Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 171 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 42 post(s) |
Topher Basquette Dusch-shur
Montana Freedom Fighters
6
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:41:00 -
[691] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote: You forgot the 9th Highslot so that we can fit the capital tractor beam.
Nah, the game is all about tradeoffs. You don't want it to be overpowered so you have to trade a launcher if you want to use the capital tractor beam. |
Liu Lios
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:15:00 -
[692] - Quote
The whole point in mission running is being able to watch a movie at the same time, correct? That means, sit comfortably at 100-120km range and shoot at things with no worries.
The new rattlesnake is no better at doing that than the old one. You re still limited by high slots number. You need 3 for drone link augmentors. I typically have a heavy neut equipped just in case so, that leaves 2 high slots for cruise missile launchers. In other words, going from potentially 4 to potentially 5 missile launchers is not useful at all for the sniper. So whats left? Nothing really. The ships is simply getting more expensive.
Gah i think i ll stick to my domi. The rattlesnake is too ugly anyway (only worst looking ship is asymmetrical machariel so plz, dont change that) |
Hasril Pux
Red Cabal
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 00:45:00 -
[693] - Quote
I know how much hate I'm going to get for suggesting something so mundane and in line with what this particular Worm/Gila/Rattlesnake pilot would rather see.
But we're all entitled to our opinions so... like whatever, man.
WORM
Gallente Frigate Bonus: 4% bonus to light drone damage and hitpoints
Caldari Frigate Bonus: 4% bonus to all shield resistances
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage
Slot layout: 3H, 4M, 3L; 0 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 40 PWG(+5), 180 CPU(+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 830(+33) / 500(-82) / 620(-3) Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 380(+30) / 212000 (-22375) / 1.79 (+.29) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 320(+33) / 3.8(+.31) / 965000 / 5.17s(+.42) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 650 / 5 Sensor strength: 15 Signature radius: 40
===============================================
GILA
Gallente Cruiser Bonus: 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints
Caldari Cruiser Bonus: 4% bonus to all shield resistances
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage
Slot layout: 5H, 6M, 4L; 0 turrets, 4 launchers(+1) Fittings: 670 PWG(+40), 400 CPU(+50) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3200(+12) / 2200(-125) / 2490 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 1400(+25) / 530000 (-1250) / 2.85 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+31) / .66 / 9600000 / 8.78s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 400 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 58km (+3km) / 285 / 7 Sensor strength: 22 Signature radius: 145(-5) Cargo Hold: 440
===============================================
RATTLESNAKE
Gallente Battleship Bonus: 10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints
Caldari Battleship Bonus: 4% bonus to all shield resistances
Role Bonus: 60% bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage (more, but then... slightly less... I sorry)
Slot layout: 6H, 7M, 6L; 0 turrets, 4 launchers Fittings: 10000 PWG, 710 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 12750 / 8940(-358) / 9960 Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 5350(+38) / 1154000ms / 4.59 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 94 / .128 / 99300000 / 18.45s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 400 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km / 100 / 7 Sensor strength: 30 Signature radius: 450(-10)
Just take it with a stalagmite of salt and be glad I'm not a DEV, okay?
Not that a post like this is ever going to amount to anything anyway, but feedback was asked for and so here it is. |
Ragnen Delent
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 01:28:00 -
[694] - Quote
The fact that you consider yourself a pilot of a specific hull speaks volumes of your understanding of how this game works. If you have become so attached to one that modifications to it cause this much upset then you should very much reconsider how you approach ships in this game.
The whole gimmick with the Guristas ships is that they are supposed to represent a hybrid Gallente/Caldari weapons platform that focuses on whatever weight class the ship is. Ship hulls in and of themselves are not "roles". You cannot characterize or justify balance adjustments with respect to the hulls flavor and not its intended role on the grounds that you want it to serve whatever purpose suits you. Doing so makes balancing decisions be conditional to whatever arbitrary vision a player has for the hull, and can never reflect everyone's vision for it.
If you want to put in useful feedback, don't just throwback different numbers: I cannot see CCP changing their numeric decisions because someone posted different numbers. Clearly define what exactly it is you think the ship SHOULD do, and give reasons for why, other than "I like the way I currently envision the ship". Why? Because without doing so there is no way to counter argue or develop any points against your position, because they are inherent to you. There is no way you are an authority on what "Worm/Gila/Rattlesnake pilot[s]" believe, and your individual perspective doesn't really hold much weight if it does not come from any rational place. |
Hasril Pux
Red Cabal
3
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:35:00 -
[695] - Quote
Ragnen Delent wrote:The fact that you consider yourself a pilot of a specific hull speaks volumes of your understanding of how this game works. If you have become so attached to one that modifications to it cause this much upset then you should very much reconsider how you approach ships in this game.
The whole gimmick with the Guristas ships is that they are supposed to represent a hybrid Gallente/Caldari weapons platform that focuses on whatever weight class the ship is. Ship hulls in and of themselves are not "roles". You cannot characterize or justify balance adjustments with respect to the hulls flavor and not its intended role on the grounds that you want it to serve whatever purpose suits you. Doing so makes balancing decisions be conditional to whatever arbitrary vision a player has for the hull, and can never reflect everyone's vision for it.
If you want to put in useful feedback, don't just throwback different numbers: I cannot see CCP changing their numeric decisions because someone posted different numbers. Clearly define what exactly it is you think the ship SHOULD do, and give reasons for why, other than "I like the way I currently envision the ship". Why? Because without doing so there is no way to counter argue or develop any points against your position, because they are inherent to you. There is no way you are an authority on what "Worm/Gila/Rattlesnake pilot[s]" believe, and your individual perspective doesn't really hold much weight if it does not come from any rational place.
Nice assumptions about my character and intentions.
As has been said numerous times by myself and others (for no good reason, I'm sure) who fly Guristas ships NON-EXCLUSSIVELY; the loss of versatility in the Guristas line will indeed be a significant loss, medium drone "activation proximity" (which is hilariously 2 kilometers inside the max firing range of a Valkyrie II) means that the Gila's main line of attack will have trouble applying damage to anything that moves faster than it's drone's orbit velocity (600 meters per second on a Valkyrie II) because the drone will often fall behind and then try to catch up to the target. I think that the drastic changes to the Guristas line are not justified by the original premise, that these ships are too similar in role to some Gallente ships, as if missile spewing, shield tanking, Caldari hulled drone boats are not unique enough by themselves. I agree that they're not good enough as they are now, hence my numbers dump. I apologize if that doesn't meet your expectations for what useful feedback is, but I'd rather say what I think than sit back and say nothing at all when I feel strongly opposed to the changes being proposed to a ship I very much enjoy flying. |
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
133
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 02:58:00 -
[696] - Quote
Hasril Pux wrote: snip... a ship I very much enjoy flying.
I don't have anything meaningful to add other than: Can it really be called "Flying" if it is in space? Do planets and stars "Fly"?
Considering EVE's "Flying" through space is more like driving a speed boat through pudding, I think we should re-coin the term "Flying" to "Floating".
So that EVE pilots can finally get the satisfaction being able to do whatever floats their boats.
Vacuums suck. |
Ragnen Delent
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 05:26:00 -
[697] - Quote
Hasril Pux wrote: Nice assumptions about my character and intentions.
You have said multiple times in posts within this thread that you see yourself as a pilot of these hulls, i'm not sure how else we are supposed to interpret those statements.
Hasril Pux wrote: As has been said numerous times by myself and others (for no good reason, I'm sure) who fly Guristas ships NON-EXCLUSSIVELY; the loss of versatility in the Guristas line will indeed be a significant loss, medium drone "activation proximity" (which is hilariously 2 kilometers inside the max firing range of a Valkyrie II) means that the Gila's main line of attack will have trouble applying damage to anything that moves faster than it's drone's orbit velocity (600 meters per second on a Valkyrie II) because the drone will often fall behind and then try to catch up to the target. I think that the drastic changes to the Guristas line are not justified by the original premise, that these ships are too similar in role to some Gallente ships, as if missile spewing, shield tanking, Caldari hulled drone boats are not unique enough by themselves.
Why does a hull have to be so versatile that it is capable of fighting all types of ships? Why should a battleship class vessel be able to fight RLMLs and lights, get full bonuses to them, and effectively be a giant fly swatter (note that the stats your proposed would in effect do this, though I do understand if that was not your intent). The changes being proposed create an interesting set of a ships that are specialized to shoot at their own weight class. Because these ships currently offer a poor but flexible platform should not mean that when adjusted they should keep the flexibility and gain in power as well. At least to me, the intention of these changes was to make the hybrid aspect of these ships more pronounced, because currently the most effect fit was to favor one weapon type over the other.
Hasril Pux wrote:I agree that they're not good enough as they are now, hence my numbers dump. I apologize if that doesn't meet your expectations for what useful feedback is, but I'd rather say what I think than sit back and say nothing at all when I feel strongly opposed to the changes being proposed to a ship I very much enjoy flying.
I'm just trying to point out that simply stating you disagree with a change, while not defining the problems you have with it beyond "I like to do a nebulous thing with it" is not much for someone to work with if they're attempting to assess issues with a change. What do you do with these ships? What do you like about them? Why do you think the things you like are worth keeping, and how do the changes you propose keep to that spirit?
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
3341
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 06:03:00 -
[698] - Quote
I don't think any of these changes are going to be for me - at least until (if) they come out with a missile-based Pirate line. But I'm glad they're gaining wide acceptance for the most part. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
157
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 06:58:00 -
[699] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Harvey James wrote:why do some have 19 slots and the mach/vindi has 20? I believe because when the models were updated there wasn't room for the number of effective turrets needed so they were given less slots with larger role bonuses. The Rattlesnake has less because of drones. We talked about adjusting for them all to have the same number but we like where the balance is for them and didn't feel it was worth messing with just for the sake of making the slot count match. An extra 25m in the drone bay for the Snake would be nice - allow 4 flights of drones (2 of sentries, 2 of heavies) With space for only 7 drones it limits options greatly.
|
Liu Lios
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:16:00 -
[700] - Quote
What I am going to suggest about the rattlesnake comes as a consequence of my previously stated perception of it not being buffed in certain configurations where it is typically used today.
Fact: It is obviously the intention of CCP to increase the damage dealt by the rattlesnake.
Hence the ship is scheduled to get: (a) missile damage bonus (b) 5 instead of 4 slots for missile launchers
Now, (a) missile damage bonus applies to missile damage in any case but (b) 5 instead of 4 slots for missile launchers is only useful if someone is willing to use 5 out of the total of 6 high slots for missile launchers. This only leaves one slot free. In other words, the increase in missile launcher slots is only useful for close range setups, since long range/sniper setups need at least a couple of high slots for drone link augmentors. Not only that but long range setups benefit less from (a) missile damage bonus since they do not use the max/intended number of missile launchers anyway.
Conclusion: If CCPs intent was to give rattlesnake a dps increase in all realistic and sane scenarios, the proposed changes only partially achieve that goal. They work in close range setups, but not in sniping setups.
Solution: It may sound extreme at first but after thinking about it for a while, i believe that it may not be unbalancing - eg by making the rattlesnake OP in some cases- to add an extra high slot, going from 6 to 7.
(a) It makes sense to do that since missile launcher slots also increase in number from 4 to 5.
(b) In cases of long range setups it solves the high slot problem allowing for the intended dps increase to actually be realized.
(c) In short range setups, there is a danger that this extra slot may make the rattlesnake a bit too strong. I would like to listen to more opinions about that but the way i see it, you ll have 5 torpedo launchers on your high slots, and thats it basically. So going from 6 to 7 high slots wont be a problem.
In summary: I suggest adding an extra high slot to the rattlesnake in order to facilitate the utilization of the 5th missile launcher slot. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
3341
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:18:00 -
[701] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:An extra 25m in the drone bay for the Snake would be nice - allow 4 flights of drones (2 of sentries, 2 of heavies) With space for only 7 drones it limits options greatly. And that would be the catch with a hybrid setup... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
3341
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:34:00 -
[702] - Quote
Liu Lios wrote:Solution: It may sounds extreme at first but after thinking about it for a while, i believe that it may not be unbalancing - eg by making the rattlesnake OP in some cases- to add an extra high slot, going from 6 to 7. The Rattlesnake is losing the missile velocity bonus, so any notion that it's still well-suited for a "sniper" role is somewhat unrealistic. Cruise missiles will top out at around 120km and will take 12-15 seconds to hit their targets. The Rattlesnake is now much more in-line with the other 'brawlers', ie: autocannon Machariel, rail Vindicator and tachyon Nightmare. The only battleship that now has sniping capabilities is (wait for it)... the Nestor.
If my tinfoil were on tighter I might even go so far as to suggest that the Rattlesnake has been curtailed in some respects to make the Nestor more appealing (since the current Rattlesnake has much better damage application). If I were to entertain a full-blown conspiracy, I'd also entertain the distinct possibility that the new Rattlesnake has been engineered specifically with rapid launchers in-mind (since bonuses apply to light and heavy). That in itself limits applications to around 60km. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
657
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 07:52:00 -
[703] - Quote
I will speak solely from incursions perspective here because that is where i like multi billion ships to be making me isk funding my game,hanging out with ppl chilling and stuff.
i also believe no matter how many times you optimize pirate / T2 bs ship for pvp it cost pretty much warrant that 99% of pvp pilots will never even think about using it ,let alone use it on daily basis unlike incursions where these ships are used by hundred if not thousands on daily basis,creating infinitely more gameplay than 1% of sporadic pvp use ever will.
I like Bhaalgorn it got nice buff maybe it manage to get in fleets as drone bunny now sporting some additional DPS.
Vindi same bit improved beast it stayed.
Rattle couldn't care less.
Mach nerfs.warp speed is nice perk if you warp solo to a l4 mission doesn't do anything for fleet action ie incursions.
NM is buffed to the point that even faintest hope of paladin being viable dps alternative to use in incursions is gone.
I also believe it will completely push out machariels out of game NM after all is considered best ship for incursions and further buff will make it even better there is reason why ISboxers are using NM predominately.
And it is already extremely hard to beat one if hi is using NM's this will get worse and my fear this alone can possibly kick machs out fleets.
While missiles are not being used because delayed dmg there will be no excuses like that for minmatar weaponry other than fail weapon system.
If this happens IMO it will destroy far more gameplay that this changes are trying to achieve.
Hope i am wrong that is all i have on this. http://i.imgur.com/1N37t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KTjFEt6.jpg I dont always fly stabber but when i do...
|
Liu Lios
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:15:00 -
[704] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:The Rattlesnake is losing the missile velocity bonus, so any notion that it's still well-suited for a "sniper" role is somewhat unrealistic. Cruise missiles will top out at around 120km and will take 12-15 seconds to hit their targets. The Rattlesnake is now much more in-line with the other 'brawlers', ie: autocannon Machariel, rail Vindicator and tachyon Nightmare. The only battleship that now has sniping capabilities is (wait for it)... the Nestor.
If my tinfoil were on tighter I might even go so far as to suggest that the Rattlesnake has been curtailed in some respects to make the Nestor more appealing (since the current Rattlesnake has much better damage application). If I were to entertain a full-blown conspiracy, I'd also entertain the distinct possibility that the new Rattlesnake has been engineered specifically with rapid launchers in-mind (since bonuses apply to light and heavy). That in itself limits applications to around 60km. I dont argue that the new rattlesnake will find its niche(s).
It seems though that several other people are sharing my pov.
Ahernar wrote:RS needs another high (or keep the launcher count and compensate by bonus ++ ) . That or the RS pilots will have to change the way are using it . It could find itself a niche or it will become meh again . The chance to get it wrong again it's in the air.
It's not much of a buff if 2 kin therm launchers are costing you the old drone flexibility ,light med drone damage bonus and -50% missile speed . It's not much of a buff if 3.5 kin therm launchers are costing you the old drone flexibility ,light med drone damage bonus -50% missile speed and crucially makes you slowboat 20-30km after a mjd until you can engage with drones .
At least IMO "rebalance" got it closer to the other pirate battleships but definitely not in the pack .
epicurus ataraxia wrote:It would be much nicer with a damage bonus rather than an extra launcher, losing that drone link hurts. Sort of defeats the buff.
But apparently, if nothing changes it is a medium range cruise missile sentry boat? It can work, sort of, but is that the plan?
..if all is taken into account, if you take advantage of the missile buff, you lose drone capability, if you do not, you lose capability. So the rattlesnake needed a buff to make it comparable, it is less of a buff than appeared initially. If 25 Km drone control range was built into the bonuses, then the rattlesnake will gain the missile buff and will only have lost the ability to field 7.5 effective lights or mediums, and the loss of tracking and range in the new omnidirectional links,the cap use of the omnis is dealable with.
Morukk Nuamzzar wrote: Rattlesnake
Role Bonus: something something smartbombs range and capacitor use
Can fit cover ops cloaking devices
Slot layout: 7H, 7M, 6L; 0 turrets, 5 launchers
Problem solved.
The Djego wrote: Rattlesnake should have a extra spare high slot and 2 turret slots, it is one of the main features I miss compared to my fleet phoon. Give it a bit more speed(105-110 base at least), if you want to see it in pvp(and yes it got potential). Also same as on the gila a 2. lower bonus for light drones, for frig defence. 5 light drones with out a bonus are just embarrassing on a drone BS.
|
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
157
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:19:00 -
[705] - Quote
Ragnen Delent wrote:
I'm just trying to point out that simply stating you disagree with a change, while not defining the problems you have with it beyond "I like to do a nebulous thing with it" is not much for someone to work with if they're attempting to assess issues with a change. What do you do with these ships? What do you like about them? Why do you think the things you like are worth keeping, and how do the changes you propose keep to that spirit?
Guristas Cruiser and Battleship should have a bonus to 'Drone Activation Proximity" or better still a web bonus as a role bonus (100% to range). Drones are their primary weapon system and each has a bonus to a specific type of drone, which only engages targets at specific range and speed.. For any use other than low level mission running (YUK) both will have trouble hitting anything that is moving faster than the drones can orbit it. If for example someone wanted to use a Gila for solo pvp, they are limited as to what targets they can engage - webbed AB cruisers, due to drone activation proximity. Valkyrie ll (the fastest of the medium drones) has an orbit velocity of 600m/s, activation proximity of 2000m, if your target is going much over 120m/s your not going to hit it reliably. Much the same can be said for the Rattlesnake, Ogres have an orbit speed of 300m/s and activation proximity of 5000m. Once a target is outside 5000m the Ogre then goes back into MWD mode to catch up, they do not fire on a target when in MWD mode, so until your drone is back in orbit it is not applying Dps..
With 5 drones in space you usually have 2 or 3 in range applying damage while the others play catchup, with only 2 drones available, playing catchup means a lot less Dps being applied..
Want to test this out?? Find an incursion, drop your Warrior ll's on a Tama (does around 420m/s) and watch them chase it around not dealing damage. They need to be webbed, dual webbed is better, for your drones to damage them. Kill off the rest of the room and drop a flight of Beserkers on a Sansha Nation Commander and watch as they hilariously chase it around unable to deal any damage at all.
Drone Activation Proximity is the key to Medium Scouts and Heavy Drones ability to apply Dps. Increasing Drone MWD speeds (part of the summer drone updates) will reduce Catch Up time but it will still be a major factor.
|
Stein Backstabber
The Forgotten Wanderers
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 08:46:00 -
[706] - Quote
That rattler is....just insane. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
157
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:06:00 -
[707] - Quote
Stein Backstabber wrote:That rattler is....just insane. Sentry - Cruise setup will possibly work ok for sniping.. Wouldn't put too much hope on Heavies being of much use for pvp, without dual webs. There is a reason Ishtars, even with the heavy drone bonus, use sentries. |
motie one
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 09:31:00 -
[708] - Quote
Liu Lios wrote:What I am going to suggest about the rattlesnake comes as a consequence of my previously stated perception of it not being buffed in certain configurations where it is typically used today.
Fact: It is obviously the intention of CCP to increase the damage dealt by the rattlesnake.
Hence the ship is scheduled to get: (a) missile damage bonus (b) 5 instead of 4 slots for missile launchers
Now, (a) missile damage bonus applies to missile damage in any case but (b) 5 instead of 4 slots for missile launchers is only useful if someone is willing to use 5 out of the total of 6 high slots for missile launchers. This only leaves one slot free. In other words, the increase in missile launcher slots is only useful for close range setups, since long range/sniper setups need at least a couple of high slots for drone link augmentors. Not only that but long range setups benefit less from (a) missile damage bonus since they do not use the max/intended number of missile launchers anyway.
Conclusion: If CCPs intent was to give rattlesnake a dps increase in all realistic and sane scenarios, the proposed changes only partially achieve that goal. They work in close range setups, but not in sniping setups.
Solution: It may sound extreme at first but after thinking about it for a while, i believe that it may not be unbalancing - eg by making the rattlesnake OP in some cases- to add an extra high slot, going from 6 to 7.
(a) It makes sense to do that since missile launcher slots also increase in number from 4 to 5.
(b) In cases of long range setups it solves the high slot problem allowing for the intended dps increase to actually be realized.
(c) In short range setups, there is a danger that this extra slot may make the rattlesnake a bit too strong. I would like to listen to more opinions about that but the way i see it, you ll have 5 torpedo launchers on your high slots, and thats it basically. So going from 6 to 7 high slots wont be a problem.
In summary: I suggest adding an extra high slot to the rattlesnake in order to facilitate the utilization of the 5th missile launcher slot.
Much much simpler solution. Add the extra launcher damage as a bonus instead. No messing with slots. Ship gets the buff it is meant to get. All is good |
Hai fanfan
Bearing Srl.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:02:00 -
[709] - Quote
gascanu wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Harvey James wrote:why do some have 19 slots and the mach/vindi has 20? I believe because when the models were updated there wasn't room for the number of effective turrets needed so they were given less slots with larger role bonuses. The Rattlesnake has less because of drones. We talked about adjusting for them all to have the same number but we like where the balance is for them and didn't feel it was worth messing with just for the sake of making the slot count match. CCP Rise pls consider giving Rattlesnake another slot: up until now it made sense to have one less because of drones(and was the worse pirate bs by far, btw), but after this rebalance rattlesnake is becoming a split weapon system, so it will need 2 types of damage mods, while the rest of the pirate bs only need one; More to the point, while any othe pirate bs will need 4 damage mods to get max dps rattlesnake will need 6Considering this i'm sure you can see my point and give it another slot, be it a low, med or high, i'll be happy with any at this point
this^^! one more slot will put rattlesnake in line with the rest of the pack;
don't get me wrong, the new rattlesnake is better than the old one, but it feel... how to say ..."unfinished"? it does good dps on paper, but half from that dps is coming from missiles... and with current missile mechanics about 30% or more of that dmg will faill to apply in maybe 4 out of 5 situations
|
GULL
Pelican. Cult of War
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:07:00 -
[710] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Harvey James wrote:why do some have 19 slots and the mach/vindi has 20? I believe because when the models were updated there wasn't room for the number of effective turrets needed so they were given less slots with larger role bonuses. The Rattlesnake has less because of drones. We talked about adjusting for them all to have the same number but we like where the balance is for them and didn't feel it was worth messing with just for the sake of making the slot count match.
I still think the rattler needs to have 20 slots since I think it is still under powered even after next patch |
|
Otti
Shiga's Playground Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:11:00 -
[711] - Quote
The rattlesnake needs more it is just not good enough
yeah I think atleast it would need 20 slots like the vindi |
Shrak
Little Willies
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:22:00 -
[712] - Quote
Of course the Rattlesnake gets the short straw again and is and from the looks of it will still be the worst faction Battleship in the game.
Why only 19 slots? you need damage mods for 2 types (Missiles and drones)
sucks |
Hai fanfan
Bearing Srl.
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:32:00 -
[713] - Quote
also how come the rattlesnake have worse fittings that a simple t1 raven?
rattlesnake: Fittings: 10000 PWG, 710 CPU
raven: Fittings: 11000 PWG, 750 CPU
|
Saira Minamoto
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 10:40:00 -
[714] - Quote
From a mission perspective then the rattlesnake is way out there.
This rattlesnake balancing should have been done a long time ago and should be getting another boost now.
this balancing only brings the Rattlesnake closer to current faction BS's
Give it 20 slots "Atleast"
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Finally we get to the battleships! Can you confirm a warp speed of 3.0 AU/s? Also, 7 turrets just looks godawful. Could we please look at dropping this to 6 turrets, swapping a high for a mid slot and changing the role bonus to a 37.5% rate of fire instead? It works out to a +0.28% DPS increase, but this is somewhat negated by a higher ammunition consumption rate. Let's not forget that the Machariel is losing align time, scan resolution and signature bloom.
Mach need more. Would be nice to get more ROF bonus and bring it down to 6 turrets and giving it one more med slot instead of high. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box
97
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 12:44:00 -
[715] - Quote
To Compenstate the rattlesnake, and now its lack of good range. it either needs the role bonus to apply to all drone sizes, so you can use mediums & lights.or one more drone launched. Either that or it needs the 7th high slot to allow for the extra range mod |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
369
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:05:00 -
[716] - Quote
While I would never object to another high or another low for the Rattlesnake, I think it is going to be an absolute beast for running Anomalies - able to apply great DPS out to the maximum range that rats will spawn. Of course, it will be more vulnerable to roaming gangs than an Ishtar, because it is slower to warp out if someone shows up in local. On the other hand, it should also last longer in that eventuality, which means friends can show up to help. Which ultimately creates more content than just POSing or docking up. Will be interesting to see... This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Morukk Nuamzzar
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
5
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 13:59:00 -
[717] - Quote
Fabulous Rod wrote: After the "ohh shiney" factor wears off...
Rattle prices are slowly dropping down and angry mission runners are to blame for ruining the market. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5944
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 14:08:00 -
[718] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:While I would never object to another high or another low for the Rattlesnake, I think it is going to be an absolute beast for running Anomalies - able to apply great DPS out to the maximum range that rats will spawn. Of course, it will be more vulnerable to roaming gangs than an Ishtar, because it is slower to warp out if someone shows up in local. On the other hand, it should also last longer in that eventuality, which means friends can show up to help. Which ultimately creates more content than just POSing or docking up. Will be interesting to see...
Ishtar can't mount the mighty MJD which when used correctly helps battleships GTFO quickly and better. The new Snake will be such a beast I'm more worried about CCP nerfing it than anything else lol. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
648
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 15:52:00 -
[719] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:To Compenstate the rattlesnake, and now its lack of good range. it either needs the role bonus to apply to all drone sizes, so you can use mediums & lights.or one more drone launched. Either that or it needs the 7th high slot to allow for the extra range mod
no |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
3342
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 16:00:00 -
[720] - Quote
The subject of this thread should really be: "[Summer 2014] Rattlesnake: Why I want to have my Cake and Eat it too" I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 171 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |