|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1972
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 17:36:14 -
[1] - Quote
Home run.
+10000 |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1972
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 17:44:08 -
[2] - Quote
I would echo the sentiments to trade the missile hull bonuses to an expl radius buff rather than range.
Range works on guns as application, but not missiles. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1972
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 18:24:48 -
[3] - Quote
Last thing I can think of just now, ferox could stand even more lock range with the scale of those range bonuses on the guns. Another 15-25 would be good. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1973
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 19:41:03 -
[4] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:"I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out."
Yeah no, I'm sorry but this is just bullshit. Damage specific bonuses aren't a "useful tool".
No they're not.
They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type.
He meant a useful tool for the devs to differentiate ships, not for the players. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1975
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:48:16 -
[5] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lucius Exitius wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Malcanis wrote:They just suck, particularly when the damage lock is on such a poor damage type, in fact arguably the worst damage type. Just to play devil's advocate: if kinetic is the worst damage type, then if the Drake had a flat bonus then nobody would ever load Scourge, right? Why would you opt to fire into a resist wall? So what the Kinetic "lock" actually does is counter the fact that so many ships have high kinetic resists, making Scourge a viable and even desirable option as ammunition. Well, that is actually a very good point. It makes a lot of sense. "The Drake does normal subpar when application is considered, damage for it's class when firing Kinetic missiles, and 2/3 as much when firing anything else. Can't you see why this is actually a good thing for the Drake???"
Fixed.
Make the missile speed bonus an application one please. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1975
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:49:37 -
[6] - Quote
Hengle Teron wrote:Funny, but the navy Cane is the only ship getting decreased base damage.
Barely, it has 2x5% bonuses today, vs 1x10% tomorrow. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1975
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:49:45 -
[7] - Quote
Hengle Teron wrote:afkalt wrote:Hengle Teron wrote:Funny, but the navy Cane is the only ship getting decreased base damage. Barely, it has 2x5% bonuses today, vs 1x10% tomorrow. No, it has dps of 10 turrets today and 9 turrets tomorrow.
So...barely then.
And the applied damage bonuses will likely make up for it by allowing more dmaage further out to faster targets. There is more to eve than paper. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1986
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 08:24:10 -
[8] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:I know that normally I only really comment on the big meta issues etc. Real life is a pain like that, growing up has proven to be vastly overrated. However, in this instance I think a simple fact from the hard data in the opening dev post needs pointed out.
1. The Brutix constitutes a very small portion of the total jumps taken by BCs. 2. The Brutix, and its navy counterpart, are both second for damage dealt.
Conclusion: The Brutix is made of pain. ~Gallente4lyfe~
Alternate postulation: The brutix is a common suicide ship which never actually makes a jump on it's first, and final flight but racks up damage regardless. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1986
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 08:25:17 -
[9] - Quote
Solarus Explorer wrote:I'm surprised that the usage data on the cyclone was pushed aside, and said that it was being simply underestimated. As someone in this thread already pointed out, eve players aren't min/maxers one second and complete noobs the other.
The cyclone is POOR at what it does, and needs a serious relook.
Actually the hull isn't the problem, it's the weapons. Slap a Eplx radius bonus on that hull and....daaaaaamn |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1986
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 10:44:16 -
[10] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Not sure if anyone else has spoken about the Cyclone yet but I find the ship extremely frustrating.
One of the low slots in a Cyclone essentially has a Co-Processor welded in it. This is extremely annoying. I can't find any effective fit (which isn't armour tanked - yes you can armour tank a Cyclone. It's not bad) which doesn't require that co-processor.
I would approve of the cyclone receiving a heavy buff to CPU and moving a low slot to a mid (I would shed a tear for losing the armour tank option but I think it is worth it).
The reasons for this are that I simply find that the Cyclone does not have enough mid slots. A CBC really needs to fit both a prop mod and a MJD to be effective. The cyclone then needs to squeeze in a shield booster and a scram and web along with an invul field to be 100% effective. It needs that extra mid.
Also, in order to use a MJD aggressively, CBC's require the ability to lock a target at 100km. Minmatar CBC's literally can not do this effectively. Other racial CBC's can, even with a slight fitting tweak. This is a "must buff" for me. I am shocked that you have to use a fitting mod to fit an oversized module to a ship. Not in my Eve!
The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises.
Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons.
Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1986
|
Posted - 2015.09.12 11:03:28 -
[11] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:afkalt wrote:
The problem is (as I've said countless times - not aimed at you specifically, I just have) that as a missile hull I CANNOT downsize my weapons to make compromises.
Example: I want a 1600mm plate on a hurricane - So I stick dual 180mm weapons on instead of 425. My brutix can drop to ion/electrons.
Missiles have NO downsizing within a class, this means they have much less in the way of options when it comes to fitting and compromises.
His point was that you are oversizing your shield booster rather than using the actual one for BC's size. Just because oversizing plates & boosters is common does not make it required.
And mines is that missiles are the only weapon system harshly penalized because they don't have the options all others do for their weapon fittings. Therefore those are the only ships forced into fitting mods, or just not bothering.
Downsizing from 425 to 220 or 180 is a far smaller hit than losing a BCU for a fitting mod, for example. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2062
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 20:46:48 -
[12] - Quote
Cyclone could do with a bit of a bigger bay, if you're expecting us to carry 4-12 ammo types AND cap charges.
OR....balance the cap charges sizing a little. |
|
|
|