| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Naomi Anthar
387
   |
Posted - 2015.10.28 05:51:14 -
[31] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I demand that the Chimera gets a huge fighter tracking bonus for the lack of lowslots.
Denied. You can use med slot aswell for even better results. And before you say you lose tank - those using armor carriers can say they lose tank too if they use enhancer in lows too.
So same argument would sound - we need huge damage buff on archon we cannot fit many DDAs, because armor tank.
|
Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
632
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 06:55:29 -
[32] - Quote
They are going to cut of EHP. And having cap size both tanking mods make the fitting games very interesting.
I would be personally waiting details on these changes. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
686
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 09:20:27 -
[33] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:elitatwo wrote:I demand that the Chimera gets a huge fighter tracking bonus for the lack of lowslots. Denied. You can use med slot aswell for even better results. And before you say you lose tank - those using armor carriers can say they lose tank too if they use enhancer in lows too. So same argument would sound - we need huge damage buff on archon we cannot fit many DDAs, because armor tank.
What you have just said is ridiculous.
Armour ships are going to use mids for application every time. I have literally not ever seen a drone TE in use.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2361
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 12:09:34 -
[34] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:elitatwo wrote:I demand that the Chimera gets a huge fighter tracking bonus for the lack of lowslots. Denied. You can use med slot aswell for even better results. And before you say you lose tank - those using armor carriers can say they lose tank too if they use enhancer in lows too. So same argument would sound - we need huge damage buff on archon we cannot fit many DDAs, because armor tank. What you have just said is ridiculous. Armour ships are going to use mids for application every time. I have literally not ever seen a drone TE in use.
Yeah but there are no mid slot DDA so the armor tanked carrier sacrifice tank for raw damage while shield tankers sacrifice tank for application. Both type have something they want overlapping with their tank slots. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
686
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 14:07:33 -
[35] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Naomi Anthar wrote:elitatwo wrote:I demand that the Chimera gets a huge fighter tracking bonus for the lack of lowslots. Denied. You can use med slot aswell for even better results. And before you say you lose tank - those using armor carriers can say they lose tank too if they use enhancer in lows too. So same argument would sound - we need huge damage buff on archon we cannot fit many DDAs, because armor tank. What you have just said is ridiculous. Armour ships are going to use mids for application every time. I have literally not ever seen a drone TE in use. Yeah but there are no mid slot DDA so the armor tanked carrier sacrifice tank for raw damage while shield tankers sacrifice tank for application. Both type have something they want overlapping with their tank slots.
Context is important don't ya think?
Sentry carriers might care more about raw damage, fighter carriers care about application.
Maybe you go for both? Maybe you go for neither?
This is just the same argument we've seen for armour vs shield since the beginning. Don't use the wrong weapon system for your tank type.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 15:38:53 -
[36] - Quote
Chimera's should have a struggle to fit application. Its the shield vs armor paradigm. Do you fit max tank and get max damage with low application? Or do you sacrifice tank to get that high damage to hit better? Armor has to balance tank and damage, which means they get an easier time to max application, albeit at lower damage of paper thin hulls. |
Xavindo Sirober
The Merchant Marine's
Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 22:29:25 -
[37] - Quote
Ele Rebellion wrote:Xavindo Sirober wrote:
2. its not a nerf since there are no definite numbers so thats bull, even with or without modules for all you know they could have insane damage.
Light fighters are for subcaps for damage, and have diffrent abilities in terms heavy's or support
3. they give a half broken wooden stick so they have something to defend themselves with, Again no numbers, light fighters might do tons of damage.
I would suggest you take your own advice and actually read the dev blog. It says Light fighters are "Optimized for anti-Fighter combat and light damage roles." while the havy fighters are "Optimized for launching waves of bombs or torpedoes, able to do tremendous damage to capitals and structures." So the Light Fighters are basically for killing the heavy fighters, and the heavy fighters are for killing capitals or structures. Where do you get that these are going to be effective against sub-caps? (kinda the whole point of where I said that the carrier and dread are changing roles..)
Eve vegas itself said light fighters itself are ment for Subcaps aswell, but are optimized for taking down heavy fighters in fleet battles, again, they all have abilities like bomb/torps, they still have standard autoattacks like the current drones do, |
tritarian
Amarr Technical and Logistics Institute
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 23:48:27 -
[38] - Quote
If I understand the dev blog and what has been presented so far,
Carriers as they currently exist will loose the ability to mount capital remote rep gear, (or at least the bonuses to do so),
as that function will (eventually?) be for a Triaged Force Auxiliary Capitals ship, and then it will be immobile or very slow(?).
Assuming that is the case the carriers are left with only their fighters and/or drones for this spot on the battle field.
I would like to see a few things now the carrier has been (possibly) removed from capital remote rep roles.
How about a screening ship for some defensive abilities (assuming the Force Auxiliary Capitals do not take this role as well?)
1) Role or ship bonus for point defense missile systems or a new turret ammo to mirror the existing missile bay ammo that track and take down incoming enemy missiles. Although this and other Dev blogs has eluded to missile defense systems as well this may be a moot point. (not sure if it was mentioned as a station service or ship module included for completeness)
2) the ability to mount sub-capital weapons to fight against enemy fighters, and other sub-capital targets. I believe that using smart bombs for this may be a good tactic, but I like options. I would think like four turret or missile hard-points would be plenty for this kind of idea.
Possible class of weapon ideas: Any small or medium turret.
Rocket or light missile bay.
Any equivalent weapon system suitable for anti fighter/drone/frigate(?)
The idea here is not to choke out cruiser sized ships but to offer the ability to defend itself without having to hold (as many) fighters in reserve to do so, but not to make the defenses so thick that it is impossible to take carrier out without a committed attack. |
Xavindo Sirober
The Merchant Marine's
Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 04:06:27 -
[39] - Quote
If I understand the dev blog and what has been presented so far,
tritarian wrote:Carriers as they currently exist will loose the ability to mount capital remote rep gear, (or at least the bonuses to do so),
as that function will (eventually?) be for a Triaged Force Auxiliary Capitals ship, and then it will be immobile or very slow(?)
No, they can still mount capital remote rep gear, it will just be inefficient compared to the new caps that are designed for such.
Assuming that is the case the carriers are left with only their fighters and/or drones for this spot on the battle field.
tritarian wrote:I would like to see a few things now the carrier has been (possibly) removed from capital remote rep roles.
How about a screening ship for some defensive abilities (assuming the Force Auxiliary Capitals do not take this role as well?)
They are basicly being removed for remote rep roles, because there is a actual dedicated logi capital coming, and the carriers are designed to be, well a spaceship carrier in this point. which original idea was to be using fighters. just like a mining barge is to mine.
tritarian wrote:Role or ship bonus for point defense missile systems or a new turret ammo to mirror the existing missile bay ammo that track and take down incoming enemy missiles. Although this and other Dev blogs has eluded to missile defense systems as well this may be a moot point.
I believe there are already defender missles in game that counter incoming missles? tell me if im wrong, don't believe there are actual bonuses for ships for defender missles, would be interesting/chaotic to use in a fleet battle i presume.
Would also be slightly unfair because if it were to become an actual thing, what are you gonna do to offer counter to people using guns and lasers? mirror's and kevlars on ships would seem impractical. countering counters with counters is a bit excessive to a game for me though, let me know what you think. There is no defender missle for stations at the moment in design as they said so far, but again, brings back up mirrors and kevlars.
tritarian wrote:2) the ability to mount sub-capital weapons to fight against enemy fighters, and other sub-capital targets. I believe that using smart bombs for this may be a good tactic, but I like options. I would think like four turret or missile hard-points would be plenty for this kind of idea.
In a cap vs cap fight the entire idea i believe is that the carrier swarms the other target, if it were vs a dread shoots, the carrier throws fighters that shoots, if the dread would be able to easy kill the fighters, whats the carrier gonna get to counter his guns? unless its a supercarrier it can't even disrupt it with EC Warfare properly. Basicly the logical way would be having smaller ships in a fleet that burn those squadrons, or aoe bombs/missles would gib said squadrons. carriers got light fighters for fighting other carriers, and vs dreads its just a damage race, the dread is already getting a subcap gun, which would prolly work vs heavy fighters. Giving a carrier smartbombs would prolly only result in carrier ratting isk/hr going massive
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |