layout they have far more grid and less CPU. It seems that CCP went for a different flavor here (only reason I can see about it having so high of a CPU) but that still doesn't explain why it has 5 less grid than the taranis. Therefore I suggested that it be changed to have the same CPU and grid a tristan has, 125/38. With that change you'd still have the extra CPU for those launchers but now should have enough grid to not be forced to use a MAPC, which is all that this boat really needs IMO.
As for the raptor, it just seems logical that even though it's in far better shape than the ares (it can tackle), with a interceptor that can already spam missiles out the wazoo that it might be useful to have a gun based inty for caldari pilots to use. The bonuses already suggest that's what the developers have in mind, which is something I've tried to preserve with these suggestions. The only other thing that comes to mind again is the missing grid issue which should be corrected.
Changing these things I think would go a long way from removing the "T2 shuttle" labels these frequently have and allow them to be used as they should; along with that it would hopefully decrease demand on the crow and taranis because players would have other viable options available to them.
Raptor and Ares Fix |
4 LOM
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 01:19:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
FFS, inties shouldn't be goddamn DPS-driven machines.
most damage bonii on inties nee dto simply vanish, and get replaced with tackle bonuses. Even if it's things like +10% range to warp disrupters/jammers, or bonus range/effectiveness for webbers.
FFS I know inites irl are for hit and run, but in EVE they're tacklers, right now they're basicly the posterchildren for what all minmatar ships aspire to be (fast as balls with good dmg).
Its unfortunate that no one seemed to listen to you.
I agree inteceptors dont need more damage they need bonuses to tackling, sfuff like 100% to warp disruptor/scrambler strength per interceptor level (would make the great tacklers and stop alot of the warp core stab nonses. also force alot more mixed fleets cause you will need destroyers and assaults to remove those uber tackling inty's. I say nerf them dps wise to hell and give them some really sexy tackling bonues.
Other bonues could be:
scram/disruptor range
weber range
scram/disruptor cap ussage
Just some idees, anyways i think atleast converting the secondary interceptors like the raptor and the ares to something along these lines would be very nice inded, i know i would fly the raptor if it was an uber tackler even if it did 0 dps
Originally by: Twilight Moon
of course you have nice hair. That pod goo, is actually VO5 conditioner. 
|
Weirda
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 01:32:00 -
[43]
funny enough - raptor is a great ship and outdamages a crow. you don't see as many because they require more skill (which is something that caldari pilot seem to be allergic to). their cheapness actually do give them a niche for well skilled pilot (in spite of other thinking that it a detriment)... 
not much to say about the ares... except that if that thing get a 3rd mid... give the claw one ffs... if you can't do more dmg with better weapons, then don't know what. 
__
Weirda
Assault Ship deserve a 4th Bonus and More!
|
Weirda
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 01:36:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Weirda on 09/05/2006 01:40:25
Originally by: 4 LOM
Originally by: Malthros Zenobia
FFS, inties shouldn't be goddamn DPS-driven machines.
most damage bonii on inties nee dto simply vanish, and get replaced with tackle bonuses. Even if it's things like +10% range to warp disrupters/jammers, or bonus range/effectiveness for webbers.
FFS I know inites irl are for hit and run, but in EVE they're tacklers, right now they're basicly the posterchildren for what all minmatar ships aspire to be (fast as balls with good dmg).
Its unfortunate that no one seemed to listen to you.
I agree inteceptors dont need more damage they need bonuses to tackling, sfuff like 100% to warp disruptor/scrambler strength per interceptor level (would make the great tacklers and stop alot of the warp core stab nonses. also force alot more mixed fleets cause you will need destroyers and assaults to remove those uber tackling inty's. I say nerf them dps wise to hell and give them some really sexy tackling bonues.
Other bonues could be:
scram/disruptor range
weber range
scram/disruptor cap ussage
Just some idees, anyways i think atleast converting the secondary interceptors like the raptor and the ares to something along these lines would be very nice inded, i know i would fly the raptor if it was an uber tackler even if it did 0 dps
while weirda not opposed to this, the fun of dogfight in the 'damage' inties is one of the best thing in eve. that would be a sad day. would rather see the two class of inty 'tackling inty and fighting inty' stay as they are and have bonus split that way.
the main problem with saying 'do away with all damage and blah blah blah' is that several inty only have 2 mids... and unless they all had four, that would be pretty stupid way to go with the bonus. too bad no one listen to weirda either though - have mention this several time as well...
EDIT - oh and what weirda also mentioned (swallowed into the void for a while then spat back out mutated and gimped by the BS lobby) was that if anything, intys need to have 0 cap use for anti-propulsion mods (all of them: disruptor, scrambler, webber) as their bonus, and as the second, perhaps their racial ecm (though weirda would be bummed with target painting). with speed on their side, need for some invulnerable 35km scrambler or webber is kind of pointless on inty... it would just make eve more of a gate camp then it already is.
__
Weirda
Assault Ship deserve a 4th Bonus and More!
|
Robstr
|
Posted - 2006.05.09 01:57:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Robstr on 09/05/2006 01:58:01
I've always liked the raptor, and am yearning for a reason fly it.
I've flown all the inties(inty 5 woot!), and they all have pro's and con's. All of the attack inties are reasonably effective. The malediction is versitile, doing decent damage and with the ability to tackle, and the stileto tackles like none other. Even the ares has it's speed(having flown this the least of all[ewwww pink ;)], I leave it up to others to deal with it).
The raptor just falls behind.
Even the 2/2 split would be fine, but the grid makes it very hard to fit. Combined with one of the slowest speeds, it feels second rate - It has nothing it excells in except marginalization(which can be an asset in some fights, I'll admit). Give her a little grid, or a good bit of speed, and I think it would go a long way. Though a 3 turret sniper inty it would have a very cool niche. Even a tackler conversion with 4 mids with a high slot loss would be welcome.
The crow just does everything the raptor does, but better. The raptor's range bonus is overshadowed by a standard crow(in some ways apples and oranges/turrest and missiles), the crow is faster, it does more damage, and it can tackle every bit as well.
Give her something to be good at, thats what it realy needs.
====
|
Erotic Irony
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 05:48:00 -
[46]
Correct me if I'm wrong. Seems like interceptors represent some inconsistent gameplay ideas--are they meant for a significant damage bonus, more slots and speed to carry them or are they are supposed to be dramatically closer to their tech one counterparts in performance across the board?
While I'm philosophically convinced by Kai Lee, I'm wondering about two comparisons.
I: I'm curious if, according to Naughty Boy's damage spreadsheet, they are disproportionately far behind the other interceptor's in terms of damage or general fitting?
II: Similarly, following the same criteria, are they also disproportionately behind their tech one counterparts?
|
Novarei
|
Posted - 2006.05.20 07:47:00 -
[47]
agree with the idea on the ares, i have one in my hangar, but I can never find a good use for it, would never buy a raptor atm.
Its so much easier to fit out the taranis than the ares
+--------------------------------------------+
|
Panta Rei
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 15:37:00 -
[48]
Originally by: HippoKing
i'd give the raptor a 4th mid but only 3 highs and leave it at that
Great idea.
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 15:59:00 -
[49]
Yeah, Ares is still just sad.
Only 2 medslots, crappy grid, relatively high mass and slow speed, split weapon systems.
It's a bit puzzling actually. There has been a lot of ship balance work from CCP, and most of it has been good. But for some reason the Ares (and Raptor) still suck. To 99% of the player base, it's a clearcut case: the only use for Ares is as a tech2 shuttle. Why is it so damn difficult to get a boost to this sad excuse of a ship?
I'm sure someone out there can tell us why the Gallente "tackler" inty has 2 medslots while the "gunboat" inty has 3. The other races at least get this one right, for all its problems at least the Malediction has 3 medslots, allowing it to, you know, tackle.
Sigh.
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 16:01:00 -
[50]
Originally by: TuRtLe HeAd
I love the ares as it is.
...
If we keep balancing ships all the time, theres gonna be no point flying one over the other.
Well, riddle me this: ignoring price (since price is set by ship popularity which is set by effectiveness), why would I ever fly an Ares over some other interceptor?
What role can Ares do that some other inty can't do better?
That's the problem.
|
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2006.05.22 23:29:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Correct me if I'm wrong. Seems like interceptors represent some inconsistent gameplay ideas--are they meant for a significant damage bonus, more slots and speed to carry them or are they are supposed to be dramatically closer to their tech one counterparts in performance across the board?
Interceptors are fast frigates with good firepower, used for raiding, skirmish warfare, and tackling duties. Frankly I'm not sure where this idea that interceptors should only be good for tackling stuff came from. The only thing that would do is ruin a perfectly good class of ship. The usage of a ship is determined by the playerbase. Since the interceptor has a fast lock time and is also quite fast, it frequently gets used as a tackler. However, this is not it's only purpose, and removal of combat bonuses would simply give a ship that was far less versatile and useful - and therefore far less popular. As for comparisons between the other interceptors that is the purpose of the original post because both of these interceptors are considered to be underpowered by anyone with knowledge of them.
Raptor and Ares Fix |
Toshiro Khan
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 00:22:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kai Lae
Raptor MK2
CPU 150
PG 35
4/3/3 slot layout with 3 turret hardpoints and 1 missile hardpoint
Bonus: Caldari Frigate Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage and 10% Bonus to Small Hybrid Turret range per level Interceptors Skill Bonus: 5% reduction in Signature Radius and 7.5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret tracking speed per level
So you want to turn the raptor into a caldari version of the taranis..
yet when it comes down to your improved version of the Ares...
Originally by: Kai Lae
Ares MK2
CPU 125
PG 38
4/2/4 slot layout with 2 turret and 2 missile hardpoints
Bonus: Same as before but 7.5% small hybrid tracking speed per interceptor level
you choose to keep its 2/2 weapons slots (split damage bonuses ftl).. why not change it to a 3 launcher, 1 turret slot layout with 5% damage to rockets and light missles and 10% to rocket and light missle range plus say a grid increase of say 5 - 8 points.. and make it a gallente version of the crow.
|
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 00:24:00 -
[53]
Because CCP in their infinite wisdom seem to want it that way. Ask them.
Raptor and Ares Fix |
Toshiro Khan
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 00:49:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Kai Lae
Because CCP in their infinite wisdom seem to want it that way. Ask them.
I was talking about your proposals... rather then doing something that might make ares wanted you choose to keep its crappy weapons layout.. but in the same stroke, give the Caldari their own version of the taranis.
It would have made more sence that if your going to turn one ship into a version of its racial enemy to make it a more desireable, then doing the same for the other ship made more sence then making it even more gimped by removing a 25 points of its cpu in exchange for 3 extra points of grid and a tiny increase of its turrets damage.
The Raptor, is a nice idea... but but your mk2 Ares makes it an even worse ship.
|
Norris Packard
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 01:35:00 -
[55]
the ares needs the third med slot to act in its intended role as a tackling interceptor. a 3hi/3med/4low set up would be great and give the ares the ability to tackle like it should. the idea of 5m3 drone space would be ok and would fit in with the other RS ships of the ares size, the enyo and eris that each have 5m3 drone space.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 01:40:00 -
[56]
3/3/4 Ares works for me. Never did figure why they gave it a high rather than the promised mid during the interceptor revamp. Drone bay? Not convinced, but 5m¦ isn't game-breaking either.
|
Chi Prime
|
Posted - 2006.05.23 09:30:00 -
[57]
Removing a high and giving a mid slot on both the Raptor and Ares wouldn't be a bad idea at all.
|
Kunming
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 09:14:00 -
[58]
I'd say remove the drone bay on the taranis (yes I fly taranis' too but its about balance) and give ares a 10m¦ bay, leave the slot lay out and fitting the same.
OR
Simply remove the stupid missile thingy on the ares and give it 4 turrets, if the PG is left the same the pilot would have to make a compromise between tank and gank.
|
Kai Lae
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 09:38:00 -
[59]
Whatever your opinion about the slot layout on the ares, the grid as it stands is ludicrously low and needs adressing.
Raptor and Ares Fix |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2006.05.27 09:42:00 -
[60]
cant belive after all these years interceptor still has damage bonus... 
"We brake for nobody"
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |