Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
NeoTheo
Caldari Species 5618 Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:15:00 -
[271]
PLEASE - Give the Cerb more grid to become a more viable HAM platform, also the eagle and the cerb need drone bays, nothing massive, but with the same bandwidth as there tech1 models, i know they are long range snipers, but that does not mean that they shouldnt get a drone bay.
i for one use the cerb as a ham platform, and a 15 m3 bay would not go a miss. same for the blaster eagle.
|
slothe
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:17:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Tintifish Deimos: 5x Heavy Ion II MWD II, 24km Scram, Web II, electrochem booster MAR II, 2x EANM II, 2x MFS II
Fits with AWU 4 with 17 pg and 5 cpu to spare
As much as i would like that empty high removed instead of the low, wheres the problem?
the problem is the useless 6th slot your not using?
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD Solidus Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:20:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Ogul Do you realize that there is no module available to improve missile explosion properties? Do you realize that (unlike turrets) oversized missiles never do full damage to their targets?
Oh yes, sure. Let's nerf missiles some more...
painter? web?
now - tell me a module to counter a crippled falloff - putting the gist back into logistics |
XXJackXX
Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:20:00 -
[274]
ok first amarr boost blog was bad idea lots of bad thingy and overpower amarr but this is nice balance for me.
Eagle: 5th turret yes it wanted too much and it wont be overpowered by giving other hacs some new changes.
Zealot: 5th turret yes maybe people thinking it is overpowered but more turret means more damage but hard fitting and low cap means also.
Deimos: Before i dont like to fly deimos so much but now i'm sure i'll love it and good changes.
First time i really liked new changes.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:24:00 -
[275]
Turrets for all, finally!
Still, I'm a bit worried on the fitting requirements for the bonus turrets on all the ships you added one. The Zealot will indeed have some issues on fitting 5 turrets, or just the beams will be banned (which made good use of the range bonus and was a nice mission setup). CPU was already short before, it will be even shorter.
Maybe the lowest CPU HAC needs some CPU boost? -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
Ladyah Liandri
Silver Eagles Imperium Aeternum
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:25:00 -
[276]
Voting also for removing the sixth useless hi-slot instead of a low slot for the Deimos.
|
Ogul
Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:32:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Originally by: Ogul Do you realize that there is no module available to improve missile explosion properties? Do you realize that (unlike turrets) oversized missiles never do full damage to their targets?
Oh yes, sure. Let's nerf missiles some more...
painter? web?
now - tell me a module to counter a crippled falloff
And painters and webs don't benefit turrets? In addition to tracking computers that have no missile equivalent? Never mind the fact that missiles already suffer far more damage reduction trying to shoot small or fast targets...
And yes, falloff reduction deserves a counter, the easiest way would be another script for tracking computers. And if any anti-missile ewar should ever make it on TQ, they better include some counters as well.
--- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:33:00 -
[278]
Just reading through these pages a few things are worrying.
Firstly there's a common trend of this kind of comment:
"Ship A is useless because it cant fit X, Y and Z"
and also this kind of comment:
"Its supposed to be a blaster boat/speed boat/gank boat - race blah are the drone/speed/gank/tank/cap master race"
Someone posted for example that TDs nerf The vagabond since 'it cant use a webbifier and must stay at range'.
Why? Why must it stay at range? Its got a decent grid and cpu, plenty of slots for armor tanking, enough mids to fit a MWD, Inj, Web and Scram.
I think the problem is many players look at CCPs changes from their perspective of their current 'cookie cut' ship and refuse to except that they might have to go back and change it.
Let me give you an example. I took my normal shield tanked Curse for a spin on SISI. I met a Zealot which proceeded to rip my shields into tiny bits and spit me out into my pod. Hmm I thought.
Now did I run to the forums screaming NERF NERF WAAAAGH! No. I refitted my Curse as an Armor tank ship (with an extra TD to boot) went back out found the exact same zealot. No doubt he was thinking 'ooh goody another esy kill' right up to the point where his lasers ran into my Armor. At which point his damage stopped and then he blew up.
Now "forum EFT FOTM" common wisdom will tell you that nobody nobody should fly an armor tank curse as its rubbish. Well in this case it wasnt (it sucked vs a vagabond, where as the shield tank version didnt).
Perhaps we, as players, should start thinking a bit more about how we set up our ships and relying on others to tell us how they should be fitted and used a little less?
C.
Improved Low Sec Idea!! |
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD Solidus Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:38:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Ogul Never mind the fact that missiles already suffer far more damage reduction trying to shoot small or fast targets...
numbers plz - putting the gist back into logistics |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:47:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Ogul
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Originally by: Ogul Do you realize that there is no module available to improve missile explosion properties? Do you realize that (unlike turrets) oversized missiles never do full damage to their targets?
Oh yes, sure. Let's nerf missiles some more...
painter? web?
now - tell me a module to counter a crippled falloff
And painters and webs don't benefit turrets? In addition to tracking computers that have no missile equivalent? Never mind the fact that missiles already suffer far more damage reduction trying to shoot small or fast targets...
And yes, falloff reduction deserves a counter, the easiest way would be another script for tracking computers. And if any anti-missile ewar should ever make it on TQ, they better include some counters as well.
If you want a counter for fall off expect a serious nerf of fall off rigs to balance it. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
|
Tillionn
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:48:00 -
[281]
The Deimos is just fine as it's now. CCP pls don't fix somethign that's ain't broken :(
I'm ok with ship bonus changes as long it gets more cap. But LEAVE the low slots alone :(, by tanking away a low slot u gimp the ship's tank/gank abilities alot. If u want to change slots layout move 1 high slot to medium, thats fine(5-4-6), but pls leave the low slots alone.
|
Ogul
Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:58:00 -
[282]
Edited by: Ogul on 03/02/2008 14:05:03
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Originally by: Ogul Never mind the fact that missiles already suffer far more damage reduction trying to shoot small or fast targets...
numbers plz
Numbers like 100% turret damage to frig sized targets with sufficiently low transversal - regardless of turret signature resolution?
Or the fact that damage reduction due to a certain projection of velocity is obviously less prominent than damage reduction based on velocity itself?
Target painters benefitting turrets hitting small and fast targets while they are completey irrelevant for missiles trying to hit fast targets?
--- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
Securion Wolfheart
Not Like Most
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 14:07:00 -
[283]
Omen: VERY nice change. But how are we going to fit that extra turret? We already have problems fitting 4 of them you know...
Ferox: Also a VERY nice change. But what about the Vulture...?
Apoc: Finally! Perfect change.
Moa, Eagle, Zealot: Ok!
Deimos: Was good as it was...? The new changes seems more like a nerf to me...
...
What about the Prophecy...? Maybe let it carry medium drones? Or an extra low-slot? Something please... Even removing the cap bonus with a range bonus would be nice.
The difference between a Pirate and an Anti-Pirate is that an Anti-Pirate fights ships fitted with guns... |
Kersh Marelor
Amarr Lai Dai Innovations
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 14:31:00 -
[284]
Very good Amarr changes. This really looks like an Amarr buff, thoough it still takes a few minutes to believe someone @ CCP would actually bother for our sake ;) Would be great to see some balancing on the Prophecy and Maller, as they lack love. The TDs are also good improvement - it is true what Zulupark wrote in his blog about the amarrian e-war, nice to see that's about to change.
About Deimos - I don't really see why change it at all? It is not very overpowered, neither sux at the moment. Has a good dps and decent tankability. Why make a smaller version of Hyperion of someting that supposed to be a Heavy ASSAULT Cruiser?
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 14:52:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Ogul Edited by: Ogul on 03/02/2008 14:05:03
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Originally by: Ogul Never mind the fact that missiles already suffer far more damage reduction trying to shoot small or fast targets...
numbers plz
Numbers like 100% turret damage to frig sized targets with sufficiently low transversal - regardless of turret signature resolution?
Or the fact that damage reduction due to a certain projection of velocity is obviously less prominent than damage reduction based on velocity itself?
Target painters benefitting turrets hitting small and fast targets while they are completey irrelevant for missiles trying to hit fast targets?
Kinda like a webbed frig orbiting a webbed bs at 100m and being impossible to hit with turrets, while being one volleyed by precision cruises? Hell, with arties you could have a whole circus including the elephant and the bearded lady webbed but still 'under your guns', while with missiles you usually hit webbed targets for atleast some damage. The mechanics for missiles and turrets are different, sure, and they do have a different set of benefits and limitations. You're just presenting a bit biased view :)
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 14:58:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Securion Wolfheart
What about the Prophecy...? Maybe let it carry medium drones? Or an extra low-slot? Something please... Even removing the cap bonus with a range bonus would be nice.
I think increased drone bays/bandwidth on maller and proph would be one solution. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Y3R M4W
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:21:00 -
[287]
Edited by: Y3R M4W on 03/02/2008 15:21:26 The extra turret on the Zealot is nice, however I would still prefer a 25-50m3 drone bay for the extra versatility it offers.
It also brings it a lot closer to the absolution in terms of dps compared to other HAC/CS Combinations, such as Deimos and Astarte, the latter getting 2 more turrets and an extra low over the former. Coupled with the fact the Abso is slow as a brick, which in todays nano-infested universe means problems, compared to the Zealot's speedehness, the Abso seems a bit outclassed, between the Harbinger beating it's dps, and the Zealot out-spedding it, and not being too far behind on tank either.
The Apoc bonus is nice and gives it a role, however I was hoping for a torp spewing armor tanking boat
Deimos changes seem very much unnescessary as has been pointed out frequently. There's barely enough grid to fit dual rep tank with a MWD and cap booster, and have any sort of DPS, coupled with the sudden lack of low slots means a mediocre tank or mediocre dps, or terrible both.
Can't comment much on the rail boats, since I don't fly them. Would seem fair for the bonus to apply to the vlture though.
On the tracking disruptor changes, I think they're ideal. ACs with 0 cap and kiting range without counter can now be countered. Admitedly it cannot be counter-countered, but then again, neither can target painters (however useless they are, although that's a seperate issue).
So far so good I guess, I'd say the Deimos needs looked at, and some generic laser changes maybe, other than that, all good
Note: YER MAW! is Scottish for Your Mother. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:29:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Ulstan Edited by: Ulstan on 03/02/2008 05:36:23 Zealot change, excellent. Moa change, excellent. Ferox change, excellent. Eagle change, excellent. Apoc change, super excelent. Omen change, very good.
However
Both the raptor and the omen need more powergrid
Omen has trouble fitting 4 guns right now. Expecting it to adequately fit a 5th would be quite amazing.
I know you don't want the raptor to fit 150mm rails: trust me, that won't be happening. Max skills, the [b]current[\b] raptor has 37.5 power 3 125 tech II rails is 7.2 power each for 21.6 power at MAX SKILLS. Add on a tech ONE MWD for 15 power and you have 36.6 power.
The current raptor can't even squeeze on a full rack of 125 II's and a MWD II, even if it fits nothing else. 150's aren't even in the picture.
Lowering it's powergrid even further would be just 0.0
THIS MAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH - RAPTOR CAN BARELY FIT ANYTHING USEFULL AS IT IS NOW
(and yes - it becomes much more true with capital letters.. sry ) - I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:44:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Ogul Edited by: Ogul on 03/02/2008 14:05:03
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
Originally by: Ogul Never mind the fact that missiles already suffer far more damage reduction trying to shoot small or fast targets...
numbers plz
Numbers like 100% turret damage to frig sized targets with sufficiently low transversal - regardless of turret signature resolution?
Or the fact that damage reduction due to a certain projection of velocity is obviously less prominent than damage reduction based on velocity itself?
Target painters benefitting turrets hitting small and fast targets while they are completey irrelevant for missiles trying to hit fast targets?
Those arent numbers:
How about missiles losing damage at high speeds slower than turrets. Missiles not having to worry about optimal ranges and falloff. Missiles hitting for 100% of damage against any target webbed with its MWD on. Painters helping missiles against small targets without their MWD on where is completly irrelevent for turrets?
They have different strengths, but accross the board, missiles do better average damage than turrets to targets.
|
Minessis
Strife Mercenaries Inc. Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:52:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Brzhk The cap whining is just strange... 'Cause as the cap is extended, if we loose some cap when fitting a MWD, it ain't really an issue. But the diseapearing low slot is more of an issue. Why don't you take a (useless) high slot instead?
let me just point out to you since you apparently are a moron that the mwd penalizes a cap by 25%. therefore with the old deimos cap or 1375 and a bonus that completely nufflifies a mwd penalty will have a base of 1375 cap.
now lets take a look at the "new and improved" deimos. the base cap is 1625, now take off 25%: 1625 - (1625*0.25) = 1218.75.
so, in sum, the last time i checked, 1375 was 156.25 cap more 1218.75. THEREFORE, the loss of the mwd bonus with a simultaneous addition of +250 cap is actually a capacitor penalty!!
That is why people are "whining about it", get your facts straightened out before you starting typing.
now to anyone who would laugh and say that deimos pilots are being babies at a loss of 156.25 cap (mind you that's with the assumption that the player has no navigation skill and no engineering skills), consider this, CCP has called the planned deimos changes "a Boost" but in reality they are destroyed the ship. THAT is why it is a big deal.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:57:00 -
[291]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 15:58:28
Originally by: Arkady Sadik blaster want to be in web range
Check the optimal range and falloff of a neutron deimos with CN Antimatter.
Add one TD. Now check the optimal range and falloff of a neutron deimos with CN antimatter.
Now add a web.
Now tell me the range at which a faster ship with a range will want to stay in order to optimize DPS against said target, assuming both are TD'd.
Here, ill do the math for you
Neutron Deimos w/ CN Antimatter: 2.3km optimal, 9.4km falloff. Hits 39.5% gun dps at 11.7km
Neutron Deimos w/ TD and CN antimatter: 1.38km optimal, 5.64km falloff. Hits 39.5% gun dps at 7.02km.
So if you are a minmitar ship and TD'd you will have, with Barrage stats something like 2.3+23km before the TD and 1.38+13.8km. Which means from the range fo 7km to 13km[all within web range], you have the advantage.
Even if you dont have a falloff boost[1.3+9.2km after a TD], you have the advantage between 7 and 10km[below your DPS starts to drop off too much] against a ship with a falloff bonus.
Webs slow the game down. If you can get an advantage within web range, then not only do you have the advantage in range, but ships will close slower.
|
Reto
The Last Resort
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 16:13:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Feng Schui
Originally by: Agarex bout tracking disruptors: the boost is too heavy. Is there anything that sensor dampeners can do with close range setups after recent nerf? No. So why TDs have to?
Its really not. TD's still suck ass. (Coming from a pilgrim pilot with level 4 in weapon disruption and turret disruption).
u sir either dont fly pilgrims or just want more than u deserve. i flown with TI frig gangs utilzing crucifier frigs with the td bonus and they worked insanely awsome vs vagabonds and intrceptors. a curse/ pilgrim is atm imo the best recon for solo killing any ship there is. the combination of hislot and medslots for neutralizing disabeling ur target + a weapon system which is very reliable and doesnt need any slots plus enuff lows to either speed or armour tank makes the amarr recons superior. WTF are u talking about ?
Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
|
SkyCrane
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 16:18:00 -
[293]
Will the Navy Apoc be changed along with the Normal Apoc?
Other than that it looks like a good thing for Amarrian players ------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Please feel free to ignore typoes... I suck at typing... :) |
Corphus
The NewOrder
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 16:25:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Minessis
let me just point out to you since you apparently are a moron that the mwd penalizes a cap by 25%. therefore with the old deimos cap or 1375 and a bonus that completely nufflifies a mwd penalty will have a base of 1375 cap.
now lets take a look at the "new and improved" deimos. the base cap is 1625, now take off 25%: 1625 - (1625*0.25) = 1218.75.
so, in sum, the last time i checked, 1375 was 156.25 cap more 1218.75. THEREFORE, the loss of the mwd bonus with a simultaneous addition of +250 cap is actually a capacitor penalty!!
VERY GOOD POINT!
i use dual rep setups on my deimos if i want to tank. it tanks around 400dps no problem the only thing which is left aside is the last highslot for utility which i cant use due to grid limitations. now the new changes encourage a single rep setup with less repping and they take away a crucial 6th lowslot. imo CCP just made a change based on theoretical asumptions rather than on cold hard testing. REVERSE this asap. if ccp wants to boost the repping than use the utility hislot for either a med or a low. and add at least enuff cap capacity to compensate the mwd penalty 100% or more.
summary:
6th hi slot --> +1 med or low MWD bonus --> stays or add enuff grid to compensate the mwd penlaty 100% or even more. lowslots --> do not touch them as u need any single one.
|
Keiko Kobayashi
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 16:33:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss We have the Vigilant already if you want a 4th mid slot - how many people fly them?
I did, and put it to good use to boost my cap when I had it. But as soon as I was able to fly the Deimos I stopped using it, because the Deimos is better in pretty much every regard, that pretty much cancels out the advantage of an extra mid slot completely. Also, the Vigilant is expensive, and much harder to get, you have to find one using the contracts system.
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss The utility 6th high slot IS useful. You can fit an (offline) salvager or if you've cap concerns - drop to ions or electrons, an adaptive plate instead of an energized one then fit a Med NOS...
Yep! I like having a salvager there too.
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss The point being the Deimos CAN fit a Cap Booster with 3 slots, it CAN currently dual rep with good resists quite effectively (for PVE using cap rechargers) if you want to give it a high active tank.
Indeed.
~Grauw
|
Liathus Firebane
Gallente Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 16:44:00 -
[296]
Originally by: slothe
Originally by: Tintifish Deimos: 5x Heavy Ion II MWD II, 24km Scram, Web II, electrochem booster MAR II, 2x EANM II, 2x MFS II
Fits with AWU 4 with 17 pg and 5 cpu to spare
As much as i would like that empty high removed instead of the low, wheres the problem?
the problem is the useless 6th slot your not using?
I agree, this would be fine if the extra highslot was moved to lowslot. though the deimos has low armor to be tanking without plate. and trying to fit a plate on this would be utter grid fail.
|
Ogul
Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 18:29:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Goumindong
How about missiles losing damage at high speeds slower than turrets.
Not true.
Originally by: Goumindong
Missiles not having to worry about optimal ranges and falloff.
You are implying that missiles have infinite range here?
Originally by: Goumindong
Missiles hitting for 100% of damage against any target webbed with its MWD on.
A definite advantage over turrets that hit for 100% even if the mwd is off.
Originally by: Goumindong
Painters helping missiles against small targets without their MWD on where is completly irrelevent for turrets?
You are right, turrets don't need their targets painted in that case, your point being?
Originally by: Goumindong
They have different strengths, but accross the board, missiles do better average damage than turrets to targets.
No.
--- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
Liu
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 19:04:00 -
[298]
i guess that the cyclone will get a 6th turret too, right? brutix has 7, prophecy and ferox 6, and cyclone 5? also, ruputre and stabber could make use of one more turret hardpoint.
also, minmatar guns are the less damaging of all weapons, moreover, they need to fight on falloff, which cuts their DPS even more, but they had the bonus that tracking disruptors didnt affect them so harshly. now you take that away?
i agree that trakcing disruptors are not very good at the moment, but nerfing projectiles to boost them is not the way to go. you could make them affect missile signature radius and explosion velocity instead. missiles are much more healthier than projectiles.
or, if you wanna keep on with the falloff nerf, at least boost projectiles optimal range to be in line with the other weapons. have into account, that they would still have lower dps which is fine, since they do not use cap to fire.
Originally by: Apertotes tbh, boot.ini was overpowered and needed a nerf
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 19:10:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Ogul ...
And im sure you have proof of this, no?
Also, missile explosion velocty falloff is 1500, and they do not have to worry about angular velocity, which makes your rebuttals for point 2, 3, and 4 false.
|
Ogul
Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 19:22:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ogul ...
And im sure you have proof of this, no?
Also, missile explosion velocty falloff is 1500, and they do not have to worry about angular velocity, which makes your rebuttals for point 2, 3, and 4 false.
If you want proof you should have provided some of your own in the first place.
And I am repeating myself by saying that angular velocity is only a projection while missiles suffer from the target's velocity in any direction.
--- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |