|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.03.27 07:30:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 27/03/2010 07:29:42 Something is to be done, but some proposals are just weird.
Why the hell would you want to give Astarte yet another gun when she still dies with its current 7? It won't make this ship that much better as no one sane complains on the DPS of it, but rather on the lack of mobility/features. Addition of another tanking slot is already way better since 7 guns with 2 damage mods is superior to 8 with just one, and I'm yet to see any setup with 2 MFS which isn't a complete kamikaze-mobile.
+1 med for Abso is dandy, but kinda corrupts the whole racial concept, as Amarr are somewhat supposed to lack mids. I'd vote for another tanking slot, too.
Changes for Sleip and NH look reasonable.
More PG and +1 med for NH? Hell, yeah ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.01 21:50:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 01/04/2010 21:55:22 Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 01/04/2010 21:52:27
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: adriaans
... Nighthawk Stuff ...
I really cant see a powergrid buff necessary for the nighthawk. It already functions as the most powerful in the group. Every fit demonstrated by people who complain about the Nighthawk either want both Gank AND Tank and try and jam a warfare mod on it. Im sorry, even though it gets a bonus to fitting the warfare mod, doesnt mean you should fit it; it doesnt get a effectiveness bonus so use something else in the highslot. Furthermore, if you arent willing to sacrifice a bit of tank to stuff on your Heavy Assault Missiles, just fit regular Heavy Missiles instead (for which it was balanced around) because it fits just fine that way.
It doesn't - if fact, you may think it fits fine cause you have a weird 7|5|5 layout, which kinda suggests you using a fitting mode. But that's just a fuzzy logic, nothing else. Slots are usually there to give you some advantage, not to remedy design faults. That's an outstanding case, prolly just Eagle has the same issue being a railboat with a clear lack of PG to fit rails.
I can understand 8|5|5 on Sleip - it can utilize those new fancy Tracking Enhancers and its base resists on the shield are all more or less even all across the board, while NH has got that pathetic 0% in EM (ok, 25% if you count in the resist bonus - but since it's a bonus, I personally wouldn't), so by all means it takes more slots for Nighthawk to set up a decent tank.
Basically atm you can have just 2 setups which won't requre you using a fugly fitting mode - 1 LSE buffer tank or Medium Shield Booster'ed one. And that's without any GangLinks or - God forbids! - HAMs. No need to say, that's just not enough. It definitely should be 2 LSE and Large Booster instead. Anything else will most likely result in you creating yet another abomination without MWD or with some other major fault of that sort. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 21:43:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 02/04/2010 21:44:46
Why the hell does anyone insist on this ******ed passive tanking? It's one of those things I will never get.
Only the most stupid farmers ever consider passive tanking a Nighthawk. I personally don't give a crap at what's the recharge rate of my shields - heck, CCP might reduce it to a mom's level and I'll still be happy as long as they fix other issues with it (PG, slot layout and stupid explosion velocity bonus. Sig radius one is a lot more handy since the day they changed missile damage formula). I don't see any problem with adjusting the recharge rate if that's your main concern.
Also, comparing NH with Astarte is a bit misleading. How about we compare NH's fittings with Drake's? Surely it has some CPU problems, but that's OK for a tech1 ship. On the other hand fugly Drakes have no issues grid-wise while fitting 2 LSE, MWD and Heavies. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 12:01:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 15/04/2010 12:01:40
I suggested a proper role a while ago.
Evidently, the idea itself was just way too good and sophisticated for the average forum level ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 21:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Zilberfrid I will probably get flamed somewhat, but is not part of the problem the tier 2 bc's? If I compare them, they do tend to stick out a bit on the upside of the power level.
I'd say turn a bat in that direction, perhaps a 7,5% reduction in armor, shield and cap.
They are, but the changes you mention won't mean lot. Heck, the 7.5 percent cap/armor advantage is already built-in for those, you'll just bring them down to tier-1 level in that very area, while tier-2 will still enjoy abnormal slot amount. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 04:23:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 21/04/2010 04:23:49
It is slots (dronebays including) combined with extra fittings.
Abaddon's got 'the best' set of bonuses you can ever think of - resistances plus damage. It has 8 guns, but in no way it is imbalanced in comparison to Geddon.
I wouldn't care all that much about Harbinger, should it have 4 lows or 3 meds/5 lows. Instead for some weirdest reason there are 6. As tech1 ships have always been basically free and it doesn't matter whether the hull is 20 or 40 mil isk, the huge increase in perfomance comes at absolutely no cost. Imagine battleships being done that way, - Abaddon then easily could have 2 extra meds ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.05.17 23:06:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/05/2010 20:32:39 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/05/2010 20:29:14
Originally by: Venkul Mul In CCP idea command ship have a role in being command ships (and so they should have the capacity to use efficiently command modules) not in being bigger HACs.
Then they should not have introduced field command ships, because fleet command ships cover that role completely.
They introduced so much stuff in the meantime, anyway, that boosting CS is really in order, particularly the horribad ones (hi Astarte). Them being able to sport a warfare link (which is Sleipnir and Abso only anyway and Abso has problems doing it) is a nice thing for a small gang, but said small gang also needs a ship which performs in direct combat.
Large gangs will never use the field CS in boosting role since Fleet does it 11ty billion times better. Then again, I'm ok with them being trash too, since they salvage well and sometimes drop faction loot , ideal loot pinatas and preety easy to kill on top.
I have already supported the thread as changes are in order, simply I was saying that making field command ships a super HAC was not CCP idea.
T3 cruisers command version has removed one of the possible (after changes) role, that of a ship faster/more agile, capable of working well with cruisers fleets.
For sure all the field command ships need to be capable to use a warfare link without nerfing too much tank and DPS.
Probably this summer CCP will do some rebalancing of weapons and ships, so maybe they will look command ships.
As there is a lot of rebalancing it is only a small chance.
Underlining the key words here :)
It makes me giggle recalling them to admit NH's grid issues back in the early 2008. Absolutely nothing has been done since then.
I'd bet we would actually get tech3 battlecruisers sooner then they fix CS class. And I just hope those will pwn as much as current Strategic Cruisers do. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 21:57:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Andrea Montfaucon :Necromancy:
Yeap ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.10.30 10:08:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Andrea Montfaucon :Necromancy:
---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2010.11.25 01:57:00 -
[10]
Any news on the issue from our (beloved) CSM? ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
|
|
|
|