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)
Nyxus	Posted - 2006.07.06 14:05:00 - [181] Edited by: Nyxus on 06/07/2006 14:05:34 Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Sniser dont mix weapons, take off that energy turret capacitor and add 10% velocity with light missiles , heavy etc.. you know... that is the base stat for a cruiser 5 so it ISN'T going to get changed or I want a 5% damage to all missile damage on the Cerebrus instead of kinetic damage. Honestly Kaylana I am not sure what you are griping about here. The Cerb pwns. It's not like someone is asking for a bonus to sig radius for the Khanid ships similar to the stealth bombers. Although we sure wouldn't gripe if it got one. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.07.06 14:10:00 - [182] Originally by: Nyxus Tux - please help me. Every time I read this post my pants get tight. Too tight. Repeated and constant readings have caused me serious bruising. And my wife is begining to wonder about why I look at this page 100 times an evening with pants stretched to the breaking point. Sometimes I walk down the street and think about missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ships and I get all excited. REAL excited. People start to stare at me and I try to pretend that I was just looking at the new Victoria's Secret catalog or something but I think they may be catching on. The Sacriledge picture I put over the top of Tyra's head may be giving me away. It's either that or the t-shirt with a picture of Sarmaul on it, I dunno which. My wife is getting angry with me too. She has woken me up several times when she has heard me talking in my sleep saying things like "Sarmaul...Khanid...so hot.." and "Oh Tuxford, please don't make me beg anymore.......". I have told her that I was just dreaming about some paperwork that I needed to finish at work, but I don't think she believes me. Last time she yelled at me a lot becuase I was rubbing my happy place on her while sleeping and mumbling about the Vengeance and Malediction. I tried to make a joke out of it and laugh it off, but she didn't seem to think it was very funny. Tux, please tell us if you are considering this option for Khanid, or if you are currently working on an implementation similar to this. My doctor says that if it keeps going on like this, my bruising may lead to more serious pants injuries and my wife's patience is seriously begining to run out. Nyxus <3 TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - Suvetar, care to confirm these rumours about you being an unstoppable sex machine? LOL -Suvetar
Stamm	Posted - 2006.07.06 14:59:00 - [183] Nyxus, from hearing you on vent for months... I'm pretty convinced your wife never had any patience to start off with. Oh, did I bump this thread? :)
Agama	Posted - 2006.07.06 23:17:00 - [184] Its another bump for this great thread. 'Death solves all problems- no man, no problem' J.V. Stalin, 1918
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 06:36:00 - [185] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Sniser dont mix weapons, take off that energy turret capacitor and add 10% velocity with light missiles , heavy etc.. you know... that is the base stat for a cruiser 5 so it ISN'T going to get changed or I want a 5% damage to all missile damage on the Cerebrus instead of kinetic damage. I am not griping about the cerb's performance. But if the guy I quoted says silly stuff like don't split weapons when obviosly the cruiser bonus is kept the same on the ships... then why would the SAC get special treatment? If it did... no reason not to change the kin damage bonus on the cerb to all damage types. And also give the DEVs a reason to take away the speed bonus on the Vagabond Team Minmatar
Meridius	Posted - 2006.07.07 06:54:00 - [186] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Sniser dont mix weapons, take off that energy turret capacitor and add 10% velocity with light missiles , heavy etc.. you know... that is the base stat for a cruiser 5 so it ISN'T going to get changed or I want a 5% damage to all missile damage on the Cerebrus instead of kinetic damage. I am not griping about the cerb's performance. But if the guy I quoted says silly stuff like don't split weapons when obviosly the cruiser bonus is kept the same on the ships... then why would the SAC get special treatment? If it did... no reason not to change the kin damage bonus on the cerb to all damage types. And also give the DEVs a reason to take away the speed bonus on the Vagabond Uhh how does the 5% kinetic damage the Cerb gets make it a split weapon bonus? It's a bonus for missiles. The Cerb gets 4 bonuses for missiles. Changing that 5% kin bonus to generic dmg is just being greedy. The Sac will end up with a laser capacitor use bonus that will be 100% useless - _____
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.07.07 08:04:00 - [187] Give to the amarr scum some love .
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 08:16:00 - [188] Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Kaylana Syi Originally by: Sniser dont mix weapons, take off that energy turret capacitor and add 10% velocity with light missiles , heavy etc.. you know... that is the base stat for a cruiser 5 so it ISN'T going to get changed or I want a 5% damage to all missile damage on the Cerebrus instead of kinetic damage. I am not griping about the cerb's performance. But if the guy I quoted says silly stuff like don't split weapons when obviosly the cruiser bonus is kept the same on the ships... then why would the SAC get special treatment? If it did... no reason not to change the kin damage bonus on the cerb to all damage types. And also give the DEVs a reason to take away the speed bonus on the Vagabond Uhh how does the 5% kinetic damage the Cerb gets make it a split weapon bonus? It's a bonus for missiles. The Cerb gets 4 bonuses for missiles. Changing that 5% kin bonus to generic dmg is just being greedy. The Sac will end up with a laser capacitor use bonus that will be 100% useless Then lets change the whole way we deal with HACs... which is just short of ludacris. Because if you start adjusting the way they work bonuses you have reason to change others that you feel are over powered. Thus, no matter how you wrap your corn in tinfoil... changing the base cruiser bonuses on HACs will be just another reason to change the Ishtar or Vagabonds bonus to make them less uber. You wanna complain about a split weapon system? Typhoon... naglfar... nuff said. Team Minmatar
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.07 08:24:00 - [189] Too bad exactly this happened to the nighthawk. Ferox has 10% hybrid range, nighthawk has 10% bonus to heavy missile target navigation prediction from the BC skill. There's no rule that T1 ship boni need to apply on their t2 versions as well.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 08:35:00 - [190] Originally by: Aramendel Too bad exactly this happened to the nighthawk. Ferox has 10% hybrid range, nighthawk has 10% bonus to heavy missile target navigation prediction from the BC skill. There's no rule that T1 ship boni need to apply on their t2 versions as well. That is a command ship... not a HAC. And lets be honest... they should have never did it in the first place... not when a teir 2 BC with missiles was on the horizon. Team Minmatar

Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.07 08:45:00 - [191] Edited by: Aramendel on 07/07/2006 08:47:09 You are really grasping for straws now, are you? It is a command ship, but guess what skills you need to pilot it? Ah, right, the HAC ones. Or care to explain how it is "ok" for a command ship to change this but not for a HAC? Are those in any way "special" there? I think not. Nighthawk is so far simply the only t2 ship which has switched it's primary weapon system compared to the t1 parent. Ergo CCP changed it's now useless t1 rail bonus to a missle bonus. The t1 ship boni are not set in stone. Like it or not, it's that way. Deal with it.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 10:00:00 - [192] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 07/07/2006 10:04:42 Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 07/07/2006 08:47:09 You are really grasping for straws now, are you? It is a command ship, but guess what skills you need to pilot it? Ah, right, the HAC ones. Or care to explain how it is "ok" for a command ship to change this but not for a HAC? Are those in any way "special" there? I think not. Nighthawk is so far simply the only t2 ship which has switched it's primary weapon system compared to the t1 parent. Ergo CCP changed it's now useless t1 rail bonus to a missle bonus. The t1 ship boni are not set in stone. Like it or not, it's that way. Deal with it. w/e 1) The Command ship isn't a HAC plain and simple. Its much more. 2) The Nighthawk is an anomoly and lets see... 17 pages of why the Nighthawk sucks thread. 3) It is not ok for them to change the bonus... it was shere stupidity for it to not be a rail boat plain and simple. Just like it would be shere stupidity to change the maller bonuses on the SAC. 2 wrongs don't make you right nub. 4) The rail optimal range bonus isn't worthless. If you think so then you obviously don't know anything so stop right now. You have no clue... absolutely none. 5) T1 ship bonuses follow a design pattern and the DEVs reserve the right to try new things. They failed on the Nighthawk. They tried to give the community something that just wasn't needed and now its a pathetic slow ferox with some more tank and a touch more damage with a nice paint job. 6) Infact, 2 Missile bonsues on the NH are pretty worthless atm with no heavy assault launchers in sight. While we could have had a pretty *****ing railhawk to rival a Sleipnir instead of being a limp, mini-raven fraud. Team Minmatar
Lucre	Posted - 2006.07.07 10:20:00 - [193] Originally by: Methuselar Most Amarrian have already abandoned laser on their punisher->maller->Apoc route. Ashamed but true. Well, if the object is to blend Amarr and Caldari, perhaps the laser bonus should be jettisoned in favour of a hybrid bonus? Amarr armour tank and slot layout with Caldari weaponry...
Forsch	Posted - 2006.07.07 10:36:00 - [194] Originally by: Lucre Originally by: Methuselar Most Amarrian have already abandoned laser on their punisher->maller->Apoc route. Ashamed but true. Well, if the object is to blend Amarr and Caldari, perhaps the laser bonus should be jettisoned in favour of a hybrid bonus? Amarr armour tank and slot layout with Caldari weaponry... Aren't there some NPCs that do this? I seem to remember some white/blueish ships (Eos? or something) that use rail guns on amarrian ship models. Forsch Defender of the empire More love for side factions!
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.07 10:49:00 - [195] Edited by: Aramendel on 07/07/2006 10:49:20 Originally by: Kaylana Syi 1) The Command ship isn't a HAC plain and simple. Its much more. Field command ships are primary dps ships, just like the HACs. Quote: 2) The Nighthawk is an anomoly and lets see... 17 pages of why the Nighthawk sucks thread. 3) It is not ok for them to change the bonus... it was shere stupidity for it to not be a rail boat plain and simple. Just like it would be shere stupidity to change the maller bonuses on the SAC. 2 wrongs don't make you right nub. Yes, we know you do not like that they changed the bonus for the Nighthawk and find it "stupid". Afraid your hurt feelings are no argument, though. Quote: 4) The rail optimal range bonus isn't worthless. If you think so then you obviously don't know anything so stop right now. You have no clue... absolutely none. Reading comprehenshion 4tw! ..It's now* useless bonus..* If you can explain how a 50% hybrid range keeps it's usability for a ship with 6 missle and 1 (read: one) turret slot feel free to try. Quote: 5) T1 ship bonuses follow a design pattern and the DEVs reserve the right to try new things. They failed on the Nighthawk. They tried to give the community something that just wasn't needed and now its a pathetic slow ferox with some more tank and a touch more damage with a nice paint job. And who judges that they failed? You? Or perhaps, just perhaps, were they the opinion that t1 ship boni are not set in stone but can be changed when it's logical. Quote: 6) Infact, 2 Missile bonsues on the NH are pretty worthless atm with no heavy assault launchers in sight. While we could have had a pretty *****ing railhawk to rival a Sleipnir instead of being a limp, mini-raven fraud. True, but thats no problem with the t1 bonuschange but a simple balanceissue. I do not see any posts like "please make the nighthawk a dps railboat" in the nighthawk thread.
Meridius	Posted - 2006.07.07 12:42:00 - [196] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Then lets change the whole way we deal with HACs... which is just short of ludacris. Because if you start adjusting the way they work bonuses you have reason to change others that you feel are over powered. Thus, no matter how you wrap your corn in tinfoil... changing the base cruiser bonuses on HACs will be just another reason to change the Ishtar or Vagabonds bonus to make them less uber. You wanna complain about a split weapon system? Typhoon... naglfar... nuff said. You still lose. The Typhoon and Nagflar get equal bonus's to both weapon systems which in turn have equal slots. If the Sacrilege was turned into a missile boat it would have ZERO use for a laser capacitor use bonus. None of the ships you mentioned suffer as the Sacrilege would. You keep mentioning the Vagabond yet it makes no sense at all. Whats wrong with the Vagas speed bonus? It's meant to be fast ffs and it uses it's bonus extremely well. Key words here: Using it's bonus The Sacrilege would have no use for a laser cap bonus if it turned into a missile ship, period the end. - _____
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.07.07 18:23:00 - [197] The reason the Typhoon, Huginn, Rapier and Nalgfar get dual weapon bonuses is because half of their weapon points are turrets and the other half are missiles, and it needs the 2 bonuses to ensure more than half of it's weapon slots get some form of bonus to them. TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - Suvetar, care to confirm these rumours about you being an unstoppable sex machine? LOL -Suvetar
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.07.07 20:41:00 - [198] Originally by: Meridius Originally by: Kaylana Syi Then lets change the whole way we deal with HACs... which is just short of ludacris. Because if you start adjusting the way they work bonuses you have reason to change others that you feel are over powered. Thus, no matter how you wrap your corn in tinfoil... changing the base cruiser bonuses on HACs will be just another reason to change the Ishtar or Vagabonds bonus to make them less uber. You wanna complain about a split weapon system? Typhoon... naglfar... nuff said. You still lose. The Typhoon and Nagflar get equal bonus's to both weapon systems which in turn have equal slots. If the Sacrilege was turned into a missile boat it would have ZERO use for a laser capacitor use bonus. None of the ships you mentioned suffer as the Sacrilege would. You keep mentioning the Vagabond yet it makes no sense at all. Whats wrong with the Vagas speed bonus? It's meant to be fast ffs and it uses it's bonus extremely well. Key words here: Using it's bonus The Sacrilege would have no use for a laser cap bonus if it turned into a missile ship, period the end. Quote: f they wanted to keep in RP then they could something along the lines of this ... SAC : 6/5/4 4 missiles/3 turrets 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use and 5% bonus to all armor resistances per level 5% EM missile damage for lights and heavy missiles and 5% assault and heavy missile launchers per level You can still go 3/3 or 4/2 or not even use my idea. The SAC is a hard ship to ballance but changing the bonuses begotten by the maller is simply out of the question in my book. And that was all I was defending... so no I don't loose. If it needs 7 highs to make it right then let it be so... but arguing with muppets over the t1 bonuses I am done with. Team Minmatar
Ki'ath Jahra	Posted - 2006.07.07 23:18:00 - [199] Khanid ships should really be the only reason Amarr should ever use EW. A Khanid ship, realistically, should boast armor resistance bonuses, allowing med slots to be pumped and low slots to be restricted so that a khanid ship pilot can get away with perhaps only a single armor repper + some other armor mod.
Jormunrek	Posted - 2006.07.08 12:34:00 - [200] Getting towards the bottom of page two. bump and agreed Jorm

Hellspawn01	Posted - 2006.07.08 13:17:00 - [201] Originally by: Meridius Uhh how does the 5% kinetic damage the Cerb gets make it a split weapon bonus? It's a bonus for missiles. The Cerb gets 4 bonuses for missiles. Changing that 5% kin bonus to generic dmg is just being greedy. The Sac will end up with a laser capacitor use bonus that will be 100% useless Whats an amarr ship without laser cap use bonus? But seriously, I agree. Sac would be the first amarr ship thats missiles based. I also still dont understand why Tux isnt changing the ship into something that makes his pants happy. Ship lovers click here
Aion Amarra	Posted - 2006.07.08 16:27:00 - [202] Omg. I can't believe that I saw this thread only now. <3 Sarmaul This is exactly what I have always wanted Khanid ships to be. I also always wanted armortanking missileships. Woo. I'm also of the opinion that they need to drop the 10% Laser Cap bonus from those ships, and give em something more useful instead. Actually, how about a 5% reduction of cap recharge time per level? Alternatively, of course the already suggested Armor Repairer cap use bonus (5%? 10%? 7.5%?). Anyways. Sexy black armor tanking missileships that make Tux happy in the pants for the win! Originally by: Forsch Aren't there some NPCs that do this? I seem to remember some white/blueish ships (Eos? or something) that use rail guns on amarrian ship models. It's EoM, or Equilibrium of Mankind. They use Hybrids on Amarr ships and got kickass paintjobs. Only fought them in one mission so far. X_o They rock, tho. ________ Capitalization is the difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off his horse." and "I helped my uncle jack off his horse." Help the horses, make proper use of that shift button.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.07.08 16:41:00 - [203] See - the laser problems are already so widespread that even NPCs stop using them! Highjacks thread
Agama	Posted - 2006.07.09 21:56:00 - [204] Must....have..... armor tanking....missle....boats. 'Death solves all problems- no man, no problem' J.V. Stalin, 1918
Meridius	Posted - 2006.07.10 00:36:00 - [205] Originally by: Kaylana Syi You can still go 3/3 or 4/2 or not even use my idea. The SAC is a hard ship to ballance but changing the bonuses begotten by the maller is simply out of the question in my book. And that was all I was defending... so no I don't loose. If it needs 7 highs to make it right then let it be so... but arguing with muppets over the t1 bonuses I am done with. What possible reason would there be to go 3/3 or 4/2? What do lasers offer that missiles with more bonuses won't? If a cerb had 3 turret points do you really think anyone would go 3/3 or 4/2 with that? Hell no, 5 launchers every time. The laser cap bonus would be 100% useless. Things that are useless are bad from a game design perspective. The only way the laser cap bonus would be usefull is if it got a 7.5% rof for lasers and missile. - _____
Luric Vizjier	Posted - 2006.07.10 06:52:00 - [206] Originally by: Hellspawn01 Originally by: Meridius Uhh how does the 5% kinetic damage the Cerb gets make it a split weapon bonus? It's a bonus for missiles. The Cerb gets 4 bonuses for missiles. Changing that 5% kin bonus to generic dmg is just being greedy. The Sac will end up with a laser capacitor use bonus that will be 100% useless Whats an amarr ship without laser cap use bonus? But seriously, I agree. Sac would be the first amarr ship thats missiles based. I also still dont understand why Tux isnt changing the ship into something that makes his pants happy. First amarr ship thats missle based? Well, although combat recon ships really aren't very good at 'combat', keep in mind that the Curse has FOUR missle hardpoints. And although it obviously has no bonuses to such, in the hands of a skilled missle user, such a setup on the curse, especially combined with its drones, could be the end for many a ship. Oh, and bump :) -----------------------------------------------
dabster	Posted - 2006.07.10 11:23:00 - [207] rawr...gj Sarm, keep bringing up Amarr and we should in a couple of months see some un-called Matari boosts out of the blue ___________________________ Brutors Rule! My Eve-vids; Click.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.07.10 11:25:00 - [208] TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust - Suvetar, care to confirm these rumours about you being an unstoppable sex machine? LOL -Suvetar
Sniser	Posted - 2006.07.10 14:30:00 - [209] Originally by: Hellspawn01 Whats an amarr ship without laser cap use bonus? a good ship?
Methuselar	Posted - 2006.07.10 15:37:00 - [210] Sad but true, the less the laser bonuses are the better an Amarr ship is. Well in this logic there are 2 kinds of Amarrian ships: 1. Zealot(and now 2XSacrileges and 8x Omens)/Geddon 2. All other functioning Amarrian ships



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.