Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
May Shiko
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:15:00 -
[1]
Edited by: May Shiko on 27/10/2007 23:15:23 Right to the message, some corp mates and I think we may have a solution for the Golem's incredible weakness to NPC defender spam;
Let's replace:
- 10% bonus to BS class missile explosion velocity per Caldari BS level
With the following:
- +50% to cruise missile HP per Caldari BS level.
(Or hell, even make the TP bonus the second Caldari BS bonus and make the cruise missile HP bonus the second Marauder bonus)
The logic: A cruise missile has 50hp, defenders do 76 damage. NPCs spam a lot of these..... When was the last time you saw someone using defenders in PVP?
So, with a simple change to bonuses, at the average Marauders 4 skill level, cruise missiles will have 150 HP, requiring 2 defenders to take down one. This gives the Golem a significant boost in it's resilience to NPC defenders. It also makes Marauders 5 pretty damn alluring to train, as it would boost the HP of cruise missiles to require 3 NPC defenders to destroy, reinforcing the DPS of the Golem without boosting it even further.
My apologies if the math is off, but the idea is, Marauders 2-4 gives you the benefit of reinforcing your DPS some, and Marauders 5, really solidifies it. Without majorly impacting PVP, because when was the last time someone used defenders?
Comment! I command it!
|
May Shiko
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:15:00 -
[2]
Edited by: May Shiko on 27/10/2007 23:15:23 Right to the message, some corp mates and I think we may have a solution for the Golem's incredible weakness to NPC defender spam;
Let's replace:
- 10% bonus to BS class missile explosion velocity per Caldari BS level
With the following:
- +50% to cruise missile HP per Caldari BS level.
(Or hell, even make the TP bonus the second Caldari BS bonus and make the cruise missile HP bonus the second Marauder bonus)
The logic: A cruise missile has 50hp, defenders do 76 damage. NPCs spam a lot of these..... When was the last time you saw someone using defenders in PVP?
So, with a simple change to bonuses, at the average Marauders 4 skill level, cruise missiles will have 150 HP, requiring 2 defenders to take down one. This gives the Golem a significant boost in it's resilience to NPC defenders. It also makes Marauders 5 pretty damn alluring to train, as it would boost the HP of cruise missiles to require 3 NPC defenders to destroy, reinforcing the DPS of the Golem without boosting it even further.
My apologies if the math is off, but the idea is, Marauders 2-4 gives you the benefit of reinforcing your DPS some, and Marauders 5, really solidifies it. Without majorly impacting PVP, because when was the last time someone used defenders?
Comment! I command it!
|
Machanashin Prime
Caldari Dire Trucking
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:20:00 -
[3]
/signed
Even if the Golem does have equivalent dps to the Raven, this sort of fix would give me a reason to actually use it in missions for it's better tank.
|
Machanashin Prime
Caldari Dire Trucking
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 23:20:00 -
[4]
/signed
Even if the Golem does have equivalent dps to the Raven, this sort of fix would give me a reason to actually use it in missions for it's better tank.
|
BiggestT
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 09:06:00 -
[5]
PLZ NO!
why make cladari even more uzless for pvp... The raven is fine for missions and im sure the golem wld work plenty fine too. Hell get a cnr if u got cash -.-
Caldari need more pvp prowess, currently their great at pve but need better pvp ships, the golems bonus's work well for this.
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 09:56:00 -
[6]
ehh NO.. give them the raven bonusses instead of the stupid new bonus for the bs skill.
and then it will be good.. ow and give all the T2 bs, the REAL T2 res (hac/cs/af resist ty)
|
Aarla
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 19:08:00 -
[7]
or give it range bonus for torps ? works for pve and pvp
|
Dragon Lord
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 20:00:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Buyerr ehh NO.. give them the raven bonusses instead of the stupid new bonus for the bs skill.
and then it will be good.. ow and give all the T2 bs, the REAL T2 res (hac/cs/af resist ty)
signed
at least then u would get greater dps than the cnr and descent resistances.
come on ccp you have to make this ship appealing to us, whats the point of a ship that will cost as much as a cnr and require far more skills, that is less effective at npcing and mission running, i though they were supposed to be front line dmg machines.
Fix this CCP they should be the link between bs's and carriers, they should pwn any t1 bs, just like a hac would pwn any cruiser, if u wanna kill it bring a carrier or 2 ships, thats the way it should be.
Please sort this out
|
Yamichi Wiggin
Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 20:20:00 -
[9]
Caldari's biggest problems with PvP are related. Very few of our ships get a bonus to damage- most get a bonus to range. Range is VERY handy when you can control the fight. Our ships are too slow and massive to control most fights though. So that's a problem. Second- our most common weapon (missiles) have a delayed impact. With my current skills my cruise missiles have a range of well over 100km but at their speed, that can be upwards of twenty seconds to reach a target. even a battlecruiser can align and warp in that time. So we can choose between high damage that may not hit the target before he's gone or low damage.
If the Marauders are supposed to be mission boats, then a buff to cruise missile resilience would be ideal. If they are geared towards PvP, give us a drop in flight time with a massive boost to flight speed. Actually- that could work in either situation. Regardless, the Golem is an epic fail. cost will (probably) be on par with a CNR, damage won't be noticably higher, it will actually lose ground in missions due to its cruise missiles being shot by defenders and it's no better in PvP than a standard Raven. ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body.
There is no love in fear |
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 22:18:00 -
[10]
Originally by: May Shiko When was the last time you saw someone using defenders in PVP?
Shhhhh! --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 22:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Buyerr ehh NO.. give them the raven bonusses instead of the stupid new bonus for the bs skill.
and then it will be good.. ow and give all the T2 bs, the REAL T2 res (hac/cs/af resist ty)
They're deliberately did not give them HAC resists. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 22:27:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dragon Lord at least then u would get greater dps than the cnr and descent resistances.
They're not supposed to supplant existing ships. That includes faction ships.
Originally by: Dragon Lord come on ccp you have to make this ship appealing to us, whats the point of a ship that will cost as much as a cnr and require far more skills, that is less effective at npcing and mission running, i though they were supposed to be front line dmg machines.
What's not appealing?! They're ideal for 0.0 ratting. With all your talk of CNRs and running missions it's pretty obvious you run missions. And judging by your dismissal of "npcing" (those that actually do it call it ratting) you don't rat so you don't realize how good these things will be at it.
Originally by: Dragon Lord Fix this
It isn't broken.
Originally by: Dragon Lord CCP they should be the link between bs's and carriers,
Why? They're obviously intended for ratting. And they look to be damn good at it on paper.
Originally by: Dragon Lord they should pwn any t1 bs
I disagree, CCP disagrees, but why do you think so? Some of them might anyway. Some do have some amazing bonuses.
Originally by: Dragon Lord just like a hac would pwn any cruiser,
You'd be surprised.
Originally by: Dragon Lord if u wanna kill it bring a carrier or 2 ships
That's just absurd. What makes you think so?
Originally by: Dragon Lord Please sort this out
Looks sorted from where I'm sitting. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Dragon Lord
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 16:14:00 -
[13]
Actually i do rat as well and i must admit that the golem will rock for ratting due to its massive cargo, low missile use and tractor boost. Plus its mega tank and the fact most npcs are within torp range will indead make this ship a very nice ratting ship.
Howevere are u realy gonna go ratting in a ship that costs the same as a cnr? if u are well good luck to u but for me its a little expensive to rat in.
|
Xaen
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.10.31 18:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Dragon Lord Howevere are u realy gonna go ratting in a ship that costs the same as a cnr? if u are well good luck to u but for me its a little expensive to rat in.
I might. A cloak will fit nicely in one of those free utility slots without gimping my DPS. --
Support fixing the EVE UI
|
Dragon Lord
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.11.01 11:13:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Dragon Lord Howevere are u realy gonna go ratting in a ship that costs the same as a cnr? if u are well good luck to u but for me its a little expensive to rat in.
I might. A cloak will fit nicely in one of those free utility slots without gimping my DPS.
Yes but thats the same as the raven isnt it, unless ur one of the few that put guns in its last 2 slots.
Also i dont think id want to go 1 on 1 with a widow if one jumped me while ratting. And that just seams wrong.
|
TBiggest
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 09:55:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Dragon Lord at least then u would get greater dps than the cnr and descent resistances.
They're not supposed to supplant existing ships. That includes faction ships.
Originally by: Dragon Lord come on ccp you have to make this ship appealing to us, whats the point of a ship that will cost as much as a cnr and require far more skills, that is less effective at npcing and mission running, i though they were supposed to be front line dmg machines.
What's not appealing?! They're ideal for 0.0 ratting. With all your talk of CNRs and running missions it's pretty obvious you run missions. And judging by your dismissal of "npcing" (those that actually do it call it ratting) you don't rat so you don't realize how good these things will be at it.
Originally by: Dragon Lord Fix this
It isn't broken.
Originally by: Dragon Lord CCP they should be the link between bs's and carriers,
Why? They're obviously intended for ratting. And they look to be damn good at it on paper.
Originally by: Dragon Lord they should pwn any t1 bs
I disagree, CCP disagrees, but why do you think so? Some of them might anyway. Some do have some amazing bonuses.
Originally by: Dragon Lord just like a hac would pwn any cruiser,
You'd be surprised.
Originally by: Dragon Lord if u wanna kill it bring a carrier or 2 ships
That's just absurd. What makes you think so?
Originally by: Dragon Lord Please sort this out
Looks sorted from where I'm sitting.
Errm m8, a t2 bs SHOULD NOT BE DESIGNED FOR RATTING! its just like, oh lets make a t2 bs designed for salvage...and another for mining...cmon, the current raven is fine for ratting, a t2 ratting bs is just overkill and will be inceribly un-popular.
Can we see some half-decent caldari ships for once?
|
TBiggest
|
Posted - 2007.11.07 09:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Dragon Lord at least then u would get greater dps than the cnr and descent resistances.
They're not supposed to supplant existing ships. That includes faction ships.
Originally by: Dragon Lord come on ccp you have to make this ship appealing to us, whats the point of a ship that will cost as much as a cnr and require far more skills, that is less effective at npcing and mission running, i though they were supposed to be front line dmg machines.
What's not appealing?! They're ideal for 0.0 ratting. With all your talk of CNRs and running missions it's pretty obvious you run missions. And judging by your dismissal of "npcing" (those that actually do it call it ratting) you don't rat so you don't realize how good these things will be at it.
Originally by: Dragon Lord Fix this
It isn't broken.
Originally by: Dragon Lord CCP they should be the link between bs's and carriers,
Why? They're obviously intended for ratting. And they look to be damn good at it on paper.
Originally by: Dragon Lord they should pwn any t1 bs
I disagree, CCP disagrees, but why do you think so? Some of them might anyway. Some do have some amazing bonuses.
Originally by: Dragon Lord just like a hac would pwn any cruiser,
You'd be surprised.
Originally by: Dragon Lord if u wanna kill it bring a carrier or 2 ships
That's just absurd. What makes you think so?
Originally by: Dragon Lord Please sort this out
Looks sorted from where I'm sitting.
Errm m8, a t2 bs SHOULD NOT BE DESIGNED FOR RATTING! its just like, oh lets make a t2 bs designed for salvage...and another for mining...cmon, the current raven is fine for ratting, a t2 ratting bs is just overkill and will be inceribly un-popular.
Can we see some half-decent caldari ships for once?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |