EVE Search - Planned Ship Changes, a New Blog from Fendahl

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Planned Ship Changes, a New Blog from Fendahl

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
TigerWoman	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:13:00 - [451] well again on the zeal: my normal standard setup was (gang) 4 hvy pulse mwd, tracking comp, cap booster 3 hs 2, anp, eanm, 3x hs 2, n type thermic hardener, med repper 2 and it was allrdy quite tight. now i got 1 more turret slot but i cannot use it. which setup with hvy pulse is that thing you talking about?
Megan Maynard Minmatar Clearspace Operations Carpe Diem.	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:32:00 - [452] Edited by: Megan Maynard on 06/02/2008 00:34:01 Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Originally by: CCP Fendahl Tracking Disruptors are more situational than most types of electronic warfare in that they are only effective against turret based ships and do not help against missiles or drones. Because of this we feel that their higher effectiveness (compared to Sensor Dampeners, for instance) is well justified. Not to troll you too bad, but reading your post two words, an initialism, and an emoticon blazed in my mind: LOL, Target Painters? :( Target painters work for turrets and missiles, yeah for another moron who doesn't know what sig radius is used for. I thought that I was taking things far enough offtopic by wryly bringing up P41NTERZ, but then you go and tell everyone about my tragic brain defects. Thanks a bunch. Oh, and please reread my post, look up the word "situational", and then try to develop even a teeny-tiny sense sense of humour. It may come in handy, you never know. Your humor needs work And I approve of all changes the devs are making. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
rgreat Gallente OEG Red Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:32:00 - [453] Edited by: rgreat on 06/02/2008 00:32:40 Originally by: TigerWoman well again on the zeal: my normal standard setup was (gang) 4 hvy pulse mwd, tracking comp, cap booster 3 hs 2, anp, eanm, 3x hs 2, n type thermic hardener, med repper 2 and it was allrdy quite tight. now i got 1 more turret slot but i cannot use it. which setup with hvy pulse is that thing you talking about? Replace 1 ANP Rig with Ancillary Rig, and one HS with nanofibers or caprelay or overdrive, or something like that. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ArmyOfMe Exotic Dancers Club Scalar Federation	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:33:00 - [454] Originally by: TigerWoman well again on the zeal: my normal standard setup was (gang) 4 hvy pulse mwd, tracking comp, cap booster 3 hs 2, anp, eanm, 3x hs 2, n type thermic hardener, med repper 2 and it was allrdy quite tight. now i got 1 more turret slot but i cannot use it. which setup with hvy pulse is that thing you talking about? Do as us deimos pilots and drop the repper
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:40:00 - [455] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: TigerWoman well again on the zeal: my normal standard setup was (gang) 4 hvy pulse mwd, tracking comp, cap booster 3 hs 2, anp, eanm, 3x hs 2, n type thermic hardener, med repper 2 and it was allrdy quite tight. now i got 1 more turret slot but i cannot use it. which setup with hvy pulse is that thing you talking about? Do as us deimos pilots and drop the repper passive tank all the way baby --- planetary interaction idea!
seleka	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:59:00 - [456] Originally by: CCP Fendahl The Omen can fit for a high damage setup using focused medium pulse lasers Dear Fendahl, what is Omen supposed to fit for a "moderate" setup? Is it supposed to downgrade to medium pulses (frigate size weapons) or use quad light beams in a close range setup? Also: What about cpu? Thank you in advance
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.06 01:14:00 - [457] Originally by: CCP Fendahl Edited by: CCP Fendahl on 05/02/2008 20:14:26 Thanks for the feedback so far. A couple of comments: As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. If the change is still remains unpopular after proper testing (not just in EFT ), it's not unlikely that we might decide to revert it. We are looking into seeding both versions of the Deimos so you have a better frame of reference. We think the power output of the Omen and the Zealot is sufficient to support the extra turret. The Omen can fit for a high damage setup using focused medium pulse lasers and the Zealot has no problem fitting some extremely powerful heavy pulse laser setups. Increased power output on the Zealot would make it overpowered and we prefer to take a bit of an incremental approach on the Omen and not go overboard. Tracking Disruptors are more situational than most types of electronic warfare in that they are only effective against turret based ships and do not help against missiles or drones. Because of this we feel that their higher effectiveness (compared to Sensor Dampeners, for instance) is well justified. The Vulture is likely not going to get an additional turret since it's a fleet command ship. The primary purpose of the Vulture is to support the fleet with warfare links and not to fill the role of a support sniper. The additional turret on the Raptor allows it to instantly project damage at long ranges (for a frigate). Given its role as a tackler interceptor it can also warp scramble at those ranges, which makes for a very effective combination. It's better to decrease the power output a bit now and ease up a bit on the power output at a later stage if needed, rather than risking to introduce a Pod'o'matic Interceptotron of Doom. What an F'ing joke, what other ships do you base powergrid requirements off of the crappiest gun? What about beams? Are we never going to be able to fit beams properly because you guys think its ok that Amarr have fitting problems?? I was really hopeful that you'd fix all of amarr problems, but a statement like this proves that your guys' idea of balancing is a complete & utter joke. Its very plain & simple guys, Beams need pg requirements reduced by at least 15% and cap reduced by at least 20%. I dont get why this is such a damn hard decision to make. You just do it, put it on sisi and see what happens. I mean ffs guys, whoever you have do the testing sure isn't giving you the right feedback on things, let us players who know what the F we are doing handle the testing. Fix the Laser PG & Cap usage already, I'm done waiting, DO IT! I'm so about done with this game, tired of waiting years for things to get done. And now that you're supposedly fixing amarr you are tip toeing around the real issues and you're actually afraid of just doing it. The absolute only way you overpower amarr at this point is if you give them damage boosts or new damage types. Cap & pg fitting will not overpower amarr. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!
nihlanth	Posted - 2008.02.06 01:33:00 - [458] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Originally by: CCP Fendahl Edited by: CCP Fendahl on 05/02/2008 20:14:26 Thanks for the feedback so far. A couple of comments: As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. If the change is still remains unpopular after proper testing (not just in EFT ), it's not unlikely that we might decide to revert it. We are looking into seeding both versions of the Deimos so you have a better frame of reference. We think the power output of the Omen and the Zealot is sufficient to support the extra turret. The Omen can fit for a high damage setup using focused medium pulse lasers and the Zealot has no problem fitting some extremely powerful heavy pulse laser setups. Increased power output on the Zealot would make it overpowered and we prefer to take a bit of an incremental approach on the Omen and not go overboard. Tracking Disruptors are more situational than most types of electronic warfare in that they are only effective against turret based ships and do not help against missiles or drones. Because of this we feel that their higher effectiveness (compared to Sensor Dampeners, for instance) is well justified. The Vulture is likely not going to get an additional turret since it's a fleet command ship. The primary purpose of the Vulture is to support the fleet with warfare links and not to fill the role of a support sniper. The additional turret on the Raptor allows it to instantly project damage at long ranges (for a frigate). Given its role as a tackler interceptor it can also warp scramble at those ranges, which makes for a very effective combination. It's better to decrease the power output a bit now and ease up a bit on the power output at a later stage if needed, rather than risking to introduce a Pod'o'matic Interceptotron of Doom. What an F'ing joke, what other ships do you base powergrid requirements off of the crappiest gun? What about beams? Are we never going to be able to fit beams properly because you guys think its ok that Amarr have fitting problems?? I was really hopeful that you'd fix all of amarr problems, but a statement like this proves that your guys' idea of balancing is a complete & utter joke. Its very plain & simple guys, Beams need pg requirements reduced by at least 15% and cap reduced by at least 20%. I dont get why this is such a damn hard decision to make. You just do it, put it on sisi and see what happens. I mean ffs guys, whoever you have do the testing sure isn't giving you the right feedback on things, let us players who know what the F we are doing handle the testing. Fix the Laser PG & Cap usage already, I'm done waiting, DO IT! I'm so about done with this game, tired of waiting years for things to get done. And now that you're supposedly fixing amarr you are tip toeing around the real issues and you're actually afraid of just doing it. The absolute only way you overpower amarr at this point is if you give them damage boosts or new damage types. Cap & pg fitting will not overpower amarr. I think they wont do it because it would make quad light beams virtually obsolete. Otherwise, all amarr pilots would be using heavy pulses on their omens and mallers.
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2008.02.06 01:39:00 - [459] This might be a radical idea but why not seed both the Deimos and the Deimos mk 2 on Tranquility when the patch comes and let people use whichever they want. After all this is meant to be a buff so those who want the buffed ship can use it, but those who like the Deimos mk 2 can use that. I know that people will whine that Gallente now have 3 HACs but frankly I don't care (and I can't even fly Gallente HACs with any character atm!). Gallente have 5 industrials, Caldari have 2. There is no need for every race to exactly match every other race in terms of numbers of ships so long as the overall balance and variety is maintained. At some point in the future you might think about adding variants for a few hacs for the other races too but unless a situation like this arises I don't see a specific need to do so. Zarch AlDain
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.06 01:54:00 - [460] Originally by: nihlanth Edited by: nihlanth on 06/02/2008 01:35:57 Originally by: Cosmo Raata Originally by: CCP Fendahl Edited by: CCP Fendahl on 05/02/2008 20:14:26 Thanks for the feedback so far. A couple of comments: As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. If the change is still remains unpopular after proper testing (not just in EFT ), it's not unlikely that we might decide to revert it. We are looking into seeding both versions of the Deimos so you have a better frame of reference. We think the power output of the Omen and the Zealot is sufficient to support the extra turret. The Omen can fit for a high damage setup using focused medium pulse lasers and the Zealot has no problem fitting some extremely powerful heavy pulse laser setups. Increased power output on the Zealot would make it overpowered and we prefer to take a bit of an incremental approach on the Omen and not go overboard. Tracking Disruptors are more situational than most types of electronic warfare in that they are only effective against turret based ships and do not help against missiles or drones. Because of this we feel that their higher effectiveness (compared to Sensor Dampeners, for instance) is well justified. The Vulture is likely not going to get an additional turret since it's a fleet command ship. The primary purpose of the Vulture is to support the fleet with warfare links and not to fill the role of a support sniper. The additional turret on the Raptor allows it to instantly project damage at long ranges (for a frigate). Given its role as a tackler interceptor it can also warp scramble at those ranges, which makes for a very effective combination. It's better to decrease the power output a bit now and ease up a bit on the power output at a later stage if needed, rather than risking to introduce a Pod'o'matic Interceptotron of Doom. What an F'ing joke, what other ships do you base powergrid requirements off of the crappiest gun? What about beams? Are we never going to be able to fit beams properly because you guys think its ok that Amarr have fitting problems?? I was really hopeful that you'd fix all of amarr problems, but a statement like this proves that your guys' idea of balancing is a complete & utter joke. Its very plain & simple guys, Beams need pg requirements reduced by at least 15% and cap reduced by at least 20%. I dont get why this is such a damn hard decision to make. You just do it, put it on sisi and see what happens. I mean ffs guys, whoever you have do the testing sure isn't giving you the right feedback on things, let us players who know what the F we are doing handle the testing. Fix the Laser PG & Cap usage already, I'm done waiting, DO IT! I'm so about done with this game, tired of waiting years for things to get done. And now that you're supposedly fixing amarr you are tip toeing around the real issues and you're actually afraid of just doing it. The absolute only way you overpower amarr at this point is if you give them damage boosts or new damage types. Cap & pg fitting will not overpower amarr. I think they wont do it because it would make quad light beams virtually obsolete. Otherwise, all amarr pilots would be using heavy pulses on their omens and mallers. It would be nice to use focused beams without sacrificing a repper or using a couple RCU's though (therefore sarificing damage wich negates the usage of focused beams). Well, quad beams blow ass, plain and simple. I barely see the point in using heavy beams let alone quads. Beams need fixing. Stop talking about pulses CCP & address beams already. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!

Tadius Rhain Amarr Kalear Fleet Systems	Posted - 2008.02.06 02:51:00 - [461] A few people have already asked about the Navy Apocalypse but I can't see a response. Devs? ____________________________________________
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.02.06 03:21:00 - [462] Originally by: CCP Fendahl As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. Thanks, and I think most people realise that it is intended as a boost, really, but the issue seems to be in the character of the ship that the boost creates. A survey of Deimos pilots would likely return an overwhelming majority who want to keep 6 low slots. Of those, many want no slot changes, and others would prefer to lose a high slot if they have to swap any slots. Isn't is possible to boost the Deimos without changing it's slot layout? Boost something so the high becomes another gank slot, not just a utility? Change cap (bonus/amount), grid etc? Fiddle with resists or something.
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.06 04:47:00 - [463] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 06/02/2008 04:48:12 Originally by: CCP Fendahl The Vulture is likely not going to get an additional turret since it's a fleet command ship. The primary purpose of the Vulture is to support the fleet with warfare links and not to fill the role of a support sniper. This is a mistake, for four reasons: 1) The existing TQ Vulture already equals the Eagle as a sniper, and balance is just fine. People still fly it with gang mods, and people still fly Eagles. All a 6th gun does is keep it from falling behind and becoming entirely obsolete. 2) The "primary purpose" of the Vulture requires only a single Vulture (or really, any ship with a shield resist gang mod and mindlink). Having a situation where you want only one of a ship in a 100 man fleet is just kind of silly, but that's what you get if the Eagle beats it at everything but fitting a gang mod. 3) The Vulture very clearly does NOT have fleet support with warfare links as its primary bonus. It gets two extremely powerful railgun bonuses, and only a single minor bonus to warfare links. If warfare links are the only purpose for the ship, give it four bonuses to them (4x 5%/level would be nice) so I can give the ship to my alt. 4) Most importantly: the Vulture will almost NEVER fit more than one gang mod in a large fleet battle. Active tanking sucks for anything other than the smallest gang fights, you either fit a passive buffer tank or no tank at all. So two of the three shield gang links are completely useless, meaning you only fit the resist mod. This means 95% of the time, you are fitting 5x rails, a gang mod, and a random missile launcher. This is just silly. And don't suggest fitting a gang mod or two from another race, without the mindlink bonus you fall so far behind the dedicated booster for that category that trying to compete is pointless. So the issue is not changing the Vulture from a fleet support ship to a sniper, the issue is doing two things: 1) Keep balance with the Eagle so it's worth having more than one Vulture in a fleet. 2) Allow a full rack of guns in addition to the single useful gang mod, replacing the missile launcher with a proper railgun.
Steve Clone Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.02.06 05:43:00 - [464] Originally by: CCP Fendahl Edited by: CCP Fendahl on 05/02/2008 20:14:26 Thanks for the feedback so far. A couple of comments: As mentioned, the Deimos change is intended as a boost, not a nerf, and we feel that the revised Deimos is indeed superior. If the change is still remains unpopular after proper testing (not just in EFT ), it's not unlikely that we might decide to revert it. We are looking into seeding both versions of the Deimos so you have a better frame of reference. We think the power output of the Omen and the Zealot is sufficient to support the extra turret. The Omen can fit for a high damage setup using focused medium pulse lasers and the Zealot has no problem fitting some extremely powerful heavy pulse laser setups. Increased power output on the Zealot would make it overpowered and we prefer to take a bit of an incremental approach on the Omen and not go overboard. Tracking Disruptors are more situational than most types of electronic warfare in that they are only effective against turret based ships and do not help against missiles or drones. Because of this we feel that their higher effectiveness (compared to Sensor Dampeners, for instance) is well justified. The Vulture is likely not going to get an additional turret since it's a fleet command ship. The primary purpose of the Vulture is to support the fleet with warfare links and not to fill the role of a support sniper. The additional turret on the Raptor allows it to instantly project damage at long ranges (for a frigate). Given its role as a tackler interceptor it can also warp scramble at those ranges, which makes for a very effective combination. It's better to decrease the power output a bit now and ease up a bit on the power output at a later stage if needed, rather than risking to introduce a Pod'o'matic Interceptotron of Doom. Hahaà at first i though it was a joke... by associating "high damage setup" using focused medium pulse... and "EXTREMELY powerful" with heavy pulse... anyway.. On Sisi even with max pg + awd + implant skills, I now need a PG rig to fit those "EXTREMELY powerful" heavy pulse II... so rigs are suppose to balance or make these ships flyable now (donÆt even think about fitting beams)??? But TBH on Sisi, I love the new Zealot (ALSO BECAUSE i have unlimited isks... that is required to fly those ships now.. yes need to grind those NPC more on TQ, how FUN!!! 'Sarcasm'...)... A question: Do devs fit ONLY T1 gears on the Omen during internal testing??? Unfortunately (and that REALLY ****es me off!!!) CCP is not saying if they believe Amarr is fine, on-par or overpowered (lol) when compared to the other racesà Did CCP find out that if the lowering in EM resist alleviates AmarrÆs unfavourable EM damage??? Did the resist changes actually promote EANM and hence resulted in a æÆÆÆfunÆÆÆÆ and homogenous ship resists on all races??? Did CCP find out that this 25% increase in EM damage taken balance other issues like cap sustainability and weapon fittings on Amarr ships??? Did the changes encourage Ammarians in fitting ENERGY WEAPONS on the tanking ship line (maller, prop)??? IF NOT, WTF ARE YOU DOINGà AND WTF AM I STILL PAYING YOU FOR???
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.02.06 05:54:00 - [465] Originally by: CCP Fendahl The additional turret on the Raptor allows it to instantly project damage at long ranges (for a frigate). Given its role as a tackler interceptor it can also warp scramble at those ranges, which makes for a very effective combination. It's better to decrease the power output a bit now and ease up a bit on the power output at a later stage if needed, rather than risking to introduce a Pod'o'matic Interceptotron of Doom. You want to keep the Raptor underpowered because you're afraid it will be too good at killing pods? Do you believe that a pod has a significant chance to survive once it's been warp scrambled, and that the raptor being slightly faster at killing them is worth the whole ship being weaker? - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.02.06 12:23:00 - [466] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 06/02/2008 12:23:47 Apoc can use an extra 1000mw grid, and 5 more cpu on top of existign change to be honest, unless you are planning on revising Tach fitting requirements. -- Billion Isk Mission
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:10:00 - [467] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 06/02/2008 12:23:47 Apoc can use an extra 1000mw grid, and 5 more cpu on top of existign change to be honest, unless you are planning on revising Tach fitting requirements. Imo the powergrid on both Tachys and Megabeams need to be lowered by 10%. Both Abaddon and Apoc should be able to fit a large rep and megabeams without a fitting mod. Abaddon also needs two fitting mods for tachyons + cap booster(which is absolutely necessary on this ship). Apoc also needs two fitting mods for tachy setups as well. With a 10% grid reduction megabeams no longer require a fitting mod while tachys require just one.
M1AU Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:21:00 - [468] About the Deimos changes again: If you plan to change the ships bonus as it looks like you will, you should also consider to change the Thorax's bonus to the same armor repair amount while give it a slightly boost to capacitor amount to compensate the mwd bonus. Yes I'm serious because in my opinion the Thorax (as it is a cruiser which requires much lower sp) is flown by alot of relatively new players in pvp AND in pve. And while the current bonus only gives an advantage to pvp, it stays mostly unused when flown in pve (because mwd's are not allowed in deadspace). Sure the role of the Thorax will also change (the same as it will change the Deimos' role when you actually deploy it) but I for some reason would like it to happen. -M1
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:42:00 - [469] Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 06/02/2008 12:23:47 Apoc can use an extra 1000mw grid, and 5 more cpu on top of existign change to be honest, unless you are planning on revising Tach fitting requirements. Imo the powergrid on both Tachys and Megabeams need to be lowered by 10%. Both Abaddon and Apoc should be able to fit a large rep and megabeams without a fitting mod. Abaddon also needs two fitting mods for tachyons + cap booster(which is absolutely necessary on this ship). Apoc also needs two fitting mods for tachy setups as well. With a 10% grid reduction megabeams no longer require a fitting mod while tachys require just one. /signed. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:28:00 - [470] Originally by: Goumindong /stuff Couldn't agree more. The comment about the omen (which is currently impossible to fit with FMP unless you use a small armor rep as it doesn't have enough grid otherwise) and the raptor (when a sensor boosted stilly will always be far superior) is the most hilarious. A crow can sit at the mid 20km ranges all day with a faction disruptor and pound a target with light missiles with no problem, so it makes no sense that a raptor gets a PG penalty so it has difficulty fitting guns that can do the same. Throw in that it's slower to boot and you get a true WTF moment.

Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:31:00 - [471] About the Vulture: If you want to enforce 3 gang mods on the ship, fine. But then, you end up with two ship bonuses that benefit only 4 slots, which is a waste, imho. Maybe replace one optimal range bonus by a defensive one? Like you did to boost the Damnation, which is a very good fleet command ship now? ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
BCBArclight Odessa Operations Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.06 15:48:00 - [472] I've been on the test server this afternoon trying to see these "fantastic" changes that will be made to Amarr ships..... I've been on the test server this afternoon trying to see these "fantastic" changes that will be made to the Amarr problems stated in the dev blog..... I couldn't find them. These are the issues that CCP said they have identified: Fix crystals More damage Amarr need more midslots Some ships could need lovin' Cap usage on Energy Weapons may be too high in some cases Fitting requirements on some Energy Weapons need adjusting Base EM resistances on armor are very high These are the ones they have "fixed": Base EM resistances on armor are very high These are the effects of said change: More damage "-ish" Heres what I think: Everything is still the same as it was before. Reason: The resists have been lowered on ALL ships including Amarr, this means the ship while being able to do more damage doesnt last long enough to inflict more than it would normally. Tanks have been sacrificed for power and this while boosting also nerfs the ships. The EM drop brings it in line with the other resists but is still the highest tanking resist of them all. The issue with an amarr vs mimi ship remains, where the amarr ship might as well self destruct than try and fight a mimi ship. 2% on T2 ships is a terrible change, all the mimi players out there need not fear an attack from an amarr ship. I just hope that more changes are made to amarr and that they are all released as one patch, if they take serveral months to roll out the needed changes then I can see more and more people staying away from the Amarr ships. All this messing around just makes me sad that I bothered training Amarr in the first place, Gal or even Caldari would have been better. Odessa Ops, Anti-Pirate 0.0 PvP corp - Newbs and Corp Mergers Welcome
nihlanth	Posted - 2008.02.06 15:52:00 - [473] Edited by: nihlanth on 06/02/2008 15:55:31 Fendahl, answer me this: Is the Omen NOT meant to use a repper and just be a fast flying gun boat? It would be impossible to fit any sort of repper and 5 t2 medium sized turrets. So im assuming it is a glass cannon? I think that would clear things up.
Still Hart Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 16:39:00 - [474] Thanks for nerfing the last fun ship to play (vagabond) yet again. Guess I'll be letting my subscription lapse for the last time.
Mrski Okupator Amarr The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.02.06 17:32:00 - [475] Edited by: Mrski Okupator on 06/02/2008 17:36:58 Originally by: Cosmo Raata What an F'ing joke, what other ships do you base powergrid requirements off of the crappiest gun? What about beams? Are we never going to be able to fit beams properly because you guys think its ok that Amarr have fitting problems?? I was really hopeful that you'd fix all of amarr problems, but a statement like this proves that your guys' idea of balancing is a complete & utter joke. Its very plain & simple guys, Beams need pg requirements reduced by at least 15% and cap reduced by at least 20%. I dont get why this is such a damn hard decision to make. You just do it, put it on sisi and see what happens. I mean ffs guys, whoever you have do the testing sure isn't giving you the right feedback on things, let us players who know what the F we are doing handle the testing. Fix the Laser PG & Cap usage already, I'm done waiting, DO IT! I'm so about done with this game, tired of waiting years for things to get done. And now that you're supposedly fixing amarr you are tip toeing around the real issues and you're actually afraid of just doing it. The absolute only way you overpower amarr at this point is if you give them damage boosts or new damage types. Cap & pg fitting will not overpower amarr. ^^ This! How about listening to your player base first!? Fiddle your ******s later! Also, the next one who says amarr have oversized guns gets my boot up their ** hole. edit: didn't realize fore_skin was censored. ___
M00dy Killed In Action The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:19:00 - [476] Edited by: M00dy on 06/02/2008 18:19:58 Originally by: Still Hart Thanks for nerfing the last fun ship to play (vagabond) yet again. Guess I'll be letting my subscription lapse for the last time. Oh yeah, TDs. Killed In Action The Crimson Federation
Havok Pierce Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:27:00 - [477] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Originally by: Erik Legant So, I ask CCP to think about a replacement of the bonus on the microwarpdrive by a 5% bonus on the armor resistances if they still feel the need to change something about the Deimos. Quiet, Heathen! An armor resistance bonus doesn't belong on Gallente ships. It's not a Sacrilege. No wait, it would be, in the truest sense of the word. The Phobos not withstanding, of course. Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's a Community petition category??
ghosttr Amarr ARK-CORP RONA Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:21:00 - [478] The geddon always has had fitting issues, will it be seeing changes similar to that of the apoc? A bigger eve Annndd..Player Factions
SiJira	Posted - 2008.02.06 21:14:00 - [479] please ccp i want to remain the underdog in eve and i dont want to find out that you need to nerf me or buff every other race against me to balance things again dont overboost me please - giving the omen a new turret slot with the proposed resistance changes makes it too powerful and thats more apparent with the zealot Trashed sig, Shark was here
TigerWoman	Posted - 2008.02.06 21:51:00 - [480] so one more question here: amarr is not meant to be the "active" tanking race, but can i please get the pg/cpu to fit at least one repper? some ships perform very well in passive plated mode, but when i am forced to be without a repper at all even in smaller ships..... do you think amarr need a buddy with a remote rep all time? geddon baddon okay, but is being able to have 1 rep with a zeal for after combat repairs in a gank setup ( 5 hvy pulse, mwd, hs2 ) to much to ask for?



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.