|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kldraina
   |
Posted - 2006.06.27 07:28:00 -
[1]
Personally, I'd like to see Khanid become the kings of dura-tanking. I.E. shield extenders and armor plates for lots of raw HP. It would take a lot of work to make them any good at it though, since this tactic is generally a bad idea. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.07.20 09:12:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Kldraina on 20/07/2006 09:12:50
The Devs are probably still trying to figure out what Khanid are supposed to be. When I first started playing a Year ago, they looked like shield tanking Sansha. Now, I'm not sure what they are.
It's kinda weird. The flavor says strong shields, but the numbers say strong armor. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.07.25 06:44:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kldraina on 25/07/2006 06:45:34
Here's a crazy idea to try making the Sacrilige completely unpredictable:
PG: 1000
CPU: 400
Armor: 1800
Shield: 1800
Fittings:
6-5-5
3 turret, 3 launcher
Boni:
Cruiser skill: +5% armor resists per level, and -10% laser cap use per level.
HAC skill: +5% shield resists per level, and 5% improved missile RoF per level.
Now, I know the boni suck, so I tried upping the fittings, CPU, and shields to help out.
So now I ask, could this ship, actually be useful? Or would the split boni, prevent it from being useful even with the extra mid and CPU? (The basic idea is to make the Sac a real wild card). |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.07.26 00:30:00 -
[4]
... I guess no one noticed the question I posed near the bottom of the previous page. Was kinda hoping to get this thread talking again, instead of just people bumping it. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.07.28 03:14:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Entropist
That's the beauty of this thread though - it's something that most players seem to agree on which makes it all the more mystifying that none of the devs have replied to it yet.
Honestly, I would consider having everyone agree be all the more reason to not respond. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 01:21:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sarmaul
Originally by: Kldraina
Honestly, I would consider having everyone agree be all the more reason to not respond.
?
If nothing is actually happening in the thread, then what purpose is served by joining in? Either he encourages people to continue their "/signed" posts, or he gets everyone upset. There isn't much else a dev can do in this thread until actual news arrives. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.07.29 04:50:00 -
[7]
Here's a question: What's more dangerous, missiles + EW + armor tank, or missiles + shield tank + Damage mods? |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 22:39:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Kldraina on 03/10/2006 22:40:02
I still think the Sac should be 6-5-5 with -10% laser cap use, and 5% armor resists as cruiser bonus (same as now) plus 5% improved rof for missiles, and 5% shield resists as HAC skill bonus. Would make it extremely versatile, as well as tank oriented (it uses a tank ship as it's base). It would make the Sac a real wild card. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 23:09:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Kldraina on 04/10/2006 23:10:44
If you don't want people fitting damage mods (and turning the Khanid ships into damage dealers) then a split weapon system would be preferable to a single weapon system. If both the Zealot and Sac are made damage dealers, then one will likely prove better than the other, and result in one of them rarely being used. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2007.01.29 09:56:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Kldraina on 29/01/2007 09:55:08
I have successfully assembled a passive shield tanked laser boat. I have a Harbinger that can tank 384 dps on it's lowest resists with a passive shield tank. It also has 7 FMPs and 1 medium nos. The nos keeps the guns fed. While I know this isn't a great ship setup, it sure doesn't seem too bad to me. It's not a solo pvp ship, needs someone else to tackle, and probably some help in the damage department too (I only get about 230 dps with drones but my gunnery skills are admittedly lacking).
So, in conclusion, shield tanked laser boats are not impossible, or entirely impractical. Just mostly impractical. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|