EVE Search - Caldari Railboats discussion

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Caldari Railboats discussion

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.07.14 11:51:00 - [31] Edited by: Jack Farness on 14/07/2007 11:52:59 Originally by: Neuromandis IRT the suggestion to give Caldari Rail only and Gallente blaster only bonuses: NO!!! How the hell are we supposed to play then? Kick Gallente completely out of fleets and Caldari completely out of solo? What good would that accomplish? That would make ships function like they are desingned. Caldari -> long range, Gallante -> Short range. Now Gallante ships are better or equal every range (except that +200km). Quote: Caldari are atm redeemed in non-fleet pvp with blasters. Take them away, and they become hopeless for anything but gang support or fleet battles. This change would not affect outcome that much. Caldari DPS would same as before, only that you need to go closer (where Gallante ships would be better)or use rails and shoot out of blaster range.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.14 11:54:00 - [32] Edited by: welsh wizard on 14/07/2007 11:57:53 Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth Caldari Range and Damage Note this is discussing railships, not missile ships I've seen quite a few posts debuffing caldari effectiveness with what is supposed to be their gunnery speciality - long range combat (railguns). This post invites discussion on what supports such claims and what measures can be taken to reduce or negate this apparent 'uselessness' that some are claiming caldari have when compared to their galente and to a smaller extent, minimatar counterparts. Caldari ships generally trade a 5% damage bonus for a 10% optimal range bonus as can be seen by the classic Megathron vs Rokh, yet there are many claims that a mega is a better sniper than the rokh because of its damage bonus. So does a Megathron really outperform a Rokh at sniping? lets take a look. Including a damage bonus of 25% (BS5), the megathron is effectively firing 8.75 (7*1.25) turrets to the Rokhs 8. Meaning that the mega, shot for shot would appear to be doing slightly more damage than the rokh. Is this true in all cases, and how can Caldari pilots make up for this? A Megathron without a huge investment can't hit very well past 200km, meaning at extreme ranges, the rokh can hit where the megathron and other snipers fall short. This much is obvious, but how often does a rokh get to fight at this range of 200-250km ? i suspect the answer is, "not very..." Spike ammo is well known for doing minimal damage. Are there other instances where Caldari ship might outshine its Gallente bretherin ? The answer here is at mid-long range of 70-100km, or more precisely, where a megathron using antimatter becomes inaffective and has to switch to spike. Here there is a range bracket where the rokh will be able to continue to function using the higher damage ammunition. At these ranges a mega pilot is forced to use 16ki/th ammo, compared to a rokh using the far more damaging antimatter 28/20. This constitutes a 50% increase in damage per turret over the Mega, suddenly surging the rokh ahead of the megathron by a huge amount in this range bracket. (8.75 turrets using spike to 8 turrets using antimatter at 50% more dps = 12). The same theory applies to the Eagle, and also the vulture/harpy - though for the smaller ships, the brackets become closer and using smaller guns, meaning much lower base ranges. What about plutonium & uranium ammo? Both do more damage than Spike. The distance at which a Rokh theoretically outdamages a Megathron is a very narrow window between antimatter and uranium optimals, where the Mega has to switch to a lower damage ammo in order to hit. Now factor in the Megas tracking bonus (which will probably have an effect at sub 150km ranges, it definitely helps spike), also take into account that this scenario is totally hypothetical as neither battleship is going to hang around to die if the they're not tackled. Also consider the fact that your average tackler can close these sorts of distances before the Rokh has penetrated the Megas shields. There is no contest. Theres arguably only one realistic circumstance in which a Rokh could possibly do more damage in a consistent fashion than a Megathron and thats with a whole fleet of Rokh's 200km+ away. The Rokh does come into its own in terms of tank though, a single Rokh will generally overcome a single Megathron because its tank is superior if its packing 2 invuln II's. Basically if you have more than 15 fleet BS I feel the Rokh is more useful, it has more staying power than the mega, its shields recharge and your targets will be no more than 2 volley fodder anyway, rendering a slight damage bonus largely irrelevant. If you start to lose ships then the Megas advantages will become more pronounced. Others will disagree.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:13:00 - [33] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 14/07/2007 13:18:00 Originally by: welsh wizard Theres arguably only one realistic circumstance in which a Rokh could possibly do more damage in a consistent fashion than a Megathron and thats with a whole fleet of Rokh's 200km+ away. You should stick to hyperions... because its pretty weak to compare a 140M ship to 90M one...
Judas Lonestar Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:25:00 - [34] Edited by: Judas Lonestar on 14/07/2007 13:25:03 Originally by: Jack Farness Originally by: Incantare That would make fitting Caldari ships with blasters nearly pointless which would further put Caldari at a disadvantage in short range combat. Not a good idea. Same way it would place gallante disadventage in long range... as it should be. Amazing, someone wants to make Caldari suck even more then they already do. Are you playing the same game as everyone else?
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:31:00 - [35] Edited by: Jack Farness on 14/07/2007 13:32:51 Originally by: Judas Lonestar Amazing, someone wants to make Caldari suck even more then they already do. It would not change Caldari that much. After change thay would be best at long range. Quote: Are you playing the same game as everyone else? Yes, and in Caldari ship I dont ever use blasters. If I want to use blasters, I fly gallante ship.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:31:00 - [36] Originally by: Judas Lonestar Edited by: Judas Lonestar on 14/07/2007 13:25:03 Originally by: Jack Farness Originally by: Incantare That would make fitting Caldari ships with blasters nearly pointless which would further put Caldari at a disadvantage in short range combat. Not a good idea. Same way it would place gallante disadventage in long range... as it should be. Amazing, someone wants to make Caldari suck even more then they already do. Are you playing the same game as everyone else? I dont see a big caldari nerf.. i see a massive gallente nerf.. They say caldari is a PVE specialist, so its ok to be bad in pvp.. now lets see if they can put up the argument "we are great in close combat, but we want to be also superior in long range..."
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:36:00 - [37] Originally by: Benn Helmsman I dont see a big caldari nerf.. i see a massive gallente nerf.. They say caldari is a PVE specialist, so its ok to be bad in pvp.. now lets see if they can put up the argument "we are great in close combat, but we want to be also superior in long range..." Uh, gallante is superior or equal to Caldari every range except that +200km. So WHY should gallante stay that way? Dont you think that gallante is not overpowered?
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:48:00 - [38] Originally by: Jack Farness Originally by: Benn Helmsman I dont see a big caldari nerf.. i see a massive gallente nerf.. They say caldari is a PVE specialist, so its ok to be bad in pvp.. now lets see if they can put up the argument "we are great in close combat, but we want to be also superior in long range..." Uh, gallante is superior or equal to Caldari every range except that +200km. So WHY should gallante stay that way? Dont you think that gallante is not overpowered? You missunderstood me.. i WANT a gallente nerf.. since its needed
Jack Farness	Posted - 2007.07.14 13:49:00 - [39] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Jack Farness Originally by: Benn Helmsman I dont see a big caldari nerf.. i see a massive gallente nerf.. They say caldari is a PVE specialist, so its ok to be bad in pvp.. now lets see if they can put up the argument "we are great in close combat, but we want to be also superior in long range..." Uh, gallante is superior or equal to Caldari every range except that +200km. So WHY should gallante stay that way? Dont you think that gallante is not overpowered? You missunderstood me.. i WANT a gallente nerf.. since its needed Oh, sorry.
Judas Lonestar Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.14 14:57:00 - [40] Originally by: Jack Farness Edited by: Jack Farness on 14/07/2007 13:32:51 Originally by: Judas Lonestar Amazing, someone wants to make Caldari suck even more then they already do. It would not change Caldari that much. After change thay would be best at long range. Quote: Are you playing the same game as everyone else? Yes, and in Caldari ship I dont ever use blasters. If I want to use blasters, I fly gallante ship. This might come as a suprise to you......Caldari all ready ARE the best at long range! Shocking I know. But thats ALL their good at. And being the best at long range aint much to write home about because most engagements dont truly use the Caldari advantage. Let me ask you, how often do you really fly a Caldari ship?
bldyannoyed Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.07.14 15:05:00 - [41] SHOCK HORROR Ben Helmsmann whinging for a Gallente nerf. Yes, Caldari railships ( with the exception of the Rokh which is staggeringly powerfull ship ) could do with some help in the dps at range department. But how the ** does nerfing Gallente achieve that? Caldari rails would still be ** for the most part, its just that Gallente would also suck. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.07.14 15:08:00 - [42] Originally by: Judas Lonestar Originally by: Jack Farness Edited by: Jack Farness on 14/07/2007 13:32:51 Originally by: Judas Lonestar Amazing, someone wants to make Caldari suck even more then they already do. It would not change Caldari that much. After change thay would be best at long range. Quote: Are you playing the same game as everyone else? Yes, and in Caldari ship I dont ever use blasters. If I want to use blasters, I fly gallante ship. This might come as a suprise to you......Caldari all ready ARE the best at long range! Shocking I know. But thats ALL their good at. And being the best at long range aint much to write home about because most engagements dont truly use the Caldari advantage. Let me ask you, how often do you really fly a Caldari ship? Plz dont say something you cant prove.. hyperion is better at long range than rokh up to 180-200km depends on fitting.. smaller ships are gimped through their useless turret layout.. so make your homework before you try to say something which is supposed to be smart.
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.07.14 23:47:00 - [43] The Rokh and the Harpy are indeed fine. The issue with them remains that while other races have "tank or gank" choices when it comes to solo PvP, Caldari has the "tank or PvP" option (unless you are not concerned with killing, just with surviving). And then there's the fact that DPS comparisons with Gallente ships are more or less moot because Gallente ships often have 250% the drone space of Caldari ships - thus, no foolish Caldari should ever fit blasters on their Rokh! This does however not diminish the fact that both are good ships that are no further in need of attention. The Merlin is a bit of an odd point... on the one hand, it could really use a third turret hardpoint in its 4 highs (so you can choose between 2/2 and 3/1 turret/missile loadout). On the other hand, it's a Caldari frigate... if you fly one in PvP, then you're only looking for the cheapest four midslots taped to an engine anyway, to fit sensor dampeners in them. The weapons loadout is more or less irrelevant. Now, the Moa and the Ferox, as well as their t2 brethren, they need attention. Yes, they are awesome for gangs and fleet battles because nobody ever shoots you, but that's mostly because all other targets are more dangerous. If you wanted to bring EW, a Merlin is a much cheaper alternative to field 4 midslots than a Moa (250 thousand vs. 7 million), and with a Ferox you're paying again three times the price of a Moa for one more EW piece. They have the least weapon offense of all t2/t3 cruisers or all battlecruisers respectively, even when calculating in their range bonus as extra damage (as demonstrated earlier in this thread). They are slow, heavy, stricken with the tiniest drone bays of the aforementioned classes, and consume almost their entire powergrid resources just filling their turret slots (unless you have AWU, then you may be able to fill the missile slots too). Yes, with Heavy Missiles fitted in addition to rails, their dps goes up to the level of other ships, but you completely throw away your range bonus because you have to obey the restrictions of unbonused missiles to achieve that kind of damage output. You are more or less forced to operate within drone range, where any Gallente ship will rip your to shreds. Alternatively, stay out of drone range and accept the fact that your target will most likely tank you with a smile on their face unless someone else is also shooting them. Moa and Ferox can stay at 6 and 7 highslots, respectively, but both need another turret hardpoint. Additionally, the Ferox can easily lose a missile hardpoint. No need to have it try to mimic the Drake when the mere idea is already hopeless. Thus, you would have the Moa at 5/2 hardpoints on 6 highslots, and the Ferox at 6/4 harpoints on 7 highslots. This alone would make these ships so much more valuable! Note that I'm not even asking for more powergrid. If I can just mount enough guns to not be laughed at while trying to make use of my optimal range bonus, I don't mind if I have to sacrifice a lowslot or rigslot more than now to organize more grid (Caldari are gangships anyway). Or I could just mount 200mm's instead of 250mm's, because I am no longer forced to use the highest tier to have even the shadow of a respectable volley damage. And you can still mix it up with missiles if you want to... the Moa will actually have options now, just imagine. The same method can easily be ported onto the Eagle and the Vulture. All it needs is some graphics guy to make room for another turret to be displayed on the ship hull model. Since you're redesigning all ships at the moment anyway, this is THE chance to include additional turret graphics spots!
Neuromandis	Posted - 2007.07.15 03:23:00 - [44] Originally by: Ishina Fel snip Perfection 100%. That's what I'm saying at least. --- If someone else from my Corporation or Alliance agrees with me, he will say so. Assume nobody does :) --- WTB: Scorpion wing (left)
KD.Fluffy The Refugees	Posted - 2007.07.15 03:59:00 - [45] Im gonan go ahead and say the rokh is a great fleet sniping ship. Really good actually. Damage resist is a better tank bonus the rep amount, there is no arguing that in fleets. The only thing I can knock it for is its tiny drone bay, and its horribly slow allign time. The ships that need a fix though are the moa/ferox and its varients. if you gave +2 turrets to these ships, I would be a very happy camper. Maybe just +1 turret to the moa so it doesnt have more then the thorax, but +2 to the ferox for sure.
Neuromandis	Posted - 2007.07.15 11:55:00 - [46] Originally by: KD.Fluffy *snip* I AGREE Oh, and we keep forgetting the poor merlin. Frigates have souls, too --- If someone else from my Corporation or Alliance agrees with me, he will say so. Assume nobody does :) --- WTB: Scorpion wing (left)
Milton Keynes Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.07.15 23:35:00 - [47] Edited by: Milton Keynes on 15/07/2007 23:36:51 Originally by: Benn Helmsman I would suggest a split bonus for gallente/caldari: Caldari get bonus to rails, gallente get bonus to blaster.. Give this man a cigar! Why hasn't anyone mentioned this before? Change Caldari ship bonuses to 10% optimal for rails only Change Gallente ship bonuses to 5% damage for blasters only Fixed!?
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.07.16 00:56:00 - [48] And then what... Amarr gets bonuses to both pulse lasers and beam lasers. Minmatar gets bonuses to both autocannons and artillery. Basically you take away a LOT from Caldari and Gallente, without thinking of the balancing issues that crop up with the other half of the universe.
Milton Keynes Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.07.16 05:57:00 - [49] Edited by: Milton Keynes on 16/07/2007 05:59:13 Originally by: Ishina Fel And then what... Amarr gets bonuses to both pulse lasers and beam lasers. Minmatar gets bonuses to both autocannons and artillery. Actually that is exactly what Minmatar already get and what Ammar need.... So, Yes! We already have rail and blaster specialisation skills so why not have separate weapon specific ship bonuses too? The resistance to this idea is because people just don't like the implications as it would mean revising their favourite setups and finally having to train more than one race. Guess what? That is the whole point of making these changes! Originally by: Ishina Fel Basically you take away a LOT from Caldari and Gallente, without thinking of the balancing issues that crop up with the other half of the universe. There is nothing stopping you training BOTH Caldari and Gallente so these changes actually change things very little. It just makes the races actually good at what they are supposed to be rather than gimped as they are right now. As for making Caldari even worse - what a load of rubbish! Moa/Ferox/Eagle already suck as railboats but would also lose their ability to be used as blasterboats. This would force CCP to address their problems as rail platforms (i.e add extra turrets?) without simultanesouly making them uber powerful blaster boats. Blaster Rokh currently works very well but it should NOT given that it does what Gallente should be better at. Also, it was introduced as a fleet ship anyway so a rail bonus is what it needs most! Harpy/Merlin/Vulture already work best long range anyway so again are relatively unaffected. So Caldari don't lose out. They just lose the flexibility to fit blasters in the same way that Gallente would lose the flexibility to fit rails. That is a balanced exchange. It is also the whole point of these changes, which is to make the ship bonuses reflect what the race is supposed to be good at and then adjusting specific ships further if they still need tweaking. Gallente would lose the ability to fit rails for PvE. Big deal! CCP should be designing missions around the races anyway so Gallente missions should all be close range (i.e allow them to use mwd ffs!) Gallente would also lose the ability to snipe making them useless in fleet. People see this as a bad thing. It's not, it's good! They are the best at close range combat but currently decent at long range also which is stupid. Also, this only affects Gallente battleships & Recons in a big way since most people fit blasters on the rest of their ships. Recons would need tweaking to compensate, but guess what? Newsflash! Gallente aren't supposed to be able to snipe! If you want to snipe in fleet then train up lasers or artillery like everyone else or (god forbid!) train up Caldari for rails! Alternatively, you could still fit rails on a Gallente ship but receive no bonuses for them. This is what people currently have to accept when fitting autocannons on Amarr ships or lasers on Minmatar. Why should Caldari/Gallente be different? Gallente have had the best of both worlds in PvP for too long. Weapon specific ship bonuses would even the playing field across the board and also force CCP to address issues with certain ships which they have ignored for far too long. As things stand everyone cross trains for effectiveness anyway and this wouldn't change that.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.07.16 08:19:00 - [50] If you people would STOP ***ing around the Rokh vs Mega/Hype situation please ? Rokh is the only Caldari railboat that is fine when compared with it's class ships. What we need is for the other rail ships (Moa, Ferox, Merlin etc.) to get the same amount of turret hardpoints as their Gallente counterparts. Have a look at my post on the first page. Damage comparison speaks for itself. If we take into account drones, then Caldari will be no match to Gallente even with equal turret amount when close range. Originally by:** JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Neuromandis	Posted - 2007.07.16 09:52:00 - [51] Originally by: Milton Keynes snip for space Again, no. First reason: Amarr and Minmatar are able to play long or short range, Gallente and Caldari will then only one of them. Imbalance, bigtime. Second reason: Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. While I wasn't here, once upon a time Gallente only got Blasters and Caldari only got Rails. Guess what? They didn't like it, I suspect because of reason 1. There is a symmetry between races that should not be touched. Third reason: Gimping a player's fitting flexibility to the point that you already know his ship stats before even doing SOMETHING is plain wrong. At least now when I fit my rokh, before actually being engaged the other guy doesn't know if I am rail or blasterokh. Fitting versatility is good, not bad. Fourth reason: There absolutely is no reason for that kind of a change. You advocate that it would help Caldari long range and Gallente short range. Well, guess what - it WON'T. You got it backwards. Gimping Caldari short range is not gonna help Gallente, gimping Gallente long range is not gonna help Caldari. That's a fact by itself, but it is further reinforced by point 1, i.e. there are 4 races in this game, not two. It would gimp two versus the other two, and it would asummetrically gimp them, most importantly in versatility, not just relative strengths and roles. That's plain wrong. We don't won't balance by gimping, we want balance by competitiveness. Fifth reason: Having the option of training multiple races is fine. Being forced to is bad. End of story. This is further enhanced by the fact that only 2 of the 4 will need to be cross-trained. Sixth reason: Having a whole race of ships and weapon systems that perform ONLY in fleet is very, very, very bad. Seventh, and most important for me: As I said before, I fly caldari BECAUSE of the blasters, blasters with enhanced range are my style and preference. Are you gonna give me my skillpoints back? We're not talking minor tweaking here, we're talking making a change that completely removes an option that was a reason for picking up a race. It's like suddenly declaring that Amarr are not using lasers any more, so those of you that currently play amarr and have dedicaded 4 million sp's in lasers please train another race or forget your skillpoints. It's not gonna happen. --- If someone else from my Corporation or Alliance agrees with me, he will say so. Assume nobody does :) --- WTB: Scorpion wing (left)
Yakia TovilToba Halliburton Inc.	Posted - 2007.07.16 11:15:00 - [52] Why can a rokh have only 2 heavy drones whre a mega can have 5 of them ? Means at fights below 45km the mega has way more damage than only from turret comparison. And most of the fights happen below 30km anyways. The mega can run from a sniper war (does not have to fight the rokh on its strong field), while the rokh can't run from a closerange fight (have to fight the mega on its strong field). Fights at extreme long ranges (up to 250km) will require a lot of medslosts for sensorboosters. The mega can have spare medslots without troubls (tank+damagemods in lows) while the rokh would have to sacrifice half of it's tank, so the mega might outperform it on a 249 km battle.
Milton Keynes Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.07.16 11:53:00 - [53] Edited by: Milton Keynes on 16/07/2007 11:56:32 As I already said, I don't think CCP is likely to change the ship bonuses either as it would also raise a lot of balancing issues which would need to be addressed and it is too late in the game to do that now. So our discussion is purely intellectual at this point. Still, in reply to your reasons... Originally by: Neuromandis First reason: Very good point and probably the best reason not to implement this change.I was thinking about it myself as well actually. Originally by: Neuromandis Second reason: The game has changed a lot over the past 4 years but if this has already been tried before and failed then I agree it probably wouldn't work again unless it was done differently this time around. Originally by: Neuromandis Third reason: Versatility is good but there is plenty of versatility already. Also, I would sacrifice versatility for balance any day. Originally by: Neuromandis Fourth reason: I agree this would gimp Caldari and Gallente in terms of versatility but this is something which is supposed to be primarily a Minmatar trait - the Amarr aren't very versatile anyway. The only danger I can see here is that it might make Minmatar overpowered compared to the others. However, you really are exaggerating about the impact of these changes. (see below) Originally by: Neuromandis Fifth reason: While I agree with this, as has been said, these changes would not change much. People will always cross-train for a multitude of (different) reasons and as things stand you are just better of doing so - period. Originally by: Neuromandis Sixth reason: Yes, it is bad but that is not what you would have at all. Stop exaggerating ! You make it sound like Caldari would be totally screwed when they wouldn't at all. Caldari also have missile and ecm ships which are more popularly flown and currently as effective in pvp. Caldari gunboats aren't that great atm - that's a fact. These changes would address that by giving them a role which no other race can do. Also, these changes don't affect a whole race's ships at all. Gallente also have plenty of blasterboats which rarely (if ever) use rails and which would be completely unaffected. Originally by: Neuromandis Seventh reason: This is the reason that I have the least time for. All I can say is tough luck and no you can't have your skill points back. If ships are changed to balance things (e.g Drake) then you must accept this and adapt. You should never argue for/against changes based on some personal preference. In this particular case if these ships were commonly flown as blaster boats then you might have a point since any changes would impact a large player base but suggesting that we don't make any change because they would somehow disadvantage you personally is just selfish. As it happens my main also flies Caldari blasterboats. Why? Because they are currently gimped as railboats. If changing the ship bonuses would make them more useful then I'm all for it.
Neuromandis	Posted - 2007.07.16 13:25:00 - [54] Originally by: Milton Keynes snip kk, since we understand each other we can agree to disagree here. As you said, it's likely a point for intellectual debate anyway. --- If someone else from my Corporation or Alliance agrees with me, he will say so. Assume nobody does :) --- WTB: Scorpion wing (left)
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.07.16 16:06:00 - [55] Well, as far as i see, a lot of people demand diversification (i hope thats the right spelling). I cant imagine a bigger diversification than Gallente put to close range period, caldari put to long range period... Atm it looks like gallente ships can do both at the same time because of their slot layout very well, while there is not real reason to prefer a caldari boat over a gallente one in close combat.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.07.16 16:19:00 - [56] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Well, as far as i see, a lot of people demand diversification (i hope thats the right spelling). I cant imagine a bigger diversification than Gallente put to close range period, caldari put to long range period... Atm it looks like gallente ships can do both at the same time because of their slot layout very well, while there is not real reason to prefer a caldari boat over a gallente one in close combat. No. What we need is for the Caldari rail boats to get the same amount of turret points than Gallente ship while retaining all other parameters as they are (except of course fiting for the new slots). Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.07.16 16:40:00 - [57] Edited by: welsh wizard on 16/07/2007 16:43:10 Originally by: Hugh Ruka Originally by: Benn Helmsman Well, as far as i see, a lot of people demand diversification (i hope thats the right spelling). I cant imagine a bigger diversification than Gallente put to close range period, caldari put to long range period... Atm it looks like gallente ships can do both at the same time because of their slot layout very well, while there is not real reason to prefer a caldari boat over a gallente one in close combat. No. What we need is for the Caldari rail boats to get the same amount of turret points than Gallente ship while retaining all other parameters as they are (except of course fiting for the new slots). Aye, I haven't seen a reasonable argument against this yet. Some predict that the Moa & Ferox would become lethal blaster boats with an extra turret slot. They still have to shield tank and they will still only do about 2/3's of the equivalent Gallente ships damage with negligible difference in tanking ability (vulture better than eos of course). Be nice if they'd implement it on sisi for testing tbh. Currently there is no reason why the low-end Caldari railboats should be worse off than the Rokh is currently. The Rokh has the same amount of turret HP's as its Gallente rival and its hardly overpowered in comparison to the Hyperion now is it? Where is the harm in testing the Ferox with 1 extra turret (still 1 less than its Gallente counterpart) along with the Moa, Raptor, Vulture & Merlin? If only Tuxford etc would take notice. edit: I suggest someone with a cooler disposition and good prose puts up a new thread proposing these changes for testing on Sisi. No reason why it shouldn't be taken seriously, Sarmauls well worded thread about Khanid II was acknowledged by the developers.
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.07.16 17:06:00 - [58] Im a Gallente pilot. I also fly Caladri. ( And minnie but thats moot ) I actually prefer in some ways Ferox's and moa's to Brutes and Rax's, becasue as long as you arent expected to do the tackling, both make respectable fleet ships. Better so imo than their Gallente counterparts. I do however fully advocate giving both the moa and Ferox some help. For a start i think Moa should have 25mú drone bay. Ferox, 6 turrets for absolute deffo, tho not sure about a corresponding grid boost. I also consider that the ship could benefit from going to 7/6/3 layout. Gives more versatility in ewar/tanking, and possibly enuff mids that the ship can be adapted to operate solo. Moa, again, i think could do with going 6/5/3, for the same reason as the Ferox, and probably a grid boost to allow it to comfortably fit 4 x 250 II and 2x Heavy Launcher II, plus reasonable grunt leftover for tank/speed whatever. Im not sure about a 5th turret tho. My concern is that once you fit 5x 250II's and 3 MFS II without gimping your tank or EWAR in any way you suddenly have a ship that WILL outdamage more or less any other cruiser setup, given that they have to use lows to tank, or they have extra dmaage and no tank. Just my thoughts on it. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.07.16 17:13:00 - [59] Originally by: welsh wizard edit: I suggest someone with a cooler disposition and good prose puts up a new thread proposing these changes for testing on Sisi. No reason why it shouldn't be taken seriously, Sarmauls constructive thread, "Khanid II" was acknowledged by the developers, why not a Caldari railboat thread in a similar vein? By giving him forum ban and khanid still beeing same crap as before(apart from nanocurse, but that wasn't included in khanid mkII anyway) -------- I tanked D2 capital fleet and all I got was truncated Erebus mail.
Arkadiy Konstienev GoonFleet	Posted - 2007.07.16 17:41:00 - [60] Problem with the Rokh is that the range bonus is utterly inconsequential. So the Rokh can shoot out to 200km+. What advantage does that grant over a ship shooting from 170km and doing more damage? CCP missed the point of sniping when they gave the Rokh it's bonus: the ships fire from outside the major engagement so they can be in relative safety. After that the extra range is meaningless. What's more, when was the last time a sniping fleet had different warp-ins for everyone's given optimal? The fleet warps together and that means you follow the lowest-common-denominator. The Rokh will be about the same distance from the enemy as the mega and the range bonus is utterly wasted. What you're left with is a battleship that costs about 40M more than a megathron and doesn't even match it for damage. Then a shield tank is thrown at it and this is supposed to justify the cost. The range bonus on the Rokh needs to be flipped to a ROF or straight damage bonus.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.