EVE Search - Sticky:[Carnyx] The Jackdaw

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Carnyx] The Jackdaw

» 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 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1208	Posted - 2015.05.18 13:32:21 - [301] - Quote It's a tough one, there are a lot of reasons for it being problematic not least the ability of smaller sized asb to carry so many charges) but also as you say, generally anything with an AB is going to laugh at all missile users because it's all about absolute velocity/sig. I reckon a gunboat and webs would have had a lot more success (and the vexor chew it up and spit it out). A lot of people overlook other dedicated frigate killing cruisers because the caracal is a no brainer "push F1 to win" and in fleets they're absolutely right. Solo, oft other ships are better. However more widely.....I dunno, the whole "food chain" seems all messed up these days with more and more hulls needing odd and weird (i.e. overly specific) fits to counter. Related to this there are too many examples of certain ships displacing the entire meta around them (garmurs, gilas, svipuls to name a few), if these ships didnt exist, other fits may have room to live and breath.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 538	Posted - 2015.05.18 13:49:17 - [302] - Quote What happened to Rise anyway? Aren't those ships his creation? I don't follow any CCP twitters Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1208	Posted - 2015.05.18 13:59:36 - [303] - Quote Don't know. I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings. But that seems to be just....dead in the water. I admit that may be rose tinted glasses/pipe dream (it's been a long time). However there is no denying that in the meta as she stands today, cruiser class hulls have no natural predators (which causes all sorts of nasty knock ons) and outlier hulls are punching FAR too high about their weight skewing the entire meta towards hulls that can either survive them or escape them (or most commonly, joining them). Gut feel suggests the entire cruiser tier needs hammered back into line and we see where we sit from there. Note I don't want to see them relegated to trash, just down a peg or five from "fly this size or go home". They're skewing everything: the game and peoples ideas/perceptions of "balance" when they see the alternates out there and compare it to cruiser class. I suppose one could buff the ass out of battlecruisers but that's just asking for more trouble than it is worth imo.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1045	Posted - 2015.05.18 14:39:16 - [304] - Quote afkalt wrote: Don't know. I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings. Should read Battleship>ABC>cruisers>destroyers>frigates>ABC. Take a 1v1 basis and show me the BS fitted for solo that loses to a single frig. In gangs, Muninn, Zealot, Ishtar and Caldari HACs easily escape that scheme, but they were tailored to do exactly that in larger numbers. Else, in a XvX scenario, BS would very likely still triumph over other choices, since your sig/movespeed barely matters once you're triplewebbed and the attackers are spread 15km away from each other, meaning you can only outrun the tracking of one at a time. It's the type of downsides they bring for big scales that dequalify them for doing what they'd supposed to be best at. Most people are godawful at flying BS, you see footage of people approaching T1 cruisers and shooting void instead of keeping range and a lot more oftenly I experience that, being shot by a bigger hull without any efforts by the pilot to minimize transversal. Then those usually come around BS are **** when they are just bad themselves actually. Talking fleets is obviously a completely different thing, with collective volley being as high as you wish (just write CTA to that ping) and bombers being as cheap/effective/efficient as they are. As it currently stands though, destroyers are arguably in the worst space out of all ships atm. They got poor tanks with the exception of overpropped+unwebbed T3Ds, huge sigs and are moving very slowly in general. Less adressing the base speed but their propped ones. The Talwar is the one viable destroyer - only due to its mwd-sigrad-bonus and acceptable speed for a LML boat with 70km range. Edit: I remember CCP Fozzie starting off the Cruiser revamp with First, we're increasing velocity by around 20% across the board. We actually wanted that. Now I've seen what cruisers with fair slot layouts and decent hull traits can accomplish, and I don't think all of those 20% were needed.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 538	Posted - 2015.05.18 14:58:37 - [305] - Quote FWIW one of the devs in days gone by said that the game was balanced around cruiser combat so with that in mind they will form the base of the pyramid. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1209	Posted - 2015.05.18 14:59:12 - [306] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: afkalt wrote: Don't know. I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings. Should read Battleship>ABC>cruisers>destroyers>frigates>ABC. Take a 1v1 basis and show me the BS fitted for solo that loses to a single frig. In gangs, Muninn, Zealot, Ishtar and Caldari HACs easily escape that scheme, but they were tailored to do exactly that in larger numbers. Else, in a XvX scenario, BS would very likely still triumph over other choices, since your sig/movespeed barely matters once you're triplewebbed and the attackers are spread 15km away from each other, meaning you can only outrun the tracking of one at a time. It's the type of downsides they bring for big scales that dequalify them for doing what they'd supposed to be best at. Most people are godawful at flying BS, you see footage of people approaching T1 cruisers and shooting void instead of keeping range and a lot more oftenly I experience that, being shot by a bigger hull without any efforts by the pilot to minimize transversal. Then those usually come around BS are ** when they are just bad themselves actually. Talking fleets is obviously a completely different thing, with collective volley being as high as you wish (just write CTA to that ping) and bombers being as cheap/effective/efficient as they are. As it currently stands though, destroyers are arguably in the worst space out of all ships atm. They got poor tanks with the exception of overpropped+unwebbed T3Ds, huge sigs and are moving very slowly in general. Less adressing the base speed but their propped ones. The Talwar is the one viable destroyer - only due to its mwd-sigrad-bonus and acceptable speed for a LML boat with 70km range. Yes I was generalizing hull size rather than specifics because T2's start messing things up if one gets too low level. 1v1 is a poor example, small gang is probably best as then we avoid running into alpha issues. The meta is currently set such that the best ratio of speed/dps/tank (in that order) is king and that's always coming down with cruisers. Certainly, there are BS comps cruisers will flee from (RR domis being a favourite), however without a strategic objective to force them to stay on field it's cruisers or bust. You can disengage from anything nasty you don't like (except a blob of frigs but blobs are blobs) and can kill well over your weight class (with exceptions noted). Even where you are forced on field, HACs do bad things to battleships (fair enough) with no real counterplay save "BRING MOOOOAR!" (not fair enough), range dictation/DPS dictation wins. Throwing logi in the mix and it gets even worse because the raw buffer matters less and the damage mitigation of small hull size makes all the difference and native resists are identical up the hull sizes and stacking penalties stop the bigger ships really doubling down hard on the resist front. This has actually only just hit me - does seem weird a logi is going to rep a Rokh as effectively as it will a Moa. Actually less so because Rokh takes more damage! Perhaps it's just me, but I just feel the cruiser sized hulls do too much, too well. ed: Caleb Seremshur wrote:** FWIW one of the devs in days gone by said that the game was balanced around cruiser combat so with that in mind they will form the base of the pyramid. Nothing wrong with that, but give them meaningful predators. Something that can hunt them. Get the Scissors back in rock, paper scissors.
Fourteen Maken The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Enemy Spotted. 160	Posted - 2015.05.18 15:26:01 - [307] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: As it currently stands though, destroyers are arguably in the worst space out of all ships atm. They got poor tanks with the exception of overpropped+unwebbed T3Ds, huge sigs and are moving very slowly in general. Less adressing the base speed but their propped ones. The Talwar is the one viable destroyer - only due to its mwd-sigrad-bonus and acceptable speed for a LML boat with 70km range. . Destroyers are seeing a lot of use in faction war low sec in specialized roles. The Talwar is probably one of the less common. If I were to put them in order it would be: 1: Algos. Used mostly solo in fw, sits on the warp in ready to tackle anything that comes in, buffed drones to deal with rats and push off kiters, can run small and medium plexes easy enough. 2: Thrasher. mostly instalocking arty fits, used both solo and in gangs. 3: Cormorant. Sniper corms used to defend fw plexes in gangs 4: Catalysts/Coercers. pointless fits used en masse to melt stuff before it can warp off 5: Talwars. MWD/LML fit obviously, mostly used in gangs 6: Coraxes. Sometimes used with ewar as a counter to some of the other long range destroyers 7: Dragoon. probably the tankiest of all destroyers, good dps, good cap warfare bonus, but I don't see them very often because they lack range control due to only having 2 mid slots and a low base speed, just like the punisher is rarely used in frigates despite having the best tank... Which is why the tank on the Jackdaw doesn't impress me, there are plenty of ships out there that can fit hella tank, but if they can't tackle and hold pont they're of limmited use no matter how big the tank is.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 538	Posted - 2015.05.18 15:30:48 - [308] - Quote Regarding RR setups that has as much to do with generating cap out of thin air and remote reps being more powerful and accessible than local reps. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 263	Posted - 2015.05.18 16:11:27 - [309] - Quote afkalt wrote: Don't know. I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings. But that seems to be just....dead in the water. I admit that may be rose tinted glasses/pipe dream (it's been a long time). However there is no denying that in the meta as she stands today, cruiser class hulls have no natural predators (which causes all sorts of nasty knock ons) and outlier hulls are punching FAR too high about their weight skewing the entire meta towards hulls that can either survive them or escape them (or most commonly, joining them). Gut feel suggests the entire cruiser tier needs hammered back into line and we see where we sit from there. Note I don't want to see them relegated to trash, just down a peg or five from "fly this size or go home". They're skewing everything: the game and peoples ideas/perceptions of "balance" when they see the alternates out there and compare it to cruiser class. I suppose one could buff the ass out of battlecruisers but that's just asking for more trouble than it is worth imo. The problem other than mordus and serp ships, was the balance pass for cruisers and frigates was far too generous and the balance pass for battleships was far too stingy. So power creep overwhelmingly benefitted medium and small ships beyond a sane point.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12782	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:02:59 - [310] - Quote Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI. We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out. Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) +1 Powergrid -50 Shield HP +50 Armor HP +10 Velocity +0.2 Inertia -50,000kg mass -25 scan resolution Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1209	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:11:25 - [311] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI. We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out. Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) +1 Powergrid -50 Shield HP +50 Armor HP +10 Velocity +0.2 Inertia -50,000kg mass -25 scan resolution It's be good if you could explain the rationale for these, I mean for example...scan res nerf? On what basis? I mean I'm not saying you're wrong to do so, but "instalocking" followed by delayed application weapon seems like complete a non-issue. Was there overwhelming feedback it locked too fast? It would really help the feedback process if we understood the whys and the what is being aimed for.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 693	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:21:31 - [312] - Quote So now it has a free small shield extender, which are widely regarded as not worth, making the large buffer and passive regen fits much more difficult to pull off, while getting a single point of PG, which does not do much to enable the fits which weren't abusing this bonus, while becoming less agile but faster overall with more effect from prop mods and a mass which now is less than that of several frigates despite being a size class above them? Then nerfing the scan res on top of this change? I'm glad to see the communities cry for a bit more PG and speed were heeded, but was the further mass reduction and agility change really necessary, especially with the massive cut in power of the HP bonus? Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1754	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:27:20 - [313] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) What? A flat HP bonus per level? And only 50? What is that? Its never been done for a reason! Flat bonuses are as far from the EVE philosophy as it can get. Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game, and it horribly scales for about any fitting. What good does 250 shield hp does on a destroyer? (fixed it) I also don't understand why you nerfed the scan-res, snd you didn't even up the speed by more than a negligible amount! If this destroyer has to be less tanky without being faster, what's the point of using it in the first place? Looks like there won't be any use for the Jackdaw, its literally a worse more expensive Caracal. Apart from the warp speed / probe launcher CPU bonus. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 694	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:28:50 - [314] - Quote Altrue wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) What? A flat HP bonus per level? And only 50? What is that? Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game, and it horribly scales for about any fitting. What good does 250 shield hp does on a frigate? Worse, on a destroyer. I could see 100Hp/lvl being a strong tank bonus which doesn't scale insanely with dual MSE or single LSE fits, but 50 is too weak to matter more than one good salvo. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Solarus Explorer The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate 6	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:33:35 - [315] - Quote Altrue wrote: Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game I have to agree with this sentiment....... +50hp/level is actually funny as a hull bonus :P Poor caldari, it seems they never get the better end of the stick :\|
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1164	Posted - 2015.05.18 17:49:18 - [316] - Quote a little bizarre .. why even bother with 250 hp? .. might aswell remove it .. maybe add a 5% exp velocity bonus still keeping the excessive 6 mids.. Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists. ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1754	Posted - 2015.05.18 18:04:55 - [317] - Quote Let's look at this objectively shall we? Comparison Caracal RML vs Jackdaw Light missiles All V, without heat / implants / links / anything Caracal vs Jackdaw : 37 751 vs 22 753 --- EHP 374 vs 154 --- dps (caldari navy both - Hobgoblin T2) 125 vs 146 --- dps over 60sec with reload taken into account. 1881 vs 1540 --- m/s (standard MWD) 7.44s vs 6.32s --- align time 1127m vs 541m --- sig radius 337,5 vs 343,75mm --- scan res 72,7 vs 42,1km --- missile range 3 vs 4.5 AU/s --- warp speed 25m vs ~75m --- price tag So of course the modes aren't taken into account here, so let's take a look at these: - Sharpshooter Mode : Your missiles go about as far as a Caracal's - Propulsion Mode : You finally manage to go about 2050m/s, which is a bit more than 10% faster than a Caracal. - Defense mode : 29k EHP and 357m sig radius instead. Definitely the only place where one could eventually consider that the Jackdaw really differs from the Caracal. 357 sig at 1540m/s is however enough for medium AND large guns to threaten you. Conclusion: For TRIPLE the price, you get a ship that's WORSE in most cases, or that has negligible bonuses, especially for (again) triple the price. The only real difference lies in the signature radius, but given how SLOW the ship is, and given that the jackdaw would still be over 350m, I really don't see how this could significantly improve its survivability. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1277	Posted - 2015.05.18 18:12:50 - [318] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Fergus Runkle wrote: Seriously, more powergrid required (unless of course you want to force people to fit rockets all the time?) 5 t2 lml with a t2 ab and you have 25.5pg left. Not enough to fit even the storyline MSE. The fitting downsides and compromises that need to be made are fairly awesome on this ship. While the jackdaw is certainly strong, it has it's terrible footprint to bear (high sig, low speed) and actually even with a mwd+nano, you're only looking at 2km/s cold in prop mode. I fooled around on SiSI yesterday to look for what seems like a comfort fit, and right now it's something like LML, 2MSE, point+web, fitting mods and more resists for about 18k ehp ingame. It's a little podla drake with combats. Pestilen Ratte wrote: Rantrantrant. Where did the evil svipul touch you? This is dead on. Even with perfect fitting skills it needs some fitting rig help to everything it needs. And it is slow. On the plus side, with a nano in the low, it aligns from full stop to warp in about 2 seconds. 3 seconds from the undock. I have no doubt what-so-ever that sub-2-second align times can be had. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1754	Posted - 2015.05.18 18:21:39 - [319] - Quote Soldarius wrote: I have no doubt what-so-ever that sub-2-second align times can be had. I have no doubt about how useless this is in any combat situation, and no doubt that I'd gadly trade it for speed instead The agility really is a poisonned gift, given the lack of speed and the really bad agility in other modes. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Zeb Horlock Rifterlings The WeHurt Initiative 2	Posted - 2015.05.18 18:50:14 - [320] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI. We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out. Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) +1 Powergrid -50 Shield HP +50 Armor HP +10 Velocity +0.2 Inertia -50,000kg mass -25 scan resolution Ok i'm going to suggest something kinda radical (and will probably be met with ire and forum chest beating) but it may allow for more interesting small gang fights and reduce its effectiveness in a solo situation. Instead of a 50HP shield per level make it a remote shield rep amount per level, something sane being as realistically your only going to have 1 slot available most times for the remote rep. depending on how impacting this is you can either keep the 6 mids or reduce it to 5 (i'll be honest, not entirely thought out the mids for this situation) This change would add an interesting twist on the Cal T3 dessie which would actually make an impact (unlike the 50hp/lvl) and would work well with other T3ds (not only other Jackdaws but also Svipuls and many other shield gangs) Yes i'm also well aware that this could also introduce a frigate/dessie sized tinker setup but really, that would also be more interesting than 50hp/lvl... Let the flames begin.

Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:04:54 - [321] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI. We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out. Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) Cool. Quote: +10 Velocity +0.2 Inertia -50,000kg mass 5MN MWD 0 Meta velocities: 170 * 1.25 (1 + (6.25 * (1,500,000 / (1,100,000 + 500,000))) = 1457 m/s and 1,664 m/s overheated, with 1,943 m/s 2,772 m/s overheated in Propulsion mode, mkay. Align times into warp: -in(0.25) * 1,100,000 * 6.6 * 0.9 * 0.75 / 1,000,000 = 6.79 seconds vs 6.28 previously, and Prop's new 2.26 seconds vs 2.1 sec. Faster, less agile in all cases. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°) // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 263	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:08:18 - [322] - Quote Altrue wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game, and it horribly scales for about any fitting. What good does 250 shield hp does on a destroyer? (fixed it) Buffs the shield HP by about 33%. Jeez are you people's calculators broken? Thanks to your whining his shield HP role bonus went from 50% to 33% gratz Oh and now instead of scaling with extenders it now will only scale with resists. I liked it before.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:10:26 - [323] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Altrue wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) What? A flat HP bonus per level? And only 50? What is that? Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game, and it horribly scales for about any fitting. What good does 250 shield hp does on a frigate? Worse, on a destroyer. I could see 100Hp/lvl being a strong tank bonus which doesn't scale insanely with dual MSE or single LSE fits, but 50 is too weak to matter more than one good salvo. Well, with the base shield being 850 hp * 1.25 Skills = 1,062 hp + 250 hp from the bonus = 1,312 hp. With a 5% hp per level one it would have been 1,062 * 1.25 = 1327 hp. Reasonable as is. Another example, 1,062 hp + 1,050 from MSE II * 1.25 = 2,640 hp. 1,062 hp + 1,050 + 250 hp = 2,362 hp. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12784	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:25:14 - [324] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI. We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out. Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) Cool. Quote: +10 Velocity +0.2 Inertia -50,000kg mass 5MN MWD 0 Meta velocities: 170 * 1.25 (1 + (6.25 * (1,500,000 / (1,100,000 + 500,000))) = 1457 m/s and 1,664 m/s overheated, with 1,943 m/s 2,772 m/s overheated in Propulsion mode, mkay. Align times into warp: -in(0.25) * 1,100,000 * 6.6 * 0.9 * 0.75 / 1,000,000 = 6.79 seconds vs 6.28 previously, and Prop's new 2.26 seconds vs 2.1 sec. Faster, less agile in all cases. ( -á° -ƒ-û -í°) You added 50,000kg mass instead of removing it. It's both faster and more agile after these changes. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 645	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:26:46 - [325] - Quote Apologies. I'll update current post. 1,540 m/s / 2,204 overheated and 2,053 / 2,938 m/s OH in Propulsion mode. Align time then is 6.17 and 2.06 seconds respectively. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 539	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:33:57 - [326] - Quote Jackdaw -Free Small Shield Extender II at Caldari Tactical Destroyer 5. I don't think this bonus feels all that good, The Jackdaw is the only (current) tactical destroyer with a tank bonus on the ship per level bonuses. Perhaps a more niche (but useful) replacement could be used instead like an ECCM bonus or something? I think this is needed to balance it, but it is probably the worst ship per level bonus in the game, perhaps excluding the Helios' thermal drone per level bonus. Otherwise, I think you've done a great job with the preliminary balancing. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Desiderya Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade 971	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:39:07 - [327] - Quote I can see the %bonus to be problematic on this ship but the 50/level bonus seems to be quite low. When it comes to multi-extender fit the only thing I see is that this should lead to a significant signature, which is, in many situations, quite a downside making these extra ehp questionable. Edit: I like the idea about not bothering with 250 hp and taking an electronics (range/sensor) bonus on board. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 540	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:47:10 - [328] - Quote A small niche bonus like 5% to sensor strength per level would be pretty 'cool' and more useful than the 50HP shield bonus Jackdaw base is 15 (x1.2) (18 at all level 5) (36 while in sharpshooter mode) If it had 5% per level ECCM it would have 22.5 at level 5, and 45 while in sharpshooter mode. Definitely not going to break anything but would be cool bonus that isn't completely negligible. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12784	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:51:07 - [329] - Quote Yeah the 50 per level bonus is intentionally one of the weaker ship bonuses, to keep the rest of the package balanced. I am open to considering other bonuses like the ECCM one, and I'm interested in other ideas you folks have for bonuses that don't have a huge impact on the ship power level while remaining flavourful for Caldari. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Pharill An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE 15	Posted - 2015.05.18 19:54:37 - [330] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI. We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out. Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders) +1 Powergrid -50 Shield HP +50 Armor HP +10 Velocity +0.2 Inertia -50,000kg mass -25 scan resolution If you want to give this ship a tank bonus then give it a real tank bonus. If not then drop it. 50hp per level is one of the biggest jokes of a bonus I have ever seen.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,63s, ref 20241222/1751
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.