| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre
Destiny's Call
45
   |
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't like the whole bunch of changes.
You give all ships the ability of more tank but you decrease cargo hold right from the start. Additionally your bulkheads on the testserver have a 10% cargo penalty too. So tanky fits become even more nerfed cargo wise. And don't forgett the resuction of hull, which make the bulkheads nerfed 2 times.
cr.ap
I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre
Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Althalus Stenory wrote:Providence and obelisk are fine as they are now (since they are armor)
Fenrir and Charon should have 1 or 2 low slot, and at least 1 (or 2 if only 1 low) med slots for buffers.
Armor freighters can use adaptive nano, why the fenrir or charon couldn't use an invul ?
Anyway, i'm fine with the new rebalance :p (really better and more interesting than rigs) Use bulkheads for better results in any case.
No it is not. CCP reduced the hull hp significantly. Therefore bulkheads won't increase the hp much because they work percentage wise. Additionally one bulkhead reduces cargo hold capacity by 10% (TEST server) |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre
Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote:Brib Vogt wrote:
I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability.
but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits? |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre
Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:How did you calculate your tanks? The base ehp seems rather high? Sum of base shield/armour/hull HP +ù skill bonuses +ù -+ of Gêæ 1/(1-resist) Brib Vogt wrote:No it is not. Yes it is, unless you start slapping deadspace or officer resists on them. 3+ù 15% resist bonus = ~48% more EHP on armour 3+ù 25% HP bonus = ~95% more EHP on hull. In just one case will armour EHP be more than hull EHP, and even then, the difference in EHP increase makes quick work of that tiny gap.
your numbers are correct. but "Use bulkheads for better results in any case." is still not true because you would end up in -30% cargo capacity for a freighter! |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre
Destiny's Call
45
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 18:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Brib Vogt wrote:Querns wrote:Brib Vogt wrote:
I can understand the bulkhead change but why stripping the cargo capacity from the start. And why giving them such limited fitting possibilities.
They have to reduce the cargo so that when people fit expanded cargoholds, the amount of cargo that freighters can carry does not explode out of control. It's the price you pay for customizability. but why adding another cargo penalty on tanky fits? Because they are trade-off.
But why is the maximum velocity modifier of -11% replaced with -10% cargo capacity. Thats my whole point
|
| |
|