EVE Search - Khanid MkII

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Khanid MkII

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:34:00 - [1] Edited by: Sarmaul on 14/06/2006 21:35:50 reserved, copy + paste disaster
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:35:00 - [2] Edited by: Sarmaul on 14/06/2006 21:36:03 reserved, copy + paste disaster
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:35:00 - [3] Edited by: Sarmaul on 14/06/2006 21:35:56 reserved, copy + paste disaster
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:36:00 - [4] Edited by: Sarmaul on 14/06/2006 21:36:10 reserved, copy + paste disaster
Cruz	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:39:00 - [5] Edited by: Cruz on 14/06/2006 21:43:53 Wow youve mostly read my mind, I Was just going to post nearly this same exact thread! :P I agree, lets make the khanid basterchild ships actually useful. Although tbh I was thinking sac with 4 launchers but 2 DPS bonuses so it doesn't directly compete with cerberus for missile dps and still can fit 2 turrets/NOS + drones. Rule 7 is stupid though, dont gimp the ship by making it a missile boat with a turret bonus.... And to be honest I dont think the sac is that bad dps wise anymore, however it would be better off as an armour tanking missile spewer. .................
Aakron	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:43:00 - [6] Sarmaul for president
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:44:00 - [7] Originally by: Cruz Edited by: Cruz on 14/06/2006 21:39:58 Wow youve mostly read my mind, I Was just going to post nearly this same exact thread! :P I agree, lets make the khanid basterchild ships actually useful. Although tbh I was thinking sac with 4 launchers but 2 DPS bonuses so it doesn't directly compete with cerberus for missile dps and still can fit 2 turrets/NOS + drones. Rule 7 is stupid though, dont gimp the ship by making it a missile boat with a turret bonus.... Consider #7 a suggestion rather than a rule then :). It allows the ships to dual-role effectively and generally any other bonus will make it overpowered.
Cruz	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Cruz Edited by: Cruz on 14/06/2006 21:39:58 Wow youve mostly read my mind, I Was just going to post nearly this same exact thread! :P I agree, lets make the khanid basterchild ships actually useful. Although tbh I was thinking sac with 4 launchers but 2 DPS bonuses so it doesn't directly compete with cerberus for missile dps and still can fit 2 turrets/NOS + drones. Rule 7 is stupid though, dont gimp the ship by making it a missile boat with a turret bonus.... Consider #7 a suggestion rather than a rule then :). It allows the ships to dual-role effectively and generally any other bonus will make it overpowered. Dual damage bonus would really be needed if you wanted missiles as primary weapon on the sacrilege, otherwise it will be doing similiar heck even less dps than a Caracal. .................
Kye Kenshin	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:49:00 - [9] I like these ideas. It would make the Khanid line alot more interesting.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:50:00 - [10] Originally by: Cruz Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Cruz Edited by: Cruz on 14/06/2006 21:39:58 Wow youve mostly read my mind, I Was just going to post nearly this same exact thread! :P I agree, lets make the khanid basterchild ships actually useful. Although tbh I was thinking sac with 4 launchers but 2 DPS bonuses so it doesn't directly compete with cerberus for missile dps and still can fit 2 turrets/NOS + drones. Rule 7 is stupid though, dont gimp the ship by making it a missile boat with a turret bonus.... Consider #7 a suggestion rather than a rule then :). It allows the ships to dual-role effectively and generally any other bonus will make it overpowered. Dual damage bonus would really be needed if you wanted missiles as primary weapon on the sacrilege, otherwise it will be doing similiar heck even less dps than a Caracal. Sacri with 5 launchers, 25% missile rof and 3 light drones does more damage than a cerberus with 5 launchers, 25% rof and 25% kinetic damage as it lacks a drone bay. Please check your numbers before swing about wild accusations like that. As I stated, the Cerberus can easily bump up it's DPS by fitting BCUs in it's lows, but the Sacri can realisticly spare 2 midslots for ECM - something the Cerberus can't do unless it sacrificies it's shield tank.

Cruz	Posted - 2006.06.14 21:59:00 - [11] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Cruz Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Cruz Edited by: Cruz on 14/06/2006 21:39:58 Wow youve mostly read my mind, I Was just going to post nearly this same exact thread! :P I agree, lets make the khanid basterchild ships actually useful. Although tbh I was thinking sac with 4 launchers but 2 DPS bonuses so it doesn't directly compete with cerberus for missile dps and still can fit 2 turrets/NOS + drones. Rule 7 is stupid though, dont gimp the ship by making it a missile boat with a turret bonus.... Consider #7 a suggestion rather than a rule then :). It allows the ships to dual-role effectively and generally any other bonus will make it overpowered. Dual damage bonus would really be needed if you wanted missiles as primary weapon on the sacrilege, otherwise it will be doing similiar heck even less dps than a Caracal. Sacri with 5 launchers, 25% missile rof and 3 light drones does more damage than a cerberus with 5 launchers, 25% rof and 25% kinetic damage as it lacks a drone bay. Please check your numbers before swing about wild accusations like that. As I stated, the Cerberus can easily bump up it's DPS by fitting BCUs in it's lows, but the Sacri can realisticly spare 2 midslots for ECM - something the Cerberus can't do unless it sacrificies it's shield tank. Nevermind your right. The difference in dps of a Cerb with 2 boni and a sac with 1 boni would be about 40dps. 3 t2 light drones give a good 50dps, plus a turret if need be. Cerb would still end up with more dps though since realistically cerb can fit 2 BCU IIs while Sac can't. But thats ok, the flexibility in ECM is worth it. Like I said though my initial idea was just to give the Sac 4 launchers but 2 bonuses. 4 Launchers + 2 NOS + 3 Light Drones :D .................
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:04:00 - [12] Originally by: Cruz Nevermind your right. I know :) Originally by: Aakron Sarmaul for president I gotta somehow get the changes pushed through first _________________________________ Make Khanid Useful!
Kitty O'Shay	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:05:00 - [13] Sounds good. Khanid ships need a rethink and missiles + armor would be the most logical combo of Amarr and Caldari tech. I'm moderately happy with the recent Vengeance changes, but would give them up to have the entire Khanid line revamped. -- Carebear > Why'd you do that? I just got that ship! Pirate > I just got that ammo, do you hear me whining?
Aemilus Brutus	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:08:00 - [14] Nice stuff, Amarr need some help, and this would fix a long standing problem.
Parallax Error	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:11:00 - [15] Bah! What a dirty and heretical twisting of proud Amarr designs. Pretty much spot on to what they should be!
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:19:00 - [16] Edited by: Aramendel on 14/06/2006 22:20:55 Fristly, nicely written post. Just a few comments: - As others said, rule #7 is kinda meh. Lasers are not that hot without a ROF or damage bonus on t2 ships, so that -50% cap use bonus would be essentially a wasted one. The difference in drone room or such balances the dps out, but I would still rather see a different bonus than -cap. Perhaps a utility one like missle speed? Even something not that useful like the target navigation prediction bonus of the nighthawk would be preferable to the cap bonus. - damnation specific: armor/shield is fine as it is now, and it's identical to the absolution, which represents the more traditionalistic design. What is confusing is "the most advanced shield generators available outside Caldari space" in the damnation description, which seems to be a standart text in all Khanid ships. CCP needs to stop this misconception, that particular aspect of Khanid ships has long ago proven to be stillborn. Also, it should not get a + dps bonus from the command ship skill - none of the fleet commands have one, only the field commands. The fleet command have all utility boni: vulture: +range, eos: + drone space (although it can boost it's dps with that, too, since it can carry a full swarm of heavies), claymore: tracking speed.
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:21:00 - [17] Sarmaul get the ** outta my head thats really similar to what i was thinking aswell, especially for the sacriledge so yes give those slavers armour tanking missilespammers Originally by:** Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:24:00 - [18] Sarmaul - plz: PIMP MY HERETIC!!!
Kenan Waroria	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:24:00 - [19] Hulls: Malediction = T2 Executioner Vengeance = T2 Punisher Sacrilege = T2 Maller Damnation = T2 Prophecy Very thoughtfull posts. I¦m a bit sceptical on the Sacrilege as it would have a nasty tank and DPS as an Cerberus, might be a bit to good. But a solution could be to give Cerberus a 5% shield resistance instead of Missile flight time -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =-
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:28:00 - [20] You've read my mind. Sarmaul wins EVE. --Proud member of the [23]-- -WTB Platinum Technite, WTS Nanotransistors, Heavy Electron II, 100mn AB II-

Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:31:00 - [21] Originally by: Kenan Waroria Hulls: Malediction = T2 Executioner Vengeance = T2 Punisher Sacrilege = T2 Maller Damnation = T2 Prophecy Very thoughtfull posts. I¦m a bit sceptical on the Sacrilege as it would have a nasty tank and DPS as an Cerberus, might be a bit to good. But a solution could be to give Cerberus a 5% shield resistance instead of Missile flight time Sacri would need to use all lows for tank, where cerb can use lows for BCUs - so it is balanced this way IMO.
Audri Fisher	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:39:00 - [22] Nah: shield tank laser boats. That comment is gonna get me podded how many times?
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:42:00 - [23] Originally by: Audri Fisher Nah: shield tank laser boats. It would be good idea but... amarr use ONLY lasers atm - so they need some variety.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:45:00 - [24] I disapprove of this thread as it doesn't include any of: Projectile boosts Typhoon boosts Anti-Target Painter propoganda Long skill training whining General Minmatar whining Amarr nerfing Boobies Testy's Eve Blog, Updated 12/06/06
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.14 22:54:00 - [25] Happy now?
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.06.14 23:01:00 - [26] personally i would say t1 ships need balance before t2 ships, and since this is about the amarr amarr t1 cruseirs suck balls, take a look at them tux, i dont think ud find anyone that disagrees -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
Kenan Waroria	Posted - 2006.06.14 23:25:00 - [27] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: Kenan Waroria Hulls: Malediction = T2 Executioner Vengeance = T2 Punisher Sacrilege = T2 Maller Damnation = T2 Prophecy Very thoughtfull posts. I¦m a bit sceptical on the Sacrilege as it would have a nasty tank and DPS as an Cerberus, might be a bit to good. But a solution could be to give Cerberus a 5% shield resistance instead of Missile flight time Sacri would need to use all lows for tank, where cerb can use lows for BCUs - so it is balanced this way IMO. Not really. You have 4 free mid slots on the Sacrilege compared to the Cerberus that need to use more than one of it¦s 5 mid-slots for Tanking (minimum 2 and then it¦s not really a tank) and mid-slots are more important than low-slots in PvP. Use non Kinteic missiles on the Cerberus and it¦s worse than Sacrilege. And besides: you don¦t need 5 slot tanking on the Sacrilege you can go with a 3 slot tanking and have two damagemods. Compare the ships with a 3 slot tanking and you will find that Sacrilege would be better. But I have to say that if the Sacrilege wouldn¦t get a CPU increment then it wouldn¦t be any problem as it would be horrible hard to fit (at least with T2 gear). -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =-
Karsus Maim	Posted - 2006.06.14 23:34:00 - [28] I really like these ideas, was going to post something much less sophisticated though. Instead of EM damage boost, since khanid are Caldari influenced perhaps a kinetic boost instead...or a mix between amarr and caldari and have the missile bonuses be thermal (the other amarr D-type)
Yakov Krasnov	Posted - 2006.06.14 23:40:00 - [29] I agree in principle that Khanid should have a unified style of shipbuilding, however, I'm a big fan of lasers and shield tanking, and they're the only ones that were likely to build ships that way. Maybe one division that does shield development and another that does missile development? I'd really like to see a Khanid-developed Apoc variant with lots of midslots and strong shields with boosted resists. ----------------------------------------------- Mercenary minded - I'll fly whatever works best.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.14 23:45:00 - [30] Edited by: Aramendel on 14/06/2006 23:45:11 Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari It's a well thought-out post...but honestly, I think the Khanid ships should be shield-tanking laser boats. All of the Khanid Innovation ships say that they have the best shields outside Caldari space, and besides, we HAVE armor-tanked missile spammers anyway, that's what Sansha ships do...the only difference being that Sansha ships are faction, whereas Khanid ships are T2. So this wouldn't be COMPLETELY overlap...but I'd rather see NO overlap (because nobody shoots lasers and shield tanks) than some overlap. There's a reason noone does it. Shield tank = heavily cap reliant (either you screw your cap recharge for passive tanking or need to pull a lot of cap into active tanking since it is less capeffecient than armortanking) and lasers also = heavily cap reliant. You cannot really do both at once effeciently. And "there are faction ships which do that already" does not really count. Firstly, faction ships are way less common than normal ships, even t2 ones. Secondly, the sanshas are more like half laser, half missles, they are not missle specialized. And, thridly, you could use the same argument about the gurista faction ships - those are missle spammers/shield tankers as well. Both those and the normal caldari ships are still rather popular.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.