EVE Search - Maelstrom: What *should* stats be?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Maelstrom: What *should* stats be?

» 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 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Guurzak Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:07:00 - [1] Quote: The thing is instead of assuming stats and then panic about them you should actually be thinking about what kind of stats they need to have to be balanced. OK, so let's do that. The shield-boosting bonus that more and more Minmatar ships are getting is a sharp deviation from the "versatility" mantra that supposedly defines our fleet. It locks the ship into a particular style of tanking- specifically, the kind of tanking which is the least effective against our backstory enemies, the laser-based Amarr. So, my first suggestion would be to ditch the shield boost bonus for something more flexible: capacitor improvements (size, recharge, possibly a cap injecting bonus?), speed or maneuverability improvements, or more damage would be good. Reconceiving the ship as a missile platform might also be interesting. If the shield boost bonus is not on the table for discussion, it must be pointed out that shield boost bonuses have no synergy with remote shield transfers. We need energy bot logistics drones and a logistics ship with energy transfer bonuses. Remote shield transfers and remote armor repairs synergize wonderfully with other races' resistance bonuses but gain no benefit at all from Matari boosting bonuses. With that said, the community consensus is pretty clear that the slot breakdown for a dedicated shieldtank battleship should be 8/7/5 rather than 8/6/6. If you build a Mael for autocannons, you need the extra midslot for tanking. If you build it for artillery, you need it for tracking computers. With an 8/6/6, your optimal fitting may very well end up being an armor tank and ignoring the shield boost bonus. (If you're committed to 8/6/6, that's just another argument for changing the boost bonus to something more flexible, allowing the pilot to shield or armor tank as he prefers without penalizing that choice with the loss of half the ship bonus.) There was a lot of concern expressed about the size of the cargo bay listed in the old test server stats. A projectile-based ship with an ROF bonus is going to go through a LOT of ammo. If the suspicions that this ship is primarily intended to give the Minmatar a good ratting/mission ship are correct, the ship also needs room for loot. If you're going to make the ship fly like a hippo on quaaludes, there's no excuse for not giving it a gigantic cargo hold. And that raises the biggest point of concern with this ship: It's slow. The Hyperion design decision to make the fastest battleship in the game also the most damaging at close range is puzzling, since the only way to defeat a more damaging ship is to dictate range.... but the decision to saddle the Minmatar with a slow, massive, whatever-the-exact-opposite-of-nimble-is battleship goes beyond puzzling into the realm of heresy. Quite simply, the Maelstrom as proposed is not a Minmatar ship, it's some kind of poser that the Ammari are trying to sneak into our supply chain in order to sabotage our blitzkrieg philosophy of battle. Do whatever else you need to to balance the ship, but please PLEASE give it more legs.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:31:00 - [2] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/07/2006 18:32:20 Good post and you summarized alot of the rabble from the earlier posts nicely. Maybe it wasnt a total waste of time after all. I think all of these 4 new boats should be totally different from what we have today, not just improvements of what we have today. If ccp manages to pull that off, they will not have to worry about some ships becoming obselete. Giving minmatar a pure missile boat would only compete with the Raven for example, so its not good. For example, Typhoon has managed to become different from Raven without being worse, which is why it has become so popular. So for minmatar, we have the Typhoon and the Tempest. As long as those two ships arent worse than any of the newcomers from other races, we are fine. I will contribute with some ideas for a new ship later. Just wanted to say this. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Wizie Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:40:00 - [3] If its gonna be a 8/6/6 layout ship with the stated bonii, I'm going to say it straight up. IT WILL SUCK (aside from npcing). If they want to keep it with a 8/6/6 layout, Then give it a 5% to dmg bonus and make it (or let it be) a howitzer sniping ship. As it stands, a slow minnie ship with 6 mids for shield/tackling and rof bonii is plain foolish. Slow, not enough slots to be useful with shield tank and tackle (or basically web and mwd). Not enough cargo space for holding cap charges and ammo for the insane rof of autocannons with the 5% rof bonus. If they want to build the ship around the stated bonii and attributes. Namely 5% rof, 7.5% shield boost bonus and slow large ship. Then give it 7 mids and 5 lows. ROF bonus applies best to autocannons, but the 6 mids will result it in being a crappy autocannon platform for anything aside from npcing. Basically With stated values - Slow large ship rof bonus GIVE IT 8/7/5 slot layout However, if we are forced to use a 8/6/6 layout GIVE IT 5% dmg bonus and enough grid/cpu to fit a good 1400 setup. ----------------- Sig removed by some noob
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:41:00 - [4] /JMT 8/6/6 ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:52:00 - [5] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire /JMT 8/6/6 You sure are doing a lot of trolling lately. Anyway, I like the Maelstrom's bonus sofar, Amarr after all armor tank which is least effective against us. 7 midslots would be great, finally taking the Caldari domination of them away. Minmatar are primarily shield tankers, despite the lack of slots for it in most of our tech I ships.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:54:00 - [6] Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: Jenny Spitfire /JMT 8/6/6 You sure are doing a lot of trolling lately. Anyway, I like the Maelstrom's bonus sofar, Amarr after all armor tank which is least effective against us. 7 midslots would be great, finally taking the Caldari domination of them away. Minmatar are primarily shield tankers, despite the lack of slots for it in most of our tech I ships. Not trolling. I dont troll. Dont even know what troll is. I have discussed many times and dont really want to repeat them again. 8/6/6 should be for Maelstorm. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Eximius Josari Citizens of E.A.R.T.H. E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:56:00 - [7] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: Jenny Spitfire /JMT 8/6/6 You sure are doing a lot of trolling lately. Anyway, I like the Maelstrom's bonus sofar, Amarr after all armor tank which is least effective against us. 7 midslots would be great, finally taking the Caldari domination of them away. Minmatar are primarily shield tankers, despite the lack of slots for it in most of our tech I ships. Not trolling. I dont troll. Dont even know what troll is. I have discussed many times and dont really want to repeat them again. 8/6/6 should be for Maelstorm. Based on what exactly?
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 18:57:00 - [8] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/07/2006 19:04:16 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Not trolling. I dont troll. Dont even know what troll is. I have discussed many times and dont really want to repeat them again. 8/6/6 should be for Maelstorm. Sorry Jenny, but your "argument" that Caldari are "midslot specialists" isnt a good reason why Caldari ships always should have the most medium slots. Minmatar are also shield tankers you know. Edit: By the way... seeing you accept the 7 medium slots on the Rohk with 6800 base shield and huge bonuses to range and damage as "balanced" made me see you in another light. I dont dislike you, but you are definently biased in my eyes from now on. Still a nice chap to talk to though. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Azerrad	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:04:00 - [9] Edited by: Azerrad on 27/07/2006 19:04:07 Originally by: Eximius Josari Based on what exactly? Based on the desire for complete Caldari superiority from what I've seen. Anyways, If things stay the same with tracking computers/tracking enhacners/sensor boosters I would like to see: 8/7/5 Grid ~ 8x1400 T2 (i.e. require a couple pdu2s to fit other need stuff) Speed/Agility ~ that of an Raven, maybe 5-10 m/s faster Decent CPU Bonuses for this ship look good, it just needs enough mid slots to make use of it after tracking/sensor boosters are added. Otherwise the 7.5% shield booster bonus will be worthless. It's already not that great of a bonus considering this ship will be mostly a fleet ship. I wouldn't mind the RoF being changed to damage, but it doens't really bother me either way. 8/6/6 just doesn't cut it for this ship.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:12:00 - [10] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/07/2006 19:13:38 Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/07/2006 19:04:16 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Not trolling. I dont troll. Dont even know what troll is. I have discussed many times and dont really want to repeat them again. 8/6/6 should be for Maelstorm. Sorry Jenny, but your "argument" that Caldari are "midslot specialists" isnt a good reason why Caldari ships always should have the most medium slots. Minmatar are also shield tankers you know. Edit: By the way... seeing you accept the 7 medium slots on the Rohk with 6800 base shield and huge bonuses to range and damage as "balanced" made me see you in another light. I dont dislike you, but you are definently biased in my eyes from now on. Still a nice chap to talk to though. I see Minmatar as a versatile race. Quick and nimble. Minmatars can shield tank but they are better armour tank. You really need at least 5 slots to shield tank properly and you can see Minmatar cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships are inclined to armour tank. If they want to shield tank they can but not really good at it. 8/7/5 is a must for Caldari because it is an upgrade for the Raven i.e. +1 in middle. 8/6/6 is a must for Minmatar because it is an upgrade for the Tempest i.e. +1 in the middle. OK, that is all. By all means, it is balance. You do have versatility to armour tank or shield tank. TBH, Raven though her torpedoes hit interceptors for 0.3 dmg and not misses like turrets, everyone in the ideal world needs a webber and warp disruptor. The funny thing is all non-missile users cry foul at Ravens yelling they hit everything, pwn everything and they dont need a web. Yeah, rite... hypocrites. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:15:00 - [11] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I see Minmatar as a versatile race. Quick and nimble. Minmatars can shield tank but they are better armour tank. Why the shield boost bonus if you don't shield tank? For the sake of a wasted bonus? NB.
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:15:00 - [12] From what i can see so far they want the Maelstrom to perform as an artillery platform that can tank well. This concept is in my eyes flawed from the very beginning, who tanks a sniper besides lowsecgankers? The shieldboostamount bonus wont be used most of the time, because if you are sniping you want to get hp's and higher resists to have a bigger time window for warping out. In this case a hp bonus or resist bonus would work better. A slow fat AC ship that cant dictate range will die. Its also more vulnerable to nos/neutralizers as it cant field nos/neut itself (unless you give up dmg at which point tempest will outdmg you). Also if it should be close/medium range ship, then it needs 7 med slots for either prop+web / tracking comps+sb and still be able to field a decent tank. For some reason the maelstrom looks to me like medium range fighter, but minnie dont have something like a mid range weapon oO, ever fought with arties below 60km? I really would like a clarification on what role the maelstrom should fullfill. If you just want to give minnies a pve ship, then plz dont. Typhoon is good enough for pve. Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Nikolai Nuvolari Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:17:00 - [13] It DEFINITELY should have been 8/6/6 with an 8/3 split, 5% large projectile RoF or tracking (still not sure about that one) bonus, 5% max velocity bonus, and 180m/s base max velocity. I want my Super Stabber ------------------ Originally by: kieron Buy ISK for RL cash here! Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:19:00 - [14] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/07/2006 19:20:02 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire 8/7/5 is a must for Caldari because it is an upgrade for the Raven i.e. +1 in middle. 8/6/6 is a must for Minmatar because it is an upgrade for the Tempest i.e. +1 in the middle. No, its not a must at all. The ships should have unique roles. Scorpion has it with 8 medium slots, but low firepower. Bonuses to EW. Raven goes down 2 medium slots from the Scorpion, but adds more firepower instead and bonuses to damage. The tier 3 is a completely new thing for the Caldari. Its a turret ship with 8 turrets. Its completely different from anything else you have in the fleet. Thats why it needs its own slot design, suited for its purpose and not just Raven medslots +1. You should agree with me if you think about this. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:20:00 - [15] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I see Minmatar as a versatile race. Quick and nimble. Minmatars can shield tank but they are better armour tank. Why the shield boost bonus if you don't shield tank? For the sake of a wasted bonus? NB. The same reason why people armour tank Raven or shield tank Scorpion or Domi with nosferatus/neutralisers and dont really use their bonuses. The bonus on the Maelstorm is like a hidden mid-slot and you do have 6 slots to fit your tank but you only need 5 slots minimum to tank nicely. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Nikolai Nuvolari Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:21:00 - [16] I like the 8/7/5 layout for the Rokh. ------------------ Originally by: kieron Buy ISK for RL cash here! Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:25:00 - [17] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire The same reason why people armour tank Raven or shield tank Scorpion or Domi with nosferatus/neutralisers and dont really use their bonuses. The bonus on the Maelstorm is like a hidden mid-slot and you do have 6 slots to fit your tank but you only need 5 slots minimum to tank nicely. People armor tanking a raven don't waste a bonus. People shield tanking a scorp or using guns on a tanked ecm domi are using modules so overpowered than they are better than alternative mods even with bonuses. What's the point of a shield booster bonus if you can armor tank better than you can shield tank, when fitting a versatile setup ? NB.
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:28:00 - [18] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I see Minmatar as a versatile race. Quick and nimble. Minmatars can shield tank but they are better armour tank. You really need at least 5 slots to shield tank properly and you can see Minmatar cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships are inclined to armour tank. If they want to shield tank they can but not really good at it. 8/7/5 is a must for Caldari because it is an upgrade for the Raven i.e. +1 in middle. 8/6/6 is a must for Minmatar because it is an upgrade for the Tempest i.e. +1 in the middle. OK, that is all. By all means, it is balance. You do have versatility to armour tank or shield tank. TBH, Raven though her torpedoes hit interceptors for 0.3 dmg and not misses like turrets, everyone in the ideal world needs a webber and warp disruptor. The funny thing is all non-missile users cry foul at Ravens yelling they hit everything, pwn everything and they dont need a web. Yeah, rite... hypocrites. Tux stated that the maelstrom will be unusually slow and heavy. 8/6/6 doesnt give you versatility when 1 bonus is explicit for shield tanking. You are not supposed to kill interceptors with torpedoes anyways >_>. A webber for raven and a gunship is a very different thing, the gunships each have their zone of engagement, where they need to be if they want to have a chance of dealing decent amount of dmg while not getting obliterated. Propulsion mod and webbers are necessary tools for that. A Raven doesnt need to do that. It relies on its always hitting missiles and tank to survive and win against anyone else. A web for a raven isnt used as a tool to remain in your preferred zone of engagement but purely to increase the dmg of your missiles. It is small but imo important difference. You could just aswell use a Targetpainter (lesser effect i think but depends what you fight with which ammo). Targetpainter instead of webber for closerange turretship wouldnt work that well. So no i fail to see the validity in your arguments. Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:30:00 - [19] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire The same reason why people armour tank Raven or shield tank Scorpion or Domi with nosferatus/neutralisers and dont really use their bonuses. The bonus on the Maelstorm is like a hidden mid-slot and you do have 6 slots to fit your tank but you only need 5 slots minimum to tank nicely. so rokh with an bonus equal to an invulnerability field with no stacking penalty is fine with 7 med slots? Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Buraken v2 Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:31:00 - [20] It should be up to Tuxford. Quote: Mail from: Houvire Takaerne 2006.06.06 19:25 Our research has been fruity. If you're interested, I believe I have found what might be a banana in the corner of my office draw.
Wrayeth PAX Interstellar Services Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:43:00 - [21] Jenny, no offense, but you don't even fly Minmatar. Because you don't, you don't realize how utterly crap an 8/6/6 layout would be. As for the original poster, it pretty much sums up everything I have to say about the maelstrom and the hyperion, and the Gallente-pwn-Minmatar trend in general. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:47:00 - [22] Edited by: Ath Amon on 27/07/2006 19:51:44 Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Eximius Josari Originally by: Jenny Spitfire /JMT 8/6/6 You sure are doing a lot of trolling lately. Anyway, I like the Maelstrom's bonus sofar, Amarr after all armor tank which is least effective against us. 7 midslots would be great, finally taking the Caldari domination of them away. Minmatar are primarily shield tankers, despite the lack of slots for it in most of our tech I ships. Not trolling. I dont troll. Dont even know what troll is. I have discussed many times and dont really want to repeat them again. 8/6/6 should be for Maelstorm. right jenni so let's give to the caldari BS 4 turrets and 4 missiles as caldari have split weapons and are missile specialists also let's upgrade the crow mass by a good 20%, caldari is not a fast race... anyway about the mael 8/7/5 or even 8/8/4... the second one if it will be more geared as an AC platform,a cargo hold of around 700m3 i will also like a different shield bonus (+res or +shield hits) so it will be possible to passive tank it whitout loosing the main bonus. ahhh and for sure it should have not max target: 3 or to balance that it need 50 sensor strenght or a 8/8/8 slot
Foulis Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 19:54:00 - [23] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari It DEFINITELY should have been 8/6/6 with an 8/3 split, 5% large projectile RoF or tracking (still not sure about that one) bonus, 5% max velocity bonus, and 180m/s base max velocity. I want my Super Stabber This I can aggree with fully. But it would need two things, first of all it would have to be a tracking bonus, otherwise why would anyone fly a 'phoon unless this ship has the mass of a freighter? Second of all it would need a decent cargo hold. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Yoshimako	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:03:00 - [24] I think (and im sorry if im wrong) the point jenny has made is valid just not for the right reasons. Saying it cannot or should not have a 7th mid becuase caldari are mid specialists is rediculous. However I am worried that if it did get 7 mids it would become unbalanced. Because of the shield boost bonus, at lvl 5 bs it is like having a gisti boost amp in permanently, couple that with a full shield tank and ure talking about a rediculous tanking beast. 1x xl booster 1x boost amp 3x invul 1x cap booster and a free slot or u could run 3 individual hardeners and 1 invul an a dmg control in the lows. Ok thats a full tank setup but its got room for dm's/TE's still in the low. TBH if someone with a full crystal set got one of these u wouldnt kill it.
Isonkon Serikain Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:09:00 - [25] I think the Tempest should be the AC boat because it is more nimble... It goes against the storyline to have slow, closeranged attack boats in the minmatar fleet. The Maelstrom Should have a projectile dmg and an optimal range or tracking bonus, to make it a big artillery boat that sits back and provides alpha strike fire. And yes, I think 7 mids would be more interesting, the opposite of the typhoon in terms of slot layout. Ison's notches more notches
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 27/07/2006 20:15:31 Originally by: Yoshimako Because of the shield boost bonus, at lvl 5 bs it is like having a gisti boost amp in permanently, couple that with a full shield tank and ure talking about a rediculous tanking beast. In general, a 7.5% shield boosting amount/level bonus isn't as good as a 5% resist. So, at lvl 5 bs it is not even like having a regular t1 invulnerability field permanently. Puts it in another perspective A shield tank on 7 slots is scary, on the other hand an armor tank on 7 slots with a cap injector is just as scary. People won't fit an armor tank on 7 low slots except for very particular jobs (bait) and people won't tank an AC setup with 7 mids because they better spend some of their mids on a propulsion mod and a web, else they aren't that useful. And people won't fit it on an arty setup, because you don't really active tank an artillery setup anyway. Edit: As for the crystal set, it's another balancing issue on its own. NB.
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:22:00 - [27] Edited by: Tiuwaz on 27/07/2006 20:22:43 Originally by: Yoshimako I think (and im sorry if im wrong) the point jenny has made is valid just not for the right reasons. Saying it cannot or should not have a 7th mid becuase caldari are mid specialists is rediculous. However I am worried that if it did get 7 mids it would become unbalanced. Because of the shield boost bonus, at lvl 5 bs it is like having a gisti boost amp in permanently, couple that with a full shield tank and ure talking about a rediculous tanking beast. 1x xl booster 1x boost amp 3x invul 1x cap booster and a free slot or u could run 3 individual hardeners and 1 invul an a dmg control in the lows. Ok thats a full tank setup but its got room for dm's/TE's still in the low. TBH if someone with a full crystal set got one of these u wouldnt kill it. I would prefer a resist or hp bonus myself, but i have a few points to argue with. First of all, Ship balance is not around overpowered stuff like crystal sets or faction gear, in that case you'd have to advocate for a nerf to those, and not say: This ship is overpowered for those with enough ISK to buy a crystal set ( i agree but nerf crystal then) Secondly a Rokh with 7 mids, would also have a free invulnerability field WITHOUT stacking penalty (this is big advantage). Therefore i dont understand the "itgot a free amp so 7 mids would be overpowered" Third, what the ** can a Maelstrom do with a tank that fills all 7 slots? An Ac boat needs to dictate range and be nimble to dictate range/speed. so a propulsion mod+web is pretty much a must An artillery boat needs sensorbooster/trackingcomps, as i dont think the inferior low slot modules will cut it (not mention you have to give up on gyros then,making the tempest a harder hitter). Furthermore actively tanking a sniper is a folly and only done and advised by ppl who havent been in fleetfights and havent got obliterated in in seconds. Originally by:** Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:28:00 - [28] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/07/2006 20:33:42 Too many replies directed at me. Anyway, I will do a general reply because the 8/6/6 or 8/7/5 really caters for two groups of players. 8/7/5 can really do crazy stuffs and only solo or really small gang pilots are crying out loud for it. 8/6/6 layouts are more suitable when you have friends around to help you tackle. Are battleships supposed to fly alone or with one or two friends? My guess is, the demographics for players keen on 8/7/5 are really soloers or players who fly with a couple. What is balanced on 8/7/5 for solo may be imbalanced in bigger gangs though. To be honest, crying out for more DPS and solopwnmobiles make designing and balancing hard. Sad for Tuxford though. Hard to cater balance and favouring the community. And dont say Caldari has everything. Caldari only has true balance. We are crap at solo and we make up as support. EWAR, missiles and long range turrets. Variety is nice and so is life. Edit: My last post and I favour Raptor than Crow. Mixed weapons arent bad and I think Raptor is better than Crow. I am The State's unwanted daughter. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:31:00 - [29] Edited by: Tiuwaz on 27/07/2006 20:31:58 I still dont get it why 8/7/5 is fine for you on rokh (free invulfield) but on mael 8/7/5 (free amp) is overpowered Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Azerrad	Posted - 2006.07.27 20:33:00 - [30] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/07/2006 20:32:05 Too many replies directed at me. Anyway, I will do a general reply because the 8/6/6 or 8/7/5 really caters for two groups of players. 8/7/5 can really do crazy stuffs and only solo or really small gang pilots are crying out loud for it. 8/6/6 layouts are more suitable when you have friends around to help you tackle. Are battleships supposed to fly alone or with one or two friends? My guess is, the demographics for players keen on 8/7/5 are really soloers or players who fly with a couple. What is balanced on 8/7/5 for solo may be imbalanced in bigger gangs though. To be honest, crying out for more DPS and solopwnmobiles made designing and balancing hard. Sad for Tuxford though. Hard to cater balance and favouring the community. And dont say Caldari has everything. Caldari only has true balance. We are crap at solo and we make up as support. EWAR, missiles and long range turrets. Variety is nice and so is life. Edit: My last post and I favour Raptor than Crow. Mixed weapons arent bad and I think Raptor is better than Crow. I am The State's unwanted daughter. Assuming this is true, is the Rohk with 7 mid slots balanced?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: 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.