EVE Search - Maelstrom Changes Proposal

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Maelstrom Changes Proposal

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 12:53:00 - [31] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 31/07/2006 12:53:24 I think this ship will become a really good solo pvp ship with a specific setup i have in mind. Needless to say, it doesnt use the shield boosting bonus at all, but will still be insanely hard to beat. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 12:56:00 - [32] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 31/07/2006 12:53:24 I think this ship will become a really good solo pvp ship with a specific setup i have in mind. Needless to say, it doesnt use the shield boosting bonus at all, but will still be insanely hard to beat. 8/6/6 solo ship? ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 12:58:00 - [33] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire 8/6/6 solo ship? Yep. :) --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.31 13:03:00 - [34] Originally by: Dixon And the resist bonus is nice but 37.5% boost amplifier would set you back a few hundred isk, while the resists are not that hard to get. I think by now it's been established that 5% resists > 7,5% boost bonus I would take the resists over the boost bonus any time, as i am sure would do the vast majority of minni users I also still dont see the sense of an artillery ship with a bonus to an active shield tank (besides pve >_>, in which case i'd still prefer they typhoon for pve, missiles >> projectiles) Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 13:05:00 - [35] Originally by: Tiuwaz I also still dont see the sense of an artillery ship with a bonus to an active shield tank (besides pve >_>, in which case i'd still prefer they typhoon for pve, missiles >> projectiles) Something i missed before is that the Rokh also gets 4 missile launchers. Perhaps it can manage to be better than the Typhoon as well... --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Grimpak Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.31 13:22:00 - [36] Originally by: Testy Mctest proposed stuff I participated in the debate at Scrapheap Challenge for a bit, and I agree with all that testy posted here, xcept the RoF bonus. I still think that for this ship a straight dmg bonus would be better, but that's just me. ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.31 13:25:00 - [37] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Tiuwaz I also still dont see the sense of an artillery ship with a bonus to an active shield tank (besides pve >_>, in which case i'd still prefer they typhoon for pve, missiles >> projectiles) Something i missed before is that the Rokh also gets 4 missile launchers. Perhaps it can manage to be better than the Typhoon as well... well typhoon gets a rof bonus so it should do more dmg than rokh, while the rokh should be able to field a better tank, both will still get beaten by raven, sooo .... Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.07.31 13:35:00 - [38] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Jenny Spitfire 8/6/6 solo ship? Yep. :) The solo cyclone PVP setup doest use its shield bonus either and kicks ass .But when the ECM balance arrives you can say hasta la vista maelstrom.
Kabira	Posted - 2006.07.31 14:13:00 - [39] Edited by: Kabira on 31/07/2006 14:13:03 I don't see why it should get more cap, your guns don't use cap anymore so you don't need that much. It would give the ship an unfair advantage against others.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.07.31 14:16:00 - [40] Originally by: Kabira Edited by: Kabira on 31/07/2006 14:13:03 I don't see why it should get more cap, your guns don't use cap anymore so you don't need that much. It would give the ship an unfair advantage against others. 1) Shield tanking bonus (which is incidentally, worse than a passive tanking bonus like the Abaddon and Rokh get) 2) Lowest total shields 3) Joint lowest total cap Guns using no cap or not, it still leaves us a poor cap total and poor cap recharge rate to work with, while using a ship that is clearly supposed to be able to shield tank. Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.07.31 14:41:00 - [41] Edited by: Hllaxiu on 31/07/2006 14:41:35 Originally by: Testy Mctest Guns using no cap or not, it still leaves us a poor cap total and poor cap recharge rate to work with, while using a ship that is clearly supposed to be able to shield tank. Ship that must use an active shield tank. With a resistance bonus, you can use a passive shield tank and still use the bonus, without using any capacitor. The effectiveness of the shield tank cannot be commented upon until the final stats are released, but I suspect the Rokh will be an incredible passive tank due to the number of meds/lows. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.07.31 14:48:00 - [42] Originally by: Hllaxiu With a resistance bonus, you can use a passive shield tank and still use the bonus, without using any capacitor. Dont forget that with a resistance bonus, you can mount no modules related to tanking at all, and your bonus is still effective. Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 14:53:00 - [43] Ok, who asked for a mission runner for the minmatar? I want to kill him. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Testicular Testes	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:09:00 - [44] Originally by: Testy Mctest Edited by: Testy Mctest on 31/07/2006 08:14:46 Cargo Space This isn't a factor that really comes into balance; it's just something that needs to be right for the ship to function. Realistically, Minmatar ships need bigger holds than any other race due to AC ammo use, but we don't really ever get that. However, with an 8 slot, RoF bonus ship, giving us a tiny cargohold would cripple the ship and force it to always use artillery. Removing a ship-fitting decision through bad stats is not condusive to the way Eve should be played. Proposal: Increase cargohold to either 600m3 You're being way too timid here. To be honest, and this is my biggest gripe with the Tempest, no injector-based battleship should have a cargohold smaller than 650 (1x large secure), giving it an effective hold of 780 (a bit less for those of us who value their autoreloads). 16 injectors alone take 640 cargo, out of an effective 675 of the Tempest (and your suggested Maelstrom) - leaving 35 cargo, or 350 rounds of ammo spare. The smallest possible Tempest reload is currently 360 rounds, the smallest possible Maelstrom reload is 480 rounds (and up to 600/800 respectively for Dual 425s with EMP). Not to mention that we come with higher RoFs than blasters and worse damage per round with smaller clipsizes - so not only do Minmatar have more trouble carrying ammo, they also have to reload more. As a fun note, 600 cargo ships can actually only carry 15 injectors max due to the 375/275 split. It's actually a bigger issue for the Tempest due to being a bit more of an armor tanker, whereas you could technically stick an expanded cargohold on your Maelstrom. Either way, bad cargoholds aren't racial variety, they're simply obnoxious impediments. 675, and for the Tempest too, pretty please? :)
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:11:00 - [45] Edited by: Testy Mctest on 31/07/2006 15:13:51 Originally by: Testicular Testes Cargo stuff, particularly: Either way, bad cargoholds aren't racial variety, they're simply obnoxious impediments Maybe I am being too timid. I actually re-wrote that part into 650, then 675, then scrapped the whole thing. Whilst I don't agree with the concept of an 'injector based battleship', I do think we suffer worse than anyone from poor cargoholds, and we invariably have them. I'll edit the main post a little. Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Heartbreak Harriet	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:16:00 - [46] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Hllaxiu With a resistance bonus, you can use a passive shield tank and still use the bonus, without using any capacitor. Dont forget that with a resistance bonus, you can mount no modules related to tanking at all, and your bonus is still effective. Aw, but flying around with a Dread Guristas boost amp wasting one of my slots (or in this case, a bonus) for no reason is so much fun! In all seriousness, yeah. Gallente have a similar problem with the MWD bonuses on the Hyperion and the Thorax, though, not to mention the Brutix's armor repper bonus. I think there comes a point when a ship bonus is maybe a little bit too specific. The main issue that I have with the Maelstrom is that it looks like it's designed for medium range, and everyone knows that Minmatar are total rubbish at mid-range. Having a durable ship solves one part of that problem, but Minmatar still need a weapon that will deal more damage than a wet sock. Even the damage of a wet sock with a cue ball inside of it would be sufficient compared to what they've got.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.07.31 15:22:00 - [47] Originally by: Heartbreak Harriet The main issue that I have with the Maelstrom is that it looks like it's designed for medium range, and everyone knows that Minmatar are total rubbish at mid-range. Also, like most MMOs, Eve is a game of extremes; you're either a 249km sniper, or you're a 20km close combateer. Mid range gimps you vs snipers, and gimps you vs those that get close. Much in the same way split-slot layouts gimp ships. I suppose we should be used to it by now. Hopefully the Maelstrom wont end up suffering this way, if this thread has indeed been read at all. Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Akiman	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:14:00 - [48] Edited by: Akiman on 31/07/2006 16:14:42 7 meds and 8 highs? fit 1 mwd 1 20k 1 cap booster x4 ecms 8 turrets cool to fit with cool pg with Rof uber damage drones for small targets make armor tank with 2 rep 3 hardener. who cares shield boost per second lol well thats new uber setup right?anybody? :P
Martyr 01 Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:19:00 - [49] I agree with testy 100% Make it so Mr. Tux
Tiuwaz Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:27:00 - [50] Originally by: Akiman Edited by: Akiman on 31/07/2006 16:14:42 7 meds and 8 highs? fit 1 mwd 1 20k 1 cap booster x4 ecms 8 turrets cool to fit with cool pg with Rof uber damage drones for small targets make armor tank with 2 rep 3 hardener. who cares shield boost per second lol well thats new uber setup right?anybody? :P 1.) A maelstrom would do about 6,25% more damage than tempest, this is not factoring in the 2 spare highlsots of the tempest (can fit nos, or missiles in which case tempest does more dps than mael). So i fail to see your Uber damage 2.) ECM are going to be changed/nerfed, so who knows if it will be still worth using them on non ecm ships (and definately shouldnt be the iwin button anymore that it is now) 3.) 2x armourtank with 2 adaptives + 1 damage control ( better than 3 hardeners tbh), leaves no room for gyro's (falling further behind the tempest in terms of damage) while at the same time ignoring half the ships bonuses my conclusion: lol? Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Akip Clone Army	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:28:00 - [51] Originally by: Testy Mctest Edited by: Testy Mctest on 31/07/2006 08:15:58 These changes would give the Maelstrom the following stats: Bonuses: 5% large projectile weapon rate of fire per level 7.5% shield boost amount per level Fitting CPU: 625 PG: 21000 HI-slots: 8 MID-slots: 7 LO-slots: 5 Turrets: 8 Launchers: 3 Structure HP: 5600 Capacity: 600 Drone capacity: 100 Mass: 117.000.000 Volume: 850.000 Max velocity: 115 Armor HP: 5600 EM/Exp/Kin/Ther: 70/10/25/35 Shield HP: 6800 Recharge time: 1500 EM/Exp/Kin/Ther: 0/60/40/20 Capacitor Capacity: 5000 Recharge time: 1000 Targeting Range: 82 Max locked targets: 8 Scan resolution: 90 LADAR strength: 21 Signature radius: 460 that is what I would like to see, it is resonable cheers Akip -------- Akip Your 720mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Watch Post, wrecking for 1557.5 damage.
Kazaam Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:56:00 - [52] Edited by: Kazaam on 31/07/2006 16:57:21 I don't think it needs another med slot imo. Don't forget that if the stats remain that way, it will have a built-it Shield Boster Amplifier I at BS 4, and like a built-in Gist B-Type Ampli at BS 5, which actually saves a slot. I personnally think Maelstrom's ed slot lay out is quite justified. My 2 isk. _________________________________________
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 16:59:00 - [53] Originally by: Kazaam Edited by: Kazaam on 31/07/2006 16:57:21 I don't think it needs another med slot imo. Don't forget that if the stats remain that way, it will have a built-it Shield Boster Amplifier I at BS 4, and like a built-in Gist B-Type Ampli at BS 5, which actually saves a slot. I personnally think Maelstrom's ed slot lay out is quite justified. My 2 isk. People are just comparing it to Rohk and feel it shouldnt be worse because its Minmatar and not Caldari. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Dixon	Posted - 2006.07.31 17:11:00 - [54] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Kazaam Edited by: Kazaam on 31/07/2006 16:57:21 I don't think it needs another med slot imo. Don't forget that if the stats remain that way, it will have a built-it Shield Boster Amplifier I at BS 4, and like a built-in Gist B-Type Ampli at BS 5, which actually saves a slot. I personnally think Maelstrom's ed slot lay out is quite justified. My 2 isk. People are just comparing it to Rohk and feel it shouldnt be worse because its Minmatar and not Caldari. Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Kazaam Edited by: Kazaam on 31/07/2006 16:57:21 I don't think it needs another med slot imo. Don't forget that if the stats remain that way, it will have a built-it Shield Boster Amplifier I at BS 4, and like a built-in Gist B-Type Ampli at BS 5, which actually saves a slot. I personnally think Maelstrom's ed slot lay out is quite justified. My 2 isk. People are just comparing it to Rohk and feel it shouldnt be worse because its Minmatar and not Caldari. Comparing ships 1v1 is an easy way to find unbalance. You could scrutinize almost every racial counterpart to find an unbalance in certain aspects. Comparing these two ships by range and passive tanking clearly favours the Rokh. Compare the two ships by damage dealt in the first minute of combat or by possible active tanking (and don't forget the Rokhs cap usage). Just stop trying to find unbalance everywhere you see Caldari. And please use actual non-fabricated numbers and not what you saw on those outdated tier 3 concepts.
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.07.31 17:12:00 - [55] Originally by: Kazaam Edited by: Kazaam on 31/07/2006 16:57:21 I don't think it needs another med slot imo. Don't forget that if the stats remain that way, it will have a built-it Shield Boster Amplifier I at BS 4, and like a built-in Gist B-Type Ampli at BS 5, which actually saves a slot. I personnally think Maelstrom's ed slot lay out is quite justified. My 2 isk. Agree with you mate ,now they should make the rohk a armor repair ship switch the meds for lows .
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2006.07.31 17:24:00 - [56] Edited by: Mila Prestoc on 31/07/2006 17:27:06 Testy, I think you need to point out that ECM/WCS/NOS are being looked at and will probably be changed before if not at the same time that this ship is introduced to stop people like the above poster (probably a couple of posts up by now) going "oh no! lots of mids + armour tank = uber". This ship has less damage than my tempest will (simple to work out since 8 AC turrets + 1 known bonus gives < than 6 AC turrests + ROF + DMG bonus's + 2x missiles. What should it get in return for being slower, less agile, bigger sig? A better tank please. A pests best armour tank is typically: 1x Large cap booster (named) 2x large reps T2 2x EANM T2 1x Damage control (named) (or 3x hardeners) thats 5 lows and a mid. 6 slots. With enough fitting left for 2x heavy nos or 2x seige along with MWD and tackling. Could also fit a plate for more HP or a gyro for more damage. Resists of 85/54/62/67. Reps do 71.1hp/sec each so 142.2hp/sec at a cost of 71.1cap/sec for both. Now for a Maelstrom. All of its modules that affect tanking besides the damage control go in mid slots as well as the cap booster which is the only mid slot item for the tempests tank. 2 reps = 1 booster but, propulsion, ew, and tacking go in mids so they have to compromise where armour tankers have to compromise damage mods. A standard T2 Large shield booster does 600hp per boost, with the 7.5% bonus at level 5 giving an increase of 37.5% the booster gives 825hp per boost. 5 Seconds per boost so 165hp/sec. 360 cap per boost means it costs 72cap/sec. Thats 23 more hp/sec than the Tempest for the same cap use. So with 7 mids and 2 of them taken that leaves 5 slots for: propulsion web warp jamming tanking. Not wanting a solo pawn mobile but to get same resists as a tempest it would take 2 T2 invulns (and a damage control in a low) leaving 3 slots for said propulsion, web and warp jamming. After fitting same caliber guns, AB and same tackling gear it leaves us with 88.25 CPU for 3 lows. If using a MWD it leaves 63.25 cpu for 3 low slots. I can not see anyway that this proposal is "overpowered" and it is quite reasonable when compared to the tier 2 ship. Slightly better tank than a Tempest for less speed and agility, along with a higher signature. For those who will say, "but what if it uses all its mids for tanking". Fitting a shield boost amp for an extra 30% boost gives 1072.5hp's per boost or 214.5hp/s. A couple of large T2 shield extenders adds 5k HP's, or a EM hardener (or 3rd invuln) with extender. That would leave around 50 CPU for 3 lows so could do 3x PDU's for more tank. Say it faces a Mega or Torp Raven, they can do 700+ DPS, against say 65% resists thats still more damage than this ship can boost while it having about the same damage as a Tempest without NOS (which fitting would lower its DPS lower than a Tempest and make fitting harder with CPU being tight). So its got a great tank, goes really slow and turns like a caldari ship, has to rely on others to tackle and to get it into range since we have to worry about range/tracking unlike caldari missile users. Testys/Team Minmatar's proposal looks solid, CPU limits the setups, can't fit super tank without smallest AC's. Fitting NOS which has much higher fitting than the highest tier AC lowers its DPS and its tank. Good Job Testy + TM. (I'll look at arty setups later) ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.31 17:25:00 - [57] Originally by: Kazaam Edited by: Kazaam on 31/07/2006 16:57:21 I don't think it needs another med slot imo. Don't forget that if the stats remain that way, it will have a built-it Shield Boster Amplifier I at BS 4, and like a built-in Gist B-Type Ampli at BS 5, which actually saves a slot. I personnally think Maelstrom's ed slot lay out is quite justified. My 2 isk. I personally think you are wrong. 8/6/6 would be a sorry excuse for a ship. Why? Because its a poor man's Fleet Tempest. The Fleet tempest would be a better choice in any situation and is significantly better at everything than the Maelstron for price increase that is justifiable by its versatility. The Machariel is also a better choice at 8/5/7 and anything less than those slottings for a Maelstrom makes it the utter rubbish battleship of the year reward candidate first choice. 8/7/5 is the best way to make it work. I think the bonus should be a damage bonus NOT RoF since its more beneficial to artillery and autocannons where as the RoF is really geared towards Autocannons. Fact is that the 8/6/6 setup Maelstrom is a bad ship design because it doesn't utilize its bonus efficently. If you think 7 bonuses are overpowered I only will point you into the direction of the rokh's 8 turrets and the fact that the Tempest is a cheeper, as much or more damage dealer at range than the Maelstrom as well as being quite at home in a AC or Arty platform. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Ath Amon	Posted - 2006.07.31 18:35:00 - [58] for me it could be even 8/8/4 and there will be nothing wrong or umbalanced to it. looking at rokh and mael i think that to be balanced mael should have 1 more tank slot than the caldari ship
Dray Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.31 19:29:00 - [59] Originally by: Boonaki Give it a 5% reduction in Large Remote Shield/Armor cycle time. As a caldari and minmatar spec'd pilot I've enjoyed this thread, and to be fair testy usually delivers the goods with well informed and researched argument. But fairs fair Boonaki's little gem here is p1ss your pants funny.
Grimpak Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.31 19:58:00 - [60] Originally by: Dray PS when will we expect to see these ships on the test server? 1st one to reply with soonÖ gets a cookie... since I don't want to get a cookie: "laterÖ" ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.