EVE Search - Official Petition- +1 Turret Point on Ferox et al.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Official Petition- +1 Turret Point on Ferox et al.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dr Cedric Caldari The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.05 06:34:00 - [1] Edited by: Dr Cedric on 05/08/2007 06:34:39 Can this be the offical petition to get our extra turret slot? Sign here, all you Ferox flyers and Eagle Aces. Lets get our Railgun actually doing some damage! CCP, make this one happen! /signed Dr Cedric Lead Diplomat - Shock and Awe
Mr Li Suicidal Mercenaries	Posted - 2007.08.05 06:37:00 - [2] i think it should really be any cruiser/bc with only 4 turret slots (if said ship's main weapon system is turrets ofc)
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2007.08.05 12:03:00 - [3] yumm... mining ferox.... - putting the gist back into logistics
Luna Nilaya Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.05 14:28:00 - [4] /signed
Dark Flare Caldari Corpus PCG The State	Posted - 2007.08.05 14:42:00 - [5] /signed
Chi Quan Jade Phoenix Deutschland Event-Horizon	Posted - 2007.08.05 18:01:00 - [6] /signed make it the rok's li'l brother. -- Tempus fugit --
Marzaris Onbarny	Posted - 2007.08.05 20:18:00 - [7] what makes this offical, and why not start a petition to remove the weakness from any other ship? they are balance issues and I personally think that ship is fine as it is. Nothing is perfect in eve and if it is it needs to be changed.
Dr Cedric Caldari The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.05 20:54:00 - [8] I'm trying to get everyone who supports this in one place so we can see just how many people are wanting this change. If there are literally 200 '/signed' posts on this, I think it might seriously get a looking at by the power's that be. Dr Cedric Lead Diplomat - Shock and Awe
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2007.08.05 22:44:00 - [9] I really do not think that /signing a thread gets any more attention. However, if that is your wish, I heartily approve of this thread.
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.06 00:46:00 - [10] though not official, the ferox and cyclone both need 6 turrets. /signed THUKKER -Be Paranoid
Merin Ryskin FinFleet	Posted - 2007.08.06 02:10:00 - [11] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 06/08/2007 02:13:34 Originally by: Marzaris Onbarny what makes this offical, and why not start a petition to remove the weakness from any other ship? they are balance issues and I personally think that ship is fine as it is. Nothing is perfect in eve and if it is it needs to be changed. laughs Fine? You have got to be kidding. The whole 2 Feroxes that are currently being flown are using heavy missiles instead of rails. The Ferox is almost universally agreed to be an awful ship that no sane person would fly willingly. This isn't "removing the only weakness", it's "making it at least vaguely competitive." Fortunately the solution is simple: Moa, Eagle: +1 turret. Ferox, Vulture: +2 turrets. Ideally, we also say "screw the obsolete and poorly designed tier system", and fix the slot layouts: Moa, Eagle: +1 mid, -1 high. Ferox: +1 mid, +1 high. Vulture: +1 high. In all cases, the ships get more grid/cpu/cap to effectively use their new slots/hardpoints. In the case of the T1 ships, this should be balanced around 200mm rails, for the T2 ships, 250mm rails. Similar balance changes should be made for the Cyclone and Prophecy (probably requring changes to their command ship variants), but I'll let the people who actually fly them suggest something.
Incantare Caldari Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:57:00 - [12] Edited by: Incantare on 06/08/2007 05:04:44 /Totally Signed. This request has been presented in so many different threads with no sign of dev attention, it is depressing. Caldari gunboats need more turret hardpoints to even remotely compete. As is the Ferox and Moa are both beyond a joke, and their t2 variants could use some looking at. These ships already sacrifice damage or other bonuses for range bonuses, they should not have completly gimped dps due to lacking turret hardpoints on top of that.
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.08.06 05:30:00 - [13] While I would be the first to admit that a number of the caldari railboats seem a little underpowered when compared to the offerings of the other races, threads like this make me a little uneasy. Currently we have a range of ships which excell at shredding support fleets from well outside common sub-battleship range, while still retaining some shortrange defences (missiles). A particular case is the repeated criticisms of the Ferox. This ship is (in my opinion) a perfectly acceptable Teir 1 BC; its bad press comes because it is always compared to the Brutix, which I think most people would agree is clearly a more ganky ship than any of the other Teir 1 BCs. It is very tempting to always want our favorite ships to be solopwnmobiles, but to be honest I think the game is better off if we try not to change stuff too much.
Anaal Nathrakh	Posted - 2007.08.06 06:07:00 - [14] /signed (with notes) I use a ferox as a foreman tank, the extra turret would greatly assist it for missioning. As the foreman though I find 5 is enough, but thats because the foreman link and the tractor beam fit in well. But it is a gun boat right?
Adril Alatar Minmatar Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.08.06 06:13:00 - [15] Originally by: Merin Ryskin blabla i want also more turrets on my ships.... 7 turrets on a cyclone + 1 mid slot. and 7 turrets on the claymore. and can i have +1 turret on rupture+stabber? would like this to.... and -1 high, +1 low (rupture) or +1 med (stabber). and cause of this the same also for muninn and vagabaond :p
KD.Fluffy The Refugees	Posted - 2007.08.06 06:16:00 - [16] Quote: While I would be the first to admit that a number of the caldari railboats seem a little underpowered when compared to the offerings of the other races, threads like this make me a little uneasy. Currently we have a range of ships which excell at shredding support fleets from well outside common sub-battleship range, while still retaining some shortrange defences (missiles). A particular case is the repeated criticisms of the Ferox. This ship is (in my opinion) a perfectly acceptable Teir 1 BC; its bad press comes because it is always compared to the Brutix, which I think most people would agree is clearly a more ganky ship than any of the other Teir 1 BCs. It is very tempting to always want our favorite ships to be solopwnmobiles, but to be honest I think the game is better off if we try not to change stuff too much. Point well taken but I have to disagree with you here. Giving the ferox two more turret points would not make it a solo ownmobile by any standards.... Is the rokh a solo ownmobile? And when compared to the brutix the ferox is total crap, 5 turrets vs 7.... 50m3 drone bay vs 25... No body wants the ferox to be solo own, we just want the ferox to be on a level with everyone elses turret based battlecruisers..........
Gypsio III Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.06 13:05:00 - [17] Quote: Moa, Eagle: +1 turret. Ferox, Vulture: +2 turrets. These changes are needed desperately. They're not overpowering, because those ships are still fat and slow and can't effectively solo because of shield-tanking/tackle issues. You could use them as blasterboats - but the Gallente equivalents would still be better in that role, because they're lighter and have more drones, and frequently a damage bonus (hello Mr Extremely Overpowered Ship). The Merlin also needs 1 or 2 more turret slots, to differentiate it from the Kestrel and complete the Caldari railboat line.
Deacon Ix Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.08.06 13:26:00 - [18] /signed Ferrox/Moa at least 1 more turret HP Moa +1 mid don't fly any of the t2 variants yet but I would assume they would benifit from similar. Originally by: Steini OFSI The most efficient way to get a dev response is to have the word beer somewhere in your thread.
Samantha MacTavish Caldari The Mischievous Professionals	Posted - 2007.08.06 16:02:00 - [19] Edited by: Samantha MacTavish on 06/08/2007 16:02:45 /signed I support +2 turrets for the Ferox, +1 for the Moa. Action is eloquence. William Shakespeare Corolianus, Act III, Scene 2
Merin Ryskin FinFleet	Posted - 2007.08.06 21:03:00 - [20] Originally by: Adril Alatar Originally by: Merin Ryskin blabla i want also more turrets on my ships.... 7 turrets on a cyclone + 1 mid slot. and 7 turrets on the claymore. Your Cyclone changes don't look too unreasonable (though due to Minmatar versatility as a racial design concept, I would give it the same 6/2 split as the Hurricane). It definitely needs at least one more turret, and +1 mid would bring it up to the level of the tier-2 BCs. But I don't fly Minmatar, so I'll let someone who does come up with a fix for the Cyclone. Quote: and can i have +1 turret on rupture+stabber? would like this to.... and -1 high, +1 low (rupture) or +1 med (stabber). and cause of this the same also for muninn and vagabaond :p Rupture and Stabber are both already excellent pvp ships, so you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they need a boost. On the other hand, the Cyclone, Ferox and Moa are all junk that nobody flies. But in any case, Minmatar ships aren't the subject of this discussion. If you feel various Minmatar ships need changes, feel free to post a thread about them. But the topic here is the Caldari railboats.
Sorja E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.08.07 00:02:00 - [21] There was some debate about this during the MK1 project and Tuxford completely ignored the elaborated arguments in favor of a Moa/Eagle/Ferox overhaul. Even non Caldari pilots agreed that Caldari turret ships were gimped. Since then, everybody got a boost to hitpoints which makes the supposed long range Caldari gun ships even more gimp, including the king of sniping, the Rokh, outclassed by the Megathron (which is also the king of close range damage dealing, go figure...). The last argument from CCP was 'we need to modify the models'. Like if modifying a model in 3DSMax was such a nightmare ____________________ A gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipe, but who does not.
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2007.08.07 02:26:00 - [22] Originally by: Sorja The last argument from CCP was 'we need to modify the models'. Like if modifying a model in 3DSMax was such a nightmare That's what we're hoping for, that since the models are modified anyway for the graphics overhaul, these turrets will get added as well.
May Syn Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.08.07 11:50:00 - [23] /signed
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Defcon One	Posted - 2007.08.07 12:19:00 - [24] /signed I want some caldari flying a Ferox!! Who actually flies this ****? We should point also that adding one turret is not boosting it that much because the Ferox or the Eagle won't have enough powergrid to mount a full rack of 250mm. They are limited to the (excellent IMO) 200mm rails because of powergrid issues (at least, maybe CPU is an issue, the 250mm costs much both PWG and CPU). -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !

Pages: [1] :: 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.