| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baun
   |
Posted - 2004.05.11 23:45:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Baun on 11/05/2004 23:50:01
With the Cap Power relay changes, shield tanking will become vastly less effective.
Agree or disagree with them, thats immaterial, but the reason for the changes was that shield tanking was no longer about the number of med slots a ship had, it was about the number of low slots a ship had.
Well, I am not sure how much people have though about this (or at least the devs making these changes), but with the boost to mid slot cap rechargers, which brings them in line with the old cap power relays, how effective an armor tank one is, is now determined by the number of med slots.
Before one objects that armor tanks can fit CPRs and as such their excess number of low slots is important, realize that in order to be a viable combat ship, the excess low slots of ships like the megathron, apocalypse, typhoon, armageddon etc, need to be used to increase PG and CPU to fit higher class weaponry.
The result will be that we will have exactly the same problem that we have now, but instead the mid slot ships will become dominant. A Raven (as a CELES pilot, whose name I cannot recall atm like to point out) does not NEED its low slots to fit equipment. As such, it can have 5 or even 6 slots dedicated to cap recharger IIs and the result will be that it will have the ability to hold its tanking the longest. One could argue that the same is true of the Scorpion (except that the Scorpion's damage will never be significant enough for it to matter).
In short, instead of actually balancing things, the Cap Power Relay and Cap Recharger changes are just creating a new imbalance that is every bit as wrong as the old one. All ships will now armor tank dedicating their medium slots to Cap Recharging and as such the ship that has the highest (free midslots)/(required non armor tanking low slots) ratio will have the best defense.
Have the devs not learned the lesson that the apparently broken shield tanking seemingly tought them?
Am I wrong or are the changes not solving the problem, not fixing the races so that they are using the defense they should by rp, but rather just creating a new and potetionally just as dangerous set of issues?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.11 23:59:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Hellek on 12/05/2004 00:01:07
Although I disagreed with you in many points in other threads, in this case I really agree.
The CPR nerf gives a big boost to ships with many medslots like Raven and I think that armor repairers should get some form of a nerf on those ships. (the other option, improving shields on them, would make them too powerful)
on the tempest they seem okay though and shield tanking a tempest is still a good option, I see the main need for change on the caldari ships.
|
Teeth
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:03:00 -
[3]
Yup, a couple of people have brought this up; but it seems to not really be on the foreground of the whole tanking discussion for some reason. It's becoming more and more apparent that it's going to be an issue with the whole raven armor tank example that more people are bringing up.
A possible solution would be to spread out the modules a bit so there are both low and med modules for shield tanking and low and med modules for armor tanking. For example repairers, boosters and active hardeners could be mid slot and shield amps and hardeners could be low slot. This way you could free up some of the slots for the recharge modules you were meant to use with your tanking configuration.
|
Muaddid
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:06:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Teeth
A possible solution would be to spread out the modules a bit so there are both low and med modules for shield tanking and low and med modules for armor tanking. For example repairers, boosters and active hardeners could be mid slot and shield amps and hardeners could be low slot. This way you could free up some of the slots for the recharge modules you were meant to use with your tanking configuration.
...and then how would a megathron or an apoc armor tank with 4 med slots ? would just make it worse lol
On vacations (need a new sig too) |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:09:00 -
[5]
Point 1-
Nerfing ships isnt the way to do this. You have to achieve a global balance. This doesn't come by gimping ships selectively until you think it is balance it comes by creating a balance framework.
Point 2-
I don't think you can make the sort of drastic slot changes suggested. This would require significant rebalancing of ships. Again this probably isnt the way to go about it.
My suggestion is that they add the same penalty that is on the CPRs to the Cap Rechargers. Obviously this is the simplest way to do it, but I don't actually like this much. In the end this would gimp all defense :/, just like shields are going to be gimped.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Teeth
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Muaddid
Originally by: Teeth
A possible solution would be to spread out the modules a bit so there are both low and med modules for shield tanking and low and med modules for armor tanking. For example repairers, boosters and active hardeners could be mid slot and shield amps and hardeners could be low slot. This way you could free up some of the slots for the recharge modules you were meant to use with your tanking configuration.
...and then how would a megathron or an apoc armor tank with 4 med slots ? would just make it worse lol
That was just an example :-)
All I was saying was some spreading of the module fittings might be a good idea.
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:29:00 -
[7]
no, they should specifically nerf armor repairers on apoc and scorp and change nothing else.
that would have minimal impact on overal balance.
sure the best thing would be completely redoing all ships but that is simply not possible.
Its very unfortuante but it appears to me that the only way of trying to balance the game is changing it race by race. By gradually changing, it is ensured that balance is not completely broken as it might happen in a complete redesign from scratch.
I am against the idea of putting armor stuff to meds, putting armor repairers to meds would be okay but not the hardeners. I don't think that medslot cap rechargers should be nerfed, they already use a lot more CPU than the lowslot rechargers which is nerf enough I think. As I said, sometimes the easiest solution is the best and that would be either nerfing armor repairer and giving it a boost on amarr and gallente ships or giving the raven and scorp a negative bonus (I think that's called malus, not sure, please excuse my lack of vocabulary) to armor repairers (higher cap usage or less armor points repaired).
I think by design, the high grid usage should give the raven pilots a reason not to use them but we all know that ravens rather have CPU problems than grid problems as its main weapons use a lot of CPU. same as i.e. that apoc has grid problems when using megabeams (only that it has CPU problems as well ) although it is the ship with the biggest grid.
If medslot rechargers would get nerfed, CCP would have to put in a medslot counterpart for PDUs, of course with armor bonus instead of shield bonus as otherwise balance would be totally broken as well. As you see, things would get very complicated with that as it would have many other undesired effects, therefore a repairer nerf specifically for ravens and scorps would be most secure.
Another approach would of course be setting all armor resistances on raven to 0 and all shield resistances on apoc to 0. That would solve the issue as well but it would suck I think. Probably still better than no solution at all though.
|
Teeth
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:32:00 -
[8]
What's so drastic about it? Armor repairers used to be midslot ;-)
Putting penalties on the cap rechargers just starts another vicious cycle.
Here's a thought, make cap relays med slot and cap rechargers low slot. It makes sense if you're supposed to use relays in armor tanks and rechargers in shield tanks.
|
Mitram
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:35:00 -
[9]
Well, just a guess. CCP changing the "good" ship setups not to do balancing but to force people to train different skills so that CCP keeps their players for a longer time. (hull upgrade to 5, repair systems to 5 (or even training gunnery skills and BS skills to get a good PvP ship (tempest) after the laser nerf))
I don't see an advantage in armor tanking. In fact armor tanking sucks. You need 5 low slots for your tanking gear. So you have no options in the low slots anymore. For shield tanking you can live with 3-4 med slots quite well. For armor tanking you always need 3 armor hardeners und you need 2 large armor repairs and the skills.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:42:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Baun on 12/05/2004 00:46:19
Quote:
What's so drastic about it? Armor repairers used to be midslot ;-)
Putting penalties on the cap rechargers just starts another vicious cycle.
Here's a thought, make cap relays med slot and cap rechargers low slot. It makes sense if you're supposed to use relays in armor tanks and rechargers in shield tanks.
Well while this idea initially strikes me as great, it actually solves nothing. An Apoc can still be an uber shield tank this way and a raven can still be an uber armor tank (although to a lesser degree than the apoc is an uber shield tank). In essence you would be changing the logos and names of two modules and doing nothing else.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:51:00 -
[11]
Cap Rechargers should not get boosted, end of story.
It will be the same thing, swap medium for low slots and vice versa. Considering armor has higher base resistance, is more energy efficient to tank, and uses less fitting requirements in terms of CPU, it's a bad move.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 00:58:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Baun on 12/05/2004 01:07:38
Quote:
Cap Rechargers should not get boosted, end of story.
Sorry if this is inordinately lazy but;
What is the recharge of a Raven with 6 15% rechargers vs 5 20% rechargers (i ask because i don't know exactly what the stacking formula is ... and I assume its not vanilla).
If its not significantly differen I am not sure that that change is enough. Even if it is, Cap Booster charges are still a viable option.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Ardor
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 01:11:00 -
[13]
I wasn't on Chaos for some time but as far as I remember cap relays 1 and cap recharger 2 both give 20% cap recharge boost on Chaos. The only nerf was the shield boosting penalty for cap relays. If I am wrong or this data is no more up to date stop reading now.
If this is true then it doesnt matter if you get your cap recharge boost from a low or a med slot module. The only thing which is important for balance is that the number of med+low slots should be equal. Amarr can use med and low slot 'recharge optimizer' while Caldari use med slot 'recharge optimizer' exclusively. But both can use the same number of 20% bonus modules.
Med slot 'recharge optimizer' have a slighty higher fitting requirement as far as I remember and are tech 2 while low slot cap relays are still tech 1. Both give 20%. So I guess if there will be an advantage it will be an advantage for ships with more low slots when cap relays 2 will be available (don't know the stats of them). Of course this could be some kind of balance for the high energy usage of lasers. This sounds like an advantage for armor tanking over shield tanking but shield tanks have an XL booster and a 30% amplifier while armor tanks need 2 repairer. So I start to believe it's fair that armor tanks don't have a XL repairer option.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 01:18:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Baun on 12/05/2004 01:20:17
Edited by: Baun on 12/05/2004 01:19:56
Quote:
If this is true then it doesnt matter if you get your cap recharge boost from a low or a med slot module. The only thing which is important for balance is that the number of med+low slots should be equal. Amarr can use med and low slot 'recharge optimizer' while Caldari use med slot 'recharge optimizer' exclusively. But both can use the same number of 20% bonus modules.
This is true ONLY if you assume that people are going to use their base PG and CPU to fit all of their defense AND offense. If they need to increase PG or CPU, or want to do more damage, they need to sacrifice some low slots. The Raven does NOT need to do this to the same extent.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Ardor
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 01:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 12/05/2004 01:20:17
Edited by: Baun on 12/05/2004 01:19:56
This is true ONLY if you assume that people are going to use their base PG and CPU to fit all of their defense AND offense. If they need to increase PG or CPU, or want to do more damage, they need to sacrifice some low slots. The Raven does NOT need to do this to the same extent.
Yes, but there comes the new missile balance. Ravens won't be able to fire cruise missiles or Torpedos with all high slots just like Apos can't use Tachyons or Mega Beams with all slots. The next big patch will bring us a completly new PvP experience. I feel like beta. I do believe all this changes will bring a better balance for all ships and ship classes. Next big thing will be a boost for cruisers I guess...
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 01:37:00 -
[16]
Quote:
Yes, but there comes the new missile balance. Ravens won't be able to fire cruise missiles or Torpedos with all high slots just like Apos can't use Tachyons or Mega Beams with all slots.
Wrong, a Raven can fit 6 Siege Launchers, 1 425 and 1 Dual250mm, and a full armor tank setup, before running out of PG (alternatively i THINK it can fit 2 heavy nosferatus etc).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
ClawHammer III
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 02:11:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Cap Rechargers should not get boosted, end of story.
It will be the same thing, swap medium for low slots and vice versa. Considering armor has higher base resistance, is more energy efficient to tank, and uses less fitting requirements in terms of CPU, it's a bad move.
I'm glad we can agree on something. 
|
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 02:39:00 -
[18]
Gee I wonder why this is....
Quote:
Yup, a couple of people have brought this up; but it seems to not really be on the foreground of the whole tanking discussion for some reason. It's becoming more and more apparent that it's going to be an issue with the whole raven armor tank example that more people are bringing up.
Obviously some Caldari was bright enough to count medium slots on Caldari ships....and realize that you could load all those slots with Cap Recharger 2's...
And now they are keeping quiet about it.
Not that I REALLY care....but wasn't Tomb saying that Amarr should be the kings of armor tanking? Hello...continuity...storyline....Bueller??
It doesn't really matter anyway, that's what Heavy Nosferatu's and Cap Neutralizers are for anyway. Don't leave home without them.
|
LJSilver
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 04:44:00 -
[19]
Harr!
So everything old is new again. Hahaha medium slots rule once again!!
Sell ur amarr's and gallente's and buy Caldari's.
Have u noticed how boring it is to play this game now?
It's because the game is empty of content. CCP's squandering of dev resources on PvP has ruined the game. PvP is one dimensional and pointless without game content to give it a purpose.
Every nerf damages game play in unforseen ways. If they added more ship types, ore's, structures, trade economics, improved the interface, created a wider variety of npc's, improved loot, etc, they would achieve a lot more.
Have u noticed that there are no traders in 0.0 since Castor? I looked at the trading histories in Syndicate, and guess what, they flat-lined after castor. And the pirate corps flat-lined right after that.
This focus on PvP has created a wasteland.
http://www.liketelevision.com/web1/classictv/longjohn/longjohn210.gif |
zaqq
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 06:57:00 -
[20]
it seems to me everyone is missing one thing. instead of trying to balance all races with all races, simply make all bs's, all cruisers, all frigates, with the same amount of slots, across the board, surely then it falls down to player skills and choice of mods fitted. but leave intact all race bonuses.
i know many will argue that high skilled players will own, but don't they anyway ???
|
Omani
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 08:10:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Omani on 12/05/2004 08:13:14
What about giving the Cap Rechargers a negative bonus like -2% (or -5%, but that would be quite drastic) armor hp?
That way it will get quite balanced imo.
|
Golgrath
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 08:26:00 -
[22]
Give cap rechargers the same penalty as cap relays but for armor boosting:
cap recharger II:
-10% to armor boosting
+20% to cap recharge
I hate when Raven and Tempest which are meant to be shield based are more effective when armor tanked.
other suggestions: lower resistances on armor, increase armor repairing cap usage.
|
fras
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 08:48:00 -
[23]
The main problem with armour tanking at the moment lies almost solely with the Raven. To fit armour tanking on other ships requires you to forfeit both guns and damage mods due to the amount of grid and low slots it takes.
The Raven doesn't really need gun damage mods and the nature of it's weaponry (low grid/high cpu) blends perfectly with armour tanking (high grid/low cpu) meaning it's far too easy to fit 100% damage and 100% tanking.
The new missile changes on Chaos just make a ship that was already better than the rest - even better.
To be fair to the devs though, none of these changes have hit TQ yet. It's there for testing and feedback and that's what we are doing.
Raven on Chaos atm is stupidly overpowered, that's my feedback
|
Golgrath
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 08:57:00 -
[24]
Yeah and it's now even more overpowered... 18 torpedos in a siege launcher eeeek
/me goes train Caldari bs
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 09:00:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Golgrath
Yeah and it's now even more overpowered... 18 torpedos in a siege launcher eeeek
/me goes train Caldari bs
Yeah, and with 6 launchers firing at the same time, you'd be lucky to get 4 of those torps to actually hit the target rather than each others splash 
Put it this way - if you see a Raven that is armour-tanked, he's screwed if he gets scrambled even once and that's where the superfast frigates orbiting at 1km come in.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 09:00:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Golgrath
Yeah and it's now even more overpowered... 18 torpedos in a siege launcher eeeek
/me goes train Caldari bs
And with the bugged Torpedo splash damage that isn't registering Raven looks like the uber Viking god of Valhalla.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Dash Ripcock
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 09:03:00 -
[27]
Either bring back cap relays so they perform as they did, or make med-slot cap recharger 2s have an armour-tanking penalty in the same way relays affect shield boosters i.e. how many armour repair hitpoints are done per cycle. Then the ships with high number of meds and low number of lows are balanced with the ships with low number of meds and high number of lows.
Also, with the missile changes and the need to use a Siege Launcher to fire cruise missiles, people are going to have to start loving their low slots a bit more CPU-wise, making ships previously adept at armour-tanking (like the Raven) not such effective armour-tankers anymore.
Battle Angels Inc - The Movie
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 09:03:00 -
[28]
So, does anyone wanna trade 4 Shock Limos Siege Launchers + 20M isk for 6 Malkuth Siege Launchers? 
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Elfman
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 09:18:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Elfman on 12/05/2004 09:31:25
Been thinking about this for a while but low on caffine at the mo.
How about they give a additonal negative bonus to different ship races. This would allow CCP to tune ships to be used in the way they intend without stupid configs being usable the apoc shield tank and raven armour tank.
e.g
Amar a -30% to shield booster effects + 20% to armour
Cal a -30% to Arm rep effects + 20% to shield
The figure picked out of the air.
This way the would not need to worry about raven armour tanks since it would be worse than using shield boosters.
The only problem then is trying to balance out the gal and min who are hybrid shield armour.
Min +10% to shield -10% to armour
Gal +10% to armour -10% to shield
PS I havnt worked out the figures at all yet but it would require a reasonably large figure to stop apocs shield tanking and ravens armour tanking.
|
Lucre
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 11:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Omani
What about giving the Cap Rechargers a negative bonus like -2% (or -5%, but that would be quite drastic) armor hp?
That way it will get quite balanced imo.
Only if your definition of 'balanced' is one of overwhelming bias towards the races which don't need energy to fire their weapons!
Under this scheme an Apoc couldn't shield tank *or* armour tank and still have any energy to power its guns. Giving the Tempest or Raven even more advantage than they already have.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 11:31:00 -
[31]
Give cap recharges a penalty to armor boosting, like -5% armor boosting efficiency. Still half of the penalty shield tanks suffer from with the recent CPR changes.
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 11:58:00 -
[32]
Increase the grid usage for the Siege launchers so that the Raven can not fit them + armor repairers without fitting a PDU or RCU. Problem would be solved ...
Don't forget that i.e. a megabeam uses 325% more grid and only 30% less CPU, a slight 75-100% increase in grid usage for the Siege launchers would be fair and probably solve the problem.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 12:10:00 -
[33]
Edited by: JoCool on 12/05/2004 12:13:20
If you increase grid usage, lower the cpu usage. Bang there goes the Raven's CPU problem.
/edit->spelling
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 12:20:00 -
[34]
well, but then please increase the grid usage to 3250 so that it has the same stats as a megabeam.
did you even read what I wrote in the post before? I don't think so ...
At the moment, the fitting requirements are simply too low. An Apoc can't fit 6 megabeams without fitting PDUs so a Raven should not be able to fit 6 of his biggest weapon without any CPU or PDUs either.
Therfore, I think the grid usage should be increased to 1750-2000, CPU should stay the same. Then, megabeam would still only use 30% less CPU and still use 80% more grid. That looks a lot more balanced than the 325% from before.
|
Arleonenis
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 12:55:00 -
[35]
I hate to agree with amarrian but hallek have 100% right, after new changes to missiles and this armor tanking raven will be twice or even three times better (read: more deadly) than any other battleship, combine this with no splash damage on cruise missles, faster flying, hell lots more damage, cheaper missles, lots of cruise missles in siege, low fitting requirements of siege launcher, that could tank veeery long and you will get ship that single handedly could destroy 2 or even 3 other races battleships (even tanked battleships!!) and is really not affected by electronic warfare (fof cruise missles), and it could fight easily frigates too with 2 blasters... if this is BALANCE i dont want to think what ccp think isnt balance.... 
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 13:40:00 -
[36]
Jezus CHRIST would you get a ******* clue of what the **** you're babbling about Hellek?! Plzkthx!
|
Lipton
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 13:40:00 -
[37]
Not a single one?
One to rule them all...
Really... The Raven rules as it is right now.
Needs fixing and thats the end of that...
_______________________________________________
What? |
Arleonenis
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 14:44:00 -
[38]
Crap? None? Heh one fully tanked raven with fof cruisers could NOW own two strict ew scorpions if pilot of raven know what he is doing, with TWICE more damage he cant be able? Funny, and stop postin "NONE NONE NONE" becouse you act like a kid, you dont wrote anything except this
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 15:10:00 -
[39]
Quote:
Jeez, you are insane Hellek.
The problem is that you in your Apoc has 5 DIFFERENT LARGE LASERS TO CHOOSE FROM. A raven has ONE LARGE LAUNCHER TO FIT.
Just that you are too blind to realize that you can fit something else than mega beams on your Apoc.
You also have several launchers to choose from. A heavy launcher with heavy missiles is still more usefull than a Large Dual Heavy Beam and has a lot smaller fitting requirements.
Quote:
Want to know how many siege launchers I use on my raven on TQ? ZERO!
If you try make a TQ setup with siege launchers you run out of both CPU and powergrid.
Ah, the poor raven, so few CPU and Grid, really a pity ...
You have 12500 grid, one launcher needs 1000, so you can fit 6 and use less than half your grid.
You have 750 CPU, one launcher uses 80 so you have 270 left after fitting 6 launchers.
Now look at the Apoc:
I have 18750 grid, one megabeam takes 3250 so after fitting 6 I have -750 grid left (= I need to fit a PDU to be able to fit them). Okay, so I have a PDU fitted, should be around 19500 grid then and only 6 lowslots left. Now I need 1900 grid for my 2 large repairers, oh, I see I don't have enough grid for them, okay, so lets upgrade the PDU to a RCU. Wow, I now can barely fit them, but d'oh, I have no CPU left. well, let's put a CPU in. Now the damage mod. Oh, I see all my 7 lowslots are used up already (RCU + CPU + 2 repairers + 3 hardeners). And oh damn, I just see I still don't have enough grid or CPU to put anything except a small T2 smartbomb in the remaining 2 highslots. I guess the reason why this does not work is that a BS is not supposed to fit 6 of the largest weapons and still tank.
Oh, why can raven then do this without problems? And it even deals more damage than my 6 megabeams would. Can it be there is something wrong? I think so. Can it be that dalman posts a lot of crap? definately.
Quote:
If you've read the thread you'd know that I won't be able to fire cruise missiles and torps from heavy launchers any more.
I did know that before I posted, why do you assume I would not? Seems now that you are running out of arguments, you are starting to twist my words in your last attempt to score a few points. Sorry, it seems you are failing ...
For being a "Fleet commander" you are pretty dumb, sorry but after reading like 4 posts, one more stupid than the other, and boasting with "I have so much combat experience, I am so intelligent" I had to say that. (i.e. look at the Hellek, I don't know where you are fighting, or if you fight at all, but I fight alot he posted in another thread.)
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 15:14:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Arleonenis
... and stop postin "NONE NONE NONE" becouse you act like a kid, you dont wrote anything except this
THANKS Arleonis, that's exactly what I was thinking when I made my last post.
Actually, maybe he really is a kid, I don't know him (and I don't want to) so it could be ...
Anyway, I would expect more from a Fleet Commander.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 16:27:00 -
[41]
Tee problems with the apoc are complicated, and mainly caused by huge grid requirements for weapons .. etc. The funny thing is that this shows exactly what I am talking about. The Apoc used to have the best defense in the game. Now it has to sacrifice a LOT to have good defense. The devs fixed the problem they were looking at but in so doing just created another one.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 16:29:00 -
[42]
Quote:
The main problem with armour tanking at the moment lies almost solely with the Raven.
The Raven is just the most extreme example. It is really no more powerful than the X-L-booster-forever Apoc was, it just has far worse defense and does more damage.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.12 18:39:00 -
[43]
dalman, I said several times that I trained Minmatar BS lvl4 and have a Tempest which is my choice for PvP.
And I see nobody whining about projectiles and I don't do it myself either. Guess why? Because they don't suck. Guess why people whine about lasers? yes, because they DO suck.
As I said in many other threads, stop posting things which are simply plain wrong. Don't accuse me of not having trained other BS skills as I stated in about 5 threads (you responded in several of them) that I use a Tempest in PvP. I am very sorry that I have to do this but I have to accuse you of being a LIAR. I have never ever done that in the forums yet but with this post now it is very obvious that you are either really, really dumb or deliberately posting lies.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |