|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3199
   |
Posted - 2017.05.31 20:55:43 -
[1] - Quote
General thoughts:
1. I like the move to replace the old engineering and electronics subsystems with the core subsystems. It seems like all of the old bonuses have been kept, just in a more manageable format.
2. I also like the move to combine the covert and probing subsystems into a single subsystem.
3. One beef that I have always had with T3s is their rigs. They're already the most customizable ships in the game, so why do they get three rig slots and 400 calibration? T2 ships only get two slots and Pirate ships get 350 calibration. I really feel that T3s should have less rig capability than T2/Pirate ships, not more, especially if they gain the ability to swap rigs.
4. I like the increased focus on overheat-related bonuses. Should make for some really interesting gameplay.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3199
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 11:40:13 -
[2] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus..
Interesting point on the kinetic lock and versatility. I suspect that a lot of folks would gladly trade some raw kinetic DPS for lower-but-any-damage-type DPS, and this would be in line with the whole notion of T3 flexibility.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3206
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 14:01:10 -
[3] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.
Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly.
I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these.
I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps.
Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3207
|
Posted - 2017.06.07 15:30:36 -
[4] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp.
In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons.
As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site.
I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in.
Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3212
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 11:43:52 -
[5] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones.
Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs.
I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too.
No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role.
Just needing "a little extra utility" in what is arguably the most flexible class of ships in the game is not a valid justification.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
|
|
| |
|