Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2653
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 19:23:02 -
[1] - Quote
Currently gate guns track like a beast and hit pretty hard. If you're a frigate, this means nearly instant death. For a cruiser, you probably don't want to stick around long. A single battleship can tank all 8 of them all day long without breaking a sweat if it's built for self-repping. And capital ships can very nearly tank them with just shield hardeners and base shield regen.
I'd like to see it be more possible for frigates to fight illegally on gates--not just as easy as larger ships, but not so much with certain death. Likewise, I'd like to see the heat turned up a bit on larger ships. Here's my plan:
Make the 8 guns into 4 types: small, medium, large, and extra-large. Each one is very easily able to track its size class ship but may have difficulty with anything smaller. A frigate would then only have to deal with the two weakest gate guns, and if it makes a tight orbit on one of them, it may only get hit by the other. No matter what, a lone frigate will be taking good hits from at least one gun because they're so far apart, but if it's remaining mobile, not necessarily more than two. A battleship wouldn't just be able to sit all alone and tank the guns, but a small group of battleships with logi support could do it. And a capital ship might take heavy damage, though it doesn't matter as much because nobody uses capital ships to gank on gates anyway. Another cool use for the XL guns would be either watching naive pilots sitting still, or using webs and paints to make ships get hit by XL.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
487
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 20:26:02 -
[2] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Currently gate guns track like a beast and hit pretty hard.
From all the times I've done gate pvp, I feel like they don't hit worth s**t
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
460
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 21:02:41 -
[3] - Quote
Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward?
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2555
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 22:40:41 -
[4] - Quote
Or you could just use a bigger ship? Gate camps give you ambushes on whoever comes through the gate, yes they could use a 'scout' but you then ambush the scout. Even a good scout has some chance of getting done by a decent gate camp, so they are 'scouting' by sacrificing ships to your killboard either way. So put something at risk for your easy kills. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1777
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 07:53:09 -
[5] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward?
This is precisely the point of gate guns. Yet another swing and a miss, OP.
If someone wants to sit on a low sec gate in a battleship or Capital ship: Good! That's great content.
A horde of Interceptors camping the same gate and murdering everything they can and running away from everything they cannot is bad content.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2067
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 08:02:44 -
[6] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ix Method wrote:Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward? This is precisely the point of gate guns. Yet another swing and a miss, OP. If someone wants to sit on a low sec gate in a battleship or Capital ship: Good! That's great content. A horde of Interceptors camping the same gate and murdering everything they can and running away from everything they cannot is bad content.
Not empty quoting.
If you make instant locking more viable/less expensive, you make it too easy to choke people out of lowsec. It's not healthy; travel breeds content. |
Christopher Multsanti
Bluestar Airlines
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 08:17:43 -
[7] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ix Method wrote:Isn't the whole point of gate guns to make using cheap, fast locking tackle awkward? This is precisely the point of gate guns. Yet another swing and a miss, OP. If someone wants to sit on a low sec gate in a battleship or Capital ship: Good! That's great content. A horde of Interceptors camping the same gate and murdering everything they can and running away from everything they cannot is bad content.
I'm not going to dispute what you're saying exactly but have you got a source on this? Low sec gate guns were designed a long long time ago. And it seems their design is a bit more slap dash than the explanation you have given.
Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?
Pirating in 2005
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
518
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 08:48:20 -
[8] - Quote
IIRC a low sec gate only has 2 guns....
And its pretty easy to tank them with a bit of logi, even in a minimally tanked interceptor.
The Law is a point of View
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
464
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 08:55:38 -
[9] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference? Cost and convenience.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1779
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 09:11:59 -
[10] - Quote
Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?
Citation needed.
Even with five T2 Remote Sensor Boosters with scan resolution scripts, there is no way you are getting a Battleship to lock as fast as an Interceptor. At some point, server ticks come into play, so you reach a point where a Battleship can lock larger targets fast enough that it doesn't matter, but that is only against larger targets (which would have been caught anyway).
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1779
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 09:13:36 -
[11] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference? Cost and convenience.
And the all important fact that someone else has a good chance of catching and killing you. Eve is pretty much designed to introduce you to the bigger fish in the pond the instant you start thinking you are the biggest fish in the pond. Put a battleship on a gate anywhere near a competent, active PVP group and you'll see why it's not that common.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2068
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 09:45:30 -
[12] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?
Citation needed. Even with five T2 Remote Sensor Boosters with scan resolution scripts, there is no way you are getting a Battleship to lock as fast as an Interceptor. At some point, server ticks come into play, so you reach a point where a Battleship can lock larger targets fast enough that it doesn't matter, but that is only against larger targets (which would have been caught anyway).
Even if they could, battleships cannot hope to successfully disengage if a large fleet materializes on the other side of the gate. |
Christopher Multsanti
Bluestar Airlines
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 10:03:19 -
[13] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Christopher Multsanti wrote:
Besides when you have camping BS that can (with remote boosters) lock nearly as quickly as interceptors then whats the difference?
Citation needed. Even with five T2 Remote Sensor Boosters with scan resolution scripts, there is no way you are getting a Battleship to lock as fast as an Interceptor. At some point, server ticks come into play, so you reach a point where a Battleship can lock larger targets fast enough that it doesn't matter, but that is only against larger targets (which would have been caught anyway).
I said nearly, but a BS can lock a cruiser in roughly 3.5 secs with remote sensor boosting. Which is quick enough to catch everything cruiser and above.
A thorax with the same boosts will catch destroyers and above so you know only thing getting away from a good low sec gate camp is intys and probably frigs.
Pirating in 2005
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1073
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 10:28:35 -
[14] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Even if they could, battleships cannot hope to successfully disengage if a large fleet materializes on the other side of the gate. Which is kinda the point. You either risk a big ship, or you make a setup that can deal with guns, or you go to nullsec for camping.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2292
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 12:45:51 -
[15] - Quote
Use assault frigate with T1 cruiser logi support and your frigs will stay on grid under gate gun. Frig logi can stay a little while but not forever even with reps iirc.
With a prelock from logi, an interceptor can be used to get the first point which would keep your target on grid long enough for other ship to get a harder point. Then they GTFO because reps won't hold more than a few seconds but it still works. |
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:54:20 -
[16] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: A single battleship can tank all 8 of them.
I have yet to find a lowsec system with more than 2 guns per beacon, your 8 seems like a fortune :P
Also dont fix whats not broken |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1417
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:49:22 -
[17] - Quote
I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.
Just one per gate and station.
You have all these wonderful POS modules. Gates and stations should use more than just the 1 type. Sprinkle some excitement around. Heck, add a jam on caldari gates, web on minny gates, neut for amarr and damp for gallente. The scram and racial bonus pain could come right from the gate or station - no need to float an additional module in space. |
Mag's
the united
20349
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:37:14 -
[18] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.
Just one per gate and station. How is that an improvement? Or are we back to the same old adage?
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1419
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 12:35:41 -
[19] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.
Just one per gate and station. How is that an improvement? Or are we back to the same old adage?
It's about commitment. It may actually end some of the docking ring heros. I'm all for anything that kicks a docking ring pvp master in the nutz. It's about taking some risk aversion (deagress option) out of the game. I'm for playing eve in hard mode. You seem to be so nerf averse (giggle - you know that's funny) you sometimes put things in the wrong box. I'm not trying to nerf pvp, I'm trying to make risk averse docking games less of a thing. I'd like to point out that I didn't say the scram targeted ebil pirates. It targets agression. It could grab anyone that is fighting withing it's range. Equal opportunity.
I like commitment, I dislike docking during a fight. Just imagine the amount of docking ring carriers that would perish because they no longer had enough raw hitpoints to deagress everything but a cyno blob. Getting rid of low sex unkillable docking ring carrier crap and/or the need for a massive cyno blob to kill said carrier isn't going to make eve pvp worse.
As for the racial hoo haw - I think that would just add a bit of fun to gate/station fights.
We may not agree on details, but I'm not the bad guy here. Lighten up Francis. |
Mag's
the united
20365
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 07:57:20 -
[20] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Mag's wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I think an improvement would to add a scram to low sec gates and sations. Make it a super special you can't dock/jump, warp, MJD or cyno out scram.
Just one per gate and station. How is that an improvement? Or are we back to the same old adage? It's about commitment. It may actually end some of the docking ring heros. I'm all for anything that kicks a docking ring pvp master in the nutz. It's about taking some risk aversion (deagress option) out of the game. I'm for playing eve in hard mode. You seem to be so nerf averse (giggle - you know that's funny) you sometimes put things in the wrong box. I'm not trying to nerf pvp, I'm trying to make risk averse docking games less of a thing. I'd like to point out that I didn't say the scram targeted ebil pirates. It targets agression. It could grab anyone that is fighting withing it's range. Equal opportunity. I like commitment, I dislike docking during a fight. Just imagine the amount of docking ring carriers that would perish because they no longer had enough raw hitpoints to deagress everything but a cyno blob. Getting rid of low sex unkillable docking ring carrier crap and/or the need for a massive cyno blob to kill said carrier isn't going to make eve pvp worse. As for the racial hoo haw - I think that would just add a bit of fun to gate/station fights. We may not agree on details, but I'm not the bad guy here. Lighten up Francis. So your issue is people fighting and docking up. But you want them on gates any way, just because. But you don't want to nerf PvP, even though gates are where a large percentage of fights happen.
Station games are dumb I agree. But if people decide to play them, that's their choice. They are easy to avoid, if you do not. This game should have less NPC interference, not more. I'm averse to asking for hand holding by NPC mechanics, that nerf peoples style of play. Especially when it's not required, or fixes anything.
The joke is you've not even thought it through and don't seem at all aware of how gates/station guns work in low. What now? They will work differently and only focus on the ship you think needs it? The ebil carrier will most defiantly get all the warp jamming, because it's making Eve worse? Now that's funny.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
472
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:30:20 -
[21] - Quote
All very astute points but let's not bury the lead here... Francis?
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Mag's
the united
20370
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:27:17 -
[22] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:All very astute points but let's not bury the lead here... Francis? I know, right.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2655
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:22:37 -
[23] - Quote
Thron Legacy wrote:I have yet to find a lowsec system with more than 2 guns per beacon, your 8 seems like a fortune :P Perhaps there is only two in lowsec. I must admit, every time I'm on a gate in lowsec I'm too busy watching other things to bother counting the guns. In highsec, there are eight.
I agree that we do not want to have roaming solo or small group interceptors easily locking targets and not dying to gate guns. Perhaps my memory doesn't serve me accurately but I recall my own interceptor dying in one shot from gate guns while on the move with MWD off, and I also remember my assault ship going down pretty rapidly. If I'm off on how easy it is for these ships to stick around, then please correct me.
My idea is for no single lone frigate to be able to hang around on the gate unless it's both strongly tanked and making a tight orbit on one of the guns--no room to tackle on the gate and still live without some kind of fleet support. Given how far the guns are from the gate, most frigates (especially anyone not using an afterburner) are going to be taking at least glancing hits from the cruiser guns in addition to full hits from the frigate guns.
Perhaps I'm not asking for it to be any easier for frigates to stay on the gates, but I do think it should be harder for cruisers and especially battleships to stay on gates. They should at least need some fleet support such as logistics in order to be tackling illegally. A large part of the reasoning behind why I feel it's important is because there are cruisers and battlecruisers that can lock ships very quickly. Not battleships, but ships such as strategic cruisers and heavy assault cruisers can lock frigates in under 2 seconds with the right fit plus some boosts.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:41:50 -
[24] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Thron Legacy wrote:I have yet to find a lowsec system with more than 2 guns per beacon, your 8 seems like a fortune :P Perhaps there is only two in lowsec. I must admit, every time I'm on a gate in lowsec I'm too busy watching other things to bother counting the guns. In highsec, there are eight. I agree that we do not want to have roaming solo or small group interceptors easily locking targets and not dying to gate guns. Perhaps my memory doesn't serve me accurately but I recall my own interceptor dying in one shot from gate guns while on the move with MWD off, and I also remember my assault ship going down pretty rapidly. If I'm off on how easy it is for these ships to stick around, then please correct me. My idea is for no single lone frigate to be able to hang around on the gate unless it's both strongly tanked and making a tight orbit on one of the guns--no room to tackle on the gate and still live without some kind of fleet support. Given how far the guns are from the gate, most frigates (especially anyone not using an afterburner) are going to be taking at least glancing hits from the cruiser guns in addition to full hits from the frigate guns. Perhaps I'm not asking for it to be any easier for frigates to stay on the gates, but I do think it should be harder for cruisers and especially battleships to stay on gates. They should at least need some fleet support such as logistics in order to be tackling illegally. A large part of the reasoning behind why I feel it's important is because there are cruisers and battlecruisers that can lock ships very quickly. Not battleships, but ships such as strategic cruisers and heavy assault cruisers can lock frigates in under 2 seconds with the right fit plus some boosts.
All of that is useless unless you think inty should really be able to solo camp a gate. Assault frig with resist mods will hold under light logi support. I'm talking frig logi here, not even cruiser. Use the inty to get initial tackle on fast stuff and have him warp out as soon as harder ship have their point working. It's as easy as that. The right ship/comp for the job.
The only thing a battleship is really good at is standing his ground and you want to make it harder... |
Thron Legacy
White Zulu Scorpion Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:58:06 -
[25] - Quote
i agree cruisers should maybe have a harder time staying at guns, battleships however please no |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 21:00:55 -
[26] - Quote
Thron Legacy wrote:i agree cruisers should maybe have a harder time staying at guns, battleships however please no
You would ahve to make their sig or something like that as anything else would have ramification for the BS. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2655
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 23:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Battleships need a big buff to their hit points. When battlecruisers and some cruisers can reach battleship EHP by fitting a 1600mm armor plate that costs less than half of their powergrid, the problem isn't that cruisers are too tough but that battleships aren't tough enough.
I have a solution: 1.) increase battleship base HP by about 50% across the board 2.) introduce new XL Shield Extender and 3200mm Armor Plate modules which cost too much powergrid for a cruiser to reasonably fit 3.) put more guns (incl. different tracking values) on the lowsec gates and balance them such that an assault ship orbiting the gate with afterburner on will take about the same damage as before, interceptors slightly less damage, cruisers orbiting with AB a bit more damage, and max damage maybe 2-3 times as high as before. So this could actually mean that the larger guns actually deal less damage than the smaller guns--but the important factor is that the slower you move, the harder you get hit.
This would have several ramifications: A.) battleships' staying power actually stands out, giving the class a strong role outside of PVE B.) battleships are afforded the opportunity to spend a significant chunk of powergrid on stronger buffer tank, the same as smaller classes of ships C.) interceptors are by no means easy to use for tackling on gates but it is now possible for them to survive under logi support as long as they stay mobile D.) small frigates tackling on gates must maintain mobility--afterburners are king E.) battleships don't get to just chill because the guns can't hurt them--but with a small amount of friendly support they'll be fine
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1431
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:20:24 -
[28] - Quote
This all sounds like you're trying to build a better gate camp. Wich on the one hand is fine, but on the other probably won't effect much. The game already has instalocking hics, so an inty would only add a small amount of value in the speed that they can tackle. Inty is already used to uncloak the cloaky aligners - at present it has to be ok w/ that and pass on the km whoring due to gate guns. Overall you're just allowing the inty team member to finally be on the mails. I get that.
Personally - I'd like to go back to day zero with gates. They dump you into one of 6 or so places in the system. No gate to run back through. When you jump into a system you commit to entering it. Sure, I just added 5 possible new spawn points, but I removed the whole don't agress, get back to the gate and jump home option. I think splitting a 30 man gang into 5 squads of 6 would add some interesting game play. (did your logi spawn at x & Y and your dps spawn at z? A side benefit would be that there are no gate guns at the spawn point, so the whole frigate survivability issue wouldn't exist.
It would be a little more difficult (but not impossible) to bottle up your null carrier bot farm also.
Would that improve or ruin low sex travel? Murky to determine at best. More spawn points for higher survivability against small gangs => more likely to travel low sex. No option to forego agression and get back through the gate => less likely to travel low sex. It's tough to read the minds of other pilots and also tough to predict the future.
I think it would be a change that would add interest into low sex travel and not totally break it. Personally I think more caps jumping gates without the proper support would have a hard time with the change, but I'm not big on feeling bad for caps travelling solo in low sex when things don't work out like they hoped it would.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1431
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:28:01 -
[29] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Thron Legacy wrote:I have yet to find a lowsec system with more than 2 guns per beacon, your 8 seems like a fortune :P Perhaps there is only two in lowsec. I must admit, every time I'm on a gate in lowsec I'm too busy watching other things to bother counting the guns. In highsec, there are eight. I agree that we do not want to have roaming solo or small group interceptors easily locking targets and not dying to gate guns. Perhaps my memory doesn't serve me accurately but I recall my own interceptor dying in one shot from gate guns while on the move with MWD off, and I also remember my assault ship going down pretty rapidly. If I'm off on how easy it is for these ships to stick around, then please correct me. My idea is for no single lone frigate to be able to hang around on the gate unless it's both strongly tanked and making a tight orbit on one of the guns--no room to tackle on the gate and still live without some kind of fleet support. Given how far the guns are from the gate, most frigates (especially anyone not using an afterburner) are going to be taking at least glancing hits from the cruiser guns in addition to full hits from the frigate guns. Perhaps I'm not asking for it to be any easier for frigates to stay on the gates, but I do think it should be harder for cruisers and especially battleships to stay on gates. They should at least need some fleet support such as logistics in order to be tackling illegally. A large part of the reasoning behind why I feel it's important is because there are cruisers and battlecruisers that can lock ships very quickly. Not battleships, but ships such as strategic cruisers and heavy assault cruisers can lock frigates in under 2 seconds with the right fit plus some boosts.
I'm against any game change the pushes the meta to 'logi required'. Cruisers needing logi on gates is just blech to me.
As far as lock times per ship class. It's always seemed odd to me that a smaller ship has a better fire control computer than a larger ship. Even frigates are pretty big, so I've never really gotten why a large ship such as a battle ship has a tougher time locking a frigate than a frigate locking a frigate. You want ground breaking interest added to the game - make lock time dependant on target size only. A BS should have the same lock time as a frigate when locking a frigate. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1431
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:44:56 -
[30] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Battleships need a big buff to their hit points. When battlecruisers and some cruisers can reach battleship EHP by fitting a 1600mm armor plate that costs less than half of their powergrid, the problem isn't that cruisers are too tough but that battleships aren't tough enough.
I have a solution: 1.) increase battleship base HP by about 50% across the board 2.) introduce new XL Shield Extender and 3200mm Armor Plate modules which cost too much powergrid for a cruiser to reasonably fit 3.) put more guns (incl. different tracking values) on the lowsec gates and balance them such that an assault ship orbiting the gate with afterburner on will take about the same damage as before, interceptors slightly less damage, cruisers orbiting with AB a bit more damage, and max damage maybe 2-3 times as high as before. So this could actually mean that the larger guns actually deal less damage than the smaller guns--but the important factor is that the slower you move, the harder you get hit.
This would have several ramifications: A.) battleships' staying power actually stands out, giving the class a strong role outside of PVE B.) battleships are afforded the opportunity to spend a significant chunk of powergrid on stronger buffer tank, the same as smaller classes of ships C.) interceptors are by no means easy to use for tackling on gates but it is now possible for them to survive under logi support as long as they stay mobile D.) small frigates tackling on gates must maintain mobility--afterburners are king E.) battleships don't get to just chill because the guns can't hurt them--but with a small amount of friendly support they'll be fine
This idea has a lot of consequences beyond low sex gate guns. I'm not against it at a glance, but this is a lot bigger than make gate guns less size dependant. You want this - think it through and make a new thread. Quick thinking - 100+ BS fleets and afk ratting (both empire missions and null anoms). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |