EVE Search - Hyperion and Blasters

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Hyperion and Blasters

» 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] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Magunus The Forsakened Few	Posted - 2006.08.04 19:47:00 - [211] Originally by: Ithildin <snip> If Tuxford now goes for some sort of tanking bonus, I hope it'll be a more exotic tanking bonus. Even though straight hit point bonus isn't very Gallente, that's something I'm missing in all but one ship (and that ship, sadly, had that bonus removed). It's difficult. Tanking isn't one thing that blaster ships are supposed to do. <snip> Maybe instead of some bonus to the use of MWD, what about a bonus to speed boost given by an AB, say 10%/BS level? No other ship I know of has a bonus to AB use, so it'd be new and different. It'd mean you keep your cap, you don't increase your sig, and you're still fast enough to get in range fairly quickly, but you wouldn't be as fast as a BS with a MWD. I'd guess you could get to 400mps pretty easy, better with some speed mods and/or inertial stabilizers. You'd still get webbed, but you'd have more PG, CPU and cap to tank with. I don't fly it, and don't plan to, but that thought just sprang into my head. --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
Wintermoon Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2006.08.04 20:02:00 - [212] Has nobody considered giving it a 10% falloff bonus like many other (smaller) blasterboats? Nice mirror to the 10% optimal bonus of the rokh. Also it is fairly limited on a rail ship but quite useful on a close range ships. Other ships that have the bonus are the incursus, catalyst and eris for example.
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.04 20:12:00 - [213] Originally by: Wintermoon Has nobody considered giving it a 10% falloff bonus like many other (smaller) blasterboats? Nice mirror to the 10% optimal bonus of the rokh. Also it is fairly limited on a rail ship but quite useful on a close range ships. Other ships that have the bonus are the incursus, catalyst and eris for example. A blaster falloff bonus would be even less useful than a MWD capacitor anti-nerf. It's borderline useful on AC's, and they've got the falloff to boot. Oh, and the Incursus isn't exactly known for making use of that bonus, and the Catalyst is actually being boosted by the static +150% optimal bonus, while the Eris is a T2 ship with a few more bonuses behind it's belt. Dark skies torn apart Heavens open before me I, the light of death
Talori'i Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2006.08.04 20:12:00 - [214] Originally by: Wintermoon Has nobody considered giving it a 10% falloff bonus like many other (smaller) blasterboats? Nice mirror to the 10% optimal bonus of the rokh. Also it is fairly limited on a rail ship but quite useful on a close range ships. Other ships that have the bonus are the incursus, catalyst and eris for example. yeah I would like to see the graph with the 10% falloff and see what that looks like 4 8 15 16 23 42
Jago X	Posted - 2006.08.04 20:45:00 - [215] hmm well the reasons for not using a falloff bonus have more to do with not making the tempest completely obselete than they do with not bieng a useful bonus on a blaster bonus imo. Neutron Blaster Cannon : 10km base falloff +25% for lvl5 Trajectory Analysis +25% null ammo gives you about 15.6km falloff with 10% per level BS bonus that goes to about 23.4km (correct me if im wrong here - my maths is terrible) then also maybe consider putting a couple of tracking computers ontop of that now add that to the optimal and suddenly you have a blasterboat that can hit out almost as far as a tempest for much greater damage and with much better tracking .
Levin Cavil Lucid Ambition	Posted - 2006.08.04 22:33:00 - [216] Originally by: Jago X hmm well the reasons for not using a falloff bonus have more to do with not making the tempest completely obselete than they do with not bieng a useful bonus on a blaster bonus imo. Neutron Blaster Cannon : 10km base falloff +25% for lvl5 Trajectory Analysis +25% null ammo gives you about 15.6km falloff with 10% per level BS bonus that goes to about 23.4km (correct me if im wrong here - my maths is terrible) then also maybe consider putting a couple of tracking computers ontop of that now add that to the optimal and suddenly you have a blasterboat that can hit out almost as far as a tempest for much greater damage and with much better tracking . Rohk anyone? ---------- Eve is balanced: Caldari have to train Rails Minmatar have to train Missiles Gallente have to train Drones Amarr have to train Caldari
InnerDrive	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:34:00 - [217] Its been a while since Tux replys on here concerning the Hyperion. So how is the ship gonna be like that? Any news on it ? (Tux?)
Antoinette Civari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:52:00 - [218] Originally by: InnerDrive Its been a while since Tux replys on here concerning the Hyperion. So how is the ship gonna be like that? Any news on it ? (Tux?) The last thing he said was some ridiculous stuff about an agility or mass bonus so I'm not very optimistic about getting any good news.
Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:54:00 - [219] A lot of people here seem to be pushing for gun related bonuses to replace the MWD cap non-bonus and the suggested falloff bonus does have a certain amount of appeal. The idea of an armour rep bonus leaves me cold I'm afraid. I'd rather see a bonus somehow related to getting into range fast. The extra acceleration control option looks good. With pre-existing low mass and high agility, (from what information we have on the Hyperion) the Stabber's flat speed bonus could also work quite nicely. Either way, the main problem with a Battleship sized blaster boat is getting into range, and I'd like to see the second bonus fix that.
Lucian Alucard Caldari Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:22:00 - [220] Originally by: Rod Blaine Well, the problem is tha tthe hyperion alreayd looks like a better mega to me. Two more meds, one more gun = win. Like I need that tracking bonus at 160km Not to mention that one good tracking comp already compensates for most of the missing bonus. So yeah, let's cut the crap and redesign the Hyperion to be a medslot heavy allround hybrid ship. One that can use both rails and blasters but is mainly based around a good tank and higher then normal medslots. I'd assume that in that case the megathron would finally get the changes it needs to become a viable blasterboat. As thing stand now, I can only see the hyperion fail harshly or pwn solidly. Either wya there'll only be whining. To be honest I think a dampening boat would be more useful but the Rohk would still probably be a better tub to use as a sheild tank/blaster boat then the Hyperion due to the fact it will have a resistance bonus and enough mids to have a mwd+tank as well as a slot free for a warp sram even if it has 6 mids (which I doubt it will since the natural progression would be 7)) it would still have a sturdy tank since it really would only need 1 Invulnerability Feild II, now factor in the 8 guns,IFFA,and spar lows for damage mods the Rohk will do enough damage to overide the Hyperion or Megs tank befor befor the Rohks tank gives. Most Bthron pilots I have met aggree that a meg can take a raven but it is a close fight this makes it even more so since tho most people think the optimal boni for blasters is crud I have found it to help loads when using a BlastaMoa. Tho this will most likely be null since all you would need to do is kit a second nos on a bthron,6 Ion IIs,VOID L and 2 Dim nos in my mind would do the trick but then again its likely the devs are one step a head and will royaly nerf the cap amount on the Rohk.
fmercury Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:29:00 - [221] Originally by: Lucian Alucard To be honest I think a dampening boat would be more useful but the Rohk would still probably be a better tub to use as a sheild tank/blaster boat then the Hyperion due to the fact it will have a resistance bonus and enough mids to have a mwd+tank as well as a slot free for a warp sram even if it has 6 mids (which I doubt it will since the natural progression would be 7)) it would still have a sturdy tank since it really would only need 1 Invulnerability Feild II, now factor in the 8 guns,IFFA,and spar lows for damage mods the Rohk will do enough damage to overide the Hyperion or Megs tank befor befor the Rohks tank gives. Most Bthron pilots I have met aggree that a meg can take a raven but it is a close fight this makes it even more so since tho most people think the optimal boni for blasters is crud I have found it to help loads when using a BlastaMoa. You win the longest sentence ever award.
Valerian Xavier Beagle Corp	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:36:00 - [222] Originally by: Alex Tremayne A lot of people here seem to be pushing for gun related bonuses to replace the MWD cap non-bonus and the suggested falloff bonus does have a certain amount of appeal. The idea of an armour rep bonus leaves me cold I'm afraid. I'd rather see a bonus somehow related to getting into range fast. The extra acceleration control option looks good. With pre-existing low mass and high agility, (from what information we have on the Hyperion) the Stabber's flat speed bonus could also work quite nicely. Either way, the main problem with a Battleship sized blaster boat is getting into range, and I'd like to see the second bonus fix that. make it a very nice speed bonus and i'd sign for this. could be a really fun ship to fly. otherwise, might as well give it the tanking bonus to keep up with the other tier 3's ---
Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:01:00 - [223] Originally by: Valerian Xavier make it a very nice speed bonus and i'd sign for this. could be a really fun ship to fly. otherwise, might as well give it the tanking bonus to keep up with the other tier 3's The other option that occurred to me was a 5%/level bonus to the effectiveness of Nanofibres and Inertial stabilisers. I suspect it would be too massively unbalanced though.
Taurgil Balanced Unity	Posted - 2006.08.15 21:49:00 - [224] Originally by: Guriko in fact, 2 "powerful" blasterships are a nonsens, we want versatility /agreed @ 100%
Talori'i Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2006.08.15 22:39:00 - [225] 5% to large hybrid damage, 10% to drones hitpoints, damage and Chribba's mining fetish. The ultimate Gallente damage dealer, I think. 4 8 15 16 23 42
Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.16 13:01:00 - [226] Originally by: Talori'i 5% to large hybrid damage, 10% to drones hitpoints, damage and Chribba's mining fetish. The ultimate Gallente damage dealer, I think. And what would you do with the Dominix which already has those bonuses?
Magnus Thermopyle Chosen Path	Posted - 2006.08.16 13:46:00 - [227] Why does this ship has to be so terrible limited, when the other tier 3 BS have plenty of options, and is well suited for many different situations? Cant we just have a ship with normal locking range, normal speed, normal gun bonuses and a bonus to armor/shield resistance? It would still be useful as a blaster boat, but would also be nice for fleet PvP and PvE. For example: - 5% bonus to damage/level - 5% bonus to shield and armor resistance/level - 8 turret hardpoint - 5 mid slots - 7 low slots - Enough PG and CPU to fit 8 neutron blasters with armor tank.

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