Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Taritura
Caldari Achozen Dueces TecH
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:07:00 -
[721]
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium II. Navy Tier 2 Battleships:
Created a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away when they were at the top of the food chain with no capital or T2 hulls to compete with, navy tier 2 battleships actually receive little and disparate boost to their intended role(s). The following changes are aimed to fix this.
General: all navy battleship shield recharge time has been increased to 3390s.
Apocalypse Navy Issue:
òFittings: 580 CPU, 21525 powergrid òDronebay increased by 25m3, bandwidth unchanged òSensor: +25% sensor resolution
Raven Navy Issue:
òFittings: 735 CPU, 10925 powergrid òDronebay increased by 25m3, bandwidth unchanged òSensor: +25% sensor resolution
yeee 150% shield recharge time on cnr ?!!!! are you insane?? yeee +25 m3 on drone bay Usles witchout higher bandwich... ... You sould call this expansio Dominion - the big caldari nerf... What next all caldari ships will have shield capacity lower to 50% ???
And that text "receive little and disparate boost to their intended role(s)" Is +50% to shield recharge time is a boost to their roles ??? Are you trying to make full out of us ???
|
Orakkus
Minmatar m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:27:00 -
[722]
Edited by: Orakkus on 24/09/2009 21:30:22
Originally by: Ulstan
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc Although it has been said many times, it bears repeating, apparently, because nothing is being done.
Minmatar ships in general and Battleships specifically are across the board worse than the other races ships of the same class.
This is utter nonsense. Battleships are almost the only class where Minmatar shisp are not, in general, better than the ships of other races.
Rifter is the best frigate. Thrasher is the best destroyer. Sabre is the only dictor worth flying. Jaguar is tied for best AF with ishkur. Stilleto and Claw are both good interceptors, certainly better than the fail caldari interceptors. Rupture is tied for best Cruiser with Thorax Hurricane is excellent battlecuiser. Even cylone isn't bad (better than prophecy or ferox) Rapier is excellent. Huginn is excellent. Sleipner is excellent. Munnin is quite decent, only really beaten out by the zealot for LR HAC work. Vagabond used to be the best HAC by far, now its merely a 'good' HAC. Scimitar is probably the most hard to kill logistics, and the best shield logistics.
It's BS sized Minmatar ships that have issues, not all Minmatar ships. Smaller minmatar ships are absolutely superb and some of the best around.
As a minnie pilot I would have to disagree with most of your choices, but I agree with a few. I agree regarding the Rupture, the Sleipner, the Jaguar/Wolf, and the Scimitar (though the Caldari Logistics is better for just straight shield logistics). However, the rest have recently been supplanted by their Amarr or Gallente counterparts or are currently well balanced with all the other races versions (i.e. the Tier 2 Battlecruisers, Field Commandships, T1 Cruisers overall).
Some, like the Muninn, the Rapier, and the Huginn, are clearly at bottom of the list. With the web nerf the Rapier and the Huginn are the least preferred Recons in a fleet as their web bonuses aren't effective any more (not even able to stop a MWDing Cruiser), and their TP bonuses can be duplicated on the Bellicose hull. The Muninn suffers from the falloff issue just like the Battleships do as most of its range is in falloff and so damage is much worse.
Overall, maybe I'd say we're equal other races pre-BS, but the value of Minmatar sig/speed decreases the higher the ship class becomes, with the breaking line around the Cruiser classes. After that the flaws of the projectile ammo/weapon systems become more apparently and more difficult to tactically account for.
I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet. |
Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 06:08:00 -
[723]
Originally by: Taritura
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium II. Navy Tier 2 Battleships:
Created a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away when they were at the top of the food chain with no capital or T2 hulls to compete with, navy tier 2 battleships actually receive little and disparate boost to their intended role(s). The following changes are aimed to fix this.
General: all navy battleship shield recharge time has been increased to 3390s.
Apocalypse Navy Issue:
òFittings: 580 CPU, 21525 powergrid òDronebay increased by 25m3, bandwidth unchanged òSensor: +25% sensor resolution
Raven Navy Issue:
òFittings: 735 CPU, 10925 powergrid òDronebay increased by 25m3, bandwidth unchanged òSensor: +25% sensor resolution
yeee 150% shield recharge time on cnr ?!!!! are you insane?? yeee +25 m3 on drone bay Usles witchout higher bandwich... ... You sould call this expansio Dominion - the big caldari nerf... What next all caldari ships will have shield capacity lower to 50% ???
And that text "receive little and disparate boost to their intended role(s)" Is +50% to shield recharge time is a boost to their roles ??? Are you trying to make full out of us ???
yay I fit a shield booster! passive recharge barely adds any effective tank.
an extra flight of lights (or +2 mediums +1 light, or even 3 if all you have are meds), how is that a nerf?
or are you one of those passive cnr folks we were talking about earlier You're posting again!? Has it really been 5 mins?
|
Octavio Santillian
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 07:42:00 -
[724]
It is difficult to see, even with the hope of projectile balancing, how adding a turret and removing a mid slot improves the Tempest Fleet Issue in any way. Seriously, the joke isnÆt funny anymore. The Minmatar have always had ships that outperform their æpaper stats,Æ but the Tempest Fleet Issue hasnÆt been one of them for a long time. The utility mids are the only thing that currently give this ship any value or distinctiveness whatsoever, and even with them, the ship is still lackluster.
If the intention is to buff the ship, I donÆt see how the rational of trading a mid slot for a turret hard point achieves this goal on the AC front. ItÆs hard to judge this if AC numbers are going to change dramatically, but letÆs look at it currently. Assuming a three gyro setup, a TFI with seven 800s (Barrage) does a mere 37 more DPS than a TFI with six 800s and a Siege II (Caldari Navy). 37 DPS is a horrible, HORRIBLE, trade for a mid slot. Any change to ACs is going to have to be quite dramatic to change the basic fact that Siege launcher provides enough æbridgeÆ damage to make the loss of a mid a very, very bad trade.
The change does make more sense if the intention is to make the ship a sniper. With a hefty boost in artillery alpha and an extra turret, the TFI could kick like a mule. Is this a practical niche for the ship? Range and tracking will still be issues, and massive alpha will still have relatively few useful places when compared to overall DPS. Yes, you might make the life of a T1 cruiser hell every once in a while or do some potent gang fly-by sniping runs, but is that really the goal here?
If the intention isnÆt to buff the ship, then please explain why CCP thinks the ship is well balanced to its counterparts as is (or as will be).
The ship could probably use the extra hard-point and keep the mid. If you thatÆs too much, then please consider some other options.
Just an asideàcan the ship be less god-awful ugly? 1) If you are going to camouflage a space ship, it should be black with stars on it or something of the like. 2) The turret hard points are all asymmetrical and catawampus. 3) The æsailsÆ are disgusting when compared to the standard Tempest sails.
I know people joke around like the Matari are stupid or primitive, but their back-story doesnÆt really justify this. I could of course care less, if the ship was actually decent when compared its counterparts.
|
AccesiViale
Gallente Vox de Lucis
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 09:48:00 -
[725]
yea I still dont get it. There is 0 reason to increase the Shield recharge rate if its such a terrible idea to fit like that.
Asside from all of those who simply dont like our passive cnr fits or think they are dumb...can you see a good reason to remove this option other then...just because? I don't think the passive recharge rates of these navy BS(s) was ruining the balance of this game.
Who here has been ganked by an omfg wtf passive fit Navy bs? Wait nobody? ok why are we balancing(nerfing) something that supposedly isnt great? The sky was blue but there was no god. |
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:42:00 -
[726]
well faction versions do come with more HP, which does require a higher recharge time. just because they had the same as regular bs up until today doesnt make it ipso facto right.
however, this is indeed quite a high number. i can't say i'm a fan of this tanking method, hence i'm not too experienced but i believe 2 extenders usually come with such a fitting? that results in ~30% more HP on the gravy raven compared to its baby sister. i'd derive a recharge rate in the area of 3250s - putting the gist back into logistics |
IGuardian
Internet Guardians Corp Internet Guardians
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 12:53:00 -
[727]
Please do not remove the mid slot from the Tempest Fleet Issue, if you do get rid of it are we allowed to swap it for another ship or something... it will be useless to me. Also if you loose the mid slot, im sure a lot of people that use it with shield tanking skills will have to sell it or retrain for armor tanking. Internet Guardians Leader
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:00:00 -
[728]
Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
|
|
Octavio Santillian
Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:01:00 -
[729]
Edited by: Octavio Santillian on 25/09/2009 15:06:10 Edited by: Octavio Santillian on 25/09/2009 15:03:51
EDIT:
I cross posted with Ytterbium. Let me digest the new info, but looks good at first glance. Thanks for listening.
|
Zief
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:36:00 -
[730]
A strange thing happened to me when I read Ytterbium's latest post. Suddenly I began to hear Rufus Wainwright's "Halleluja".. Tears poured down my face and a piercing ray of heavenly light flashed down on my tortured being. Then I realized that I had left iTunes playing and my cat had just knocked down a lamp which was shining in my eyes.
Everything else aside I am pleased with this latest revelation. Giving the standard 'Phoon a 5/5 split for it's highslots will make some new fits turn up on battle clinic to be sure. It'll be even rougher trying to squeeze on more of those grid heavy siege launchers, but I'm not complaining even in the slightest. It'll become even more of a cheap, plated, cap independent, WTF Gank-mobile now. I like it. Also bravo to the Fleet Typhoon, this is now a ship I would REALLY like to own some day.
I don't really get the swap on the stats for the vanilla tempest. If someone could 'school' me I'd be grateful. I don't really see how it'll effect much of anything.
Now. On to the important bit. The Fleet Tempest. THIS will now be a bad*** ship. When the turret balance happens it'll be even better. The low slots to mount an actual armor tank and utilities. Bravo Bravo. Thumbs up.
|
|
Orakkus
Minmatar m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:43:00 -
[731]
Originally by: Zief A strange thing happened to me when I read Ytterbium's latest post. Suddenly I began to hear Rufus Wainwright's "Halleluja".. Tears poured down my face and a piercing ray of heavenly light flashed down on my tortured being. Then I realized that I had left iTunes playing and my cat had just knocked down a lamp which was shining in my eyes.
Everything else aside I am pleased with this latest revelation. Giving the standard 'Phoon a 5/5 split for it's highslots will make some new fits turn up on battle clinic to be sure. It'll be even rougher trying to squeeze on more of those grid heavy siege launchers, but I'm not complaining even in the slightest. It'll become even more of a cheap, plated, cap independent, WTF Gank-mobile now. I like it. Also bravo to the Fleet Typhoon, this is now a ship I would REALLY like to own some day.
I don't really get the swap on the stats for the vanilla tempest. If someone could 'school' me I'd be grateful. I don't really see how it'll effect much of anything.
Now. On to the important bit. The Fleet Tempest. THIS will now be a bad*** ship. When the turret balance happens it'll be even better. The low slots to mount an actual armor tank and utilities. Bravo Bravo. Thumbs up.
This.
Original Tempest was meant to be an Active Shield tanker back in the day, hence the higher shields.
I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet. |
Constantine Merlonne
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 15:48:00 -
[732]
Roleplay speaking, did someone got the explaination to the change of the name of the slicer to "Imperial"? Then why the other frigs are not turned into "State issue", "Tribal Issue" and "Federal Issue" (if i remember well the designations)?
|
Lumy
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:00:00 -
[733]
Originally by: Constantine Merlonne Roleplay speaking, did someone got the explaination to the change of the name of the slicer to "Imperial"? Then why the other frigs are not turned into "State issue", "Tribal Issue" and "Federal Issue" (if i remember well the designations)?
Imperial, Federate, State and Tribal issue ships are/were unique ships given as prizes at alliance tournaments. I guess that is what CCP wants to keep the names for.
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
Urhgo Khanab
Minmatar Rogen's Heroes
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:00:00 -
[734]
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
This is so awesome. I think i need a towel
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:03:00 -
[735]
I'm not sure how swapping the shield/armour values around solves the niche issue of the tempest, nor the fleet tempest for that matter.
Have you considered that there might be too many armour tanking ships trying to do the same thing in the same fashion? Until this issue is addressed, you'll either not fix the Tempest, or displace the problem onto another ship. People are keen on 7/6/6, 8/7/4 slot layout wise.
As for the Typhoon and fleet versions, thanks for listening, those ships are practically perfect. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:11:00 -
[736]
Edited by: Ulstan on 25/09/2009 16:11:56
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
òSlot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) òHitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
Excellent changes, except I'd still rather see the tempest shield tanked :p We have more than enough armor tanking gunboats.
But 5/5 Typhoon is excellent, as is the fleet phoon.
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:15:00 -
[737]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 25/09/2009 16:15:41 Make Zuluparks Tempest less fail TBH. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Constantine Merlonne
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:19:00 -
[738]
Originally by: Lumy
Originally by: Constantine Merlonne Roleplay speaking, did someone got the explaination to the change of the name of the slicer to "Imperial"? Then why the other frigs are not turned into "State issue", "Tribal Issue" and "Federal Issue" (if i remember well the designations)?
Imperial, Federate, State and Tribal issue ships are/were unique ships given as prizes at alliance tournaments. I guess that is what CCP wants to keep the names for.
But the Imperial Navy Slicer will be far from being a unique ship The current designation is "Amarr Navy Slicer" and will turn to "Imperial Navy Slicer". And i find it strange. I know it's not a big deal but i think CCP has a reason.
|
To mare
Amarr Advanced Technology
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:20:00 -
[739]
give to the typhoon a little bit of CPU while you are changing it. it will be very difficult to fit 5 siege on it.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:24:00 -
[740]
True. Navy scorp has the same issue. Siege launchers are very hungry O.O
|
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:44:00 -
[741]
I don't know that this will "fix" the Tempest itself, but the projectile changes in the other thread might. I 110% support the Phoon/Fleet Phoon changes. Wish the Fleet Pest was a shield tanker, but this will work fine. :)
Thanks for listening!
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 16:52:00 -
[742]
Originally by: Ulstan Excellent changes, except I'd still rather see the tempest shield tanked :p We have more than enough armor tanking gunboats.
Even if the Tempest was intended to be a shield-tanker, everyone would still have to armour tank it, thanks to the absurdly imbalanced, diversity-destroying fitting requirements of remote armour reps and shield transporters... *SUBTLE HINT CCP, A LARGE SHIELD TRANSPORTER ON A MEGATHRON SHOULD NOT REQUIRE OVER 20% OF ITS CPU...*
|
Elaron
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:03:00 -
[743]
Originally by: To mare give to the typhoon a little bit of CPU while you are changing it. it will be very difficult to fit 5 siege on it.
I think the fitting conundrums will be what keeps the ship in line after that change. Players who are best able to work within the constraints will be the most successful with it.
|
Arele
Minmatar The Hull Miners Union
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:06:00 -
[744]
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Further changes.
Typhoon:
òSlot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Hopefully CPU reqs of Seige II could be looked at in the future, but this change is huge.
|
Lumy
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:08:00 -
[745]
How about trying a Fleet Tempest with 7 guns, but 8/6/5 or 8/7/4 layout? I'm assuming you consider 20 total slots with 7 guns crime against humanity or something (so no 8/6/6 or 8/7/5). In short, it shouldn't be just Machariel for financially impaired. It could be (full gank and full shield tank) vs (full armor tank or full gank with some utility mids).
In current iteration, Machariel is better/or equal in almost every way: lower mass, more guns, faster (~20%), more agile, more CPU, more powergrid, bigger drone bay, higher bandwidth, more capacitor, higher scan resolution (50%) ... and don't forget 10% fallof er level AND one more gun.
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
Kaito Haakkainen
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:08:00 -
[746]
Excellent news on the Typhoon change, but I must agree with those stating that the Tempest should be designed to shield tank. Fixing shield tanking issues (particularly, but not limited to, poor RR compared to armour tanks) would be a better answer than just making more armour tanking BS. Especially for a race that has a significant number of shield tanking t2 ships and shield transfer based logistics.
|
ArmyOfMe
The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:10:00 -
[747]
k, umm, not sure about the fleet tempest change tbh. imo the fleet tempest is now what the standard tempest should be tbh, is there any reason you cant change the normal tempest to a 8/5/7 and then do the fleet tempest with 8/5/7 or 8/7/5 and 7 turrets?
its a fleet version so it deserves to have a higher dps then the standard one imo, at least on a ship that has so low dps to begin with(in falloff that is)
|
Ryas Nia
Minmatar Veto.
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:26:00 -
[748]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc I'm not sure how swapping the shield/armour values around solves the niche issue of the tempest, nor the fleet tempest for that matter.
Have you considered that there might be too many armour tanking ships trying to do the same thing in the same fashion? Until this issue is addressed, you'll either not fix the Tempest, or displace the problem onto another ship. People are keen on 7/6/6, 8/7/4 slot layout wise.
As for the Typhoon and fleet versions, thanks for listening, those ships are practically perfect.
Agreeing with this, while your changes are adressing SOME of the long standing issues with the tempest/fleet tempest its still a ship without a roll and flavor. The phoon fix is perfect and i like it. Lets see if we can find something a bit more interesting to do with the tempest now.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:29:00 -
[749]
The amount of Khumaak that's going to be left at your guys' doors will be staggering. Thank you CCP for listening to us rust lovers!
The Phoon will now live up its name in versatility. I think it's going to take more time to tell whether these changes plus the ammo/artillery changes will make the Tempest a desirable ship again. But given what you've done or are planning to do for the rest of our ships, I'm okay with baby steps.
|
ArmyOfMe
The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.09.25 17:40:00 -
[750]
if im not asking to much i would love to read/hear your thoughts on the tempest/fleet tempest and the reason for slot changes, removing of a turret etc etc. i really want to read the pro's and cons for different slot layouts and i'd like to see the numbers on dps with 6 and 7 turrets. and i'd like to see if you have actually compared the ship against ships like the navy mega, cnr etc
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |