| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 42 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1246
   |
Posted - 2014.04.14 20:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'm heading home - will check in again tomorrow morning.
I must say I didn't realize the magnitude of the turret asymmetry problem. Not sure what to say really, doubt it will change but I'll bring it up with some folks here tomorrow and get back to you.
If you drop it to 6 turrets, then no mid slot or low slot should be added.
The Mach is currently 1 slot higher than nearly all the other pirate BS. This should go away if they gain a larger DPS buff per turret & only 6 turrets. I.E. Turret Symmetry is fine, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to buff the mach with another slot & identical DPS. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1246
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 03:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Myrthiis wrote:
U can't really give one more low to NM without giving another mid to the Mach ,sounds too unfair .In your current version machariel will simply stay out of the field for incursions ...so u should really think about it as it is not an increase in dps but a nice spot for a tc who will greatly help to stay in the competition.
And yes turret simmetry is something i care about :)
The Nightmare was down 2 slots compared to the Mach. The Mach is still one slot up |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1261
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 02:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
A damage bonus on the snake for heavies would just be a bandaid. And wouldn't solve the heavy issue for other ships.
Heavies themselves should be altered. Imagine about double the optimal/fall off (Meaning double the orbit radius also), changing the drone MWD mechanics for all sizes so that they attempt to match speed with the target to orbit, leaving their MWD on if they have to for speed, and maybe a 10-15% DPS increase so that heavies out DPS sentries properly, but still have travel time involved.
That might be about what is actually needed for heavies.
But a special snake only DPS bonus for Heavies isn't the answer. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1261
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 02:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Rise, is there any chance that a hard point can be added to the center underside of the Rattlesnake for the 5th launcher? (right under the lower "grill" in front would be perfect) That way the last turret appears below and on top of the Rattlesnake. Thanks.
Try a current snake putting the launcher in the 5th slot. The hard points already exist. It's based on which slot you put the turrets/launchers in as to where they appear, so if you leave the first two slots empty and put them in the last slots, you get a different turret layout. Or you can leave the middle two slots empty at present for a different layout again etc. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1266
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 00:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
270 DPS for 7.5 Cruise launchers sounds rather low. I think you need to double check details. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1273
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 06:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Any idea on when these proposed changes might be live on the test server??
More than halfway through Autumn here, so a little over 1 month till they are supposed to be going live on TQ.
'Summer' meaning the expansion will be sometime in Summer. Not 'the second summer hits these will be live'
They could still be four months away and fit summer, let alone if they let it run a little late for some reason into very early autumn. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1278
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 07:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
If you can dance in & out of a 75km control range and keep a point. You aren't in an interceptor. You are in a recon, with a T3 boosting you also. Meaning the whole worry of interceptor gangs isn't relevant to this discussion, we are now talking a serious sized Blops gang. Meaning there are also several dozen bombers shredding you in 10 seconds flat. And it's irrelevant what sort of BS or fittings you had available. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1294
|
Posted - 2014.04.29 01:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
5. We always argue that drone ships are versatile because of these utility drones, this is the rationale behind the removal of a high slot on drone ships.
Kindly note that the Rattlesnake does not lack a slot relative to most of the rest of the pirate ships. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1312
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 22:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
IMO the sentries are well served by the current bonus. The heavy drones are the likely candidates for a bit of extra help.
I still want to see them on SiSi before I get the particulars though. Especially once I get the chance to apply them with the new lowslot tracking modules, see how that plays out.
Heavy drones need more help at the base level also though.
All the moving drones need a rework on drone movement that allows them to use MWD at slower than max speed if that's what is needed to establish an orbit or keep up with a target. Rather than the current sprint/crawl they do.
And an increase in both optimal range & orbit distance would similarly give heavy drones a significant helping hand. (Not to silly distances, but another 2,000m wouldn't go amiss for example and would massively help their tracking.)
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1321
|
Posted - 2014.05.03 09:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Giullare wrote:Rattlesnake is still a little behind other pirate battleships.
It can use a minor boost like +1 high slot (not even missile hardpoint).
You know it already has the same number of slots as half the pirate BS's. Only Mach & Vindi have more. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1353
|
Posted - 2014.05.29 04:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
Fabulous Rod wrote:
Additionally, your joke fit with RLML battleship would be impossible to play if you were being jammed at all.
FOF missiles, BS have the highest base sensor strength of all the sub cap classes, and any gunship is 100% useless if they are jammed.
So.... Trying to make an argument based on 'if you are jammed it doesn't work' really really sucks. |
| |
|