EVE Search - Feb 02 Singularity: Little Ship Discussion

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Feb 02 Singularity: Little Ship Discussion

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Virgil Aquilis GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.02 09:10:00 - [1] Edited by: Virgil Aquilis on 02/02/2008 09:11:50 Edited by: Virgil Aquilis on 02/02/2008 09:11:01 Looks like a few changes have been made. Assault Frigates: The Wolf and Jaguar have both gained more armor, shields, powergrid, CPU and capacitor. A few others might have been changed, I'm not sure. The Vengeance, Retribution, and Harpy have definitely not been changed so far. For reference, here are (as of Feb 2) the assault frig stats on Singularity. It's good to see that Assault Frigates are being examined, but adding more armor won't help. What they need is an across-the-board reduction in mass to match their t1 frigate counterparts. You can add more speed if you want, but as far as I can tell, the root issue with assault frigs is that they just cannot possibly move fast enough to be useful. Propulsion mods especially are fairly ineffective. Don't monkey with the HP: just get rid of the mass restraint. Other changes: The Raptor has lost 4 powergrid, and the Malediction has gained 10 CPU. Now, this is just bizarre. Why nerf the Raptor even further? It's already the least popular interceptor by far, and now it's even worse: it will never be able to fit anything bigger than 75mm rails without doing something nutty like putting a MAPC on. Unless you want us to use blasters on a ship whose only perk is being able to scramble at 28km? As an odd twist, it now has an extra turret hardpoint (3 instead of 2), which because of the power thing is absolutely useless. The Malediction CPU thing is just confusing. Why? What can it fit now that it couldn't before? I mean, it's probably easier to fit a protocloak on it, so that's nice, but it's still a little confusing. And to end this on a high note, at least CCP recognizes perfection when they see it: the Eris is still unchanged. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Nazriel Caldari Ki Shoda United Corporations Against Macros	Posted - 2008.02.02 09:41:00 - [2] Edited by: Nazriel on 02/02/2008 09:41:59 So, a weak stealth boost to assault ships? Instead of removing some of their mass, getting rid of resist bonus, making it built-in and giving a proper 4th bonus? Completely agree with arguements on raptor, the one who proposed the changes haven't tried fitting it. Btw, wrong links to images, I see thumbnails only.
Virgil Aquilis GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.02 09:51:00 - [3] Man, CCP really hates thumbnail images, don't they? Oh well, here's the links for now. Min/Caldari Fitting Min/Caldari Attributes Gall/Amarr Fitting Gall/Amarr Attributes Like I said, I'm pretty sure some of these are unchanged. Maybe it was just the Minmatar ones and the Hawk. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.02 10:12:00 - [4] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 02/02/2008 10:13:58 Oh well, this sounded to good to be true anyway Either I'm blind or the Wolf/Jaguar didn't change at all. Can't say anything about the other ships, as I'm not that familiar with their fittings. Please give the Wolf just +10 cpu and maybe +4 pg to the Jaguar... Edit: Ok, the resistance on armor em and shield explosive changed, but this is true for all ships.
Virgil Aquilis GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.02 10:18:00 - [5] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 02/02/2008 10:13:58 Oh well, this sounded to good to be true anyway Either I'm blind or the Wolf/Jaguar didn't change at all. Can't say anything about the other ships, as I'm not that familiar with their fittings. Please give the Wolf just +10 cpu and maybe +4 pg to the Jaguar... Edit: Ok, the resistance on armor em and shield explosive changed, but this is true for all ships. Jag got +3 PG and +20 CPU, wolf didn't get anything. Whoops. It did, however, get a boost of 55 to its max cap, and the Jag got a boost of 50. Both got their armor and shields bumped up by about 50-100. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.02 10:30:00 - [6] Hmm, I don't see any changes on the pictures linked, wrong pictures maybe? I really wan't to believe this, those ships can use any love they get
Gordon Red SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2008.02.02 13:49:00 - [7] I wished CCP would have looked at the cool AF ideas on the forum => an other fail by CCP with this conclusion... I think the devs flying with their accounts too much MOMs and no one is a dedicated small ship pilot. They should simply ask somone how has the know-how. More HP does nothing, if you are simply too slow to escape or engage in the first place.
Maldad Asesino	Posted - 2008.02.02 16:08:00 - [8] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Hmm, I don't see any changes on the pictures linked, wrong pictures maybe? I really wan't to believe this, those ships can use any love they get Me too would love to believe this, only changes I've noticed in regards to the pictures is the previous announced em/exp change. I havn't been able to confirm it on sisi yet though.
oniplE Blue.	Posted - 2008.02.02 16:18:00 - [9] I dont see any changes on those screenshots.. x
Virgil Aquilis GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.02 17:43:00 - [10] Hahaha whoops, my face is red :) I was using an outdated set of numbers. I searched on Google and a few other sites had the same set of numbers I did, so that's weird, maybe pre-HP buff a while ago? Oops. Okay, let's just make this a Raptor discussion thread :v Also removing the wrong set of numbers from the OP so I don't confuse anyone else. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2008.02.02 18:30:00 - [11] Edited by: Kaiji Vincente on 02/02/2008 18:36:20 As someone who was toying with the idea of a Raptor, I can't understand the -4MW powergrid change either. A build I was seriously considering, for use as a gun-based combat ship, is as follows: 2x 125mm Railgun II 2x TE-2100 Launcher 1MN Microwarp II Faint Warp Prohibitor I (Cap use, Tech II fits) Cap Recharge II Overdrive II Nanofiber II Micro Power Core The above setup just -barely- fits with Adv. Weapon Upgrades 2 and Engineering 5. (49.72/50 MW) Please note that, according to EFT, all four weapons require the exact same amount of powergrid. (7.7 MW, to be specific.) Swapping a T1 launcher out for a third 125mm II does not change the power requirement at all. The only way I can think of that fits 150mm rails with the -current- powergrid requiremet without changing the lows or mids is this: 3x150mm Prototype Gauss (9MW ea) 1x Rocket Launcher (3.6MW) Adv Weapon Upgrades 5 Total PG: 49.6/50 MW Fitting Tech II 150mm requires downgrading to Tech I MWD, or going to expensive faction gear. With the current powergrid. Okay, you could fit an afterburner and mount 150mm rails without AWU 5 ... and get eaten by the first drone boat or MWD capable frigate you run into. Or leave the fourth high slot empty, and leave yourself dangerously vulnerable to drones/missiles. All that said, anyone who does feel like mounting 150mm rails is going to have some serious tracking issues to deal with. 150mm rails are great for range, but they DO NOT handle targets that have more than a small amount of relative angular velocity. Seriously. 125mm Rails on the raptor are a tight fit already. The current powergrid already requires an almost suicidal reduction of speed as it is. Whack 4MW off of the powergrid the raptor is little more than a MWD with a warp disruptor tacked onto the side. Or does someone at CCP consider 75mm rails viable weapons at ranges of 20-30km?
Gordon Red SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2008.02.02 19:24:00 - [12] Originally by: Kaiji Vincente Faint Warp Prohibitor I (Cap use, Tech II fits) ... 2x125mm Railgun II ... 3x150mm Prototype Gauss (9MW ea) No clue about ceptors... A faint is for CPU issues, a fleeting would use the lowest energy. 125mm or even you NAMED 150mm will hit nothing, because your speed is so high. Not to mention vs an other ceptor... 75mm T2 (with T1 muni) + tracking enhancer T2 + tracking computer and then you save yourself the power core, too. But I would use blaster anyway! Your ceptor's weapons are for other ceptors and not for someone you have to tackle for your gang! The damage vs a BS is useless AND you fire your energy that you need to MWD+scram! Raptor vs BS: high orbit and just tackle - no weapon fire the same Raptor vs an other ceptos => closerange => web+scram+blaster him away
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.02 21:10:00 - [13] Giving a ship a scram range bonus with one patch and then taking away its ability to fit rails that hit at that range in the next is a hilariously muddled approach for CCP to take. Add to that giving it another slot for a third turret which it can't fit? Wow, just wow. Not only is the Raptor still the slowest interceptor, it now can't fit to damage worth a damn. On the bright side, this patch should knock their Jita price back down to 3 or 4 million if not lower, so I can just drop weapons off until it fits again and then treat it like a T1 suicide tackler. CCP, please post your current sniping raptor setup with 150mm rails that you're so worried about people taking. Does it even have a MWD? -----------
Stakhanov Metafarmers	Posted - 2008.02.02 22:07:00 - [14] This is getting better and better Considering the number of ships that got a decent boost , this might be just the beginning of ship mutilations. Expect a breacher , celestis and tempest nerf. Probably brutix too (can't be allowed to tank better than "boosted" deimos right ?) Originally by: ivan draco we didnt want your post anyway
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2008.02.02 22:29:00 - [15] Originally by: Gordon Red Originally by: Kaiji Vincente Faint Warp Prohibitor I (Cap use, Tech II fits) ... 2x125mm Railgun II ... 3x150mm Prototype Gauss (9MW ea) No clue about ceptors... A faint is for CPU issues, a fleeting would use the lowest energy. I was using this build to illustrate just how limited powergrid on a Raptor is already. I freely admit that I haven't flown an Inty in PvP yet, but I'd be a fool to train for it without considering possible fittings. (I also don't like using Meta 4 items on PvP ships unless absolutely needed, due to cost of replacment.) Quote: 125mm or even you NAMED 150mm will hit nothing, because your speed is so high. Not to mention vs an other ceptor... This is exactly the point I was trying to make, after illustrating just how limited the powergrid is without being reduced. Quote: 75mm T2 (with T1 muni) + tracking enhancer T2 + tracking computer and then you save yourself the power core, too. But I would use blaster anyway! Your ceptor's weapons are for other ceptors and not for someone you have to tackle for your gang! At this point we're getting into tactical doctrine and fitting preferences. (A discussion I'd happily continue elsewhere, to avoid cluttering the thread.) My goal was demonstrating that triple 150mm rails - CCPs stated motivation behind the powergrid reduction - falls into the catagory of theoretical maximum DPS handwaving at best.
Gordon Red SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2008.02.03 00:05:00 - [16] Edited by: Gordon Red on 03/02/2008 00:14:59 I don't see the point, if you show that weapons that are totally useless on a ceptor don't fit on it. It is like showing that Medium Beams (best S range laser) don't fit on a Crusader (one of the highest PG ceptors) and won't make sense there either... Anyway... CCP give that damn Ceptor the PG back!!!
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2008.02.03 01:17:00 - [17] The point was to demonstrate that in terms of powergrid alone, CCP is attempting to fix a problem that was nonexistant to begin with. (I.e. if you can't reasonably fit 125mm rails, why are you worrying about stuff that needs even more power?) Strictly in terms of tracking, I agree, you're not hitting a damn thing with rails unless you can manuver the raptor into ideal firing position and stay there. Doing this with 150mm rails is especially difficult - those guns have significant tracking limitations when you're manuvering at 1km/s, never mind MWD speed.
Gordon Red SteelVipers YouWhat	Posted - 2008.02.03 01:45:00 - [18] I think CCP don't want to get 3 blasters and one rocket laucher on it too easily, but a Taranis has far less problems and 3 blasters + 2 drones (and enough PG left for a lot of aditional toys...)
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2008.02.03 03:14:00 - [19] Blasters and rails are basicly the same powergrid need, so that would make some sense if it's the case. Triple ions plus a rocket would still need a MAPC to reasonably fit with the current powergrid limit. Not sure it'll still fit with just one MAPC after the change - don't have time to make the calculation right now.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 11:54:00 - [20] Originally by: Gordon Red I think CCP don't want to get 3 blasters and one rocket laucher on it too easily, Blasters on inties is often a bad idea anyway because of the 10km sphere of stasis webbing death. But still, the Raptor is already a pretty poor interceptor, barely faster than some t1 frigates, and CCP have seemingly decided that to stop it competing with the Harpy in that critical role of mid-range frigate sniper (hint to CCP: a ship specialising at small gun sniping at frigates from 50-80km is a completely pointless exercise, because in actual PvP frigates are burning for tackles on the enemy rather than sitting still like morons while you plink away at their armour. That's why nobody bothers to fly the harpy, not because the Raptor is outclassing it in the role) they're going to nerf it back to pre-trinity levels. Oh well, at least I crosstrained Gallente, so I can go T1 fit my remaining Raptors and suicide them into enemy capfleets for a while and then go pick up a bunch of Ares, at least they can fly fast enough to intercept properly and are worth spending ISK on fittings for. -----------
Andreya Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:12:00 - [21] the ability to fit 3 rails on this ship is the best thign to happen to it, and one of the better balances in the game ive seen... dunno if the -4 pg was nessesary. but stop complaining!!! now this frigate kicks arse! now give the frikken claw a 4th turret please! _________________________________________________________ Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
Kane Darkstar Caldari Fukumaden	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:28:00 - [22] Man this just keeps getting better and better... Some one tell me How am I supposed to fit 3 tech 2 125 rails guns after this change with out using fiting mods? Or even fit two of the guns? This is so fail...What are we going to use tech 1 rails? lol It's already one of the slowest interceptors and you can't afford to lose a lowslot for fitting mods...It was never a threat to the Harpy. I just dont get it. People just starting using this ship after the last change now you nerf it again? It will be the only inty that has to use fitting mods to fit its guns thats real balanced
Virgil Aquilis GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:40:00 - [23] Originally by: Andreya the ability to fit 3 rails on this ship is the best thign to happen to it, and one of the better balances in the game ive seen... dunno if the -4 pg was nessesary. but stop complaining!!! now this frigate kicks arse! now give the frikken claw a 4th turret please! Sweet 75mm railguns dude, I'm glad you didn't want to fit anything bigger than that on your Raptor Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:03:00 - [24] Edited by: Ulstan on 04/02/2008 16:06:28 The raptor can't fit 3 125mmII and a MWDII right now on TQ. Fitting 3 150mmII's is just so far out of the question it isn't even funny. If anything raptor needs slightly more powergrid. It's an absolutely terrible interceptor and would be absolutely crippled if it had to cram a fitting mod into a low slot. Harpy is a fine little ship, suffering only the disadvantages inherent to all assault frigates. Trust me, you do not need to worry about the raptor stepping on the harpy's toes :)
Seeing EyeDog	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:07:00 - [25] Originally by: Virgil Aquilis So, regarding the Raptor: you've got to be kidding. welcome to Amarr Online...where the whiners finally got what they wanted, and now all their ships are UBAR... Quite ridiculous, CCP _____________________ Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
Kane Darkstar Caldari Fukumaden	Posted - 2008.03.09 08:08:00 - [26] Is the change still going through? I mean come on you can't fit 3 125 rails and a microwarp on it with out using a fitting mod on the slowest inty that just dumb who's going to use 75mm rails anyway. Well I guess the raptor will still be the craptor..
Dungheap Caldari Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.03.09 14:46:00 - [27] i'm also very curious about the fitting that made ccp so skeered they dropped the grid. currently, 2 named standard launchers and 2 75 rail 2's fit with awu 5. mwd 2, scram and cap charger in the mids, speed mods in lows. it's ironic that by adding a 3rd turret and dropping the grid 4 mw, i'll end up ****-canning the 2 guns and just running launchers.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.09 20:25:00 - [28] Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 09/03/2008 20:27:03 Interesting to note that since this change was announced the Jita price of Raptors has dropped by 2m per unit, and its a fairly safe bet that once the patch comes in it'll drop even further. Guess that says it all about the prospect of using a ship which is now just a flying warp disruptor and barely faster than a Vigil, trying to snipe the target from a 28km orbit with 75mm rails and Iron S for a mighty 25dps. -----------
Kane Darkstar Caldari Fukumaden	Posted - 2008.03.10 02:14:00 - [29] Sigh CCP just loves to force Caldari pilots to have to use fitting mods. No other race in the game as to do this to fit their weapons. So now you will have to run 75mm rails with a 28k scram range lol that doe's not even make sense no mater how you look at. And I just love their logic on it, CCP says they don't want it to turn into a pod popping machine? WTF like people care about that. In 0.0 once you lose your ship the pod's right after anyway most of the time. So per that logic I guess then the Harpy is next to be nerfed because thats the best pod killer in the game the raptor would never had been a threat to the harpy for that role as a sniper. I call BS on CCP for this nerf...Its not needed.
Kerdrak 3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.10 09:01:00 - [30] Originally by: Kane Darkstar Sigh CCP just loves to force Caldari pilots to have to use fitting mods. No other race in the game as to do this to fit their weapons. LoL? tried to fit an Amarr battleship? ________________________________________

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.