| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2794
   |
Posted - 2015.10.26 00:16:52 -
[1] - Quote
"Why would you take out hear dreads when they only do 2-3 BS? Just bring the BS."
Why bring the BS when you could bring 3-5 frigates? Just bring the frigates.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2794
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 01:20:34 -
[2] - Quote
So glad I can finally suitcase my nag.
Just not entirely sure what to do with thissuper-alt I trained now...hmmm. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2795
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 05:34:26 -
[3] - Quote
Grorious Reader wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:...It will be hard to get anything bigger than a medium in C4s and down, since you will need to build them in your WH... You have a source for that? Don't think I've seen any numbers for the packaged volume of citadels.
Other than fitting in a freighter, no specifics. I don't know how the lower holes spawn in size. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2795
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 06:01:48 -
[4] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:On the HAW tracking:
I believe it should be closer to cruiser level ish tracking speeds.... battleships (or even tier 3 battlecruisers) are not renowned for shooting frigates on the move...
I didn't realize frigates were the intended target. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:01:21 -
[5] - Quote
So, with capital neuts, will we see dreadnaughts with utility highs or is it going to be a similar scenario in terms of "pre-assigned" fittings for the highs?
any idea if the naglfar will experience any issues in terms of fitting balance with the reduced turret need?
Will the meta versions of modules follow similar suit to subcap meta (post module balancing)? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:21:47 -
[6] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Firvain wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
As it should be? Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :) I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw! I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance. So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up!
Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.
Seems like a weird work around for the same effect. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2800
|
Posted - 2015.10.27 02:37:37 -
[7] - Quote
E1ev1n wrote:My suggestion is to increase the High Angle battery DPS over the 3k DPS mark, battleships are a heck of a lot cheaper and can do OVER 2k dps already so for a Dread to be stuck under that mark is very shameful.
lol, your glass cannon vindi can do 2050dps at what range? With which drones?
No, you are grossly overstating your typical battleship. Not to mention the range of the HAWB is supposed to be similar to current short range XL (I wish I had the video handy to source).
I'm not against the idea of a bump in dps, but I don't like that kind of justification. If we really balanced damge based on isk, you would be flying battleships either. Not when tier3 BC and pretty much any other ship is laying around. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2800
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 00:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:afkalt wrote:Rowells wrote:E1ev1n wrote:My suggestion is to increase the High Angle battery DPS over the 3k DPS mark, battleships are a heck of a lot cheaper and can do OVER 2k dps already so for a Dread to be stuck under that mark is very shameful. lol, your glass cannon vindi can do 2050dps at what range? With which drones? No, you are grossly overstating your typical battleship. Not to mention the range of the HAWB is supposed to be similar to current short range XL (I wish I had the video handy to source). I'm not against the idea of a bump in dps, but I don't like that kind of justification. If we really balanced damge based on isk, you would be flying battleships either. Not when tier3 BC and pretty much any other ship is laying around. Rattlesnake, 1400 to 84km, well over 200k EHP. Approx 1/6 the cost of a fitted dread. Or the poor mans version, the fleet phoon can accomplish the same albeit at a much weaker tank. Change from 475m. This is a particular factor in WH because of mass - it's not just cost. Wormholes aside, your Rattle as only 1/10 of the EHP of dreads and does not have the option do refit to 6k+ dps when the situation requires it. Those new weapon system are designed to give dreads a way to contibure to a fight where there are no (more) big targets to shoot at. Its makes your dead may more versatile. They don't doh there is no value in bringing a knife to a gun fight and that is what the new dread guns are a knife a blunt knife. Why would you field a ship that costs 3b can not be repped won't be able to refit [If they go though with weapon timer for siege] can be jammed can be damped can be tracking disrupted. And in exchange for all these disadvantages you do a stragering 2k dps. You're better off putting your dread alt into an extra rattlesnake.
And we'll just ignore the impressive tank a seiged dread has? Or the fact that it has heavy resistance to ewar in siege where a BS does not? Larger capacitor that would require multiple BS or specialized fits/ships to bring down? If you're going to try and balance against the cost, I'll ask why you don't just spend that isk from the BS on a dozen T1 cruisers which do a better job.
Not to even mention the other things the dread could have, like capital neuts or cap boosters. Ship progession has never been linear with isk spent and bonus Received. The best part about a BS tracking dread doing 2k is, where previously you needed support or specialized fits to compete, all those extra slots can be effectively used some other way. Not that they won't help, but not nearly as necessary.
And if you're going to include the 'cannot be repped' why have none of the price comparisons included the support ships needed?
Notwithstanding the fact that it seems no has considered whether or not 2k is the base or the max. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2803
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 03:07:14 -
[9] - Quote
So, how effective will HAWB be at reprocessing packs of cruisers? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2803
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 00:36:27 -
[10] - Quote
Can we get the ship hangars sooner? Pretty please? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2822
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 03:19:30 -
[11] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Buying a fully fit Carrier in Null Sec 'could' run around 2.5B ISK depending on the builder and how he/she sets their pricing. I know that for us, one of our builders charges 2.2B ISK for fully fit with drones/fighters.
The thought comes to mind about how a reduction in mineral requirements will impact Capital production, seems CCP wants to avoid making these things like cotton candy for big groups like us. But then again, by removing Carrier versatility and splitting Combat and Logistics roles, we're only getting half a ship (either way), so are we really going to be still paying the same exact mineral build costs?
That's a pretty hefty cost. You might want to get a second opinion.
In fact, I KNOW you can get better prices than that from builders in your own alliance. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2829
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 00:56:23 -
[12] - Quote
Have we confirmed the HAWB for caldari caps uses missiles still? I don't see why it wouldn't but I want to double check. |
| |
|