Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] 50 .. 58 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
116
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:24:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Odithia wrote:Knoppaz wrote:
..or the Sacrilege. This ship isn't that bad. It has two main problems: 1. It feels sluggish. Even with MWD it feels like using an AB. An agility-push would be nice, CCP. 2. It's missing a low. That utility high is nice, but a low instead would be far more useful (e.g. for a BCU, IS or EANM) Just leave the meds alone.
..or.. your turn ;)
I kinda like the Sacrilege slot layout, it gives the ship a niche that few other have with lot of utilitty, a hi slot, a bunch of mids and a decent drone bay. I do agree that it feel way too sluggish, especialy if you fit a plate, I think it could use the "heavy mass and boost base speed" new gen Amarr rebalance. Wouldn't hurt the Zealot too.
Yup - lets make all HACs the same, let me have agility and speed like a ... oh dear, not like a vagabond, its got crap range and application and is now totally redundant.
Its odd in this discussion how there is one ship that works a charm. We all know it.
The only problems I see with the one ship thing is how we compare it to everything else. The tiny change they are proposing will do nothing, and people who go from 800-1000 dps on an Ishtar, with shield or armour for their gang will simply look at the others on offer and laugh.
The DPS from all the other HACs is predicated on conditions about how they perform, getting to the target, holding it down, or sniping it at range, and keeping that range.
My bugbears aside, I think this discussion would be much more interesting if we didn't have the stupid problem of Ishtar/Sentries.
So those asking to keep Ishtar the way it is, then we would need to balance the others to offer:
- Both exceptional range and brawling capability
- DPS above 700
- Shield or Armour capability
- Speed / Agility
- Capless weapons
- No weapon reloads
- Double their tracking or double their weapon ranges.
- Instant ammo switching.
- Fittings that ignore their main weapons.
- Immune to POS auto fire
- Excellent anti frigate/ cruiser/ battleship capability.
So can you double my Munnins DPS, can you make Arty fit for zero, track like 180mm autos, have instand ammo switching and reloading (will help with DPS). I can now take it on POS bashes, with that 700+ DPS, its now better than all my POS bashing battleships.
I will now be able to choose ... Ishtar or Munnin.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
743
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:26:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: TRACKING.. not range. Their trcking is 3 times other weapons of same class.
no it isn't Yes it is, on that table 2 pages ago. Clear as water. Multiply the range for the trackign to have an effective trackign ratio (because range affects the engagement envelope)
is this the table where all the turrets have -50% optimal range ammo loaded? 'same class' is just a thing you decided, and has no actual real basis. if you want to take range into account for effective tracking, then a range nerf would do this, with the added advantage of being an actual thing that matters lots and not being totally avoidable by competent people who know what webs and painters are. |
Knoppaz
distress signals borealis
33
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:27:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Knoppaz wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Hands off my utility high.
The Sac needs a bit more speed, as you mentioned, but overall the Sacrilege is an amazing ship. It's the Legion-lite, and it kicks ass and looks good doing it.
The only thing I would really change about the ship, is not about the ship itself, but rather that Heavy Assault Missiles need buffed pretty badly.
The speed is ok imho, but the agility is lacking. Also I absolutely understand that people like the utility slot though another low would really be helpful. Besides, why does everyone having problems with HAMs? Because those are HAM's. They are just to slow, and faster moving target can easily outrun those missiles.
Sure they're slow, but still fast enough for cruisers and above (not talking about the Vaga/Stabber or Cynabal here).. Anyway, back to topic..
__________________________________________________ Knoppaz /-ádistressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com
a capsuleer's way to insanity |
Anthar Thebess
638
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:28:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Sentry drones have better tracking than guns in PVP also from very simple reason.
In pvp you usually have to move. Static target is dead target. So tracking you have to take into consideration not only moving speed of enemy ship, but also speed of your own ship.
Sentry drones on the other hand are static, so only speed of target needs to be taken into consideration.
Aaaand we also have gun cycle time. Sentries shoot more often , so missing 1/4 of shoots is way less impacting than missing 1/4 of shoots from 1400. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
743
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:29:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: Sentries shoot more often , so missing 1/4 of shoots is way less impacting than missing 1/4 of shoots from 1400.
no, it isn't. |
Knoppaz
distress signals borealis
33
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:41:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Rab See wrote:[quote=Odithia]
Yup - lets make all HACs the same, let me have agility and speed like a ... oh dear, not like a vagabond, its got crap range and application and is now totally redundant.
Its odd in this discussion how there is one ship that works a charm. We all know it.
...more stuff...
So can you double my Munnins DPS, can you make Arty fit for zero, track like 180mm autos, have instand ammo switching and reloading (will help with DPS). I can now take it on POS bashes, with that 700+ DPS, its now better than all my POS bashing battleships.
I will now be able to choose ... Ishtar or Munnin.
Dude, noone wants to make all HAC the same, but the Sac is a short-range ship due to HAMs so it needs the ability to cover the range. It's speed is ok, but it takes ages to get to max speed so a boost in agility makes sense, no?
And let's just forget that non-sense comment about the Muninn and uber-tracking arties.. you really need to relax a bit..
__________________________________________________ Knoppaz /-ádistressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com
a capsuleer's way to insanity |
Anthar Thebess
638
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 10:42:00 -
[1177] - Quote
LOL. Remember that we are comparing Drones ( DPS , big big numbers) to 1400 guns ( Alpha , lower numbers). This is all off topic you will get about this. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
244
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 11:05:00 -
[1178] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:is this the table where all the turrets have -50% optimal range ammo loaded?
In fairness, that is because it is the only way they get near the DPS values, there is a later chart showing the drop using equal range ammo.
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1519
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 11:07:00 -
[1179] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: TRACKING.. not range. Their trcking is 3 times other weapons of same class.
no it isn't Yes it is, on that table 2 pages ago. Clear as water. Multiply the range for the trackign to have an effective trackign ratio (because range affects the engagement envelope) is this the table where all the turrets have -50% optimal range ammo loaded? 'same class' is just a thing you decided, and has no actual real basis. if you want to take range into account for effective tracking, then a range nerf would do this, with the added advantage of being an actual thing that matters lots and not being totally avoidable by competent people who know what webs and painters are.
If you select other ammo .. then the issue is EVEN worse because then sentries have damage of SHORT range guns, range of Long Range guns and tracking of short range guns.
Sentries are completely MESSED UP "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
744
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 11:52:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote: TRACKING.. not range. Their trcking is 3 times other weapons of same class.
no it isn't Yes it is, on that table 2 pages ago. Clear as water. Multiply the range for the trackign to have an effective trackign ratio (because range affects the engagement envelope) is this the table where all the turrets have -50% optimal range ammo loaded? 'same class' is just a thing you decided, and has no actual real basis. if you want to take range into account for effective tracking, then a range nerf would do this, with the added advantage of being an actual thing that matters lots and not being totally avoidable by competent people who know what webs and painters are. If you select other ammo .. then the issue is EVEN worse because then sentries have damage of SHORT range guns, range of Long Range guns and tracking of short range guns. Sentries are completely MESSED UP
gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1521
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 12:07:00 -
[1181] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.
Bouncers are the largest problem. But gardes are still a bit out of place. You compare them to pulses.. but pulses use a LOT of fitting and a LOOOT of capacitor. So would be expected that gardes would be a tad UNDER pulses, not a tad above them.
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 12:09:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Just because you chose to believe in fairies that does not make them exist. Sentry drones have 400 m resolution, they ARE battleships scale weapons. And worse they do not cost fittings. They are already overpowered at the dominix... in the ishtar they are completely broken.
CCP Rise wrote: This "Ishtar has bonuses to battleship weapons" line that keeps coming up is interesting. We talked about it some earlier here. There's parts of it that we can agree about but it's also something that makes drones interesting across all drone using/bonused ships. You could use the same argument to say that Dominix's shouldn't get bonuses to light drones or that Vexors shouldn't be able to use lights or heavies or sentries.
We feel that in general it's an interesting and positive part of drone design that they aren't fixed to ship sizes nearly as strictly as other weapon types. We just need to find ways to have balanced ships as well. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8488
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 12:24:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Well, Janice, thank you for quoting the exact reason why, instead of fixing the larger problem, CCP should just gut the Ishtar instead.
I don't care either way, to be honest. Any of the three solutions works for me, I would just rather not have to revisit this issue with carriers as well as the Ishtar, since sentry drones are the problem with both. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Vulfen
Snuff Box
128
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 12:44:00 -
[1184] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Vulfen wrote:How about this -
make the drone sentry and heavy drone bonus apply to all drones then make this a medium drone aimed ship
This is what i was thinking
Gallentee Cruiser Bonuses 7.5% Bonus to drone MWD, Tracking & Optimal range per level 10% Bonus to drone Damage & HP
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonues +1 Drone controled per level +5km Drone control range per level
Reduce bandwidth to 100
This would mean that in an optimal fit it is designed to work with 10 medium drones. but it can still field 4 sentries if needed.
more like 50 bandwidth, 30% bonus to medium drone damage/hp per level, and swap the drone controlled bonus to a non-bonus like armour reps. I don't really like just drone mwd bonuses. should be drone speed with equal drone tracking bonus. or they could just fix the 'drones catch up and fire a volley, drones slow down and go out of range for 30s, drones catch up' thing, but obviously that'll never happen.
Yea i dont mind either of these methods but i think it needs to be a ship still capable of sentries
|
Amarisen Gream
Lone Wolf Union Yulai Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 13:02:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Just thinking. . . maybe to fix the Ishtar - Domi, CCP should change how Drone Control Range works.
Instead of the current method - It should be the range in which players can issue "combat" orders, aggressive orders etc. The combat range would be set by the targeting/locking range of the players ships.
This would mean we would need to reduce the base DCR in all the ships. Give a bonus in DCR in roles/level. Reduce the DCR increase from skills.
i.e. Thorax would have a base of say 10km drone control range. And a ship targeting range of say 35km. The player could issue combat/attack orders to drone with in 10km, those drones could attack things up to 35km away. Vexor would have a base 10km DCR. Gain 1km per cruiser level. So at max skill say it could order drones 25km away, and have a targeting range of 50km.
This would make drones act more like mounted combat weapons. + Drones should count as mounted weapons toward a ships hull. 2.5 Drones to a turret. 2.5 light would = 1 small. 2.5 medium = 1 medium hard point. 2.5 heavy/sentry = 1 Large hard point.
This would make ships like the Domnix drop from 6 hard points to 3. This effect would be toward ships which use drones as their primary source of damage. So a Thorax which say is limited to 5 lights, wouldn't lose a medium hard point. xoxo Amarisen Gream |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
744
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 13:05:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:Just thinking. . . maybe to fix the Ishtar - Domi, CCP should change how Drone Control Range works.
Instead of the current method - It should be the range in which players can issue "combat" orders, aggressive orders etc. The combat range would be set by the targeting/locking range of the players ships.
This would mean we would need to reduce the base DCR in all the ships. Give a bonus in DCR in roles/level. Reduce the DCR increase from skills.
i.e. Thorax would have a base of say 10km drone control range. And a ship targeting range of say 35km. The player could issue combat/attack orders to drone with in 10km, those drones could attack things up to 35km away. Vexor would have a base 10km DCR. Gain 1km per cruiser level. So at max skill say it could order drones 25km away, and have a targeting range of 50km.
This would make drones act more like mounted combat weapons. + Drones should count as mounted weapons toward a ships hull. 2.5 Drones to a turret. 2.5 light would = 1 small. 2.5 medium = 1 medium hard point. 2.5 heavy/sentry = 1 Large hard point.
This would make ships like the Domnix drop from 6 hard points to 3. This effect would be toward ships which use drones as their primary source of damage. So a Thorax which say is limited to 5 lights, wouldn't lose a medium hard point.
trashing combat drones to fix sentries. |
Amarisen Gream
Lone Wolf Union Yulai Federation
45
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 13:09:00 -
[1187] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Amarisen Gream wrote:Just thinking. . . maybe to fix the Ishtar - Domi, CCP should change how Drone Control Range works.
Instead of the current method - It should be the range in which players can issue "combat" orders, aggressive orders etc. The combat range would be set by the targeting/locking range of the players ships.
This would mean we would need to reduce the base DCR in all the ships. Give a bonus in DCR in roles/level. Reduce the DCR increase from skills.
i.e. Thorax would have a base of say 10km drone control range. And a ship targeting range of say 35km. The player could issue combat/attack orders to drone with in 10km, those drones could attack things up to 35km away. Vexor would have a base 10km DCR. Gain 1km per cruiser level. So at max skill say it could order drones 25km away, and have a targeting range of 50km.
This would make drones act more like mounted combat weapons. + Drones should count as mounted weapons toward a ships hull. 2.5 Drones to a turret. 2.5 light would = 1 small. 2.5 medium = 1 medium hard point. 2.5 heavy/sentry = 1 Large hard point.
This would make ships like the Domnix drop from 6 hard points to 3. This effect would be toward ships which use drones as their primary source of damage. So a Thorax which say is limited to 5 lights, wouldn't lose a medium hard point. trashing combat drones to fix sentries.
Not really! My max combat drone range with out boost is 57km. . . most of my ships which i fly have a targeting range of 60-90. . . yes, I couldn't give combat orders to combat drones tell they got back into range of the DCR, but they could fight much farther away! xoxo Amarisen Gream |
Anthar Thebess
638
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 13:11:00 -
[1188] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.
Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix
Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH. So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH.
Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier). You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them. Support Needed : Jump Fuel Consumption |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
744
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 13:15:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.
Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH. So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH. Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier). You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them. I'm not against bonuses sentry have to PVE - every one have to make some isk, the more isk flows in , the more you can spend on ships. But in PVP sentry drones are just out of league now. What is worst, the more of them you have - this is more and more visible.
yes, bonuses do indeed improve the stats of weapons. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
244
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:06:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance. A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow?
I certainly hope not.
My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
54
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:06:00 -
[1191] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: gardes and mega pulse lasers aren't so out of whack.
Unless you are using them on Isthar , Dominix Then the best tracking drone , top DPS one too, is having range of a scripted SCORCH. So we are again talking about bigger tracking , and more damage than SCORCH. Now try to put those lasers on a Cruiser ( isthar ) or capital ( carrier). You cannot because those guns L class, so only attack battlecruisers and battleships, and only those ships get bonus for them. I'm not against bonuses sentry have to PVE - every one have to make some isk, the more isk flows in , the more you can spend on ships. But in PVP sentry drones are just out of league now. What is worst, the more of them you have - this is more and more visible. yes, bonuses do indeed improve the stats of weapons.
It takes bonuses to make every other group of weapons useable. sentry drones are solid on there own then bonuses are applied |
Janice en Marland
Cross Saber Holdings
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:32:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance. A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow? I certainly hope not. My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem. Interceptors and ABCs have been called OP quite often. They just perform their roles well and people assume they are OP because of it. Do I believe an Ishtar should be an overall better ship than a T2 frig and T1 BC? Yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be nerfed(especially to the degree some wish it would be) to balance it accordingly to the other HACs. I believe the other HACs need more defined roles and slight buffs. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
244
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:51:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:CCP Rise wrote: This "Ishtar has bonuses to battleship weapons" line that keeps coming up is interesting. We talked about it some earlier here. There's parts of it that we can agree about but it's also something that makes drones interesting across all drone using/bonused ships. You could use the same argument to say that Dominix's shouldn't get bonuses to light drones or that Vexors shouldn't be able to use lights or heavies or sentries.
We feel that in general it's an interesting and positive part of drone design that they aren't fixed to ship sizes nearly as strictly as other weapon types. We just need to find ways to have balanced ships as well. I actually agree with CCP Rise on this. Sentry Drones (along with Heavy Drones) should not, in any way, shape or form, be limited to use only on battleships. I have no problem with cruisers using Sentry or Heavy Drones. At the same time, I still qualify them as "battleship class" weapons, so their use needs to be balanced accordingly.
I won't speak for others, but in my mind "battleship class" is about attributes and fitting, not a hard limit on fitting something to only a battleship. Does anyone dispute that a 100MN AB or MWD is a "battleship class" module, even though you can fit it on cruisers or battlecruisers? Does anyone dispute that Torpedo Launchers are a "battleship class" weapon, even though you can fit them on Stealth Bombers? I doubt it.
The examples I listed above have something in common: fitting requirements. To fit an oversized module on a ship, you either need to use a large portion of the ship's fitting to do so (AB/MWD) or be flying a ship with a bonus specifically to allow it to use oversized modules (Stealth Bomber/ABC).
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the problem isn't with the Ishtar's bonuses, or even with Sentry Drones, it's with the Ishtar's drone bandwidth. In the Ishtar, we have a cruiser hull with bonuses specifically to sentry (and heavy) drones that can use as many sentry drones as a battleship hull. While I don't feel this is inherently bad game design (ABCs for example fit full racks of oversized guns), I feel that having a class of ships with only one member being able to do this is.
I see two possible solutions here:
1. Reduce the Ishtar's drone bandwidth. 2. Rebalance the entire HAC line so that they all use battleship-class weapons like the Ishtar does.
I see #2 as possible, yet not worthwhile, or even desirable, so I won't go there. Instead, let's talk about the Ishtar's Bandwidth.
Right now, the Ishtar's bonuses (neglecting CCP's announced changes) are as follows:
125m^3 drone bay
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage 7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone max velocity and tracking speed
Heavy Assault Cruisers Bonuses: 5km bonus to Drone operation range 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed
We want to keep the Ishtar's role as a sentry sniper without it being overpowered. To this end, I think that we need to re-align it's bonuses away from heavy drones, and change how it's drone bandwidth works. What I'd propose is this:
50m^3 drone bay
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed
Heavy Assault Cruisers Bonuses: 5km bonus to Drone operation range 10m^3 bonus to drone bandwidth
This would allow Ishtar pilots to field between 2 and 4 sentry drones, depending on their skills, and put it roughly on par with other HACs in sniping fits in terms of damage output (with 3 sentries at HAC III) or slightly ahead (with 4 sentries at HAC V). I left the bonus to sentry drone range and tracking as-is to offset the loss of one or more drones. And I dropped the heavy drone bonus because, in my mind, HACs are meant to fill specialist roles, and getting specialist bonuses to multiple drone types seems more like a generalist role. This change would allow the Ishtar to continue excelling as a sniper HAC without making all other sniper HACs irrelevant, and limit it's ability to murder cruisers with heavy drones at close range with the same fit.
Thoughts?
(I would also suggest similar changes for other cruiser hulls with 100+ drone bandwidth, but those are topics for other threads.) Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Shock Beer
Black Anvil Industries SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:42:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Can the sacrilege please get a look in. Its just not a good ship all round. Its missile projection and DPS is bad compared to cerberus and its tank is so damn average because of its slot layout. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
744
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:48:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Shock Beer wrote:Can the sacrilege please get a look in. Its just not a good ship all round. Its missile projection and DPS is bad compared to cerberus and its tank is so damn average because of its slot layout.
your wrong |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
437
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:50:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Personally I think the Assault Cruiser bonus should be: 3km bonus to Drone operation range 7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range
The tracking bonus and control range is what is really making them powerful. Nerf the tracking speed and it make it harder for the drones to hit targets. Might also want to think about taking away the bonus to drone hitpoints. |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
213
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:11:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Janice en Marland wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance. A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow? I certainly hope not. My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem. Interceptors and ABCs have been called OP quite often. They just perform their roles well and people assume they are OP because of it. Do I believe an Ishtar should be an overall better ship than a T2 frig and T1 BC? Yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be nerfed(especially to the degree some wish it would be) to balance it accordingly to the other HACs. I believe the other HACs need more defined roles and slight buffs.
Other HACS getting buffs? Sure.
1 of each rage having a HAC on the power level of Ishtar? Yes please with a cherry on the top! We can stop using anything bigger than a cruiser because we'll have low sig, loads of speed and stupid DPS in all the races. Battleships will be null and void in PvP for good, we can turn them into something else then. Maybe give PvE-only bonuses to half of them and the other half should be EWAR boats. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:03:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Janice en Marland wrote:In general sense, why should a ship that is easier to train for and build be more powerful? That doesn't seem like balance. A Crow is easier to train for and build than an Ishtar. Are you implying that an Ishtar should be a "more powerful" fast tackler than a Crow? I certainly hope not. My point is that different ships have different roles. ABCs fill one set of roles. HACs fill another. You can't just say that one ship is "more powerful" than another without adding the context of a specific role. Looking at HACs across the board, it's pretty easy to see that HACs and ABCs we never meant to fill the same roles. The fact that the Ishtar can fill the roles of either, often while outperforming all other ABCs and HACs, is the problem. Interceptors and ABCs have been called OP quite often. They just perform their roles well and people assume they are OP because of it. Do I believe an Ishtar should be an overall better ship than a T2 frig and T1 BC? Yes. It doesn't necessarily need to be nerfed(especially to the degree some wish it would be) to balance it accordingly to the other HACs. I believe the other HACs need more defined roles and slight buffs. Other HACS getting buffs? Sure. 1 of each rage having a HAC on the power level of Ishtar? Yes please with a cherry on the top! We can stop using anything bigger than a cruiser because we'll have low sig, loads of speed and stupid DPS in all the races. Battleships will be null and void in PvP for good, we can turn them into something else then. Maybe give PvE-only bonuses to half of them and the other half should be EWAR boats. Let's say we take a look at Muninn and what it would need to match the Ishtar: *+3 med slot. -1 low slot, -1 high slot *Roughly 60 m/s base speed *Lots more of cap for perma MWD + 2x TC *Selectable Engagement range, tracking and DPS of --40+18; 0.0666; 702 dps --70+12; 0.0355; 661 dps --72+50; 0.051; 620 dps --105+40; 0.0222; 579 dps *No more ammo usage, it's a selectable switch on the gun Guess what the Huginn bonus would have to be per level to reach these numbers? +10% damage and +10% RoF on top of the HAC bonuses of 10% optimal and 7,5% tracking when using 2x TC instead of 1x of the Ishtar with the figures above. Ishtar is the odd one out and it has to be brought in line with others.
This is what i said to him a few pages back.. if all HACS have 700+ dps with low sig, high resists, why fly BS? Muninn cap is actually pretty decent, its mid layout is what fucks it over. But yea, i would like to do 700 dps in my muninn at 40km. Like the ishtar.-á
If ccp listens to Janice's advice. Instead of a rebalance tweak, lets make CCP spend more resources rebalancing all the HACs again to fix the ishtar. Sounds logical. To get other HACs and their weapons to perform like ishtar, all slots would need to be looked at, weapon systems buffed and overall a big waste of resources.
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
437
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:13:00 -
[1199] - Quote
How many BS PvP fleets do you see? I don't see many out there in lowsec, unless a structure is being bashed. When did 700 become BS DPS? Most of BS put out over 1000 dps. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
7498
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:15:00 -
[1200] - Quote
The 1st rule of a balance discussion in the Features and Ideas forum is "if it killed me, it's unbalanced". Now all of a sudden the one class of drones that don't move are OP. We've come a long way from AHACs, Abaddons and Arty Maelstroms being that most unbalanced things ever! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 [40] 50 .. 58 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |