Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:56:00 -
[1]
Ok, so they're not specifically designed ONLY for missionrunning, as the initial devblog mentioning them just had to state.
But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind. At least, to a point. The best proof for that ? The tractor beam bonus, for starters, and the insane cargohold as a nice touch.
However, we do have a problem with them. They are by far NOT the best missionrunners from their class. They are still overshadowed by their faction counterparts. So, you are tempted to say "but what, that's not a problem at all". Well, I beg to differ ! And quite strongly. They should be BETTER at missionrunning as their faction counterparts.
"Huh, are you insane ? Why should they be better as faction BS ?" Well, let's look at all other faction ships then, shall we ? ALL faction frigates and cruisers are only a bit better as their T1 counterparts (where appliable), but with a decent hitpoints bonus, and the ease of use (meaning, low skill requirements). However, the T2 counterparts (AFs/HACs) are FAR better at whatever the T1/faction ships are, and not only because of the higher resists bonuses. On the downside, they are slightly harder to fit properly, and require a LOT of skills to get into (and then some to properly fly). Oh, and they (the T2s) are MUCH cheaper as the faction versions. MUCH, MUCH cheaper, almost without exception.
Now, with Marauders, you not only get a ship that's not much better as its T1 counterpart, and in some cases, it's worse as its faction counterpart. To add insult to injury, initial estimates put the "stabilized" pricetag of a Marauder pretty close to that of a faction ship.
To put it mildly... well, Marauders aren't an UTTER dissapointment, but they do come HEAVILY pre-nerfed. There's simply too much "not so good" about them to begin wondering "what the heck were the CCP marauder fine-tuners thinking?"
I just hope what we see on SiSi is by far NOT the final version of those ships. Still, as hey stand right now... you have to wonder... why the heck bother with one, when you can just grab a faction ship at the same price, and with less skill requirements, and perform just as well, if not better in it in missions ?
So, bottom line, CCP guys, get to it, and make them what you initially meant them to be. Well, ok, you have to give them a flavor, you have to not make them solo pwnmobiles (well, they're not, thanks to the crappy sensor strength and huge sig), so yeah, it won't be an easy task. BUT GET TO IT. _
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:05:00 -
[2]
reserved for analysis _
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:06:00 -
[3]
reserved for proposals _
1|2|3 |
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:11:00 -
[4]
Didn't CCP make a point to state that the relationship between T1 and T2 BS was not going to mirror that of other ship classes?
|
Shardrael
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:11:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Shardrael on 24/10/2007 07:12:26 edit: my first line may no longer be valid soon, I didnt see you were going to continue your post with analysis and actually proving your point :P will redo mine once your done as the rhetorical sticklers might say you sir have not beaten the burden of proof, couldnt say whether your right or wrong as you havent really made a statement proving they are not the best mission runners.
for example their are a number of advantages they may have, and price could turn out to be one, with invention here now driving the price down on everything profit margins on t2 sales have taken a dive to a much lower average percent, this will include the battleships as people will be trying to pump these out party hardy in the beginning to take advantage of the new ship high price syndrome we call supply and demand. granted CNR is hovering above 600 mil right now so some faction ships are way cheaper and almost as good but the new golem has some nice advantages over the CNR, the missle explosion bonus comes to mind when comparing with the new torp changes and also every caldari mission runner with only one account would be running missions far faster killing while salvaging and looting then running the mission and coming back to cleanup in a new ship.
Additionally their is a built in advantage to these things in the higher alpha strike, for example the actualy turret amount to figure dps between a CNR is close, think 8 turrets on one and damn near it on the other, but the golem doesnt have any rof bonuses so in keeping with similar dps it will do larger alpha to achieve that. which means more ships that can be one volleyed which in turn leads to quicker mission times.
The CNR also does not even come close to touching the tank on the Golem, slightly better resistances with a built in SBA is hard to beat. These ships will be the new best tanking ships in the game sub capital which reduces the risk from lvl 5's and makes all lvl4's that much more risk free.
Granted these ships dont blow faction ships out of the water and they probably shouldnt but they do provide a nice alternative that is going to be readily produced.
Originally by: Stamm Some people might have been convinced by the official announcement posted by Steelrat, but not me, I wasn't convinced until some random alt posts a brand new thread.
|
Riho
Magnificent Beavers Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:15:00 -
[6]
well.. dunno about others but caldari one SHOULD do the same or more dmg than a CNR and tank ALOT better
more resists and boost amount bonus whit 7 midslots
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:16:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Riho well.. dunno about others but caldari one SHOULD do the same or more dmg than a CNR and tank ALOT better
more resists and boost amount bonus whit 7 midslots
If u think so, than u fail in math :)
|
Shardrael
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:17:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Riho well.. dunno about others but caldari one SHOULD do the same or more dmg than a CNR and tank ALOT better
more resists and boost amount bonus whit 7 midslots
with the stats it has now it already does that, and potentially more dmg with fittings and lowslot combo but I havent looked at that close enough to be sure
Originally by: Stamm Some people might have been convinced by the official announcement posted by Steelrat, but not me, I wasn't convinced until some random alt posts a brand new thread.
|
Riho
Magnificent Beavers Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:19:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Damned Force
Originally by: Riho well.. dunno about others but caldari one SHOULD do the same or more dmg than a CNR and tank ALOT better
more resists and boost amount bonus whit 7 midslots
If u think so, than u fail in math :)
well if ur such a smart person mind showing me the math and prove me wrong
im not against ppl who prove me wrong... just ppl who make claims they know stuff and acctually dont
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:22:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Damned Force on 24/10/2007 07:22:34
Originally by: Riho
Originally by: Damned Force
Originally by: Riho well.. dunno about others but caldari one SHOULD do the same or more dmg than a CNR and tank ALOT better
more resists and boost amount bonus whit 7 midslots
If u think so, than u fail in math :)
well if ur such a smart person mind showing me the math and prove me wrong
im not against ppl who prove me wrong... just ppl who make claims they know stuff and acctually dont
Sorry, pls look on this page: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=620524
|
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:35:00 -
[11]
The clear edge they have is for those npc'ers that don't have an alt to loot/salvage with. If the torp "nerf" didn't go into place, the golem would be infinitely better than the CNR for example. Even though I'm mostly gallente/minmatar specced, I'd never use a vindicator/navythron/megathron/tempest/phoon/fleetpest/machariel/maelstrom for missions. I'd use the CNR only because it's much less troublesome. With the kronos, I'd definately use it for missions (with rails) With the paladin, I'd definately use it (with my alt) although indeed it lacks...something... I don't think it's damage though... optimal range bonus maybe. The vargur... errr... do ppl realy do missions with autocannons? Rof bonus instead of dmg even hurts so much more ammo-wise. I'd prefer an armor tank arty boat tbh so I still won't fly it.
|
Shardrael
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:06:00 -
[12]
Originally by: ElCoCo
The vargur... errr... do ppl realy do missions with autocannons? Rof bonus instead of dmg even hurts so much more ammo-wise. I'd prefer an armor tank arty boat tbh so I still won't fly it.
at first glance it looks pretty bad but with that falloff bonus and using AC's it would have unusually high dmg at 50km (prob including falloff rigs) whether that makes it worth the ammo consumption or not is up to each individual to decide and I dont know if it would for me personally, but it does present an interesting way to do missions for minmatarr
|
Marylin Monroe
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Shardrael
Originally by: ElCoCo
The vargur... errr... do ppl realy do missions with autocannons? Rof bonus instead of dmg even hurts so much more ammo-wise. I'd prefer an armor tank arty boat tbh so I still won't fly it.
at first glance it looks pretty bad but with that falloff bonus and using AC's it would have unusually high dmg at 50km (prob including falloff rigs) whether that makes it worth the ammo consumption or not is up to each individual to decide and I dont know if it would for me personally, but it does present an interesting way to do missions for minmatarr
yes, i see this ship as a big sleipnir. put 2 falloff rigs, crazy shield tank, and speed/agility/dmg mods in lows and you get a very mobile and fast mision runner, so fast as to really be able to get close enough and use AC on their full potential
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:47:00 -
[14]
These are amazing mission ships as you can loot while killing without losing any firepower. No more warping out and back with a cargo ship for loot. This will speed up missions a lot.
T2 ammo is also more worth it. Costs for using T2 ammo are cut in half. T2 ammo draw backs also cut in half. Well more as with the web bonus its counters the tracking drawbacks of the ammo..
At first I wasnÆt to keen on he new ship as the damage output is the same as my Hyper. But the more I think about it the more I like the ship. Only can I swap the amour bonus for a 5% shield recharge bonus? DidnÆt think so.
As a gallante railgun using passive tanker I find my self with half the cap usage from turrets which means more SPRÆs, less PDSÆs so a better tank.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
adriaans
Amarr Advanced Capital Ship Designs
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:56:00 -
[15]
amarr, cap race...yeah right... yes i'm bloody annoyed from the paladin's stats atm... --sig--
Knowledge is power! |
Gladiator Jonny
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:09:00 -
[16]
Kronos is gonna be amazing at pvp.
nuff said
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:10:00 -
[17]
Finished writing analysis and preliminary suggestions. PRELIMINARY. As in, almost certainly not the best. Feedback welcome. Try to keep the flames to a minimum, will ya ?
Keep in mind two things when proposing changes: * they must be GOOD for PvE (as in, much better as T1 version, and even slightly better as faction version) * they must not be too overpowered in PvP (if you think the LOW-AS-HECK sensor strength isn't enough of a handicap already). _
1|2|3 |
Marylin Monroe
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:54:00 -
[18]
i think the vargur will be the best mission runner. great damage and AC range, including the possibility of choosing damage type, incredible tank, can be fitted for speed/agility+dmg, ability to loot/salvage at the same time.
i think not even the mighty CNR will come close, unless you are very lazy and just like spewing missiles from 180 km.
as a plus, ACs with that extreme range are almost invulnerable to tracking disruptors, and most important on many missions, defenders.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:32:00 -
[19]
/signed
At this point i might get a Marauder for PVP (depends on price tough) but def not gonna switch to a Golem from my CNR.
|
Dahak2150
Chaos Monkeys Monkey Religion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:55:00 -
[20]
Paladin is a waste of training and isk. My Abaddon tanks nearly as well and does much more damage. It's already been well shown that the Apoc is so far outclassed by the Baddon that there really isn't a point to it anymore, so why did we build an almost useless T2 ship off of it? Make it Khanid or give it some actual damage, it hits like a sack of cotton right now. ----------------
Originally by: "Cyberus" cause its has no sence anyway your brains is simply wont accept that anyway.
|
|
Gozmoth
Amarr Altera Odyssea Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:03:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Gozmoth on 24/10/2007 11:05:03 Is the Paladin will help Amarr for mission running against angels or guristas ? No, thanks to EM.
The ideas around Marauders are cools, but they are flawed by our current problems.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:34:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Akita T
CALDARI : Raven - Raven Navy Issue - Golem
So, this makes the Golem the only Marauder that is not only on par with T1/faction, but actually worse as the faction version, damage-wise.
This is more because the CNR is the only faction ship which does more dps than its normal version.
If we have the odd man out here it is the CNR, not the golem.
Quote: And let's not even begin to mention the "NPC defenders" issue, which get MULTIPLIED by the fact it launches half as many missiles as a T1 Raven, effectively *doubling* the NPC defender effectiveness. VERY bad.
On this however I definately agree. The current defender use in mission will make the cruise-golem rather pointless and a torp golem has just a too low range to be an effective mission ship.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:36:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Qui Shon on 24/10/2007 11:47:26
Originally by: Akita T
boost Kronos
You really want to boost the new Gank king? That can have 8 fully bonused turrets worth of damage with the cap&ammo of 4, as well as neut and/or nos? Only weakness being the sens strenght. If I were so inclined, I could shout out OMGWTFBBQ-IMBAAAAA!!! Good thing I'm more reserved, and won't do that.
Oh, and I really feel for those specialized in Amarr. Poor sods just keep taking it up the...erm, sorry, it was somebodys sig.
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:40:00 -
[24]
Firstly...I've not been on the test server so if your stats and analysis are correct then many thanks.
I'm no expert on what makes great mission ships, and I only fly Gallente so I'll restrict my opinion to the Kronos.
I have to say though that after your analysis I'm VERY excited about the Kronos. Specifically the extra damage output (you sure?!?) from 4 highs.
It should be noted that if true, this also frees up grid and high slots for remote reppers compared to the T1/Faction BS. It might not help it become a solo mission runner, but that sure helps any mission group immensely.
I am also now imagining the prospect of using 2 or 3 of these in a small 'marauding' gang fo PVP. The potential repping with a simple spider tank is insane - combine that with a few Neuts and the improved tracking, speed and web bonus - you've got a 'shock' elite group of battleships capable of operating independently versus any size target or much larger group of targets, tanking immensely and yet still pumping out the damage.
Something I'm pessemistic about is the insurance. Do you have any values? I hope these ships dont get the raw deal most T2 ships do as it will be magnified by much higher cost than other T2.
If I've read you right - I envisage the twin Kronos gang (one probing?) becomming the pvp/merc elite standard for massacring solo mission running faction BS! Do missions in groups!!!
Perhaps these ships are not what was originally intended, but they are very welcome to a large part of the Eve community nevertheless.
- Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:45:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Akita T
CALDARI : Raven - Raven Navy Issue - Golem
So, this makes the Golem the only Marauder that is not only on par with T1/faction, but actually worse as the faction version, damage-wise.
This is more because the CNR is the only faction ship which does more dps than its normal version.
If we have the odd man out here it is the CNR, not the golem.
Quote: And let's not even begin to mention the "NPC defenders" issue, which get MULTIPLIED by the fact it launches half as many missiles as a T1 Raven, effectively *doubling* the NPC defender effectiveness. VERY bad.
On this however I definately agree. The current defender use in mission will make the cruise-golem rather pointless and a torp golem has just a too low range to be an effective mission ship.
Even the fact that the CNR is out of line makes the Golem pointles because it is still preferable to get CNR instead of a Golem.
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:51:00 -
[26]
Originally by: d026
Even the fact that the CNR is out of line makes the Golem pointles because it is still preferable to get CNR instead of a Golem.
You heard the man. Nerf the CNR!
|
The Economist
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:51:00 -
[27]
Edited by: The Economist on 24/10/2007 11:53:39 Kind of agree with you on the vargur, one more mid would be nice (fittings mean autos, autos mean mwd and web minimum, mwd and web means 4 slot shield tank :/), also the grid to actually fit 4x 1400mm's and a mwd without 3 rcu II's would be nice too
Oh and on a separate note, the fact that one can't tractor neutral and hostile player wrecks means one bonus is completely wasted outside of pve (and ccp stated that though these ships have features that make them good for pve, missions etc, they aren't just mission-running ships).
Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 11:54:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 24/10/2007 11:54:48 I wanted to make a thread about it, but I might as well use this one.
First, those Marauders are weird, from a design point of view. It's as if two guys got their own ideas about a specialised exploration/mission-running ship (it's pretty obvious they were not made with ratting as the primary goal, you don't need tanking bonuses to tank the small dps npcs in belt dish out), and they applied those idea to the ships, without checking what the other was doing. It's most obvious with the Golem: the TP/exp velocity bonuses scream Torpedo usage, but torps aren't optimal for missions/exploration. IT's just not practical enough.
Chronos: That's basically what a Marauder should be: Noticeable DPS increase, but not HAC-level increase, and a bonus to active tanking only, that will be usefull for missions and solo pvp, only marginally usefull in small gang pvp, and totally useless in fleet pvp. But, it has too much powergrid. It should be able to fit 4 425mm rails, afterburner, and two large rep. Not the 4 neutrons, 3 heavy neuts, MWD+cap injector and double large rep I'm hearing about.
Vargur: What does it do better than a Maelstrom, in terms of DPS/tanking? Not enough. The tracking bonus is meh, because autocanons don't need it, and the falloff bonus, while good for pvp, isn't much for pve. With 30k falloff with faction ammos, you'll still miss oe hell of a lot with half the npc battleships, those that orbit at 40-50km. And the ship is in bd need of powergrid, to at least be able to fit 1200mm artilleries.
Paladin: There's something I think CCP hasn't considered here: Laser boats are used only against blood raiders/sanchas/drones & mercenaries. Since those can be tanked with only 1 large rep, 1 EM and 2 active hardeners, that means you don't really need a tanking bonus. Oh, it's still a nice thing to have, but an Abaddon does a better job at mission-whoring than a Paladin with those stats. The tracking bonus is meh, I have no trouble killing cruisers with my current armageddon, and the web bonus mean frigs won't be a problem either, even without tracking bonus.
Golem: What to say that isn't obvious? If used with torps, the lack of range will be pain in the ass, and the explosion velocity bonus usefull only against frigs, the BS/cruiser NPC rarely move at more than 200m/sec. If used with cruises, both the target painter and explosion velocity bonuses are useless (TP bonus only marginally useful against frigs, and that's about 5-10% of what you'll spend time firing at). In either cases, the exp velocity bonus is decently usefull only in pvp, and those are specialized pve ships. There is a serious design dissonance with that battleship.
So, how about proposals to correct things?
There's one thing to keep in mind first: as an almost universal rule, pve players will use weapons that can hit consitently at 40km, even if that means less dps.
- Change the 100% damage role bonus to 115%. To prevent the chronos from being a pvp solopwnmobile, nerf it's powergrid, and drone bandwitch to 50, or even 25. The marauders won't be be-all-end-all ships. Still very vulnerables to EW, still barely more survivables thant T1 BS agsint small gangs, and everyone know Eve's pvp is ganks most of the time.
- Scrap the Golem's explosion velocity, it's useless, and replace it with a velocity bonus. OR, if you want it to use cruise missiles, replace this bonus by the old RoF bonus of the Raven.
- About the paladin, the role bonus would do the job, but an 10% optimal bonus instead of the 7.5% tracking one would also be fine.
- At least, increase the Vargur's PG so it can have an effective artillery pve fit. ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:11:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: d026
Even the fact that the CNR is out of line makes the Golem pointles because it is still preferable to get CNR instead of a Golem.
You heard the man. Nerf the CNR!
That.
As said, the ibalanced ship here is the CNR.
Saying an advanced ship needs a buff to be inline with an earlier ship which is a bit imbalanced with all other ships in the same niche is a bit silly.
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:23:00 -
[30]
I've just been looking at the Kronos stats and it looks like it could do with a missile flight time bonus indeed - Cruises obsolete the explosion velocity and TP bonuses, while Torps simply lack the range.
Also, what is the esitmated price tag of these?
Paradox V2.0 is recruiting! |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:27:00 -
[31]
@Dahak2150
Yes, sadly, as it stands right now, Paladin is indeed a waste of ISK, no matter how you put it. It has a lower cap recharge rate (fully fited/rigged) compared to an Apocalypse, it's MUCH more expensive, and the bonuses are "all wrong and uselessy" for pretty much any fit. Heck, you might as well give it a BLASTER damage role bonus as it stands right now, ffs. Also, it actually "loses half a bonus" (weapon cap efectiveness), compared to the Kronos anyway (the only other cap-using weapon system marauder).
Not only that, but it doesn't get any extra DPS compared to the base version, which already does pathetic damage at best. Sure, it *active* tanks slightly better as an Apoc, but Apoc's problem was never TANK to begin with. It is by far the GREATEST failure of all Marauders.
@Aramendel
CNR is also the odd one out in the fact it doesn't get an extra mid/low slot either, but that extra launcher slot. I wonder WHAT would people think (or, better said, how loud they'd whine) if CCP would change the CNR layout to have just 6 launchers, but 7 mids and 5 lows (so -1 launcher, +1 mid) Even with that, CNR would probably still be the prefered ship, due to the extra slot and much lower skill prerequisites... but then again, you could say the same for all other faction ships vs Marauders.
@Qui Shon
Well, not precisely. Kronos would get the LEAST "boost" with the proposed changes out of all Marauders. For cap recharge, it's the only Marauder "on par" with the T1 variant, so the boost would be minimal... Paladin however would get a huge increase compared to current version, and be brought in-line with the Vargur/Golem. Still, Kronos *does* use cap to fire weapons, so tanking-wise, it would be slightly worse off as Vargur/Golem, but on par with the Paladin (since let's say only about half cap goes into tank, half in weapons, so the 25% extra cap bonus on Paladin would pretty much compensate, overall).
For the damage part... let's assume we pick 6% per level as "damage-related bonus". That's a *1.3 vs *1.25 increase in DPS for the Kronos (+4% compared to current version), but a 1/0.7= *1.42857 vs 1/0.75= *1.333333 for the Vargur (+7.1428% DPS compared to current version). For BOTH the Paladin and Golem, it would be a flat +30% DPS compared to current version, but you'd have some "extra" issues with the Golem in NPC defenders (have I mentioned that often enough already ? I think I didn't). So, yeah, boost Kronos ever so slightly, but boost ALL THE REST more or much more in comparison.
@Vyktor Abyss
Yes, I am pretty sure those are the right stats, as I was getting them out of SiSi showinfo WHILE typing. A few typos exist here and there in the descriptions (like, Vargur had a torp/cruise damage role bonus, ROFL), but for that I used the devblog bonuses listings instead to be sure.
About the insurance, looking at blueprint showinfos, it seems like the platinum payout will be anywhere between 320 and 380 mil ISK for those Marauding beasts, give or take a few dozen mils (haven't bothered checking all, and haven't bothered checking actual *base*price on T2 components, was more interested in current market retail value, which is sure to be inflated... current market value is almost 300 mil ISK just for the extra components at perfect ME, which means they'll be costing at least 450 on top of the T1 ship when built out of invention BPCs, even more than 500 if you use the good yield decryptors). So, while they'd probably pay out close to 350 mil insurance, they won't sell for less than 700 mil (just like a faction ship, actually more) in the long run, and a LOT MORE right after their introduction.
As for PvP effectivenes, the cruiser-level sensor strength means you really, want to fit some ECCM, or else you're really, REALLY screwed if you encounter any Caldari EWar (ECM) boat... say goodbye to chance of targetting anything soon. _
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:47:00 -
[32]
The more I think about it, the more I believe that CNR (and the state issue too) should be "nerfed" by removing one launcher slot and adding a midslot to compensate. I mean, really, what the heck, fall in line with the rest at the DPS progression, heh.
As for the Golem, a rather "simple" solution to the defender problem could be to slightly change the role bonus. So instead of "Role Bonus: 100% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo damage", you could make it "Role Bonus: 100% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo damage and HP". That way, it would behave exactly like a normal Raven/CNR's cruise/torps, no more NPC defender double effectiveness. Small change in wording, HUGE change in effectiveness, into how it should have been. Heck, I would not put it past CCP to have that as an already built-in bonus, but just forgetting to actually list it in the description. _
1|2|3 |
Commander Prishe
Caldari The LoneStar Corp Edge Of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 12:53:00 -
[33]
As a cruise missile navy raven user with decent drone skills I for one wont be training for a gollem, it has some bad design flaws for level 4 mission running ship.
Tbh I just wanted a simple T2 Raven with:
Slightly increased resists 8 launcher hard points Slightly Increased cpu and power grid The original T1 raven bonus's of 5% RoF and 10% missile velocity 2 more T2 bonus's such as 5% cruise/torp dmg per level and 5% shield boost per level. Possibly 1 more high slot
This would make it worth it training up for months and I would happily pay 1 billion for it as I think many others would for runing missions.
|
DARTHxFREE
G.R.U.N.T
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:04:00 -
[34]
Edited by: DARTHxFREE on 24/10/2007 13:05:50 In a squad, isn't the Palabin the best DPS/Support of the 4. Wether that's in the Job discription or not, Long/Close range DPS, cap/armor transfers or can hold it's own for a while if chosen as primary target.
CCP are clearly trying to gimp these things in solo pvp. 1 shouldn't rate them for such. Low DPS is still more then out of range blasters/Torps.
It just doesn't apeal to the masses, it's not a ship for hero's.
All 4 of the Amarr BS's are to similar, Guns+tank nuthing special.
What I would like to see, is more PG for a working Tachyon set up.
P.S whats the verdict on the Amarr Black Ops, the presumed PvP ship before the stats were released? /join Cheeze & Whine Club
|
kanakuma
FAST IMPACT
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:05:00 -
[35]
Edited by: kanakuma on 24/10/2007 13:06:03 Marauders lvl 5 =37.5% shield boost bonus=CN/Dg shield boost amp bundled with ship. fit torpedos ,drop your boost amp fit an AB and fit target painter to new 7th slot. rat wise Angels/blood/sansha/big part of guristas will come to you.Your problem only some rats over 40km like rachen mysuna and structures ,structures will be more problematic then rats i think .
Edit:I guess CCp did not want to send to graveyard faction battleships, good for game
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:10:00 -
[36]
After reading all the knowledgeable posts here, I wonder why CCP doesn't ask the player base first about proposed ship designs. While we were at first agog at the new BS class's, under closer scrutiny it appears there may not be a huge rush to buy them. The Golem is a case in point. The TP bonus would have made the ship a screamer for missions, but then CCP decides to nerf torp range. With npc's popping cruise missiles as they do, you might as well go back to using a Drake and save a couple hundred mil.
|
Xaldor
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:27:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Xaldor on 24/10/2007 13:31:40
Originally by: Sokratesz Edited by: Sokratesz on 24/10/2007 12:54:16 I've just been looking at the Golem stats and it looks like it could do with a missile flight time bonus indeed - Cruises obsolete the explosion velocity and TP bonuses, while Torps simply lack the range.
Also, what is the esitmated price tag of these?
No, it needs a RoF increase and needs an increase in defender evasion as well as launcher ammo bonus, I am talking significant bonuses if anyone is going to want to use this ship.
CNR 7x Launchers x 25% RoF bonus = effectively 8.75 launchers. Assume a BS shoots on average 1 missile down per cycle = 14.3% loss of DPS giving you a net average 7.5 launchers effectively.
Golem 4x Launchers x 100% damage bonus = effectively 8.00 launchers. Assuming the same BS defender loss it loses 25% of its DPS for a net average of 6 launchers effectively so it would only have 80% of a CNRs missile DPS and the CNR can still fit a turret and both have the same drone layout.
The salvaging convenience is not really worth a 20%+ dps drop off, elite BS that spam a lot of defenders are going to absolutely cripple the Golem's damage as it is. A flight bonus wont help it, you would want to be right on top of the ship you are engaging to minimise defender losses as it is.
Assuming elite BS will shoot down 2 missiles per cycle the CNR loses 28.6% of its dps or has effectively 6.25 launchers. The Golem against the same ship will lose 50% of its dps or down to 4 effective launchers dropping down to 65% of the CNR's dps. It will hit like a wet sponge and will struggle to break an elite BS's tank.
|
Sikozu Prioris
Suns Of Korhal YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:31:00 -
[38]
What is easy to deduce is that all the new devs ccp have hired have made stupid ships and made pointless/unecissary nerfs. The have obvisouly not played eve for a long enough period of time to understand things.
CCP devs = noobs in rev3
Thats all
"A enemy fleet emerges from the shadows"
- What shadows!?! We're in ****ing space for gods sake
|
Disco Flint
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:41:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Disco Flint on 24/10/2007 13:44:36
Originally by: Xaldor Edited by: Xaldor on 24/10/2007 13:31:40
Originally by: Sokratesz Edited by: Sokratesz on 24/10/2007 12:54:16 I've just been looking at the Golem stats and it looks like it could do with a missile flight time bonus indeed - Cruises obsolete the explosion velocity and TP bonuses, while Torps simply lack the range.
Also, what is the esitmated price tag of these?
No, it needs a RoF increase and needs an increase in defender evasion as well as launcher ammo bonus, I am talking significant bonuses if anyone is going to want to use this ship.
CNR 7x Launchers x 25% RoF bonus = effectively 8.75 launchers. Assume a BS shoots on average 1 missile down per cycle = 14.3% loss of DPS giving you a net average 7.5 launchers effectively.
Golem 4x Launchers x 100% damage bonus = effectively 8.00 launchers. Assuming the same BS defender loss it loses 25% of its DPS for a net average of 6 launchers effectively so it would only have 80% of a CNRs missile DPS and the CNR can still fit a turret and both have the same drone layout.
The salvaging convenience is not really worth a 20%+ dps drop off, elite BS that spam a lot of defenders are going to absolutely cripple the Golem's damage as it is. A flight bonus wont help it, you would want to be right on top of the ship you are engaging to minimise defender losses as it is.
Assuming elite BS will shoot down 2 missiles per cycle the CNR loses 28.6% of its dps or has effectively 6.25 launchers. The Golem against the same ship will lose 50% of its dps or down to 4 effective launchers dropping down to 65% of the CNR's dps. It will hit like a wet sponge and will struggle to break an elite BS's tank.
It's 9.31 effective launchers on the CNR actually, 25% reduction in RoF are a 33% damage bonus.
* 10% bonus to BS class missile velocity per Caldari BS level * 5% reduction to BS class missile launcher rate of fire per Caldari BS level * 5% bonus to shield resistances per Marauder level * 5% bonus to BS class missile explosion radius per Marauder level * Role bonus: 100% bonus to BS class missile damage & missile HP * Role bonus: 100% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams
^ That (or those swapped around between BS and Mar skills) would be inline with current Caldari bonuses, give it more oomph compared to the CNR and make it useful for missions & PvP. Maybe reduce the explosion radius bonus to 3% or something if it would make certain missiles types overpowered or whatever. In its current state the Golem is not worth the skills and money over a standard Raven or even CNR.
edit:
Originally by: kanakuma Edited by: kanakuma on 24/10/2007 13:06:03 Marauders lvl 5 =37.5% shield boost bonus=CN/Dg shield boost amp bundled with ship. fit torpedos ,drop your boost amp fit an AB and fit target painter to new 7th slot. rat wise Angels/blood/sansha/big part of guristas will come to you.Your problem only some rats over 40km like rachen mysuna and structures ,structures will be more problematic then rats i think .
Edit:I guess CCp did not want to send to graveyard faction battleships, good for game
You do realize that for the painter slot you give up a BCUII slot? So that's less overall damage to do more damage versus small targets... yay. Never had any damn problem popping small targets in my standard Raven and certainly not in my CNR. Also the painter activation time provides additional hassle to get it on the target you want to fire upon if it's still blinking red (10 sec activation time, much lower RoF on launchers).
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:52:00 -
[40]
About the defender issue - I am beginning to believe that it in fact is no issue.
Someone from SHC claimed that the defender launch chance is based per missile. I thought it was timebased. So I made a little field test on sisi. If the defender launch chance is per missile then there should be a difference in the defenders/time when shooting with 1 and when shooting with 7 launchers on the drake. I should get only 14% of the defenders/time when I fire 1 launcher only than when I fire 7 launchers to be precise.
So I tried exactly that. Fired with 7 launchers on a BS and got around 10-12 defenders per minute. Fired with 1 launcher on the same BS and got around 1-2 defenders per minute.
The correlates pretty well with the theoretical results. I did not test it for very long, so the statistical sample isn't that great (so I welcome anyone who cares to repeat this test), but from what I saw the "defender launch is a fixed chance per missile" statement seems to be correct.
So the defender issue is not there. A raven fires twice the amount of missiles over time as the golem and looses only half its dps per defender, but it will also recieve twice the amount of defenders over time. So both ships will loose exactly the same dps percentage to defenders.
|
|
Yadee
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:57:00 -
[41]
Wow what a shock, the gallente ship is the best one, and the amarr the worst
I am getting fed up with the blatant fotm-coaching going on in this game. The playerbase totes itself as mature, but the game caters to children who needs to play fotm.
Loosing more and more interest in this game. I had my hopes up that rev3 would come with some nice stuff for amarr, and all we get is seeing more overpowered gallente ships ?
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:03:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Yadee Wow what a shock, the gallente ship is the best one, and the amarr the worst
Well, tbh I'd say the Gallente and Minmatar marauders are tied for the "best" in pvp (that 60-70km falloff with ACs is *scary*), while the Caldari one seems to be a solid pve boat.
The Amarr one does seem crap, you're right there.
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:06:00 -
[43]
Originally by: DARTHxFREE
P.S whats the verdict on the Amarr Black Ops, the presumed PvP ship before the stats were released?
It's a better NPC'ing ship then the paladin since it's DPS is higher.
Still worse then an abbadon or a gheddon though.
--- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:11:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 24/10/2007 13:00:19
__
The more I think about it, the more I believe that CNR (and the state issue too) should be "nerfed" by removing one launcher slot and adding a midslot to compensate. I mean, really, what the heck, fall in line with the rest at the DPS progression, heh.
I think you're a bit obsessed with symmetry.
The State issue is a non issue, because so few exist. If you removed CNR's extra high, why would anyone bother with it? Sure an extra mid is convenient, SB/AB/SuperDuperTank, but regular Raven already tanks L4's just fine. Maybe for lvl 5's it'd actually be useful, and not just nice, wouldn't know about that.
The more I read your ship adjustment threads, the more I regret training missiles and Raven. As it stands, Cruise CNR is still great, especially for long range work and rats with high thermal resist, that my Domi has to replace Gardes for, but a Cruise plain Raven is sorta meh.
If I trained up Abaddon + Energy turrets to lvl 4, I'd only use Raven for Minmatar and Angels, or maybe even just Angels. Domi and Abaddon would handle the rest.
|
M Brutus
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:12:00 -
[45]
As usual, an excellent post from Akita. As I have said elsewhere, the ship I am most interested in is the Vargur. It looks perfect for ratting in 0.0 drone space. I plan to train my main for that ship some point along the way. My other two accounts will stick with their Navy Megathron and CNR for mission running.
My brand new account, will not, unlike other Amarr characters, complain overly much. Instead, he will look forward to that happy time far in the future when he leaves his Impairor of Doom and straps into his Abaddon. Most of all, he will curse me for not starting him six months ago.
I don't think the the CNR needs any adjustments to its slot layout. I do think the Paladin could use some serious help.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:13:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Aramendel on 24/10/2007 14:14:45
Originally by: DARTHxFREE
P.S whats the verdict on the Amarr Black Ops, the presumed PvP ship before the stats were released?
It is essentially a geddon with 85% of its dps with a somewhat worse tank.
Not actually bad really, considering that it is meant ot be used with force recons. Against a jammed target its tank disadvantage does not mean much and dps is *exactly* what a regular recon gang is lacking.
Personally I find the widow (caldari) is a bit better though. It has almost the same dps as the raven while having the same jamming power as the *rook* (it has 20% ECM strength/lvl on sisi, not 10%). That is a pretty potent combination.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:29:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Aramendel Someone from SHC claimed that the defender launch chance is based per missile. I thought it was timebased. So I made a little field test on sisi[...]The correlates pretty well with the theoretical results[...] So the defender issue is not there.
Hmm... that's... quite interesting. Good news actually... very good news. Well, ok, not great news all things considered, but still a good one.
Originally by: Qui Shon If you removed CNR's extra high, why would anyone bother with it? Sure an extra mid is convenient, SB/AB/SuperDuperTank, but regular Raven already tanks L4's just fine. Maybe for lvl 5's it'd actually be useful, and not just nice, wouldn't know about that.
Oh, I don't know, why would anybody bother with any of the other three navy ships ? They don't get any extra weapons either, but they're far from useless. How about removing their extra low/midslot and adding an extra main weapon to all other three navy ships then ?
Originally by: Qui Shon I think you're a bit obsessed with symmetry.
Consistency and balance actually, but yeah, most people confuse them with symmetry and identity. _
1|2|3 |
Nyx STeeLGamers
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:37:00 -
[48]
the new battleships is about to KICK ASS! 100% range/velocity to tractor beams, u can fit 2 x salv 2 x tractor + guns on every t2 bs, do u know how much i have waited for this?:P they should have called them money-machines instead of their names. the fitting is expensive, cause u will need x-types and stuff. but when u get that.... :)
|
Fuazzole
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:38:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Nyx STeeLGamers the new battleships is about to KICK ASS! 100% range/velocity to tractor beams, u can fit 2 x salv 2 x tractor + guns on every t2 bs, do u know how much i have waited for this?:P they should have called them money-machines instead of their names. the fitting is expensive, cause u will need x-types and stuff. but when u get that.... :)
7 high slots, but yeah I can feel santa
|
Lin Dei
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:40:00 -
[50]
Their bonuses are so badly thought out that I'm going to buy a T2 Battleship just for salvaging. It's their only real bonus imho.
------------------ If you see me post it's because either: 1) Silly forums made me do it 2) Because I was too lazy to change characters 3) Because I wanted to 4) <insert mod comment here> |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:43:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Akita T on 24/10/2007 14:44:58
The Paladin will be perfect for that !
Imagine, 2x T2 Cargo rigs (or salvage tackle rigs, but meh, not really), 7x Expander II, propulsion mod, cap rechargers, 4 tractors reaching at 40km and 3 salvagers. YUMMY salvage ship.
Heh, so there IS a use for the Paladin. But then, they should rename him Cleanser. _
1|2|3 |
Xaldor
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:47:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Aramendel About the defender issue - I am beginning to believe that it in fact is no issue.
Someone from SHC claimed that the defender launch chance is based per missile. I thought it was timebased. So I made a little field test on sisi. If the defender launch chance is per missile then there should be a difference in the defenders/time when shooting with 1 and when shooting with 7 launchers on the drake. I should get only 14% of the defenders/time when I fire 1 launcher only than when I fire 7 launchers to be precise.
So I tried exactly that. Fired with 7 launchers on a BS and got around 10-12 defenders per minute. Fired with 1 launcher on the same BS and got around 1-2 defenders per minute.
The correlates pretty well with the theoretical results. I did not test it for very long, so the statistical sample isn't that great (so I welcome anyone who cares to repeat this test), but from what I saw the "defender launch is a fixed chance per missile" statement seems to be correct.
So the defender issue is not there. A raven fires twice the amount of missiles over time as the golem and looses only half its dps per defender, but it will also recieve twice the amount of defenders over time. So both ships will loose exactly the same dps percentage to defenders.
I dunno...
I know a BS does NOT have a chance to launch a defender per missile because when I was a noob doing L4s with 3 drakes I timed my missiles to fire after a friend's missiles, his would get hit by defenders and about 4 would land and I would only lose the occassional missile to defenders. If it was a chance per missile then I think I would have been losing more than I did.
I just think each BS has X number of launchers with defenders and they fire when their cycle is up, at times if a missile is too quick or fired at close range the missile hits and the defender just flies off target and does nothing. I don't think the system works as sterile as you make it out to be.
Your test results are probably lobsided because your first test is firing fewer missiles than the ship has defenders so they are not all launching, I am pretty sure they do not fire all their defenders if there is just one missile incoming. You will probably find the ship's defender capacity was tested out with your second test. To confirm it add a second or even a third ship and fire a ridiculous number of missiles. If it is a chance per missile the number of missiles shot down would continue to climb based on the number of missiles fired.
I am pretty sure you will find that you hit a brick wall at a certain point.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:58:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Aramendel on 24/10/2007 15:01:46
Originally by: Xaldor Your test results are probably lobsided because your first test is firing fewer missiles than the ship has defenders so they are not all launching, I am pretty sure they do not fire all their defenders if there is just one missile incoming. You will probably find the ship's defender capacity was tested out with your second test. To confirm it add a second or even a third ship and fire a ridiculous number of missiles. If it is a chance per missile the number of missiles shot down would continue to climb based on the number of missiles fired.
If the had a number of launchers with defenders then If I would only launch 1 missle at them it would be intercepted by defenders in most cases. Or at least it should get intercepted far more regulary than when I was fireing all 7 missiles.
But this simply wasn't the case.
The reason your friends missiles were hit and barely one of yours is because your firends missiles were before yours. A defender launch chance seems to get triggered when a missile is fired at the ship, but the defender itself always goes vs the *nearest* missile. So your friends missiles got hit by the defenders he triggered and by the defenders you triggered.
Also, NPC ships do not operate like player ships, they are simpler. They have no cap to worry about and their defensive actions - EW, reps/boosters and..defenders are chancebased. The more advanced databases show these stats.
If you disbelieve it test it yourself. Now. Something which you believe to have seen months ago not under controlled testing conditions is not very conclusive.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:07:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Akita T
Oh, I don't know, why would anybody bother with any of the other three navy ships ?
I think only because of the bling, at least as far as PvE goes. Vindi/NvyMega rock for PvP, CNR rocks for PvE. Good, let it be that way.
Originally by: Akita T
Consistency and balance actually, but yeah, most people confuse them with symmetry and identity.
Identity? Please elaborate.
I think it might be you who confuse your need for symmetry, with an almost overzealous need for "balance and consistency".
If the only difference is in the details, the name of the modules and the graphic effects, while tactics and capabilites are all but equalized across all four races, for each ship class, that's symmetry, not overall balance.
Of course, balancing PvE+effective gang roles with speed with close range gank with, uhh, midrange dps+tank, is much more complicated then just balancing torps to blasters, or gankship to gankship.
Keep the differences I say. Let people train for the speciality they want, to the level they want it at. Sure you need balancing, just don't make everything the same.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:13:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Shardrael
Originally by: ElCoCo
The vargur... errr... do ppl realy do missions with autocannons? Rof bonus instead of dmg even hurts so much more ammo-wise. I'd prefer an armor tank arty boat tbh so I still won't fly it.
at first glance it looks pretty bad but with that falloff bonus and using AC's it would have unusually high dmg at 50km (prob including falloff rigs) whether that makes it worth the ammo consumption or not is up to each individual to decide and I dont know if it would for me personally, but it does present an interesting way to do missions for minmatarr
VArgur dotn have PG to fit Top AC and Fallof rigs. It simply need a bit more PG to be able to fit 1200mm then will be a perfect ship.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:17:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 24/10/2007 14:44:58
The Paladin will be perfect for that !
Imagine, 2x T2 Cargo rigs (or salvage tackle rigs, but meh, not really), 7x Expander II, propulsion mod, cap rechargers, 4 tractors reaching at 40km and 3 salvagers. YUMMY salvage ship.
Heh, so there IS a use for the Paladin. But then, they should rename him Cleanser.
Brilliant!
But for salvaging, you really do want the Salvage Tackle Rigs. Might as well make them Tech II... ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
Skeltek
Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:34:00 -
[57]
I guess ship value and strenght shouldnŠt be ever measured with scalar or linear values. This leaves everyone the OPTION to either focus on more firepower or tractorbeam/salvage while still dealing damage at a pretty good speed.
Even if it doesnŠt do more damage than older shiptypes, you will definitely see many people fly them, because it simply saves a huge amount of time.
PvP offers a really broad range of specialized ships, tactics and variety to choose from. Even t1 BS and Frigates still have a very important role they can assume there. PvE on the other hand almost only screams for "better tank and more firepower" for accumulating ISK faster semi-afk in lvl4 missions.
I simply donŠt understand the problem most people have with this fact. What people want and what makes them happy mostly are totaly different things. When the missions got nerfed/easier and the PvE-only-ships got even better at doing missions, I simply quit that frenzy of boredom and repeatative lvl4 missionrunning.
In the early days lvl4 missions were told to be only doable in teams and doing them alone was a real challenge where you couldnŠt simply go afk while having full-aggro; but I guess thatŠs another story.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:37:00 -
[58]
Yes, salvage tackle rigs *really* help. After 7 cargo extenders you do not really need more cargo anyway. In fact you would want to replace a few with istabs and nanos.
note-to-self: I cannot believe I am actually discussing this. But sadly that is indeed the best paladin setup I have seen so far.
|
Zolian
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:49:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: d026
Even the fact that the CNR is out of line makes the Golem pointles because it is still preferable to get CNR instead of a Golem.
You heard the man. Nerf the CNR!
That.
As said, the ibalanced ship here is the CNR.
Saying an advanced ship needs a buff to be inline with an earlier ship which is a bit imbalanced with all other ships in the same niche is a bit silly.
The CNR doesn't get an extra slot over the Raven, while the fleet pest, vindi, navy mega etc. all do.
Nothing is imblanced here.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:53:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Zolian The CNR doesn't get an extra slot over the Raven, while the fleet pest, vindi, navy mega etc. all do.
Nothing is imblanced here.
Yes, because an extra med slot is just as good more dps for NPCing, right?
No, not really. A normal raven, mega, pest or apoc can tank lvl4 missions just fine without that additional slot. It does not really help them much.
If you disagree then you should have no problem with the CNR loosing a launcher and gaining a med slot instead, right?
|
|
Zolian
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:10:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Zolian on 24/10/2007 16:16:37
Originally by: Aramendel
Yes, because an extra med slot is just as good more dps for NPCing, right?
No, not really. A normal raven, mega, pest or apoc can tank lvl4 missions just fine without that additional slot. It does not really help them much.
If you disagree then you should have no problem with the CNR loosing a launcher and gaining a med slot instead, right?
Quote: As said, the ibalanced ship here is the CNR.
Saying an advanced ship needs a buff to be inline with an earlier ship which is a bit imbalanced with all other ships in the same niche is a bit silly.
The CNR isn't imbalanced. It just so happens to get more performance in PvE from its extra launcher while the others get either more utility or more tank mostly for PvP. Nothing wrong here, PvE performance should have low priority in balancing, or else the Mega would need a large boost.
I would be more than glad to trade the 7th launcher for a 7th mid, but I don't have missions in mind.
On the marauders: the problem I see isn't the Golem's performance compared to the CNR, but to the regular Raven. It gets two bonuses that help missile damage against small/fast targets but do raw damage increase afaik. Compared to the gallente marauder which gets on more turret after bonus as well as two bonuses to help it hit small targets.
|
Fenderson
Finite Horizon Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:23:00 -
[62]
I have to disagree with your analysis of the capacitor on the kronos. the reduction in cap consumption from having less turrets actually is a significant difference. i havent done the math, but my experience as a gallente spec'd pilot tells me that kronos will have overall better cap than t1 or faction counterparts. you can see a similar difference by comparing cap consumption of a blaster ship using void ammo (with a cap use penalty) vs a blaster ship using null (no cap use penalty).
on another point, are you sure about this defender missile issue? my understanding was that npc defender missiles were similar to npc ECM, in that it is purely chance based. if that is the case, it should have exactly the same % effect on overall DPS no matter how many actual launchers are on the setup.
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:36:00 -
[63]
I agree that the Kronos will have a nice advantage towards its cap use from only fitting four slots. It should be easier to make the tank permarunning with the high damage ammo.
As for the extra low/mid slots on the faction ships - they go to gank on my Navy Mega. You really don't need more than six slots for a PvE tank - so that allows me to fit two mag stabs. Works very well. ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:59:00 -
[64]
There is already better Raven version with better tanking ability. It is Rattlesnake. CNR happened to be the gank version of Raven and thus has extra launcher slot.
And idea to use Marauder as salvaging ship .. hmmm .. indeed. Thats pretty good idea actually. Caldary one is somewhat low on low slots, but with that nice base cargospace it would still be adequate for almost all level 4 missions.
I might even start looting again if I can just jump to each stage and collect it all in reasonable timeframe. So not entirely useless for missions afterall
|
William DeMeo
Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:12:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Akita T Ok, so they're not specifically designed ONLY for missionrunning, as the initial devblog mentioning them just had to state.
But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind. At least, to a point. The best proof for that ? The tractor beam bonus, for starters, and the insane cargohold as a nice touch.
However, we do have a problem with them. They are by far NOT the best missionrunners from their class. They are still overshadowed by their faction counterparts. So, you are tempted to say "but what, that's not a problem at all". Well, I beg to differ ! And quite strongly. They should be BETTER at missionrunning as their faction counterparts.
"Huh, are you insane ? Why should they be better as faction BS ?" Well, let's look at all other faction ships then, shall we ? ALL faction frigates and cruisers are only a bit better as their T1 counterparts (where appliable), but with a decent hitpoints bonus, and the ease of use (meaning, low skill requirements). However, the T2 counterparts (AFs/HACs) are FAR better at whatever the T1/faction ships are, and not only because of the higher resists bonuses. On the downside, they are slightly harder to fit properly, and require a LOT of skills to get into (and then some to properly fly). Oh, and they (the T2s) are MUCH cheaper as the faction versions. MUCH, MUCH cheaper, almost without exception.
Now, with Marauders, you not only get a ship that's not much better as its T1 counterpart, and in some cases, it's worse as its faction counterpart. To add insult to injury, initial estimates put the "stabilized" pricetag of a Marauder pretty close to that of a faction ship.
To put it mildly... well, Marauders aren't an UTTER dissapointment, but they do come HEAVILY pre-nerfed. There's simply too much "not so good" about them to begin wondering "what the heck were the CCP marauder fine-tuners thinking?"
I just hope what we see on SiSi is by far NOT the final version of those ships. Still, as hey stand right now... you have to wonder... why the heck bother with one, when you can just grab a faction ship at the same price, and with less skill requirements, and perform just as well, if not better in it in missions ?
So, bottom line, CCP guys, get to it, and make them what you initially meant them to be. Well, ok, you have to give them a flavor, you have to not make them solo pwnmobiles (well, they're not, thanks to the crappy sensor strength and huge sig), so yeah, it won't be an easy task. BUT GET TO IT.
Dude, Marauders are awesome solo pwnomobiles. And unless you fly corvus you'll still put out more damage in the golem(right?) then in a CNR, while you still got more then enough space to fit nos/tractor beams/whatever, on top of that you get an insanely large cargohold and some extra resists.
So why whine? Marauders are awesome at mission running AND PvP.
And also, the t2 tempest will be pretty awesome for mission running with it's insane range on AC's.
Basically, marauders are as close as you get to battleship HAC's, but don't tell ccp that cuz they'll nerf them to hell. Yarr |
Liisa
Absolutely No Return The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:31:00 -
[66]
Originally by: William DeMeo
Dude, Marauders are awesome solo pwnomobiles. And unless you fly corvus you'll still put out more damage in the golem(right?) then in a CNR, while you still got more then enough space to fit nos/tractor beams/whatever, on top of that you get an insanely large cargohold and some extra resists.
So why whine? Marauders are awesome at mission running AND PvP.
And also, the t2 tempest will be pretty awesome for mission running with it's insane range on AC's.
Basically, marauders are as close as you get to battleship HAC's, but don't tell ccp that cuz they'll nerf them to hell.
Whoa there. The t2 tempest will have insane falloff not range. This might be new to you, but shooting in falloff means that you do not do your complete damage. In fact, at range+falloff you will be doing around 50% of your normal damage. In fact, a max skilled char will have, with 800mm tech 2 ACs, a falloff of 30km. Yes ladies and gentlemen, that means that you are going to be chasing down a lot of battleships with your afterburner firing in order to kill them.
But but but Barrage! Yes, barrage ammo does increase your falloff, however, it also does only explosive and kinetic damage. When you are already doing less damage than people who are operating in their optimal or at least not deep in their falloff you also want me to shoot a damage type that my racial enemy (the amarr) really like to tank against? In most cases you can probably still beat the tank if you shoot long enough (wasting a lot of isk, you do know how expensive barrage is, right?) but there are some elite battleships that have an orbit range of 40km, explosive resistance of 80% and a kinetic resistance of 70%. Good luck killing that with barrage, boy.
Use falloff rigs. Great idea. So I am supposed to use a close range weapon system to chase down ships with my afterburner running and now I am supposed to not use my rig slots for CCCs? You know that I might have to tank a bit more due to the fact that I have to go closer to the rats in order to kill them. You need cap to run a tank.
Use faction gear: **** you. I do my missions in lowsec. Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:45:00 -
[67]
Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 18:46:15
Originally by: William DeMeo
Originally by: Akita T Ok, so they're not specifically designed ONLY for missionrunning, as the initial devblog mentioning them just had to state.
But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind. At least, to a point. The best proof for that ? The tractor beam bonus, for starters, and the insane cargohold as a nice touch.
However, we do have a problem with them. They are by far NOT the best missionrunners from their class. They are still overshadowed by their faction counterparts. So, you are tempted to say "but what, that's not a problem at all". Well, I beg to differ ! And quite strongly. They should be BETTER at missionrunning as their faction counterparts.
"Huh, are you insane ? Why should they be better as faction BS ?" Well, let's look at all other faction ships then, shall we ? ALL faction frigates and cruisers are only a bit better as their T1 counterparts (where appliable), but with a decent hitpoints bonus, and the ease of use (meaning, low skill requirements). However, the T2 counterparts (AFs/HACs) are FAR better at whatever the T1/faction ships are, and not only because of the higher resists bonuses. On the downside, they are slightly harder to fit properly, and require a LOT of skills to get into (and then some to properly fly). Oh, and they (the T2s) are MUCH cheaper as the faction versions. MUCH, MUCH cheaper, almost without exception.
Now, with Marauders, you not only get a ship that's not much better as its T1 counterpart, and in some cases, it's worse as its faction counterpart. To add insult to injury, initial estimates put the "stabilized" pricetag of a Marauder pretty close to that of a faction ship.
To put it mildly... well, Marauders aren't an UTTER dissapointment, but they do come HEAVILY pre-nerfed. There's simply too much "not so good" about them to begin wondering "what the heck were the CCP marauder fine-tuners thinking?"
I just hope what we see on SiSi is by far NOT the final version of those ships. Still, as hey stand right now... you have to wonder... why the heck bother with one, when you can just grab a faction ship at the same price, and with less skill requirements, and perform just as well, if not better in it in missions ?
So, bottom line, CCP guys, get to it, and make them what you initially meant them to be. Well, ok, you have to give them a flavor, you have to not make them solo pwnmobiles (well, they're not, thanks to the crappy sensor strength and huge sig), so yeah, it won't be an easy task. BUT GET TO IT.
Dude, Marauders are awesome solo pwnomobiles. And unless you fly corvus you'll still put out more damage in the golem(right?) then in a CNR, while you still got more then enough space to fit nos/tractor beams/whatever, on top of that you get an insanely large cargohold and some extra resists.
So why whine? Marauders are awesome at mission running AND PvP.
And also, the t2 tempest will be pretty awesome for mission running with it's insane range on AC's.
Basically, marauders are as close as you get to battleship HAC's, but don't tell ccp that cuz they'll nerf them to hell.
uhh how does a 4/4 high/low slot raven dish out more dps than a 8/5 high/low slot raven? the golem does not only get outdamaged by its Faction counterpart but also by its TI conterpart, imho Golem is the sux..
|
Polysynchronicity
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:59:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Akita T And let's not even begin to mention the "NPC defenders" issue, which get MULTIPLIED by the fact it launches half as many missiles as a T1 Raven, effectively *doubling* the NPC defender effectiveness. VERY bad.
The number of defenders launched by NPCs scales with the number of missiles you fire. With 4 launchers going instead of 7 you will get: (4/7) or only 57% of the defenders that a CNR would encounter.
|
joshmorris
Ravenous Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:09:00 -
[69]
whining for a buff before released ... wow
Uber idea solves all !! |
Chr0nosX
Ore Mongers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:18:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Chr0nosX on 24/10/2007 20:18:16 They have just turned into imba PvP solopwnmobiles. CCP said they would never introduce battleship sized HACs and wanted to start to move away from solopwnmobiles with the suggested carrier changes. Then they come up with these. They need a big change imo. Im sure ill be flamed by all the kiddies wanting to go around pwning everything by themselves though.
|
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:23:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Zolian The CNR isn't imbalanced. It just so happens to get more performance in PvE from its extra launcher while the others get either more utility or more tank mostly for PvP. Nothing wrong here, PvE performance should have low priority in balancing, or else the Mega would need a large boost.
Exept, in case you missed it (I mean, it is only in the threat title and such): we are talking about PvE performance here.
|
Shardrael
Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:25:00 -
[72]
Originally by: d026 uhh how does a 4/4 high/low slot raven dish out more dps than a 8/5 high/low slot raven? Actualy the golem does not get outdamaged by its Faction brother even its T1 counterpar outdamages it. Raven 5 bcus > Golem 4 bcus. Raven 3 rig slots > Golem 2 rig slots. Raven 2 Turret HP + 6 Launchers > Golem 0 Turret HP + 4 Launchers.
[/quote
using bull**** fittings to say something is better is so asinine its ridiculous, on top of that comparing a ships dmg based solely on its paper stats is not the same as logging performance over a mission or some such.
with the target painter bonus and explosion velocity bonus the golem will eclipse the dmg of the CNR against more then half of the npcs in current missions meaning a faster mission run time and the all important higher isk per hour rate that is seen as the justification for outragreous prices on faction mission runners today.
on a side note the bonuses you mentioned prior for the golem would likely make it the highest damage battleship in the game with one of the strongest tanks..... and spare high slots to fit neuts or smartbombs and extra ew bonueses to boost dmg...(tp) yeah ok thatll happen. This is not an oversized HAC
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:28:00 -
[73]
Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 20:31:10 Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 20:30:33
Originally by: Shardrael
Originally by: d026 uhh how does a 4/4 high/low slot raven dish out more dps than a 8/5 high/low slot raven? Actualy the golem does not get outdamaged by its Faction brother even its T1 counterpar outdamages it. Raven 5 bcus > Golem 4 bcus. Raven 3 rig slots > Golem 2 rig slots. Raven 2 Turret HP + 6 Launchers > Golem 0 Turret HP + 4 Launchers. [/quote
using bull**** fittings to say something is better is so asinine its ridiculous, on top of that comparing a ships dmg based solely on its paper stats is not the same as logging performance over a mission or some such.
with the target painter bonus and explosion velocity bonus the golem will eclipse the dmg of the CNR against more then half of the npcs in current missions meaning a faster mission run time and the all important higher isk per hour rate that is seen as the justification for outragreous prices on faction mission runners today.
on a side note the bonuses you mentioned prior for the golem would likely make it the highest damage battleship in the game with one of the strongest tanks..... and spare high slots to fit neuts or smartbombs and extra ew bonueses to boost dmg...(tp) yeah ok thatll happen. This is not an oversized HAC
no he wont he will have slower rof and not enough (with cruise missiles) alpha to 1 volley most targets. thus you are better off with the cnr with a lil less alpha but faster rof. the tp and explo velocity bonus does not matter much either considering you are shooting with cruise missiles and not torpedos considering theyre gimped range for pve..
|
Tibilo
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:43:00 -
[74]
The marauders really just seem like great pvp ships. Other than the tractor beam bonus and a big cargo hold it doesn't seem like you gain much over a tech1 battleship especially given how much more they are likely to cost.
Their only real drawback for pvp is their sensor strength. If you take the Kronos and fit a sensor backup array your no easier to jam than a tempest. then you basically get a Hyperion that doesn't have any problems hitting its target with plenty of space for cap boosters. As well as getting three utility slots for nos/neut and smart bombs. Allowing you to kill off ecm drones and extra incoming damage. Not that I am complaining its an awesome ship but I would still probably just use a Dominix or Astarte if I was doing missions
Similarly with the others I am sure its easy enough to get some eccm fitted and still have better damage, tank and cap than tier 3 or faction battleships. (except maybe the paladins damage).
The sensor strength doesn't really cripple them that much, so it depends how good we want them to be at pvp. one major difference for mission ships is sustainability so an idea could be to give them good enough natural cap recharge to run all of their modules(guns maybe ab, web, dual reps or x-large shield booster) and then not let them use cap injectors/boosters. It better allows them to stay undocked for longer periods than just having more space for ammo/cap boosters. With utility slots for nos they will still be good at pvp but with a vulnerability to neutralizers.
|
Dominator9987
Minmatar The Shambling Horde
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 20:49:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Akita T But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind. At least, to a point. The best proof for that ?... ... Now, with Marauders, you not only get a ship that's not much better as its T1 counterpart, and in some cases, it's worse as its faction counterpart. To add insult to injury, initial estimates put the "stabilized" pricetag of a Marauder pretty close to that of a faction ship.
To put it mildly... well, Marauders aren't an UTTER dissapointment, but they do come HEAVILY pre-nerfed. There's simply too much "not so good" about them to begin wondering "what the heck were the CCP marauder fine-tuners thinking?"
I like the way you talk to yourself
AND
CCP make with the 8 marauderz turrets plz or atleast 7 turrets as the volleys just look and feel so much more fulfilling.
|
Jerusalem Eve
Amarr Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 21:38:00 -
[76]
So I guess we got a dedicated "lootship" class that we have all been wanting. I can't wait to skill up for it and pay all that isk for it.
I'll wait for CCP to "freeze" their code but I think they are in the middle of the desert and its 126 F right now.
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 24/10/2007 14:44:58
The Paladin will be perfect for that !
Imagine, 2x T2 Cargo rigs (or salvage tackle rigs, but meh, not really), 7x Expander II, propulsion mod, cap rechargers, 4 tractors reaching at 40km and 3 salvagers. YUMMY salvage ship.
Heh, so there IS a use for the Paladin. But then, they should rename him Cleanser.
|
Sorja
E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 22:25:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Aramendel Fired with 7 launchers on a BS and got around 10-12 defenders per minute. Fired with 1 launcher on the same BS and got around 1-2 defenders per minute.
7 x 1-2 = 7-14, how is that different than 10-12?
According to your test defenders are time based tbh ____________________ A gentleman is someone who can play the bagpipe, but who does not. |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:08:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Aramendel on 24/10/2007 23:09:11
Originally by: Sorja 7 x 1-2 = 7-14, how is that different than 10-12?
According to your test defenders are time based tbh
You are making no sense.
Why should they be time based? If they would be time based then I would get the same number of defenders with 1 missle launcher active and with 7 missile launchers active.
Well, not exactly, I would have gotten around 8 defenders per minute and not 10-12 since I am only launching 8 missiles from a single launcher.
|
Bosie
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:20:00 -
[79]
After reading your comments on the Mega and Hybrid CAP usage I think you need to fly a Mega before you comment on it.
"There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is ENGLAND |
Nabar Phargal
Gallente Anqara Expeditions The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.10.24 23:47:00 -
[80]
My Kronos setup (not that I'll be actively training for one) Highs: 3x salvagers, 4x tractors Mids: an AB probably, sensor boosters?, Cap rechargers? Lows: ODs, nanos, cargo expanders Rigs: 2x salvaging rigs
I think it might actually be more appropriate to compare the Kronos to the Dominix, since that's what most gallente use for missions anyway.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 05:59:00 -
[81]
Originally by: William DeMeo And unless you fly corvus you'll still put out more damage in the golem(right?) then in a CNR
Wrong. You put out IDENTICAL damage in the Golem as in the "normal Raven", so... less as in the CNR.
Originally by: Bosie After reading your comments on the Mega and Hybrid CAP usage I think you need to fly a Mega before you comment on it.
I was talking MISSIONS, not PvP. Have you ever actually missioned with a Mega ? _
1|2|3 |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 06:29:00 -
[82]
Actually the other empire faction ships (minus the Fleet Pest) also get a hidden damage bonus by the additional lowslot they get. They are armortankers, and so the extra low usually means an extra damage mod that can be fitted. CNR is a shieldtanker with 5 lows, so adding another really would not do much for damage (3 damage mods are standard fit), hence the only way to boost damage is adding a launcher. The same thing should have been done for the Fleet Tempest too, remove a low and add a turret and it is a fine ship. Please don't try seeing imbalances where there are none.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 07:43:00 -
[83]
Still doesn't change the fact that the Marauders are all but sub-par at PvE, with boosts where it wasn't really needed and not much of a boost (except the tanking bonus) where it would have really mattered in PvE. Golem ? No, thanks, CNR is much better. Kronos ? No, thanks, Dominix is better. Paladin ? Hell no, Abaddon is much better. Vargur ? Well, ok, maybe this one, but that's it. _
1|2|3 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:06:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Actually the other empire faction ships (minus the Fleet Pest) also get a hidden damage bonus by the additional lowslot they get. They are armortankers, and so the extra low usually means an extra damage mod that can be fitted. CNR is a shieldtanker with 5 lows, so adding another really would not do much for damage (3 damage mods are standard fit), hence the only way to boost damage is adding a launcher. The same thing should have been done for the Fleet Tempest too, remove a low and add a turret and it is a fine ship. Please don't try seeing imbalances where there are none.
That assumes that you cannot fit 3 damagemods on lvl4 mega and apoc setups which I kinda doubt.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:22:00 -
[85]
Good point about the Rattle, and also the damagemod thing. I've always wondered about the number of people suggesting 6x Rail Domis, with fitting mods where magstabs should have been.
Come to think of it, since Golem doesn't have turret points, and you can easily fit 2x 425mm rails on both cruise Raven and Rattle (for an additional 60-70dps or so, out to 40km) both the T1 Raven and the tanking faction Raven outdamage the Golem with equal numbers of BCU's.
Would make the on-paper dps of the Cruise Raven seem less pitiful, at least.
Marauders seem to have been designed more with ratting in mind, not so much with missionrunning.
|
Tiny Carlos
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:24:00 -
[86]
Quote: Vargur ? Well, ok, maybe this one, but that's it.
But no arties, not that it matters much as there's probably about one person who uses Min BS for missions. Most will have cross trained or just got a Caldari alt for missons. "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." - Groucho Marx |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:29:00 -
[87]
LAR+plate or 2xLAR, 3 resist mods = 5 slots. So yeah, you usually fit just 2 damage mods, but 3 on the faction. That 3rd damage mod is roughly +12.4% DPS (for T2) or +13.9% DPS (for navy damagemod) vs the regular T1 version. However, even with faction mods, you're getting nowhere near the tank of a faction-fit Raven.
CNR gets +16.6% DPS right off the bat, and CAN fit a 4th damagemod if it really wants to due to faction tank effectiveness, for an additional +5.9% DPS (T2) or +6.6% DPS (CN BCS), for a grand total of +17.65% DPS with T2 mods or +17.76% DPS with CN mods compared to the base Raven version. _
1|2|3 |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:31:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Aramendel
That assumes that you cannot fit 3 damagemods on lvl4 mega and apoc setups which I kinda doubt.
Why would you use an Apoc?
Sure you *can* fit 3 dmgmods on a RailMega, or 7 even, but your tank will suck too badly to use it in missions, solo.
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 09:52:00 -
[89]
I cant wait to 0.0 plex in them
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:04:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Damned Force on 25/10/2007 10:04:58 The GOLEM is a fail.
DPS sux, DPS if enemy launch defenders sux even more, PG low, Bonuses sux........ The missile explo veloc is sux... not needed in pve, good against smaller targets, bah my drones melt everything under a cruiser in secs. The TP bonus is sux... not needed in pve especially where max 10% would use torps after the 30km range
Give on the place of missile explo velocity bonus a rof bonus and incrase the HP of the missiles on the golem. Than maybe it would be worth.
ATM i can easy make every lvl4 in my regular raven without any faction mod, so why throw out 400-600 mil for a gimped, low dps ship?
|
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:08:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Akita T LAR+plate or 2xLAR, 3 resist mods = 5 slots. So yeah, you usually fit just 2 damage mods, but 3 on the faction.
Uh.. why on earth would you fit a plate on a PvE setup? That is high stupidity. And you can tank most missions with a single LAR.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:16:00 -
[92]
ôKronos ? No, thanks, Dominix is better.ö From what I can see the Kronos will do more DPS, tank better and loots faster. How is the domi better for PvE?
There is also the psychology bit. Although 4 turrets are not better then 8 thereÆs something nice about seeing big damage numbers from 4 turrets. If you use T2 ammo as well your cutting down ammo cost from what 1 mill to 500k per mission? Something like that.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:31:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 10:33:36
If you can tank most missions with a single LAR, you can also tank most missions with a Large Shield Booster... yet everybody and their dog uses XL boosters on the Raven/CNR. As for the plate, sometimes when a single LAR isn't enough, and you don't have the cap to use a second LAR, it's usually better to fit a plate instead of a MAR so that you survive long enough to lower the incoming DPS... and it also acts as a slightly better buffer against the LAR's huge cycle time. ___
Back on the Golem vs CNR debate... As I was saying in another thread, there's no doubt a Golem is a huge step up from a Raven, but still, in most cases, a CNR works better in missions.
So, keeping in mind the "NPC defender" particularities, the Golem does indeed need a SINGLE change to make it the ship for missionrunning. Namely, the same minor change I already proposed to it before you told us how NPC defenders actually work... the role bonus change from "+100% to BS missiles damage" to "+100% to BS missiles damage and HP".
That would mean, in missions, it WILL have a better DPS as a normal Raven, instead of identical damage, just BECAUSE the NPCs would only shoot down "half of its half missiles". Heck, in some cases, where very defender-trigger-happy NPCs exist in missions, it might actually get a better effective DPS as a CNR. However, in PvP, almost nobody uses defenders (I'd like to see who actually does), so it would be absolutely not at all be an actual PvP buff.
So, yup, that's all it needs to be "just perfect" _
1|2|3 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 10:54:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 10:54:18
Originally by: Akita T If you can tank most missions with a single LAR, you can also tank most missions with a Large Shield Booster... yet everybody and their dog uses XL boosters on the Raven/CNR.
A LSB is less effective than a LAR, both in capefficiency and in boost amount.
Quote: As for the plate, sometimes when a single LAR isn't enough, and you don't have the cap to use a second LAR, it's usually better to fit a plate instead of a MAR so that you survive long enough to lower the incoming DPS... and it also acts as a slightly better buffer against the LAR's huge cycle time.
Another harderner >>>> a plate. With a DCU structure offers plenty of buffer space. If that is not enough a plate won#t help you much either.
Quote: It's not that you have to, it's what (other) people actually use.
I have also seen people using mealstroms with tachyons. So? People are stupid and use stupid setups.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:01:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Akita T CNR gets +16.6% DPS right off the bat, and CAN fit a 4th damagemod if it really wants to due to faction tank effectiveness, for an additional +5.9% DPS (T2) or +6.6% DPS (CN BCS), for a grand total of +17.65% DPS with T2 mods or +17.76% DPS with CN mods compared to the base Raven version.
Actually CNR does not even need to use faction tank to fit 4th damagemod. I use 4 of them + signal amp II in my low slots in cruise missile setup with just T2 tank. It would also possible to fit 5th BCU without problems, but signal amp II is slightly better for those select few missions where rats start out from ~120 km. I also have room for one target painter in that setup and no problems tanking level 4 missions (yes - T2 tank, not faction, no I don't need to warp out in missions). Torp raven would need some faction gadgets in tank section also tho to pull off 4 BCU's, but meh - torps are not going to be viable for missions anyway when that patch comes.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:01:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 11:04:27
Quote: A LSB is less effective than a LAR, both in capefficiency and in boost amount.
A LSB-II + SBAmp-II is both more cap-effective as a LAR-II and repairs more per second, at maxskills. Same for T2 XL+SBA and 2xLAR. The only difference is that the booster uses up slightly more cap/sec... but it does give you better repair/cap ratio, namely 2.266 instead of 2 for the armor reps. _
1|2|3 |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:04:00 -
[97]
Shame I cannot get onto the test server as I want to try this. If I am right Kronos web bonus means it can use the best T2 damage ammo with tracking penalties and the web completely gets rid of the tracking penalty at close range massively boosting your dps output. You can hit just as well at long range due to the tracking bonus on the ship. If this works like I think I plan to move over to T2 ammo only. Right now itÆs a little to costly for missions but with the new ships its going be cost effective.
Now add on the long range tractor beams and cargo space and you can look far faster without wrapping out. I can see missions going much faster.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:08:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 11:10:39
Sure, you get to reduce the enemy speed down to a mere 1% of original with a T2 or best named web... but that web bonus only means something when you get into web range. Ok, so maybe you use a Domination web, but that's still only useful from 15km and below, and you won't be overloading it much... or do you plan on flying with an interdiction man link gangmate ? So, in missions, if you use rails, no help from web (unless it's against NPC friggies that get too close), and using blasters in missions is PAINFULL at best. _
1|2|3 |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:23:00 -
[99]
I normally have 4 tracking computers and the ships bonus so I hit outside of web range fine with railguns 425mm T2. When I start to miss thats when they are in web range. Thats with T1 ammo not sure if T2 will work the same with its lower tracking. Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:29:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Akita T
They are by far NOT the best missionrunners from their class. They are still overshadowed by their faction counterparts. So, you are tempted to say "but what, that's not a problem at all". Well, I beg to differ ! And quite strongly. They should be BETTER at missionrunning as their faction counterparts.
"Huh, are you insane ? Why should they be better as faction BS ?" Well, let's look at all other faction ships then, shall we ? ALL faction frigates and cruisers are only a bit better as their T1 counterparts (where appliable), but with a decent hitpoints bonus, and the ease of use (meaning, low skill requirements). However, the T2 counterparts (AFs/HACs) are FAR better at whatever the T1/faction ships are, and not only because of the higher resists bonuses. On the downside, they are slightly harder to fit properly, and require a LOT of skills to get into (and then some to properly fly). Oh, and they (the T2s) are MUCH cheaper as the faction versions. MUCH, MUCH cheaper, almost without exception.
Since this is the premise of your arguments, let me just go back to that.
Devblogs specifically said, don't call it a mission ship. In reference to Black Ops, it also said this is not the Tech 2 battleship you are looking for. As if that wasn't enough, here's a direct quote from Oveur regarding Marauders: It is not a HAC either :)
Your premise, your wishes, your comparisons to other T2 ships, are not inline with the intended roles and capability of these new ships. Whatever arguments you base on this false premise, have no ground to stand on.
---
And you know, Akita, you already got the CNR nerfed for missions once with your Torp "Game Development" / "Features and Ideas" posting. Leave it the **** alone already. But I guess comments like this only adds fuel to the fire. Maybe you'd like nothing better then for the CNR to become the new Apoc, and would dearly savor all the cries that would ensue.
|
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:46:00 -
[101]
Its so easy to tank lv'4s i have have a full rack of 5 bcus on my cnr. The only thing i wished the golem to have more DPS to speed up my missionwhoring. You can tank every level 4 just fine in a CNR/Raven/Domi. And no you wont be able to tank lvl 5's in the golem, you NEED to passiv tank there (energy neut sentrys with ****load of hp's..)
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 11:48:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Since this is the premise of your arguments, let me just go back to that. Devblogs specifically said, don't call it a mission ship. In reference to Black Ops, it also said this is not the Tech 2 battleship you are looking for. As if that wasn't enough, here's a direct quote from Oveur regarding Marauders: It is not a HAC either :)
Your premise, your wishes, your comparisons to other T2 ships, are not inline with the intended roles and capability of these new ships. Whatever arguments you base on this false premise, have no ground to stand on.
In another dev blog the marauders were appraised as "the-missionrunners-wet-dream". so.. why not expect a mission ship?:)
|
Tidas Andrommeda
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:04:00 -
[103]
Umm...just wondering if you realize that the whole thing behind doing missions is to get your isk/hour ratio high (aka making the most money from each mission in the least amount of time).
I'd LOVE for you to show me a CNR, or any faction ship for that matter, that can tank like this, put out the same or better dps, AND complete the salvaging op all in one go.
Do that and I'll give you a cookie.
No cheating and using multiple chars now
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:22:00 -
[104]
Edited by: d026 on 25/10/2007 12:24:31
Originally by: Tidas Andrommeda Umm...just wondering if you realize that the whole thing behind doing missions is to get your isk/hour ratio high (aka making the most money from each mission in the least amount of time).
I'd LOVE for you to show me a CNR, or any faction ship for that matter, that can tank like this, put out the same or better dps, AND complete the salvaging op all in one go.
Do that and I'll give you a cookie.
No cheating and using multiple chars now
My CNR with my skills:
5 x Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System
1 x Dread Guristas Invulnerability Field 1 x Pith X-Type Heat Dissipation Field 1 x Pith X-Type Ballistic Deflection Field 1 x Gist B-Type X-Large Shield Booster 1 x Pith B-Type Shield Boost Amplifier 1 x Parallel Weapon Navigation Transmitter
7 x Dread Guristas Cruise Missile Launcher 1 x Officer SB
3 x Capacitor Control Circuit I
Full High Grade Crystals (No Omega)
Shield: 14k Gurista Tank: 1817 dps/s for 3,5 min sustainable DPS: 690, 820 with drones.
Why downgrade to a goem?
From a Golem i wold get only get 578 dps.. Sure a better tank.. but as you see above a 1,8k dps tank on the cnr should be sufficient in most cases..
And for the salvage/looting there you are right, but i dont do neither..
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:25:00 -
[105]
Originally by: d026
In another dev blog the marauders were appraised as "the-missionrunners-wet-dream". so.. why not expect a mission ship?:)
Quote? Link? I skimmed the headlines back to June, didn't see the one you refer to? Which one was it?
My quotes are from the September 10th DevBlog by Oveur.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:28:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: d026
In another dev blog the marauders were appraised as "the-missionrunners-wet-dream". so.. why not expect a mission ship?:)
Quote? Link? I skimmed the headlines back to June, didn't see the one you refer to? Which one was it?
My quotes are from the September 10th DevBlog by Oveur.
i couldnt find it either -.- so probably the changed marauders purpose in the last 2 dev blogs.. you could be right..
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:36:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 12:46:10
Originally by: Qui Shon Devblogs specifically said, don't call it a mission ship. Your premise, your wishes, your comparisons to other T2 ships, are not inline with the intended roles and capability of these new ships. Whatever arguments you base on this false premise, have no ground to stand on. [...] And you know, Akita, you already got the CNR nerfed for missions once with your Torp "Game Development" / "Features and Ideas" posting. Leave it the **** alone already. But I guess comments like this only adds fuel to the fire. Maybe you'd like nothing better then for the CNR to become the new Apoc, and would dearly savor all the cries that would ensue.
Oh, a two-parter. Nice. Let's see. First part first, right ?
Quote: The home-away-from-home-tech-2-battleship The long-range and high-versatility Battleship nicknamed the "Violators". Their versatility will work for many play styles but we also wanted something which would work for PvE play styles. This doesn't mean they will work well for only mission runners, so there is no need to brand them with the misnomer of the "mission ship". Edit note: Long-range is not a reference to weapons range but the ships ability to go deep into enemy territory and stay there for extended periods. It is not a HAC either :)
THAT is the exact quote from the initial devblog by Oveur. Name was changed rom "Violators" to "Marauders", but there was no word of the fact the DESIGN CONCEPT would have been changed. Notice the exact wording. Look at it again. Does it say it WILL work well for mission-runners ? But NOT ONLY for them ? How's that for any "false premise" for me ?
Also, T2 > navy in the ship world, except for BSs. Now, why's that ? ___
As for your second accusation... I have indeed proposed a torpedo range nerf in THE PAST. But that proposed range nerf was from 84km (126km from Raven) at maxskills to 40km (60km from Raven), or AT WORST possible, and not recommended at all, 30km (45km from Raven) at maxskills for T1 ammo, with recommendations to leave T2 ammo alone EXACTLY as it was at that specific moment... ...and was accompanied by a lot of OTHER proposals to buff torpedo-using ships, and NO OTHER nerfs to torps. Yeah, that's right, leave T2 ammo alone, reduce range on T1 torps, decrease siege fiting requirements. THAT is what I proposed.
Claiming I ever my proposal lead to the STUPID 20km (30km from Raven) range nerf alongside several other nerfs to torpedoes (especially MURDERING T2 ammo) and a silly DPS buff... now, that would be quite absurd.
I can't and I won't take credit for THAT change. Give credit to where it's due, the people crying and whining that Raven sucks in PvP DPS-WISE. _
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:41:00 -
[108]
Edited by: d026 on 25/10/2007 12:43:01
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 12:39:27
Originally by: Qui Shon Devblogs specifically said, don't call it a mission ship. Your premise, your wishes, your comparisons to other T2 ships, are not inline with the intended roles and capability of these new ships. Whatever arguments you base on this false premise, have no ground to stand on. [...] And you know, Akita, you already got the CNR nerfed for missions once with your Torp "Game Development" / "Features and Ideas" posting. Leave it the **** alone already. But I guess comments like this only adds fuel to the fire. Maybe you'd like nothing better then for the CNR to become the new Apoc, and would dearly savor all the cries that would ensue.
Oh, a two-parter. Nice. Let's see. First part first, right ?
Quote: The home-away-from-home-tech-2-battleship The long-range and high-versatility Battleship nicknamed the "Violators". Their versatility will work for many play styles but we also wanted something which would work for PvE play styles. This doesn't mean they will work well for only mission runners, so there is no need to brand them with the misnomer of the "mission ship". Edit note: Long-range is not a reference to weapons range but the ships ability to go deep into enemy territory and stay there for extended periods. It is not a HAC either :)
THAT is the exact quote from the initial devblog by Oveur. Name was changed rom "Violators" to "Marauders", but there was no word of the fact the DESIGN CONCEPT would have been changed. Notice the exact wording. Look at it again. Does it say it WILL work well for mission-runners ? But NOT ONLY for them ? How's that for any "false premise" for me ?
As for your second accusation... I have indeed proposed a torpedo range nerf in THE PAST. But that proposed range nerf was from 84km (126km from Raven) at maxskills to 40km (60km from Raven), or AT WORST possible, and not recommended at all, 30km (45km from Raven) at maxskills for T1 ammo, with recommendations to leave T2 ammo alone EXACTLY as it was at that specific moment... ...and was accompanied by a lot of OTHER proposals to buff torpedo-using ships, and NO OTHER nerfs to torps.
Claiming I ever my proposal lead to the STUPID 20km (30km from Raven) range nerf alongside several other nerfs to torpedoes and a silly DPS buff... now, that would be quite absurd.
I can't and I won't take credit for THAT change. Give credit to where it's due, the people crying and whining that Raven sucks in PvP DPS-WISE.
I think the Golem was designed "Pre Torp Buff" not considering the new torpedo range. The Golem would make comlete sense fitted with sieges imho. I owuld get 7190 Volley damage with 2 x bonused painters this would probably anihilate everything smaller than a bs in 1 volley...
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 12:42:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 12:44:25
Well, it would have, but now it doesn't, now does it ? P.S. ARGH HUGEQUOTE HURTS MY EYES ! _
1|2|3 |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 13:46:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Akita T
Notice the exact wording. Look at it again. Does it say it WILL work well for mission-runners ? But NOT ONLY for them ? How's that for any "false premise" for me ?
Also, T2 > navy in the ship world, except for BSs. Now, why's that ?
Probably to avoid pwnmobiles, but you'd have to ask the Devs. Your premise is comparing them to other T2 ships, like Cruisers vs HACs. They are not battleship HAC's, remember.
And they do work well for missionrunners, just not better then anything else. What they will most likely really excel at is 0.0. Ratting, plexing etc. 'Cept for Kronos, which will gank like nothing else, and Paladin, which won't do anything well.
Home away from home ship, remember. Missionrunning is usually done at your "home", not away from it.
Originally by: Akita
Claiming I ever my proposal lead to the STUPID 20km (30km from Raven) range nerf alongside several other nerfs to torpedoes (especially MURDERING T2 ammo) and a silly DPS buff... now, that would be quite absurd.
I can't and I won't take credit for THAT change. Give credit to where it's due, the people crying and whining that Raven sucks in PvP DPS-WISE.
Originally by: Akita
Ending the reign of "Caldari Online" for PvE, revival for Caldari PvP
Your words, don't run from them. Maybe you meant it as mostly buffing Caldari? Well, for PvE, I doubt you did, since you want to kill what's left of the CNR even in this thread.
Originally by: Akita
The EFFECTS of these changes ?
First off, Caladri ships (namely, the Raven and CNR, and their "half-brother" the Rattlesnake) stop being the be-all, end-all mission-running powerhouse due to the increased difficulty in hitting far-away targets with insane amounts of "proper damage"... so missions won't be so easy to speed-run as before.
And that's what the changes will make happen. Ideas given to others to implement almost always get twisted, sometimes beyond recognition. So you didn't mean for torps to be killed for PvE, just nerfed, yet killed they will be. I could dig deeper for comments like [your original idea] was "not enough of a nerf for torp PvE yet" etc. but maybe that's not neccesary.
Just as the most likely change resulting from this thread, should this thread really affect anything, is a further nerf of the CNR, not a buff to Marauders. To this last paragraph I really hope I'm wrong.
|
|
Khorin D'tael
Caldari D'tael Contracts
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:13:00 -
[111]
What will the range on precision torps be after the change from a Raven and also from a Golem?
I can't get on the test server to see.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:37:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Akita T Also, T2 > navy in the ship world, except for BSs. Now, why's that ?
Probably to avoid pwnmobiles, but you'd have to ask the Devs. Your premise is comparing them to other T2 ships, like Cruisers vs HACs. They are not battleship HAC's, remember.
I was merely comparing T1-navy-T2. Sure, they aren't quite BS-sized HACs, but until very recently, their skill prerequisite included Heavy Assault Ships L4, and that was when all stats except the bonuses were "published". Oh, well, I guess it's not all that important. You know, promise something, deliver a heavily prenerfed (and never boosted) version. Figures.
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Akita Ending the reign of "Caldari Online" for PvE, revival for Caldari PvP
Your words, don't run from them. Maybe you meant it as mostly buffing Caldari? Well, for PvE, I doubt you did, since you want to kill what's left of the CNR even in this thread. [...] So you didn't mean for torps to be killed for PvE, just nerfed, yet killed they will be. I could dig deeper for comments like [your original idea] was "not enough of a nerf for torp PvE yet" etc. but maybe that's not neccesary.
Ending the reign, yes... killing it, hell no.
One of the main ideas behind the "nerf" part was that T1 Torpedo AMMO has way too much of a range, so they should nerf THAT (and faction torps) so it's no longer a be-all-end-all panaceea for mission runners, and that T2 long-range ammo SHOULD be needed in missions for effective torpedo usage (and that ammo comes with a DPS disadvantage compared to T1, and especially compared to faction, let alone the fact it can't be used in faction launchers). Ad for the "revival" part... guess what, none (yes, absolutely NONE) of the ideas there are even remotely similar to what we see now.
I still think it's a pure coincidence that I posted that in light of the torp changes we see. My idea made sense. What we see now is utter crap. And it only shares a MINOR trait with any of my proposals, namely the T1 range nerf (and a lot worse as proposed). _
1|2|3 |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:03:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Akita T
Ad for the "revival" part... guess what, none (yes, absolutely NONE) of the ideas there are even remotely similar to what we see now.
I still think it's a pure coincidence that I posted that in light of the torp changes we see. My idea made sense. What we see now is utter crap. And it only shares a MINOR trait with any of my proposals, namely the T1 range nerf (and a lot worse as proposed).
Hmh. Well, maybe I don't have to come take a stab at getting your corpse then
I still resent your campaign against the CNR though, and I haven't even got one yet.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 17:04:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/10/2007 17:04:58
Originally by: Akita T
Quote: A LSB is less effective than a LAR, both in capefficiency and in boost amount.
things which were totally news to me...not
LSB+SBA = 2 modules LAR = 1 module
A LSB is simply not compareable to a LAR 1v1.
|
Skeltek
Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:32:00 -
[115]
just this:
Raven sucks(because it needs ammo-> everybody starts using them) Amar BS suck(slotlayout and raw damage-> hell, CCP needs to nerf damagemods all of a sudden) t2 turrets suck (too expensive-> some huge southern Alliance army gets slaughtered by a small t2 army) Missilechanges will ruin gameplay POS guns overpowered(letŠs tank them with cruisers) Interdictors suck(especialy the Sabre) Eagle useless Falcon not worth the money(all Recons suck, except the Amar ones) Titans(who needs those? DD only benefit; jumpbridge and CVB useless bonus) Vagabonds suck Marauders SUCK bla
IŠve seen and had enough of that crap since beta. The above is only a fraction of the widely believed crap I remember, sorry I donŠt feel like writing more.
regards
|
Soltueur
Gallente Joint Strike Squad
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 18:59:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Soltueur on 25/10/2007 18:59:55 What I was wondering, will the kronos and paladin keep the 2% bonus to the webber strenght???? Cause I mean it kinda sucks...a whoopty 10% more webber strenght for bs lvl 5
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:12:00 -
[117]
It looks to me by your own post that the will be much superior to their T-1 counterparts.
I didnt get your arguement as to why they should equal or exceed the mission running capabilities of Faction ships...Howcome they should even be compared? It seems apples and oranges to me. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Liisa
Absolutely No Return The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:12:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Soltueur Edited by: Soltueur on 25/10/2007 18:59:55 What I was wondering, will the kronos and paladin keep the 2% bonus to the webber strenght???? Cause I mean it kinda sucks...a whoopty 10% more webber strenght for bs lvl 5
Either think before posting or do some basic math.
Lets take a basic tech 2 webifier. Velocity bonus of -90%. Now we increase this by 10%. We are now at -99% velocity bonus. Lets try an example because I think the dimwitted might not have understood just yet.
With bonus: 100m/s with one t2 web = 1m/s without bonus: 100m/s with two t2 web = 1m/s
I hope this has gotten the point across. At level 5 it doubles the effectiveness of a a standard tech 2 web.
Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:40:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 20:41:36
Originally by: Sharupak It looks to me by your own post that the will be much superior to their T-1 counterparts. I didnt get your arguement as to why they should equal or exceed the mission running capabilities of Faction ships...Howcome they should even be compared? It seems apples and oranges to me.
Because on one hand, they were touted as missionpwnmobiles-but-not-so-bad-at-PvP-either ever since "a few days ago" when the bonuses were published, while on the other hand it's DAMAGE OUTPUT AT RANGE what a missionrunner makes (while fielding a merely "adequate" tank, because damage=tank, at least to some degree, in PvE) when it's obvious most of the Marauders aren't much better at it compared to just the T1 variants, let alone the faction variants. And because in the ship hull world, at least until now, T2 was always better as faction if you had maxskills.
Right now, faction BSs are almost as good for missions (or in the case of the CNR, slightly better) compared to the upcoming T2s in the hands of an experienced mission-running pilot. When you ALREADY are "unkillable" in missions, what's there left to do but decrease the missionrunning time ? The Golem in particular isn't a step forward for such mission runners, it's a step back in this particular aspect. _
1|2|3 |
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:45:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Shadowsword - About the paladin, the role bonus would do the job, but an 10% optimal bonus instead of the 7.5% tracking one would also be fine.
Eww, no. I'm running missions with tachys now, 55km optimal with MF is fine, but a minimum (effective) range of 20km hurts, I'd rather have the tracking for that one tbh.
----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..." |
|
Shaala
Caldari Singularity Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 20:56:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 20:41:36 1.And because in the ship hull world, at least until now, T2 was always better as faction if you had maxskills.
2.Right now, faction BSs are almost as good for missions (or in the case of the CNR, slightly better) compared to the upcoming T2s in the hands of an experienced mission-running pilot.
3.When you ALREADY are "unkillable" in missions, what's there left to do but decrease the missionrunning time ? The Golem in particular isn't a step forward for such mission runners, it's a step back in this particular aspect.
1. Until now, yes. Like you say, that fact might change any time. 2. So you state that faction BS are inferior to the upcoming t2 BS, but only "almost as good" as t2BS when pilot is experienced? 3. In that one particular aspect that is true, I totaly agree with you. Perhaps CCP should really redirect their attention to people, who do not want to simply do the repeatative missions faster, but collect loot and try different kinds of approach to missions.
|
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:00:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 20:41:36
Originally by: Sharupak It looks to me by your own post that the will be much superior to their T-1 counterparts. I didnt get your arguement as to why they should equal or exceed the mission running capabilities of Faction ships...Howcome they should even be compared? It seems apples and oranges to me.
Because on one hand, they were touted as missionpwnmobiles-but-not-so-bad-at-PvP-either ever since "a few days ago" when the bonuses were published, while on the other hand it's DAMAGE OUTPUT AT RANGE what a missionrunner makes (while fielding a merely "adequate" tank, because damage=tank, at least to some degree, in PvE) when it's obvious most of the Marauders aren't much better at it compared to just the T1 variants, let alone the faction variants. And because in the ship hull world, at least until now, T2 was always better as faction if you had maxskills.
Right now, faction BSs are almost as good for missions (or in the case of the CNR, slightly better) compared to the upcoming T2s in the hands of an experienced mission-running pilot. When you ALREADY are "unkillable" in missions, what's there left to do but decrease the missionrunning time ? The Golem in particular isn't a step forward for such mission runners, it's a step back in this particular aspect.
I see what you are saying, but soley on the basis of experienced pilots running missions in faction ships. For me 9mil sp, the Vargur would basically get me into viably soloing lvl4s. I can do some on my own in a typhoon but need help on most. Perhaps I shouldnt be able to solo lvl4s but for quasi noobs like me at 30k lp and whatnot these are going to be fantastic ships. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
Klytior Am'jarhs
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:17:00 -
[123]
The real problem with marauders is that they have high tracking.. high tracking is nice.. but bigger guns als always better .. as show in the next clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIIlF3zrf0k
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:22:00 -
[124]
I've got pilots in my corp that already solo L4s succesfully in a Drake with much, MUCH less than 9 mil SP total. Except the "Enemies Abound" set, of course. That's too much incoming damage if you can't kill fast enough. And even that is doable by a duo of "the better" of them, and is trivial in group of three that have less than 9 mil SP between all of them. _
1|2|3 |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 21:27:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Sharupak on 25/10/2007 21:27:39
Originally by: Akita T I've got pilots in my corp that already solo L4s succesfully in a Drake with much, MUCH less than 9 mil SP total. Except the "Enemies Abound" set, of course. That's too much incoming damage if you can't kill fast enough. And even that is doable by a duo of "the better" of them, and is trivial in group of three that have less than 9 mil SP between all of them.
Yeah, I cant do that one. and the...mordus headhunter one.
Then again, I havent run a lvl4 mission since about 2mill sp ago. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
MysteriousJade
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:15:00 -
[126]
fact: abaddon >>>(way more)>> paladin at lvl 4+
the prob wasnt tanking, the prob IS the dmg.
sansha? no deal / blood? no deal / merc? no deal / drone? no deal / guri? ecm but tank? no deal / angel? .. absurd resits.. silly dmg but no deal / enemy 1-4 no deal - 5 dont tested cause timd respawn and SEE ANGEL
paladin? noone who reallly "use" use amarrships would bye this crap bull**** of refind and invented materials...
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:52:00 -
[127]
Since missiles and drones are the primary tools for PvE for many reasons, and since the Golem is the only ship in the supposed "mission runner" class to use a mission runner weapons system this simply pushes Caldari ships further to the top.
Or it would if the ship is fixed to have bonuses that make it useful in PvE rather than over-powered (imo) in PvP.
I've already trained Caldari BS V for my CNR, but I was really, really hoping to see a selection of ships that equaled the the CNR's mission running ability.
More sensible would have been Gallente and Amarr drone boats with Minmatar and Caldari missile boats.
Instead we have one ship that is possibly marginally better than it's forebears at mission running, and three that will remain relatively useless to those of us who enjoy the advantage of damage selection, non-tracking/range influenced weapons, and generally being able to run missions efficiently and with minimal effort (because NPCing with these systems is like mining rocks that shoot back).
I'm guessing for the most part the Gallente will stick with their Dominix and everyone else will stick with their CNR.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 22:58:00 -
[128]
I'm not making any comments towards the ships or the class, but aren't they changing missions also in rev3? This may change the state of mission runner top tiers. Maybe not, since it comes down to range/dammage type selection for the most part. But maybe. -- All these graphs show is how bad the apocalypse is with different kinds of weapons. -Dr Jigglez |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 23:00:00 -
[129]
Unless suddendly most missions ALLOW MWDs, no other changes they could possibly make will influence that in favor of the Marauders... in case they decide to spam us full of frigates in L4s, guess what, it's Drake/NH then. _
1|2|3 |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 02:43:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Akita T Unless suddendly most missions ALLOW MWDs, no other changes they could possibly make will influence that in favor of the Marauders... in case they decide to spam us full of frigates in L4s, guess what, it's Drake/NH then.
The trend in recent mission changes has been to have fewer ships, with higher bounties - as in Recon Part 1. ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 05:16:00 -
[131]
Originally by: FT Diomedes
Originally by: Akita T Unless suddendly most missions ALLOW MWDs, no other changes they could possibly make will influence that in favor of the Marauders... in case they decide to spam us full of frigates in L4s, guess what, it's Drake/NH then.
The trend in recent mission changes has been to have fewer ships, with higher bounties - as in Recon Part 1.
Well one thing they can do to make marauders more attractive is smaller waves with longer pauses between then, but it's rather lame. Almost as lame as 80 km between gates and nothing to kill while you wade last 50 km. Another possibility would be if they would change NPC's in missions so that they will like to get close and personal, but it would kinda shaft turret battleships without tracking or web bonuses for missions.
I personally just hate wave based missions without triggers. It's just so damn boring twiddle my thumbs for something like 3 .. 4 minutes waiting the next wave to spawn. Like Tech secrets on lev 3 and to smaller extent new recon 1 of 3 on lev 4 (if I want to kill them all).
Those are rather unlikely tho as under the need for speed iniative it was announced that CCP is trying to replace small ship swarm (like massive attack) with fewer bigger guys.
|
Fehnrail
Caldari Colossus Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 05:32:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Fehnrail on 26/10/2007 05:33:54
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
If I've read you right - I envisage the twin Kronos gang (one probing?) becomming the pvp/merc elite standard for massacring solo mission running faction BS! Do missions in groups!!!
Until, y'know, they run into a single Kitsune accompanying any gank-fitted BS that blows them out of the sky.
...I am a part of all that I have met, Yet all experience is an arch wherethro' Shines that untravell'd world, whose margin fades For ever and for ever as I move... |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 06:15:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 26/10/2007 06:24:02
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Akita T LAR+plate or 2xLAR, 3 resist mods = 5 slots. So yeah, you usually fit just 2 damage mods, but 3 on the faction.
Uh.. why on earth would you fit a plate on a PvE setup? That is high stupidity. And you can tank most missions with a single LAR.
Standard fit for LAR mission tanks I used are LAR, 3-4 hards, 0-1 CPRs. This leaves room for 2 damage mods. Navy ships allow a 3rd. Only exception are missions against EM-heavy enemies, which you can tank with just two hards and thus always fit 3 HS. One reason why the Navy Poc really has nothing on the Abaddon. As for the Marauders, the Kronos should work nicely against Serps, Angels, Mercs and their derivates, and maybe even against Guristas. It should become one of the top dogs for missions in its current state. The others are disappointing though, mostly because they all have one issue that makes them impractical for missioning. (Web bonus on Pally and Exp velo on Golly are worthless for PvE, and the Vargurs PG forces it to use ACs which even with Falloff bonus are still impractical for PvE against most NPCs.)
This could be easily fixed by changing those bonuses to something useful (mainly damage) and boosting the Vargur PG to make it use arties, but whether that will happen...
Guess CCP just loves Gallente too much.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar FSK23
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:12:00 -
[134]
Can someone explain to me why everyone translates "Their versatility will work for many play styles but we also wanted something which would work for PvE play styles. This doesn't mean they will work well for only mission runners, so there is no need to brand them with the misnomer of the "mission ship" as "has to be the best lvl4 missionship ever"?
Looking at them, I see versatile ships that are excellent for belt ratting, longer exploration expeditions, encounter sites while still being pvp'ish enough to be able to fend off unwelcome visitors or survive the journey to the next expedition bookmark.
They are not the be-all-end-all of hisec lvl4 running. But where did I miss them being advertised as that? Or "pve in eve" being defined as "caldari navy lvl 4 in 1.0 space"? -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 10:53:00 -
[135]
just to point out that minnie marauder is not a good mission runner too... it can be a bit better than a pest but... the minmatar mission runner is the phoon not the pest...
the marauder is basically a maelstrom with higher price and less tankage so a minnie mission runner will be still go for the phoon (in most situations) or eventually (very eventually) arty maelstrom (to not speak about faction)
also even with just 4 guns the ammo usage of ACs is extremely high...
in general i really dislike these ships, they are average mission runners and seem mostly useless in other situations, the only ones that can maybe be usefull elsewhere are amarr (reduced energy usage) and caldari (that can use torps better than a CNR) but the price make them not really worth
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Mrrzah
Amarr Ordo Drakonis
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 11:27:00 -
[136]
Surprise, surprise, the Amarr ship looks like total rubish! Contrary to the Kronos it doesn't actually benefit CAP-wise from only having 4 turrets, damage isn't anything to write home about... and web-bonus?! double-you-tee-eff?! Anything that comes within 10k range is a frig and with the amount of SP those ships require to fly you better got T2 drones to take care of those... jesus christ. I think I'll stick to the Abaddon for missions, tyvm.
The Kronos and especially the Vargur actually look quite good at first glance (if they can fit 4 long range turrets that is, which I'm not sure about).
The Golem on the other hand... a missile boat that's not even good for PvE who'd have thought it possible.
|
Alyxa Mahan
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:09:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Qui Shon In reference to Black Ops, it also said this is not the Tech 2 battleship you are looking for.
Oh come on! Thats a play with words, that really that hard to grasp? "These are not the droids you are looking for." Get it now? Its a Tech 2 battleship you don't see, cause its cloaked!
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:19:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Akita T But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind.
No they weren't. They were designed for 0.0 ratting, and they're going to be awesome at it.
Do you use a framing hammer to break up cinder blocks and then complain to Sears when the design is not ideal for breaking cinder blocks? Especially when you've got all these sledgehammers sitting right in the store... --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 13:53:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Akita T
The Golem in particular isn't a step forward for such mission runners, it's a step back in this particular aspect.
And i'd like to add that probably exactely those mission runners are those who gonna be able to fly and afford the marauders..
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:37:00 -
[140]
Edited by: Shevar on 26/10/2007 14:38:13
Originally by: d026
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: d026
In another dev blog the marauders were appraised as "the-missionrunners-wet-dream". so.. why not expect a mission ship?:)
Quote? Link? I skimmed the headlines back to June, didn't see the one you refer to? Which one was it?
My quotes are from the September 10th DevBlog by Oveur.
i couldnt find it either -.- so probably the changed marauders purpose in the last 2 dev blogs.. you could be right..
The following interview is where the word mission ship came up; http://eve.warcry.com/news/view/76434
Quote:
Noah Ward: The other type of Tech 2 ship we haven't come up with a name yet, but it's going to be like a mission runner battleship. A huge number of our player base are not these big PvPers, they are mission runners for their empire, and you know doing their thing. While the ships will be really good at PvP, they will have things like bigger cargo bays for loot. They will have better locking times, better tracking, a lot of utility slots. Things that if you are a mission runner, what would be your ideal battle ship.
And this weblog explained the interview a bit;
http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=501
Quote: The home-away-from-home-tech-2-battleship
The long-range and high-versatility Battleship nicknamed the "Violators". Their versatility will work for many play styles but we also wanted something which would work for PvE play styles. This doesn't mean they will work well for only mission runners, so there is no need to brand them with the misnomer of the "mission ship".
Edit note: Long-range is not a reference to weapons range but the ships ability to go deep into enemy territory and stay there for extended periods. It is not a HAC either :)
Anyways what CCP failed to realize in my opinion is that NPC'ers only care about DeeePeeeSsssz. Basicly if a ship can't deal more DPS and kill stuff faster it isn't more efficient.
---
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
|
Liisa
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 14:54:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Shevar
Anyways what CCP failed to realize in my opinion is that NPC'ers only care about DeeePeeeSsssz. Basicly if a ship can't deal more DPS and kill stuff faster it isn't more efficient.
This isn't quite true. What we do not want is to have to trade away something we really need for something that is simply nice to have.
Now for me as a minmatar specced pilot who uses a maelstrom with a tech 2 fitting, this means that I do not want to give up my artilleries for the ability to salvage. I don't want to have to chase after battleships in order to get them into range just for the ability to salvage at the same time.
What the minmatar got in the Vargur is a maelstrom with a macharials tracking bonus, a falloff bonus and only enough powergrid to fit autocannons. As the falloff bonus is tied to the marauder skill, this ship only starts to become useful when you have that skill at level 4 and you probably need to have it at level 5 if you really want to spend less time in the missions than you do now. On top of this we are forced to take our ship close to the enemy and so have to tank more damage than we have to now. Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Soltueur
Gallente Joint Strike Squad
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:05:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Liisa
Originally by: Soltueur Edited by: Soltueur on 25/10/2007 18:59:55 What I was wondering, will the kronos and paladin keep the 2% bonus to the webber strenght???? Cause I mean it kinda sucks...a whoopty 10% more webber strenght for bs lvl 5
Either think before posting or do some basic math.
Lets take a basic tech 2 webifier. Velocity bonus of -90%. Now we increase this by 10%. We are now at -99% velocity bonus. Lets try an example because I think the dimwitted might not have understood just yet.
I'm sorry can you try explaining it again? Didnt que With bonus: 100m/s with one t2 web = 1m/s without bonus: 100m/s with two t2 web = 1m/s
I hope this has gotten the point across. At level 5 it doubles the effectiveness of a a standard tech 2 web.
So 1 web gets the strenght of 2 webs, great. Then what? You dont use webs because you are mostlikly gonne use longranged guns. But Solteuer!!! Why dont you use shortranged guns then?? Well these ships were designed to compleet missions faster...when you have to travel 5min to get to every freaking rat out there it wont help now will it???
Web might be nice if the odd frigate gets close to you but then you can just let you drones have a go at it.
So now you know why I was wondering about the web strenght bonus. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
Liisa
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:09:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Soltueur
So 1 web gets the strenght of 2 webs, great. Then what? You dont use webs because you are mostlikly gonne use longranged guns. But Solteuer!!! Why dont you use shortranged guns then?? Well these ships were designed to compleet missions faster...when you have to travel 5min to get to every freaking rat out there it wont help now will it???
Web might be nice if the odd frigate gets close to you but then you can just let you drones have a go at it.
So now you know why I was wondering about the web strenght bonus.
Well, I am wondering about the Vargur only being able to use autocannons, so....
Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Vitrael
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:10:00 -
[144]
The Marauders have no problems. If you want a mission solopwnmobile you just got it and its time to STOP WHINING.
___________ I learned to accept ship changes months ago. Suddenly I enjoy Eve. You should try it some time. |
Liisa
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 15:14:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Vitrael The Marauders have no problems. If you want a mission solopwnmobile you just got it and its time to STOP WHINING.
Which of the Marauders are you talking about? Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:08:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Akita T But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind.
No they weren't. They were designed for 0.0 ratting, and they're going to be awesome at it.
Like several posters already explained so far, no they weren't.
A vast majority of actual players ARE highsec missionrunners, as much as you hate it or not. And even 0.0 hardcore PvPers happend to have a highsec missionrunning alt. Highsec missionrunning is the safest, fastest, surest way to MAKE ISK, and that's why a lot of people do it. These ships were supposed to be MAINLY missionrunner ships AND also be useful for most other PvE (including ratting) and PvP too (but only to a degree, hence the ECM vulnerability).
The only reason to have an ECM vulnerability would be if the DPS output was TOO HIGH, so that current ships would have an "exit strategy" in case they get caught. But, as their DPS (all except Kronos) is nothing to write home about, that's a redundant an annoying drawback. _
1|2|3 |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:25:00 -
[147]
They do seem more designed to be uber-ratters rather than mission ships, intentionally or no. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Liisa
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:43:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske They do seem more designed to be uber-ratters rather than mission ships, intentionally or no.
For some, certainly, others are still viable in missions.
Problem is that the devs don't post their design philosophy behind the ships. If they flat out said what their vision for the ships were we'd be able to offer constructive criticism instead of each people venting their spleen because the ship(s) don't conform to their idea of what a pve/mission ship should be. Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 01:53:00 -
[149]
Oh, and the yucky part about the new Marauders ? They don't get the CorrectRacialBonuses™.
Namely, yes, Minmatar SHOULD get +7.5% shield boost, Gallente should get +7.5% armor repair amount... but Amarr one should get -5% armor resists, and Caldari should get -5% shield resists. _
1|2|3 |
Red Harvest
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:03:00 -
[150]
I would be happy if the Paladin (amarr marauder) would get the armor rep bonus + a 5% resistance bonus instead of the web bonus. At least this would make the amarr one the master of tanking if nothing else.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:06:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Akita T on 27/10/2007 02:48:04 Edited by: Akita T on 27/10/2007 02:24:43
Here's the new and revamped Marauders How they SHOULD be :
Kronos Bonuses: unchanged
Vargur Bonuses : unchanged But increase the grid a bit so it can fit arties instead of ACs.
Golem Bonuses (alongside MORE PG so it can fit siege launchers AND tank): 10% bonus to BS class missile velocity per Caldari BS level 10% bonus to BS class missile flight time per Caldari BS level 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount per Marauder level 5% bonus to BS class missile kinetic damage per Marauder level (pathethic) or -5% bonus to BS class launcher rate of fire per Marauder level (identical to Raven)
Paladin Bonuses (alongside at least +25% base MAXCAP compared to Kronos, so roughly around +20% compared to Vargur/Golem): 5% bonus to large energy turret damage per Amarr BS level 10% bonus to large energy turret optimal per Amarr BS level (alternatively, a +10% web range bonus) 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount per Marauder level 7.5% bonus to large energy turret tracking per Marauder level
__
Golem now hits harder and farther away as both Raven and CNR, but still has some problems in PvP. In missions, it CAN actually make good use of torpedoes, especially if it fits and afterburner. It NEEDS more grid, because that extra mid will be taken over by an AB, and you can't really fit siege+AB+tank otherwise. In PvP, it's the only Marauder without an "accuracy" bonus, but that's just fine for a Caldari ship, they're supposed to work in TEAMS not solo anyway, and with that decent range and big potential damage (if properly assisted), it's just peachy.
Paladin FINALLY gets a decent DPS and good reach, losing an useless bonus for it. Not beter DPS as Abaddon, but at least it deals it at an impressive range (or tackling slightly farther away, whichever you chose as bonus, both are fine) and with good accuracy (tracking bonus). Also, it doesn't have Abaddon's capacitor problems. Heck, even without the improved maxcap and losing the cap bonus, it's still better off cap-wise.
Overall, these would pretty much "fix" all Marauders. On second thought, the new Paladin is a tad bit on the overpowered side Not that it would hurt Amarr to finally have a decent boat anyway. _
1|2|3 |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:49:00 -
[152]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/10/2007 06:50:56
Originally by: Akita T How they SHOULD be :
Kronos Bonuses: unchanged
Vargur Bonuses : unchanged But increase the grid a bit so it can fit arties instead of ACs.
Golem Bonuses (alongside MORE PG so it can fit siege launchers AND tank): 10% bonus to BS class missile velocity per Caldari BS level 10% bonus to BS class missile flight time per Caldari BS level 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount per Marauder level 5% bonus to BS class missile kinetic damage per Marauder level (pathethic) or -5% bonus to BS class launcher rate of fire per Marauder level (identical to Raven)
Paladin Bonuses (alongside at least +25% base MAXCAP compared to Kronos, so roughly around +20% compared to Vargur/Golem): 5% bonus to large energy turret damage per Amarr BS level 10% bonus to large energy turret optimal per Amarr BS level (alternatively, a +10% web range bonus) 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount per Marauder level 7.5% bonus to large energy turret tracking per Marauder level
Almost spot on, I would just do the racially correct tanking bonuses and give Golem and Paladin resists rather than boost amount bonus. (Since you proposed that yourself just two posts higher, I am surprised you did not include it anyway )
And the Golem must get a damage bonus to ALL damage types, or a RoF bonus, to be a truly great mission ship. Or, since the Kronos will be the king of kinetic anyway and we do not need two, violate the racially correct bonuses here (I wonder if this is why they were nicknamed Violators?) and give it a thermal missile damage bonus. So we have one Marauder for each damage type.
Also while I would love the optimal bonus on the Pally, it would probabaly make it too powerful. For PvE purposes, a cap recharge time bonus like on the new Sac would be a more balanced variant imho. Web range works too though.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:57:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Liisa
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske They do seem more designed to be uber-ratters rather than mission ships, intentionally or no.
For some, certainly, others are still viable in missions.
Viable, sure. More than viable even. That's not saying much though.
My comment was more on the overall design choices than the individual ships. The majority of hisec mission runners don't need utility slots and huge cargo holds on their deadspace clearing ship. Mission runners outside of hisec don't need a scan footprint the size of Vermont because of the ships' lousy sensor strengths.
These strengths and weaknesses play out a little better for ratters, and the investment will be easier to protect.
I don't particularly see the need for either new hisec mission running ships or super ratters, by the way. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 07:14:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar I would just do the racially correct tanking bonuses and give Golem and Paladin resists rather than boost amount bonus. (Since you proposed that yourself just two posts higher, I am surprised you did not include it anyway )
Only because in missions +37.5% boost amount is usually slightly better as +33.33% tanked damage And because, TBFH, in anything but 1-vs-1 PvP, a resists bonus is hugely overpowered compared to an activetank bonus. 2-invul 5-LSE 2-CDFExtender Golems in PvP, talk about monster hitpoints (if you thought Drake was too much, wait to see this one). _
1|2|3 |
Arthur Frayn
Veterans Of Liberation
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:30:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 27/10/2007 02:48:04 Edited by: Akita T on 27/10/2007 02:24:43
Here's the new and revamped Marauders How they SHOULD be :
I have one issue with this. You don't need to STRESS every other WORD to give momentum to your argument. Cool it, Shatner.
-- Eve needs a dose of Top Gun without the sweaty shower scenes. |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:08:00 -
[156]
Thanks for the links Shevar
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Akita T But they were designed with "missionrunning" in mind.
No they weren't. They were designed for 0.0 ratting, and they're going to be awesome at it.
Like several posters already explained so far, no they weren't.
They didn't explain anything, they merely offered their opinons, like you did.
Ward says "for missionrunners", Oveur says "**** that, not a missionship". Quotes are figurative. Looking at the ships stats now, they are clearly designed with 0.0 PvE in mind, not missionrunning.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:11:00 -
[157]
No, Oveur said (paraphrasing, not quoting) "calling it a mission ship is a misnomer, it won't be ONLY good for that"... which implies that still is its main purpose. _
1|2|3 |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:23:00 -
[158]
Well, however you want to interpret it, one thing is clear.
The stats suggest 0.0 PvE, not missions. So at least the guy actually designing it, did not target it for mission superiority, possibly L5 utility at best. There's just no way around that.
Unless you're suggesting he/they are boneheads?
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:27:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/10/2007 10:29:03 And who exactly is going to 0.0 PvE in a 500+ mil ship that does it only marginally better than a T1 ship (or actually worse in case of the Paladin)? Really, 0.0 ratting is the last thing that needs a T2 BS to do it. Heck I would bet that my pimped Sac can do it faster against Angels than any of the Marauders except the Kronos. And plexes can be easily done with cheap T1 stuff as well.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 10:43:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Akita T on 27/10/2007 10:45:20
Originally by: Leandro Salazar a 500+ mil ship that does it only marginally better than a T1 ship (or actually worse in case of the Paladin)?
700 mil at best, you mean, looking at current market prices. Probably well over 800 mil for a long time.
Originally by: Qui Shon Well, however you want to interpret it
There's no "interpretation", the words are as clear as they could be.
Originally by: Qui Shon Unless you're suggesting he/they are boneheads?
Ye gods, he finally GOT it ! _
1|2|3 |
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:01:00 -
[161]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/10/2007 11:01:32
Originally by: Akita T They look almost exactly like what a NEWBIE missionrunner would like to have. You know, a barely-skilled one ?
You know, that is too damn true. Newbies overtank their ships. They don't know which variables help them most when tweaked. They fit webs to combat scramblers. Newbies like the inefficient versatile approach. They prefer finishing safely over finishing fast. They like to loot and fight in the same ship. They don't know jack about effective dps. They don't change fittings according to missions. Hell, even I was like that when I was a n00b. And all this is stuff these ships cater to. So basically we have ships designed for a n00b approach to missions which require the skillset of a dread pilot. Definitely in line with CCPs faible for inconsistencies.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:10:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 27/10/2007 11:10:00
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Almost spot on, I would just do the racially correct tanking bonuses and give Golem and Paladin resists rather than boost amount bonus. (Since you proposed that yourself just two posts higher, I am surprised you did not include it anyway )
It seems CCP want a tanking bonus that benefit pve much more than pve, hence the bonus to active tanking and not passive tanking.
Quote:
Also while I would love the optimal bonus on the Pally, it would probabaly make it too powerful. For PvE purposes, a cap recharge time bonus like on the new Sac would be a more balanced variant imho. Web range works too though.
It seems also that those ships are designed to be able to take out ANY npc with their battleship-sized weapons. In low-sec, drones are a liability, making you much easier to probe. In a lot of missions, npc spawns that havn't aggroed you will still fire on your drones. The web efficiency bonus is a good one, imho. a 50% web range bonus would be much, much less usefull. Amost useless, in fact, because you'd still have to resort to drones to kill frigs. And any npc frig webbed at 15km might still have enough momentum to get in it's orbit range, at which point your web range is useless. ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:11:00 -
[163]
Edited by: d026 on 27/10/2007 11:12:17 Actually its quite simple what a mission runner wants:
High Alpha to one volley as much cruiser/bc's as possible. Fast ROF.
If you kill fast you dont have to tank long.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:14:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Qui Shon Well, however you want to interpret it
There's no "interpretation", the words are as clear as they could be. The Marauders are ships that were supposed to be designed PRIMARILY for missionrunning, PvE in general, and not completely suck at PvP. Guess what ?
You can keep repeating that as many times as you like, that won't make it set in stone. What we have are loose impressions from two Devs, nothing more. If they are as boneheaded as you think, obviously they are not going to be very precise in their wording, now are they, so then you can't draw definitive conclusions from a couple of comments.
I was thinking more of Plex finishing then belt ratting. I've only got about 4 hours total experience of beltratting, but from what I saw, it doesn't require a tank at all. I did it in a couple Vexors. A T1, tier 1 cruiser, purchased and fit for under 10-15million isk. Single Vex might lack dps, but two take down battleships just fine.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:25:00 -
[165]
Qui Shon, that's precisely the point. They HINTED at what they would be, we HOPED it would be a missionrunner ship based on their NOT EVEN SUBLTE "hints", but THEY ARE NOT. Wether they fracked up in wording or promises, wether they actually meant that but didn't get it right because they're bloody missionrunning n00bs, or any other reason whatsoever, fact remains, they SUCK compared even to the "worst case scenario" of our expectations. Get it now ? _
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:30:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Qui Shon Well, however you want to interpret it
There's no "interpretation", the words are as clear as they could be. The Marauders are ships that were supposed to be designed PRIMARILY for missionrunning, PvE in general, and not completely suck at PvP. Guess what ?
You can keep repeating that as many times as you like, that won't make it set in stone. What we have are loose impressions from two Devs, nothing more. If they are as boneheaded as you think, obviously they are not going to be very precise in their wording, now are they, so then you can't draw definitive conclusions from a couple of comments.
I was thinking more of Plex finishing then belt ratting. I've only got about 4 hours total experience of beltratting, but from what I saw, it doesn't require a tank at all. I did it in a couple Vexors. A T1, tier 1 cruiser, purchased and fit for under 10-15million isk. Single Vex might lack dps, but two take down battleships just fine.
why would the plexrunn better than a cnr?
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:32:00 -
[167]
Because they can tank better, and spare slots for opening cans.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:48:00 -
[168]
Btw, what are all the bonuses of the new Nightmare right now, on testserver?
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:38:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/10/2007 12:38:10 Role bonus: +100% Laser damage
Caldari BS: +5% Laser damage Amarr BS: +7.5% Laser tracking
Which actually makes it better than the current Paladin despite having only half as many bonuses and no resist boost...
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Mastin Dragonfly
Absolutely No Return The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:39:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/10/2007 12:38:10 Role bonus: +100% Laser damage
Caldari BS: +5% Laser damage Amarr BS: +7.5% Laser tracking
Which actually makes it better than the current Paladin despite having only half as many bonuses and no resist boost...
Does it also still have more powergrid?
|
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:43:00 -
[171]
Yep.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:46:00 -
[172]
So... right now... at current SiSi stats... for missionrunning... Caldari have Golem worse as CNR (but at least not worse as Rattlesnake), Amarr have Paladin worse as Nightmare. Minmatar have Vargur better as both Machariel and fleet Tempest, Gallente have Kronos better as Navy Mega, and arguably better as Vindicator too (since practically almost no missions allow MWDs, one bonus is just wasted). Right ? _
1|2|3 |
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 13:51:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 27/10/2007 12:38:10 Role bonus: +100% Laser damage
Caldari BS: +5% Laser damage Amarr BS: +7.5% Laser tracking
Which actually makes it better than the current Paladin despite having only half as many bonuses and no resist boost...
When I first saw this I thought yay CCP found a nice way to boost amarr ships. But then again a few weeks later I saw the paladin . ---
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 14:49:00 -
[174]
Edited by: d026 on 27/10/2007 14:52:19
Originally by: Qui Shon Because they can tank better, and spare slots for opening cans.
you can tank all plexes just fine in a cerb or nighthawk with all the essential hacking/salvage/archeology gear. why bring a multi billion ship? its not that you get much dps from profession sites anyway.. for deds and unknowns (especially escallation ones) i doubt you wanna use a multi bilion bs, especially if you can tank most in a hac, af..
|
Liisa
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 15:54:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Akita T *snip* Minmatar have Vargur better as both Machariel and fleet Tempest, *snip* Right ?
Well, since the Vargur can only use autocannons without using lots of fitting mods (1400s needs three to four fitting mods/rigs) you're stuck with a max range of 35km unless you use falloff rigs or barrage ammo. Falloff rigs mean no CCCs which means less cap to chase down battleships and tank. Barrage means you better only be fighting angels.
Fleet tempest, yes, but then the Maelstrom is also better than the fleet tempest for missions unless you go into faction/deadspace setups on the fleet tempest.
Macharial: Hell no. 6 artilleries just does far better because of the range advantage. Also the ability to either speed/snipe or armor tank makes this baby far more useful. Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:14:00 -
[176]
While the Golem might suck in a damage sense against faction fitted CNR's, it is probably on par with a T2 fitted CNR. The reason for this is that it'll be easier to tank well. A T2 fitted CNR has a hard time keeping an XL perma-tank up and still fit 3 BCU's, whereas this is much easier on the Golem. If you compare a 3 BCU Golem with a 2 BCU CNR, you're fairly close to even damage-wise, and still have higslots for salvagers/tractors... All in all, for the non-faction crowd, it should mean faster and safer mission completion altogether.... Not that I think that's what the game needs. Missions are far too good money.
NOTE 1: I'll not get one but keep flying my perma-tanked, Gist XL fitted CNR. That ship has a 3b price-tag though.... NOTE 2: I don't fly that ship on this char. No need to start making locater agent queries
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 18:59:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Kerfira While the Golem might suck in a damage sense against faction fitted CNR's, it is probably on par with a T2 fitted CNR. The reason for this is that it'll be easier to tank well. A T2 fitted CNR has a hard time keeping an XL perma-tank up and still fit 3 BCU's, whereas this is much easier on the Golem. If you compare a 3 BCU Golem with a 2 BCU CNR, you're fairly close to even damage-wise, and still have higslots for salvagers/tractors... All in all, for the non-faction crowd, it should mean faster and safer mission completion altogether.... Not that I think that's what the game needs. Missions are far too good money.
NOTE 1: I'll not get one but keep flying my perma-tanked, Gist XL fitted CNR. That ship has a 3b price-tag though.... NOTE 2: I don't fly that ship on this char. No need to start making locater agent queries
if you want to earn isk as fast as possible you dont do it afk.. thus you could also run your lvl 4's in a much more cheap passive drake than a cnr. if you dont gank the cnr there is imho not really a point using it over anything else.. cnr is good because it dmg not its tank..
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 19:38:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Kerfira
A T2 fitted CNR has a hard time keeping an XL perma-tank up and still fit 3 BCU's, whereas this is much easier on the Golem.
I would also to like to point out that you don't need permatank for lev 4 missions. You need to last long enough to do them without needing to warp out.
I use faction only in 'gank' section on CNR and are able to do all of them with just T2 tank (having also target painter in there) using cap injector. Altho granted, it can get tricky in laggier locations. For those who can afford it faction tank adds some comfort for not having to babysit their shieldboosters.
Whats best - CNR with faction 'gank' and T2 tank is approx the same price as Golem base hull shall be. It's also not cost effective to suidice gank it as if approx half modules survive they will not cover the insurance + fitting costs needed to kill it before concord.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 00:05:00 -
[179]
Heh, so not even Vargur has it better as Machariel you say ? That makes 3 out of 4 Marauders that have a better alternative in form of faction ships (which, coincidentally, are still cheaper as the new T2s will be). _
1|2|3 |
Disco Flint
Caldari Disco Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 00:52:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Dragon Lord Well as a vetran mission runner the only thing i give a dam about is dmg, insaine amounts of dmg, tanking is all well and good but if u have immense dps u dont need much tank so why dont they give the ships mega dps sensor strength and ecm resistance but make there tanks weaker than there t1 couterparts. As a professional missioner you would use faction and officer gear on ur mission ship anyway for speed so you could still get a good tank, but for pvp your tank would be should be far worse so that your not a solo pwn mobile.
so say 5 mids and 5 lows for the golem but 8 missile slot highs with 100% dmg bonus for insaine pwnage, oh and lower shield and armour resistance, that way only skilled mission runners would use them in pve which you should be by the time you get the skills and as for pvp you wont tank for ****.
Oh I'd love such a ship. For the hole 3 days until the nerfbat hits. :)
|
|
Dragon Lord
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 00:59:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Dragon Lord on 28/10/2007 01:00:32 Edited by: Dragon Lord on 28/10/2007 01:00:22 well every ship should have a weakness and the golem ect should have crap tanking, so it dies very very fast if u can servive the dmg from it. But you i guess it would prob still be overpowered. One idea did come to mind though, how about a special bonus to these ships allowing them to use mwd's in deadspace, it would be a very nice buff to mission running and would have no effect on there pvping ability.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 01:22:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Akita T So... right now... at current SiSi stats... for missionrunning... Caldari have Golem worse as CNR (but at least not worse as Rattlesnake), Amarr have Paladin worse as Nightmare. Minmatar have Vargur better as both Machariel and fleet Tempest, Gallente have Kronos better as Navy Mega, and arguably better as Vindicator too (since practically almost no missions allow MWDs, one bonus is just wasted). Right ?
no way Vargur is going to be better than fleet pest or mach (that are also waaay more pvp capable), in pve compare it to a phoon or a maelstrom and you see that is worse not only to faction ships but even than tech1 ones (and tier1 too :( )
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 02:23:00 -
[183]
So, basically, it's only Kronos that's any good at all, right ? What changes would you propose for Vargur, other than an increase in grid to allow it to fit arties ? _
1|2|3 |
StonerReakingHavok
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 05:03:00 -
[184]
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 05:35:00 -
[185]
That's a grim, pessimistic way of looking at it _
1|2|3 |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 06:05:00 -
[186]
Well, considering that there is only minor tweaking required for critical improvements on the three subpar Marauders which would bring them up to Kronos levels, I have not yet lost hope that CCP might see reason. They have done some surprising buffs for missioners in the past few months (like increasing gate jump radius), so I was beginning to hope they had lost some of their gankbearish anti-missioner bias recently. But then the Marauders' bonuses hit Sisi...
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 07:15:00 -
[187]
Well, the torpedo balance (i.e. huge range nerf, slight DPS buff) was a pretty nasty blow to Raven (and variants) missionrunners already, now they go on and give the Golem torpedo-specific usage bonuses, it's just adding insult to injury. On the other hand, yes, just changing a couple of the bonuses on each of the Marauders (except Kronos which is fine) would buff them hugely for missionrunning, so I too hope they will reconsider and change them like that. _
1|2|3 |
TradeUnion first
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 08:28:00 -
[188]
The problem from my perspective is that lvl. 4 missions are ALREADY easy-to-normal to do with t2 Raven fit. Why make an uber PVE machine for missions that you can already beat with the current Raven? And if you make the missions harder, then you will be able to do them only with CNR or the proposed Marauder changed ships which will be a huge hit for the ordinary mission runners.
So, let's face it - CNR is king and will be king. Not so expensive nowadays, low skill requirements. Why improve something that is way too good already?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 08:52:00 -
[189]
You can already do L4s in a Drake, which is cheaper as a normal Raven ? Why get in a Raven for that ? You can do it in a T2 Raven, why buy a CNR and faction-fit it ? You're missing the point here... _
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 09:00:00 -
[190]
Edited by: d026 on 28/10/2007 09:01:13
Originally by: Akita T You can already do L4s in a Drake, which is cheaper as a normal Raven ? Why get in a Raven for that ? You can do it in a T2 Raven, why buy a CNR and faction-fit it ? You're missing the point here...
Drake for afk missionwhoring on your alt, Raven for speed (till you can aford a CNR), CNR for better speed.. Makes sense to use a Raven over a Drake or vice verca.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 09:01:00 -
[191]
That's exactly what I was saying to "TradeUnion first", in a sarcastic manner _
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 10:01:00 -
[192]
Edited by: d026 on 28/10/2007 10:01:56
Originally by: Akita T That's exactly what I was saying to "TradeUnion first", in a sarcastic manner
i should probably work on my english skills:)
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 10:12:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Akita T So, basically, it's only Kronos that's any good at all, right ? What changes would you propose for Vargur, other than an increase in grid to allow it to fit arties ?
we have to ships that can perform well in pve: Phoon (best minnie mission runner due to missiles+drones) and Mael, still decent with arty, good tankage and easy to fit
the T2 ship should be based on one of these models not on the pest so imo the ships vaug should get a total overhaul
if it should be a mission runner ship it should use missiles or will be always inferior to the phoon, for my taste i'll keep it with same slot allocation as the phoon and bonus to armor repair
second route will be an arty boat similar to mael, so more pg, at least 7 mids and a revision of bonuses, imo a web bonus will be pretty handly here as arty tracks pretty bad :P so instead of faloff and tracking something like web range (as recons) and web str, to immobilize ships at close to mid range and pound them with big guns. now this ship can be pretty effective even in pvp, even if it have to consider that it will sacrifice tankage for webbers. (anyway i don't see any reason why these ships should be not good even in pvp)
i think that devs where a bit scared by these ships, they didn't want to turn then in the solopownmobile or to make all T1 BS obsolete, but imo the design to make "pve" ships that are not good in pvp is a bit flawed, these are tech2, there should be no fear to make them better than T1.
if that is the fear then the ship should have been designed to be very specific in a given role and not just "good in pve".
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 18:00:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Gaius Sejanus on 28/10/2007 18:01:22 Fixing the Kronos as a mission ship? Ok:
# Hull: Dominix / Creodron (Mega --> Sin) # Slots: 7/5/6, 3 turrets # Fitting: 650tf, 10,000mw # Capacitor: 5400, 1000s recharge # Drones: 125Mbit/s bandwidth, 400m3 dronebay # Propulsion: 135m/s, 110,000,000kg # Tech II resistance bonus: 25% kinetic, 12.5% thermal # Cargo: 1275m3
Bonuses: # 5% bonus to large hybrid turret damage per Gallente BS level # 10% Drone Damage/Hitpoints per Gallente BS level # 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount per Marauder level # 7.5% Drone speed increase per Marauder level # Role bonus: 100% bonus to large hybrid turret damage # Role bonus: 100% bonus to range and velocity of tractor beams
Ta-da! Now the only thing it needs is a completely new hull design, cause the Dominix is fugly, even changing it to be neon green.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.28 23:28:00 -
[195]
Sadly, they have this crazy rule that Tier 1 goes to be Black Ops and tier 2 goes to be Marauder. Besides, Kronos IS the only ship out of all marauders that IS already good as mission ship... sure, it would be an even better missionrunner if it was a Dominix Marauder, but... meh... _
1|2|3 |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 03:00:00 -
[196]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 29/10/2007 03:05:34
Originally by: Akita T So, basically, it's only Kronos that's any good at all, right ?
It's a Mega with an extra turret and a web and tanking bonus...
The web bonus isn't going to help because few NPC's hang around in web range, the tanking bonus is pointless because a twin LARII rep is already better than a Gisti C rep.
It might be better than the Megathron for mission running but it's certainly not better than the Dominix and it won't be anywhere near as good as a CNR.
If the Kronos was good for mission running we'd all already be running missions in Megathrons because really the only difference is a single turrets worth of DPS.
Nice for ratting, good for PvP, but it certainly doesn't fill the mission runner role.
Also, people keep comparing the Marauders to their racial counterparts in terms of mission efficiency. Wouldn't it be nice if they were actually all better at mission running than any of the current t1 BS? Though if folks really insist on comparing them racially at least use the Typhoon for Minmatar and the Domi for Gallente.
Personally I think CCP messed up big time and should have given Amarr a drone boat Apoc (possibly Khanid with launchers), Gallente a souped up Dominix, Caldari.. well they got the base ship right there if not the bonuses, and Minmatar a full-missile-rack totting Typhoon.
2 Drone boats, 2 Missile boats, the weapons that mission runners currently use for two main reasons, damage switching, and ease of use. Everyone has a ship for missions that is superior to any t1 and they'd be easy to balance against each other. Sadly it's too late for that now.
[EDIT: removed "you" reference from the post to clarify the whole thing is not aimed at Akita]
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 03:23:00 -
[197]
Well, I was aiming at "correcting" them from the way they are now with minimal changes (you know, with base hull and developer left untouched, and as little changes in bonuses as possible).
But come to think of it, the whole approach to them was "wrong", and I would have made them completely different. For starters, I would have picked different "developers". Golem could have been Kaalakiota instead of Lai Dai, or at least give it the proper Lai Dai traditional bonuses. Paladin would have been Khanid instead of Carthum, a missile boat like Sacrilege with some half-decent drones. Kronos would have been Roden instead of Duvolle, not much of a change compared to now except a dominix-like drone HP/damage bonus instead of one that it has now, the web for instance (and at least 175m dronebay, preferably 200m, instead of current 125m). Vargur would have remained Boundless Creations, but given more appropriate bonuses, namely both RoF and damage, on top of falloff and the boost bonus (screw the web bonus, just boost its base speed a bit more). _
1|2|3 |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 03:39:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Akita T Well, I was aiming at "correcting" them from the way they are now with minimal changes (you know, with base hull and developer left untouched, and as little changes in bonuses as possible).
But come to think of it, the whole approach to them was "wrong", and I would have made them completely different. For starters, I would have picked different "developers". Golem could have been Kaalakiota instead of Lai Dai, or at least give it the proper Lai Dai traditional bonuses. Paladin would have been Khanid instead of Carthum, a missile boat like Sacrilege with some half-decent drones. Kronos would have been Roden instead of Duvolle, not much of a change compared to now except a dominix-like drone HP/damage bonus instead of one that it has now, the web for instance (and at least 175m dronebay, preferably 200m, instead of current 125m). Vargur would have remained Boundless Creations, but given more appropriate bonuses, namely both RoF and damage, on top of falloff and the boost bonus (screw the web bonus, just boost its base speed a bit more).
Your ideas for the Golem/Vargur/Kronos are just scary lol. Not that I don't agree with your ideas. I'd LOVE to fly those ships. It's just that they'd be monsters for PVP/PVE. Vargur with your bonuses would just be awesome. Same w/ Golem and Kronos. Paladin would be crazy good.
Too bad it'll never happen lol.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 03:49:00 -
[199]
Whoops, sorry, typed "Roden" instead of "CreoDron" for the Kronos Edited now _
1|2|3 |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 15:57:00 -
[200]
I still think that the Vargur is the ship I am most interested in. I am really looking forward to ratting with one of these ships. The ability to quickly kill a couple of triple Rogue Drone BS spawns, loot and salvage them, before having a full cargo hold and docking is going to be nice. As it is, in my Typhoon, I can kill one triple spawn, loot and salvage it, then I have to dock.
The focus of these ships is 0.0 ratting and complexes. This is more content for endgame characters. Level 4 missions are hardly endgame content, and waste most of the bonuses these ships are given. ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
|
Liisa
Absolutely No Retreat The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 16:15:00 -
[201]
Originally by: FT Diomedes The focus of these ships is 0.0 ratting and complexes. This is more content for endgame characters. Level 4 missions are hardly endgame content, and waste most of the bonuses these ships are given.
Please prove this. There is a difference in what you believe and what you know. There has been no official statement that these are are for 0.0 ratting and complexes and not for missions. On the other hand, we have not had a statement that they are for missions and not 0.0 content. Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit allowed on the forums. -Darth Patches |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 18:49:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Liisa
Originally by: FT Diomedes The focus of these ships is 0.0 ratting and complexes.
Please prove this.
Prove it? I obviously cannot prove it with a Dev statement or something such as that, but it seems obvious to me that they are designed for 0.0 ratting, Level V missions and complexes.
These ships offer NOTHING to a "normal" high sec Level 4 mission runner. My character turns 7 months (and reaches 10 million SP) in a few days. I've been running Level 4s since July. I am currently breezing through Level 4s in any BS I use - whether Typhoon, Dominix, Megathron, Raven, Navy Megathron or CNR (multiple accounts). Sure, I can still get better, but each of my ships can tank any Level 4 and complete it in a decent amount of time. "Upgrading" from a Navy Mega or CNR to a Kronos or Golem is not going to improve my mission time at all (based on what has been released so far, I think the Navy Mega and CNR are superior to the Kronos and Golem - for mission running).
Nor is upgrading to a Kronos or Golem a short term project. The skills I need to get for that are skills that generally more experienced players (carrier pilots) already have. I still have a ways to go to train for one. I don't think I am atypical judging from the age of characters I see in Level 4 mission hubs like Dodixie.
According to forum threads, the skills I would need for a Marauder are:
BS 5 Spaceship Command 5 AWU 5 Energy Grid Upgrades 5
That's not a small amount of training. I haven't plugged it into Evemon, but its probably a couple of months of training for a character at my current SP level. Assuming someone is focused on mission running skills, with no diversions (like R&D or mining), I don't see how they can be in these ships in less than 9-10 months from character birth - and have support skills at all worthy of the ships.
The price of these ships looks to be about 500 million - once people have produced enough of them to fill the initial run on them. So, they will be affordable by experienced Level 4 mission runners or 0.0 ratters. They will still cost at least 5x more than the average Level 4 mission-running hull (10x more than for a Domi).
These ships get is a bonus to tractor beams. This bonus will be very useful for ratting, it will have minimal utility for missions. If I am running a mission, I have to deal with dozens of incoming NPCs at a variety of ranges. Often, my ships kill them so fast that I am just constantly selecting new targets. Killing, looting and salvaging as I go will be annoying - as anyone who has ever fired a torp instead of a salvager at an NPC wreck knows. If I wait until almost all the NPCs are dead to begin looting/salvaging, this is not such a problem, but it still doesn't gain me much. Why? Because now I am sitting in the middle of a wreck field in a slow ship. Sure, most wrecks will be within the range of my tractor beams, but I probably only have 2 of them (and two salvagers).
Unless the agent has sent me more than one jump away, which is not that common, I can easily bookmark one wreck per room, jump out, complete mission and come back in a more efficient setup (Salvage Catalyst with 3x Expanded Cargohold IIs, 4x Salvager, 4x Tractor Beams, AB, Cap Recharger, 3x Salvage Tackle Rigs) and process all the wrecks in very short order. The Salvage Tackle Rigs REALLY cut down on the time you spend salvaging. With Salvaging IV, it rarely takes me more than one cycle with a single salvager to finish a BS wreck. Not so without the rigs.
Or, if I have a second account, I can follow behind my mission runner and work things that way.
Conversely, if I am ratting, I only have to manage a few targets, so I can more easily target the wrecks and the BSs at the same time. And, the big cargohold is useful, because I can carry lots of ammo for long ratting sessions (in "normal" 0.0) or I can halve the number of trips I need to take alloys back to base (in Drone Regions). ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:03:00 -
[203]
Furthermore, in 0.0, it is harder to jump back to base and switch ships to come back to loot and salvage. If you are chaining spawns properly, you will still have frigates and other small ships in the belts. These can make short work of a salvage ship, unless there is another person there tanking them. Moreover, when they respawn, they may target your loot ship. So, the Marauder allows you to remain on station longer and keep working those profitable triple BS spawns, while still collecting loot and salvage.
Due to the double damage bonus on the 4 weapon slots, the Marauders will not give up any DPS to fit the salvaging/looting gear on the ship. This is not true for most existing BS setups - where ships would have to give up a weapon or two to fit salvager+tractor beam. On this count, the Marauders are clearly superior to normal BSs for ratting - especially in the Drone Regions, where looting the wrecks is mandatory.
These ships also have the ability to fit very good tanks (as shown all over the place in this thread). Tanks that are not needed for Level IV missions, but might be very needed for 0.0 complexes or Level V missions.
So, it seems to me, based on my experience in mission running and 0.0 ratting, that these ships will not be better for mission running but they will be better for 0.0. So, to me, this "proves" that these ships are for 0.0. ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
Byzan Zwyth
Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 20:16:00 -
[204]
I think most people are missing the point
It's not designed to **** all over your regular mission running ships. Which is good, CCP is giving you options rather than taking them away.
The way I see it they are designed to do s similar job but at the same time fit a salvager and a couple of tractor beams and fill up their large cargo bay with loot/salvage.
What is better: They use about half the amo, good if your using faction/T2 T2 resists
Problem, yes the caldari one has a bigger problem with defenders.
Excuse me while a shead a tear for the caldari mission runners... ---------------------- Rank: Tech 1 and a 1/2 cannon fodder
Pointless forum slowing bandwidth hogging signature pic inc? |
Kelbesque Crystalis
Minmatar Eve University
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 20:20:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Byzan Zwyth
What is better: They use about half the amo, good if your using faction/T2 T2 resists
So buy better faction hards and a LOT of ammo instead??
Hell you can cross train to an armor tanker to do level 4's if you want better EM/therm resists for less SP and ISK.
|
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 20:46:00 -
[206]
The Golem is an excellent mission running vessel. Just because you can't think an inch out of the box and have a lot of peers that agree with you does not change that.
|
Byzan Zwyth
Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 20:49:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Kelbesque Crystalis
Originally by: Byzan Zwyth
What is better: They use about half the amo, good if your using faction/T2 T2 resists
So buy better faction hards and a LOT of ammo instead??
Hell you can cross train to an armor tanker to do level 4's if you want better EM/therm resists for less SP and ISK.
What's your point? you can put those same faction hards on the T2 and have a better tank again.
Cross train? There is always a better ship if you are willing to cross train, not a valid point.
Fact remains it's not meant to be the single best go to ship for missions and be the best at everything.
What it is is another valid option.
If it was better in every way you would get the faction ship pilots crying because their ships were made obsolite.
Accept the ships for what they are. ---------------------- Rank: Tech 1 and a 1/2 cannon fodder
Pointless forum slowing bandwidth hogging signature pic inc? |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 20:57:00 -
[208]
Edited by: FT Diomedes on 29/10/2007 20:58:27
Originally by: J Valkor The Golem is an excellent mission running vessel. Just because you can't think an inch out of the box and have a lot of peers that agree with you does not change that.
Have you used it? And I mean this honestly. Have you flown it on Sisi? In a mission? How does it compare with a normal Raven or CNR, based on actual experience? ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome. |
Kelbesque Crystalis
Minmatar Eve University
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 21:11:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Byzan Zwyth
Originally by: Kelbesque Crystalis
Originally by: Byzan Zwyth
What is better: They use about half the amo, good if your using faction/T2 T2 resists
So buy better faction hards and a LOT of ammo instead??
Hell you can cross train to an armor tanker to do level 4's if you want better EM/therm resists for less SP and ISK.
What's your point? you can put those same faction hards on the T2 and have a better tank again.
But its way more tank than you need for level 4's. My point was on a ISK/perfromance ratio, you can get alot more for your money by skipping the T2 BS.
Originally by: Byzan Zwyth
Cross train? There is always a better ship if you are willing to cross train, not a valid point.
But why would you ever train up for a T2 that is eclipsed by a T1 ship via cross training? Esp you can be in a T1 BS fairly quickly compared to a T2.
Originally by: Byzan Zwyth
Fact remains it's not meant to be the single best go to ship for missions and be the best at everything.
What it is is another valid option.
If it was better in every way you would get the faction ship pilots crying because their ships were made obsolite.
Accept the ships for what they are.
The Vagur in particular is less desirable than all the minnie BS's and faction BS's as it can not even fit the primary mission running projectile weapons (not enough grid). As it stands now, its not a viable option, unless you happen to love chasing down BS's with auto cannons. While this is fine for some missions that put you at point blank in the frey, other are just down right painful. It would be like forcing all raven pilots to use the new torps (30km range max) on their T2 BS.
The other T2 BS's have similar problems.
I'll stick to my current T1 ship. Cost and SP are perfectly fine if I get something out of it. I'd buy a faction BS for missions, but not the T2's even if they were cheaper as they stand now. They are not even in the running.
|
Dracas Bloodmoon
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 00:27:00 -
[210]
So how many people can loot and salvage in a CNR while killing?
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 10:09:00 -
[211]
Edited by: Akita T on 30/10/2007 10:10:23
Originally by: FT Diomedes The price of these ships looks to be about 500 million - once people have produced enough of them to fill the initial run on them. So, they will be affordable by experienced Level 4 mission runners or 0.0 ratters.
Actually, no... right now, at current market prices, it costs, at best, 700-750 mil ISK on average to invent and build one.
That assumes no huge extra spike in datacore, decryptor, T1 BPCs and T2 component prices, perfect skills (all L5 invention related) and a perfectly average run of invention (not too many failures in a row). So, considering one has to plan for the days when you also fail a few invention tries in a row, assuming all related prices might go up a bit, and the fact inventors and manufacturers also want a certain small profit for themselves too, you should consider yourself extremely lucky if you can find one marauder at 800 mil ISK.
And yes, that's 800 mil ISK "AFTER the initial run on them", when they'll be selling at 1.5 bil or probably even higher.
Now, ask yourself this... why bother with a 800+ mil ISK Golem, when you can fly a 650 mil CNR instead ?!? _
1|2|3 |
Gozmoth
Amarr Altera Odyssea Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 10:43:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Akita T Now, ask yourself this... why bother with a 800+ mil ISK Golem, when you can fly a 650 mil CNR instead ?!?
Or 80M for a raven ?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 11:04:00 -
[213]
Or that If you spend a shedload of ISK for something, you expect it to be better at what you want it to be. Or else, you know, you don't buy it. _
1|2|3 |
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:02:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Akita T Or that If you spend a shedload of ISK for something, you expect it to be better at what you want it to be. Or else, you know, you don't buy it.
With a proper build, yes. I cannot loot or salvage while running a mission in a CNR, or even a Raven. I know players like to jack off over run times, but loot brings a lot of extra money to the table. Shooting faction torps (only half the ammo requirements and torps need to be hit by 2 defenders to take down) to 50k with a single TP, AB, five slot tank, and rigs devoted to missile range.
****, I sort of want one now.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:47:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Akita T on 30/10/2007 14:50:08 Well, good luck fiting it with siege, AB and ANY tank if you plan on using missile speed rigs. Have you looked at PG/CPU ?
Oh, and right now, missile range (speed/flighttime) rigs are broken (again) for rockets/HAMs/torps on SiSI _
1|2|3 |
Solid Trust
Minmatar Haven Front
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:00:00 -
[216]
The golem is going to suck badly for one reason and that is NPC defender missiles. Defender missiles already take out a good number of your cruise missiles. When you are only shooting four of them you will probably hit one time for every volley against certain NPC BS's.
As for CNR being overpowered, it has the worst DPS of out all the other faction ships. What gives it the advantage (missiles) is also what makes it the least favorite PVP BS. The only thing the CNR really has over the Raven is one extra missile slot. You take that away and you are back to a raven.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:05:00 -
[217]
I put forth something you might enjoy a peek at, if for no other reason than to take the mickey.
Marauder mkII
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 16:04:00 -
[218]
Originally by: J Valkor
Originally by: Akita T Or that If you spend a shedload of ISK for something, you expect it to be better at what you want it to be. Or else, you know, you don't buy it.
With a proper build, yes. I cannot loot or salvage while running a mission in a CNR, or even a Raven. I know players like to jack off over run times, but loot brings a lot of extra money to the table. Shooting faction torps (only half the ammo requirements and torps need to be hit by 2 defenders to take down) to 50k with a single TP, AB, five slot tank, and rigs devoted to missile range.
****, I sort of want one now.
Tbh you won't be able to loot or salvage L4s in a Marauder either. 1 Tractor and 2 Salvagers without tackles is crap to begin with, you probably wont have the cap to spare while in the thick of combat either, not to mention that when you concentrate on fighting you wont be able to concentrate on looting very much. (Unless you have an AFK fighting fit, but I hope CCP didn't design these ships for the AFK crowd...) Personally I will leave wrecks still turned off on the overview and come back in my salvage cane even when flying a Marauder. The only thing I might do is fit 3 tractors to gather the BS wrecks all in one place. But then again I might need NOS in highs since I can fit only 2 CCCs rather than 3 (or 0 rather than 1 in case of the Golem, my CNR has 2 missile velo rigs and so would my Golem).
The loot/salvage while fighting is really only useful for 0.0 PvE (ratting and plexes), not so much for L4 missions.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 16:58:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 30/10/2007 14:50:08 Well, good luck fiting it with siege, AB and ANY tank if you plan on using missile speed rigs. Have you looked at PG/CPU ?
Oh, and right now, missile range (speed/flighttime) rigs are broken (again) for rockets/HAMs/torps on SiSI
The Golem has more CPU than a Raven (715 vs. 700 according to database) and though it does have less powergrid, it also needs to fit two less guns then a normal raven.
As for the rigs, them being broken is not the fault of the Maurader.
|
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 21:15:00 -
[220]
to use these ships to salvage in mission is not a real option... just go back grab your favoured nano/cargo bs equipped with 8 salvagers/beams and run back... it will be way way faster than to use the ones of marauder...
only scenario when this can be helpfull is for ratting
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 04:33:00 -
[221]
This is true. I find even using a Dominix with salv and tractor highs (for those times you really can't be bothered applying any personal effort) it simply isn't fast enough compared to a Salvage Tackle rigged MWD Hurricane.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 08:06:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Ath Amon to use these ships to salvage in mission is not a real option... just go back grab your favoured nano/cargo bs equipped with 8 salvagers/beams and run back... it will be way way faster than to use the ones of marauder...
only scenario when this can be helpfull is for ratting
Oh ofc it's option if you are chaining them in CNR. Rats die so fast that wreks sit in nice tight clusters. With 40km and 1000 m/s tractors you can loot all level 4 missions what are currently worth looting isk/h wise without moving an inch (not all lev 4 missions are worth looting/salvaging) slightly faster than you can currently in salvage fitted destroyer/interdictor. Those with 80 km between wreks or crap loot/salvage (like gurista) are not worth looting isk/h wise currently and will not be so with marauders either (if your running speed is high enough, and it is in faction fitted CNR).
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 13:23:00 -
[223]
The thing is that at least for me the real money is in the salvage, the loot is just a small extra. And the Marauders WILL suck at salvaging compared to a rigged salvagecane. The only useful application for tractor beams on Marauders are missions against EoM, rogue drones and mercs, and maybe structures that drop good loot. Most missions are against pirates that have **** for loot though, but some of them offer decent salvage. And there a lootboat is still better even after the Marauders. For example in Amarr missions, you will do better in Abaddon and Hurricane than in the current Paladin. And this is why all the Marauders should do the same or more DPS than the best damage T1 battleship.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 18:06:00 -
[224]
I'm starting to believe this isn't just an oversight, but actually they're intentionally made worse... _
1|2|3 |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 22:16:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Akita T I'm starting to believe this isn't just an oversight, but actually they're intentionally made worse...
the truth is that marauders are time/isk sinks that devs are sneakily implementing... but we caught them!
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
Sylper Illysten
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 00:29:00 -
[226]
After the resonding Dev response to the carrier nerf threads, does anyone else find the complete lack of Dev response to the Marauder concern threads to be just another slap in the face to mission runners?
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 07:26:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Sylper Illysten After the resonding Dev response to the carrier nerf threads, does anyone else find the complete lack of Dev response to the Marauder concern threads to be just another slap in the face to mission runners?
Not really. They propably intended it that way and are quite content with current stats on them. They are good pvp boats and very good tanks. Damage wise well ... not so stellar but I have feeling they really did not want to make missionrunning any faster than it's already is.
It's already quite hard to balance missions so that they would be doable with all battleship class vessels and you would not run out of targets 50km before next gate even in good ship with good skills (it actually happens in some missions still if you are riding pimped raven).
|
Dubious Drewski
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 08:02:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: d026
Even the fact that the CNR is out of line makes the Golem pointles because it is still preferable to get CNR instead of a Golem.
You heard the man. Nerf the CNR!
That.
As said, the ibalanced ship here is the CNR.
Saying an advanced ship needs a buff to be inline with an earlier ship which is a bit imbalanced with all other ships in the same niche is a bit silly.
The CNR has 10% more tank and 13% more gank than a T1 raven, but it costs 700mill. I don't think the CNR needs a nerf, thankyouverymuch.
Originally by: Slayton Ford a Drake is normally primaried last
And that's why I love that homely boat! |
Futureface01
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 09:01:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Sylper Illysten After the resonding Dev response to the carrier nerf threads, does anyone else find the complete lack of Dev response to the Marauder concern threads to be just another slap in the face to mission runners?
In a post by Wrangler he basically said if they cave to community pressure they make it look like whining gets results. And if they ignore the community it looks like they dont listen.
So yeah. The two most frequently occuring threads for a while was "whaaa my carrier" and "Fix these Marauders!". I think they strategically made the decision to leave the marauders underbalanced since they undid the carrier nerf. State of the Golem Oct 25, 2007 |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 10:27:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Carniflex Not really. They propably intended it that way and are quite content with current stats on them. They are good pvp boats and very good tanks. Damage wise well ... not so stellar but I have feeling they really did not want to make missionrunning any faster than it's already is.
Then please explain to me the brilliance of the Kronos compared to the suckiness of the other three...
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
|
IceCreamMonster
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 16:58:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Carniflex Not really. They propably intended it that way and are quite content with current stats on them. They are good pvp boats and very good tanks. Damage wise well ... not so stellar but I have feeling they really did not want to make missionrunning any faster than it's already is.
Then please explain to me the brilliance of the Kronos compared to the suckiness of the other three...
Because Kronos was a titan. Paladin, Golem or Varlgur's got nothing on a titan.
|
Sylper Illysten
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 00:19:00 -
[232]
Edited by: Sylper Illysten on 02/11/2007 00:19:39
Originally by: Carniflex Not really. They propably intended it that way and are quite content with current stats on them. They are good pvp boats and very good tanks. Damage wise well ... not so stellar but I have feeling they really did not want to make missionrunning any faster than it's already is.
It's already quite hard to balance missions so that they would be doable with all battleship class vessels and you would not run out of targets 50km before next gate even in good ship with good skills (it actually happens in some missions still if you are riding pimped raven).
So why sell the Marauders as what the mission runners want when thy're essentially a downgrade? I'm beginnning to onc more come to the realisation that mission runners are detested by the Dev team.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 04:16:00 -
[233]
Heh, guess what... they nerfed (ever so slightly) the Kronos... 75m bandwidth, down from 125m. _
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.11.02 19:27:00 -
[234]
Hokay, so they gave the Paladin a damage bonus instead of the tracking bonus, HOORAY it will finally be better as an Abaddon ! Kronos slightly de-powered, check.
Now... what about Golem and Vargur ? _
1|2|3 |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |