| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
OfBalance
Caldari State
14
   |
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Excellent summary. Not a bad ship, but certainly the least user-friendly of its peers. I really think the current issues plaguing cruise missiles and torps are to blame here. Namely that they simply have too hard a time applying dps to smaller targets and are over-reliant on rigs/painters to make up for this. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
colay Starwolf wrote: You dont understand weapons.Each weapon type has its pros and cons.Torps are ment as short range high dps if you want to use a short range weapon use a micro warp drive.Also you need a better understanding of the weapon systems.Turrets are based on tracking speed if you can track your target and hit you do damage based on how well you tracked the target and some other factors.However launchers dont need a target lock and always hit the target if you always hit every target for max damage thay would be game breaking.Drones are ment to help bigger ships vs smaller ones if you dont want to use them thats your problem. Launchers are ment to do high damage to same size targets not smaller or bigger ones.
Put a little space between those sentences man, that was painful to read.
Torps are meant to be short-range, high damage, and on paper they look like that too. Trouble is, they apply so very little of that dps without a large number of mids devoted to painters that it is rather game-breaking by comparison. For the record, launchers do need a target lock unless you use FoF missiles and as you may not be aware of this I will inform you: there are no FoF variants of unguided missiles like torps.
Drones can and should handle frigates, granted, but if you have any experience with torps you would know that it cannot even apply EFT dps to a stationary angel battleship without at least three ship-bonused target painters. How is that for same-sized targets? Unless you are attempting to argue that torpedos are meant only for bombers and structure-shooting, I think you are probably just misinformed about the issues at hand. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 12:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lenthall Scorpus wrote:
So simply saying Meh the Golem is no longer viable actually is the same argument that I can say when flying Sansha in a Vargur 'Meh' the Vargur is useless, and tracking sucks and I HAVE to deploy those damn light drones after all.
I think you may have missed some of, possibly the entire, OP. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 19:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Arazel Chainfire wrote:Texty wrote:So, OP is saying that the Golem needs to be buffed? No, OP is saying that torps need a good, hard looking at. 99% of his problems with the golem, are actually problems with torpedoes. Seriously, they have the exact same range as HAM's, ridiculous explosion radius, poor explosion velocity, excessively limited ammo amounts, and they are slow as hell. The other 1% of the OP's complaint is that target painters suck, and they really should have their cap usage and cycle time halved... and possibly their optimal range increased as well. -Arazel
Or they could just make it naga 2.0 with a hybrid bonus. *ducks thrown vege* |
OfBalance
Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2012.02.04 01:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Some marauders are obsoleted "were best" ships made when the game had other restrictions (I.e. no MWD), no Noctis, Mach was just a shiny toy and so on.
They need a round of new paint like they did for AFs.
I could see someone still using a vargur, paladin, or kronos over their faction alternatives for various reasons: fit cost, ammo costs, safety in high-inc-dmg situations like a high end complex or bonus room. So marauders in general aren't obsolete as a whole. The point of this thread was to illustrate how the golem specifically is obsolete, even by comparison to other marauders, which as you just pointed out aren't wildly popular themselves.
Marauders don't need a crazy AF-level buff, but battleship-class launchers need fixing, and *cough* certain faction ships *cough* and strategic cruisers *cough* might need a little "balancing," also. It should be clear from the OP that the former reason is far more important. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ireland VonVicious wrote:http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/58826-Rattlesnake-Drone-L4-champ.html
Motherofgod.jpg |
OfBalance
Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 05:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
Holy massive de-railment batman. |
OfBalance
Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 19:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Back on track: I concur with Exploited Engineer that cruise missile golem looses too much dps to defenders. And that is on top of the fact it's cruse dps is pretty sad to begin with. The only viable way to fly the golem really is torps, hence the other problems. |
OfBalance
Deep Core Mining Inc.
28
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 19:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ireland VonVicious wrote:
You seem to have missed that I was commenting on someone saying missles suck in general none of my statement was made based on golem fit.
Ya you won't hit a frig with a siege missle. Duh!
If you fly a mission ship with torps you better stack the tp's.
You really should stop trolling this thread. It deserves better. 
|
OfBalance
Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 01:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
Boz Wel wrote:I wonder if CCP will plan for any missile rebalancing as a result of their (awesome looking) graphics overhaul of missiles.
I feel like that would have merited a mention at some point during fanfest, so I wouldn't go holding your breath very long. |
| |
|