EVE Search - Barghest

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Barghest

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4014	Posted - 2014.12.06 22:46:23 - [1] - Quote This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest. 1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space). 2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability. 3. Reduce it (and the other Mordus Legion ships) in size by about 35-50%. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 19	Posted - 2014.12.07 00:22:50 - [2] - Quote I'm aware that the Garmur and Orthrus are incredibly vicious in kiting pvp (they need to be bling fit to achieve this but point stands) however I know next to nothing about the barghest - I'll need to wait until the more in-the-know people in my corp try them. With regard to the size decrease, do you mean the radius of the collision sphere, the sig radius or what? Because I don't feel the Orthrus and Garmur need any buffs. Sure, it's nice to have a strong shield/missile hull, which seem to be under represented in the PvP scene, but I don't want something blatantly, over-the-top strong.
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 208	Posted - 2014.12.07 00:47:30 - [3] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: I'm aware that the Garmur and Orthrus are incredibly vicious in kiting pvp (they need to be bling fit to achieve this but point stands) however I know next to nothing about the barghest - I'll need to wait until the more in-the-know people in my corp try them. With regard to the size decrease, do you mean the radius of the collision sphere, the sig radius or what? Because I don't feel the Orthrus and Garmur need any buffs. Sure, it's nice to have a strong shield/missile hull, which seem to be under represented in the PvP scene, but I don't want something blatantly, over-the-top strong. I wouldn't really be over-the-top strong even with these changes. The barghest is a missile using battleship and will always suffer in pvp. Battleships don't tank well relative to the kind of damage that they take and battleship sized weapons, and in particular missiles, apply DPS so poorly that they end up doing less damage to a cruiser than a cruiser. They're too slow to kite and too expensive relative to their benefits to whelp.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4014	Posted - 2014.12.07 00:56:45 - [4] - Quote Aran Hotchkiss wrote: With regard to the size decrease, do you mean the radius of the collision sphere, the sig radius or what? Because I don't feel the Orthrus and Garmur need any buffs. Sure, it's nice to have a strong shield/missile hull, which seem to be under represented in the PvP scene, but I don't want something blatantly, over-the-top strong. Sorry, I was just referring to the physical model sizes in-game (which could be reduced a bit): Barghest - 1757m length (Chiimera carrier is 2574m for comparison) Orthrus - 607m length (Drake battlecruiser is 534m for comparison) The Garmur at 105m in length is already an appropriate size. I'd like to see the Barghest at around 1171m and Orthrus at 404m, as they just seem oversized for a battleship and cruiser. Bullet Therapist wrote: It wouldn't really be over-the-top strong even with these changes. That was kind of the overall idea - just a few minor tweaks to help it apply damage better, essentially. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Foxstar Damaskeenus Soul Takers 247	Posted - 2014.12.07 01:02:46 - [5] - Quote The Bhargest looks like a carrier undocking. I agree it's too big. Satan's Frying Pan, Pancake Supreme, Spatula. Intergalactic grilling tool monstrosity. No changes to skill points EVER!!!
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4014	Posted - 2014.12.07 01:26:42 - [6] - Quote Foxstar Damaskeenus wrote: The Bhargest looks like a carrier undocking. I agree it's too big. Satan's Frying Pan, Pancake Supreme, Spatula. Intergalactic grilling tool monstrosity. Satan's Frying Pan - good one. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Aran Hotchkiss Phoibe Enterprises 19	Posted - 2014.12.07 01:28:08 - [7] - Quote Personally I'd agree with the changes, as the barghest seems lacklustre, however I used to think that of the Orthrus and have been proven wrong since. With regard to improving the dps (minorly) and likewise to application, the general opinion on missiles seems to be while their projection is good, their application tends to be awful, an that's ignoring their dps and more consistent damage than turrets
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2036	Posted - 2014.12.07 04:16:21 - [8] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: 1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space). Howabout just increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so it's actually bigger than destroyers? I think battleship cargoholds should be doubled to be more like marauder cargoholds, while cruiser and battlecruiser should be increased by 25-50%. A combat ship should be able to hold more than just ammo unless it's stocked up for an extended siege. Not even being able to hold enough ammo of one type for an extended siege is ridiculous. Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4016	Posted - 2014.12.07 07:36:29 - [9] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Howabout just increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so it's actually bigger than destroyers? I think battleship cargoholds should be doubled to be more like marauder cargoholds, while cruiser and battlecruiser should be increased by 25-50%. A combat ship should be able to hold more than just ammo unless it's stocked up for an extended siege. Not even being able to hold enough ammo of one type for an extended siege is ridiculous. Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty. I wouldn't even know where to begin with cargohold changes, as I suspect tweaking these would have far-reaching ramifications. I'm mainly after the slight damage increase and extra mid slot. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 71	Posted - 2014.12.07 17:59:11 - [10] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest. 1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space). 2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability. 3. Reduce it (and the other Mordus Legion ships) in size by about 35-50%. The disclaimer first. All of this information is based on a PvE fit, I will leave it to those with PvP experience to determine how these changes would affect the ship in that environment. All I can say is when does this happen, I can't wait for a lvl 4 ship with almost 1800 dps output and over 1500 dps tank,m damn that would make running mission even easier than it is now. Next up is a correction, the Barghest has 8 high slots, 7 of them can hold launchers so this makes me wonder how much you really know about this ship. If you want to increase that to 8 launchers then even I say no way. Your estimation of a 2.85% increase in damage is way off base. Since the Barghest gets no bonuses to damage adding a 10% per level would yield a huge increase. My mission fit would rise from 1,105 dps with tech 2 high damage cruise missiles to 1779 dps with those same missiles that is an increase of about 60%. So like I said when does this happen, then it would be even better for missions than the Golem or Rattlesnake.

Arthur Aihaken X A X 4017	Posted - 2014.12.07 18:03:19 - [11] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: The disclaimer first. All of this information is based on a PvE fit, I will leave it to those with PvP experience to determine how these changes would affect the ship in that environment. All I can say is when does this happen, I can't wait for a lvl 4 ship with almost 1800 dps output and over 1500 dps tank,m damn that would make running mission even easier than it is now. Next up is a correction, the Barghest has 8 high slots, 7 of them can hold launchers so this makes me wonder how much you really know about this ship. If you want to increase that to 8 launchers then even I say no way. Your estimation of a 2.85% increase in damage is way off base. Since the Barghest gets no bonuses to damage adding a 10% per level would yield a huge increase. My mission fit would rise from 1,105 dps with tech 2 high damage cruise missiles to 1779 dps with those same missiles that is an increase of about 60%. So like I said when does this happen, then it would be even better for missions than the Golem or Rattlesnake. I think you may have misread the original proposal, which was to remove one launcher (-1), one high slot (-1), add one mid slot (+1) and change the damage bonus from 5% per level to 10% per level. 7 launchers x 25% = 8.75 launchers equivalent; 6 launchers x 50% = 9.0 launchers equivalent, or a +2.857% overall damage increase. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 71	Posted - 2014.12.07 21:59:26 - [12] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I think you may have misread the original proposal, which was to remove one launcher (-1), one high slot (-1), add one mid slot (+1) and change the damage bonus from 5% per level to 10% per level. 7 launchers x 25% = 8.75 launchers equivalent; 6 launchers x 50% = 9.0 launchers equivalent, or a +2.857% overall damage increase. The extra mid slot puts it on par with most shield-based ships in terms of tank or modules to improve damage application. Whoops my bad I did miss that, forget everything I posted.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4017	Posted - 2014.12.07 22:10:17 - [13] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Whoops my bad I did miss that, forget everything I posted. No worries man. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Catherine Laartii Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF 433	Posted - 2014.12.07 22:19:14 - [14] - Quote I support this, since seeing more faction battleships that aren't sh*t like the Nestor is a good thing. Not sure how i feel about the size-reduction; mass-wise it ends up being a bit smaller than a lot of battleships; it's just a bit more spread out. It's a fairly unique design reminiscent of current modern stealth ships, which I think is a good aesthetic.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises 13432	Posted - 2014.12.07 23:18:30 - [15] - Quote I support everything except the size change- the size of the Barghest makes it really attractive to me- if it were only the length of a normal sized battleship, think about how thin it would be. Size is cosmetic, but I would really love the rest of the suggested changes. A City made of Wood is built in the forest A City made of Stone is built in the mountains But a City made of Dreams...is built in heaven. Jovian Proverb GÖâ
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1754	Posted - 2014.12.08 00:09:13 - [16] - Quote Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote: I support everything except the size change- the size of the Barghest makes it really attractive to me- if it were only the length of a normal sized battleship, think about how thin it would be. Size is cosmetic, but I would really love the rest of the suggested changes. Size is not just cosmetic, it has significant effects on bumping, & therefore on fleets. There is no reason for the Barghest to be that much bigger than the rest of the BS's. Especially when it is wide as well.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4018	Posted - 2014.12.08 00:16:34 - [17] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: I support this, since seeing more faction battleships that aren't sht like the Nestor is a good thing. Not sure how i feel about the size-reduction; mass-wise it ends up being a bit smaller than a lot of battleships; it's just a bit more spread out. It's a fairly unique design reminiscent of current modern stealth ships, which I think is a good aesthetic. I'm just interested in physical size reduction to 2/3 of current length, or roughly 1200m. It makes it a bit larger than a Raven or Scorpion, but obviously thinner. Right now the current size is a bit of an issue on undock or flying in groups. Nevyn Auscent wrote:* Size is not just cosmetic, it has significant effects on bumping, & therefore on fleets. There is no reason for the Barghest to be that much bigger than the rest of the BS's. Especially when it is wide as well. Exactly. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Morrigan LeSante Senex Legio 676	Posted - 2014.12.08 00:19:06 - [18] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Howabout just increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so it's actually bigger than destroyers? I think battleship cargoholds should be doubled to be more like marauder cargoholds, while cruiser and battlecruiser should be increased by 25-50%. A combat ship should be able to hold more than just ammo unless it's stocked up for an extended siege. Not even being able to hold enough ammo of one type for an extended siege is ridiculous. Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty. I wouldn't even know where to begin with cargohold changes, as I suspect tweaking these would have far-reaching ramifications. I'm mainly after the slight damage increase and extra mid slot. They would. Cap booster charges are massive for a reason.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4018	Posted - 2014.12.08 00:22:07 - [19] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: They would. Cap booster charges are massive for a reason. Probably a topic for another day then. This was intended to be fairly specific to just the Barghest, as out of the three Mordus Legion ships it's currently the most lacking. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tabyll Altol Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two 57	Posted - 2014.12.08 15:31:54 - [20] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest. 1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space). 2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability. 3. Reduce the physical size of the Barghest to approximately 1200m in length. I never heared of the ship being to weak, most times i heared the oposite site complaining that its very strong. So no help from me. -1

Twisted Chick 32	Posted - 2014.12.08 18:34:39 - [21] - Quote I actually wouldn't mind this, But I can't really give my two isk about it for PVP due to me using it to run Missions. : / [b]Title: She who hunts Pandas I Heard there was Pandas around here? You have Pandas? Give me your Pandas. [/b]
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2042	Posted - 2014.12.10 09:04:06 - [22] - Quote Morrigan LeSante wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Worried it'll turn armor BCs and BSs into dedicated haulers? That's yet another reason cargo expansion should have a stacking penalty. I wouldn't even know where to begin with cargohold changes, as I suspect tweaking these would have far-reaching ramifications. I'm mainly after the slight damage increase and extra mid slot. They would. Cap booster charges are massive for a reason. And they're out of balance. As it stands, a destroyer can reload its ancillary shield booster about 25 times, a battlecruiser not even ten times, and a battleship is lucky to fit more than four reloads. And that's not considering space for ammo. I submit that due to cap booster charge sizes, medium and large ship cargoholds NEED to be increased. Arthur Aihaken wrote: Probably a topic for another day then. This was intended to be fairly specific to just the Barghest, as out of the three Mordus Legion ships it's currently the most lacking. That's because it's the biggest one. It probably runs out of cargohold space very quickly, especially as it's supposed to be a kiting ship. I think making battleship cargoholds bigger really is a huge step toward fixing this and many other problems they have. If the Barghest still has too little powergrid and/or CPU, then it seems reasonable to either buff that or reduce the number of weapons it needs to fit. It's still a good cruise missile sniper, though, even if it can't skirmish that well. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 365	Posted - 2014.12.10 09:56:46 - [23] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: If the Barghest still has too little powergrid and/or CPU, then it seems reasonable to either buff that or reduce the number of weapons it needs to fit. It's still a good cruise missile sniper, though, even if it can't skirmish that well. If we had a mid-long range battleship based meta, the bhargest would be king. Unfortunately, the most dominant meta is N+1 medium rail platforms of choice and bombers backed by capital escalation for large fights, and frigate and t1 cruisers for most of the smaller fights in k-space, which means that they would be trying to compete on speed with cruisers or frigates and that just doesn't end well. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2042	Posted - 2014.12.10 10:04:58 - [24] - Quote What happened to the blap-everything-that-moves Maelstrom meta? Maelstroms haven't been nerfed (other than the battleship mobility nerf). Shield fleets are still used. Why doesn't anyone use Maelstroms anymore? Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4025	Posted - 2014.12.10 20:35:45 - [25] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: If the Barghest still has too little powergrid and/or CPU, then it seems reasonable to either buff that or reduce the number of weapons it needs to fit. It's still a good cruise missile sniper, though, even if it can't skirmish that well. CPU and power grid are fine; it just needs a slight damage buff and the additional mid (in lieu of a high and launcher). Reaver Glitterstim wrote: What happened to the blap-everything-that-moves Maelstrom meta? Maelstroms haven't been nerfed (other than the battleship mobility nerf). Shield fleets are still used. Why doesn't anyone use Maelstroms anymore? Tengus? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 866	Posted - 2014.12.10 20:56:56 - [26] - Quote Don't shrink the Barghest. It's the L A T E R A L to balance out the V E R T I C A L of the Naglfar. (Kidding aside, yeah, if it's physical model is that much bigger than other battleships, I can see that being an issue in tight spaces.) CCP Falcon's thoughts on suicide ganking. Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I want to create content, not become content.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 681	Posted - 2014.12.10 21:18:50 - [27] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: What happened to the blap-everything-that-moves Maelstrom meta? Maelstroms haven't been nerfed (other than the battleship mobility nerf). Shield fleets are still used. Why doesn't anyone use Maelstroms anymore? Bombs. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 283	Posted - 2014.12.11 03:44:23 - [28] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: This is a condensed post with a straightforward proposal to address some shortcomings with the Barghest. 1. Increase the damage to 10% per level (+50%), reduce the number of launchers to 6 and the number of high slots to 7. This is only a +2.85% increase in overall damage and a 14.3% reduction in ammunition expenditure (missiles take up the most munitions space). 2. Increase the number of mid slots to 7. The Barghest receives no shield resistance or damage application bonuses, so this gives it the ability to either slightly improve defensive or offensive capability. 3. Reduce the physical size of the Barghest to approximately 1200m in length. I never heared of the ship being to weak, most times i heared the oposite site complaining that its very strong. So no help from me. -1 Funny, I've heard people say the Garmur is good (some even say too good), I've heard a few comment they like the Othorus but all I've heard about the barghest is, don't waste your isk on it My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care


Pages: [1] :: 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.