|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
[quote=Wivabel]Not happy with the thorax. With an 800 plate I can fit only IONs with a 1600 plate I cant even fit electrons without fitting mods. looks like you will not have tank or gank on this ship at the moment.
Ok I take it back it seems to fit out well on the shield side are you guys leaning towards a shield setup because that is what it looks like.
Stabber looks awesome though it is soo soo much faster than the other three may be kinda imbalanced.[/q
mmm... i like the tracking bonus for sure but as an shield fit which it will prob be used with its pg gimped so much what is it with ion's as highest tier lately? But surely it then needs a lot more shields having to fit in close as i doubt rails will fit |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
Also not sure about keeping a unbonused weapon system on stabber did you think it would be OP with 6 autos? in which case change it for a low it will be infinitely more useful |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Just noticed the Thorax shield hp nerf even though it will only be used as a shield max dps fit mm... thought that through did you really? for a ship that cant hit far it might as-well be a combat cruiser in disguise a AB at close range is probably its best way of tanking now in a shield fit the others don't need the tank especially the stabber but the thorax will need some. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
so CCP Fozzie I'm curious if the stabber fleet issue will get the same bonuses but with its armour layout intact and if you have looked at the faction cruisers yet or if that's something for once the you have done bc's? |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kaikka Carel wrote:Even with this changes attack cruisers still don't fulfil any role that Battlecruisers don't.
You have to diversify them by the purpose, not cost or power,
Well if all the attack cruisers were like stabbers then yes they will fulfill a role the bc's can't |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
has anyone noticed the 2 random turrets on the caracal? :) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
arr poor navy osprey the new caracal takes it's only redeeming feature's being a rate of fire bonus and better speed perhaps with the caracal and navy caracal taking the missile range area and the drake will probably be more HAM/dps focused perhaps the osprey navy issue could become a rail sniper so the moa could be the brawler that way they all have a role granted the navy caracal will just be plain better than the t1 but you cant have everything eh ... unless you give it a dps bonus instead of range bonus. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Harvey James wrote: perhaps the osprey navy issue could become a rail sniper so the moa could be the brawler Other way around then anything, I would rather not have the Caldari Rail Boat have to be a Faction Ship. I would prefer they made the Moa good enough with Rails that people say "Fit Blasters on it are you crazy it's a Moa." Leave Blasters to Gallente and stop sidelining sub large rails. i see what you mean but with the merlin and ferox both being brawlers it makes more sense to carry the line on and who uses rail eagle/moa/ferox anyway? |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:01:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Harvey James wrote: i see what you mean but with the merlin and ferox both being brawlers it makes more sense to carry the line on and who uses rail eagle/moa/ferox anyway?
Ferox isn't a Brawler it is a broken Rail Boat. So you say no one uses Rail Eagles / Ferox's / Moa's and bastardize them with Blasters? Guess what you are right and that is the problem. CCP should not be converting these ships to their Shield Gallente bastardizations they should be fixing medium Rails and every Caldari hull they **** into the short range is a step backwards from that. Medium Long Range Guns have problems, I would rather see this addressed then bandaged over with Blasters. Isn't that why we have been waiting so long for Ship Stat adjustments, so they will do it right?
True but at the same time the Tier3 bc's have killed off cruiser snipers anyway so why pigeon hole them into something that won't get much use. However a navy sniper cruiser will be able to get the bouses to make long range weapons on cruisers more worthwhile |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
Drake does good Dmg to 80km and they are well used. 720mm Artillery has its uses too. Not for long :) lol |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Harvey James wrote: Not for long :) lol
Glad you agree that long range medium weapons are getting the shaft. Perfect reason to fix the Rail Moa instead of bastardizing it.
not quite i agree the turrets need a slight buff but HML's are OP for sure |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tal Jarcin wrote:The Stabber in its current proposed form still has the same problem it always did, mainly, a lack of purpose and mission, otherwise known as a reason to exist.
The Stabber was one of those GÇ£that would be neat ideasGÇ¥ that never really developed into a viable playing concept outside of limited nitchdom, not because the ship is that bad, but because as it is currently designed by the time you can fly a Stabber well, you can fly a Hurricane, and lets face it when you match the two up aside each other, the Hurricane can do everything the Stabber can do better, faster and sexier.
What the Stabber really needs to be viable is a purpose, a mission, that only the Stabber can perform. I propose that the Stabber needs to be the EVE Online version of the WWII PT boat. It in short needs torpedoes.
Here me out. Torpedoes are short range, high damage devices. Like Stealth Bomber, it requires teamwork. One Stabber is not going to propose a great danger to any larger ship. However, a squadron of Stabbers making a high speed torpedo run on a large ship is guaranteed to get the attention of any large ship captain.
To deliver the torpedo attack, the Stabber has to enter the high risk area of getting within web range of the enemy ship. The PT boat concept fits perfectly with stated Minmatar design goal for the Stabber, as a high speed hit and run combat ship.
My only remaining concern with the Stabber as currently proposed is the single drone drone bay. In my opinion, a single drone is worthless. Either make it big enough for full flight of 5 small drones if you believe the Stabber needs the extra drone based DPS, or get rid of it altogether and focus on the primary DPS delivery system.
Speaking of drones, several authors on this thread have expressed concern about the proliferation of drone bays on non-drone boat ships throughout EVE is diminishing the value of dedicated drone boating, and I have to say I agree with their concerns.
My suggestion for fixing this would be only allow tech 1 drones on non dedicated (read no drone bonuses) boats or alternatively allow them to only them fly the racial tech II drone of the race that designed the ship.
One possible way to accomplish this would be to say a Minmatar vessel with a 25 MHz bandwidth drone bay would be able to fly five Warriors II (the Minmatar light combat drone) but any other race drone take twice the bandwidth, so only two of the GÇ£foreignGÇ¥ as Minmatar vessels are optimized for Minmatar drones, and less efficient with drones of other races. So if the Minmatar vessel has a 25 MHz bandwidth, it could fly 5 Warrior II, or 2 light drones of any other race for example the Gailante Hobgoblin IIGÇÖs. There would be no penalty for using Tech I drones, any and all Tech1 drones could be flown any vessel without penalty to bandwidth.
There you have it, my off the cuff musings tossed out for public discussion.
I'd duck for cover if i was you .. lol
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
one way to solve the problem of armour tank vs shield tank is for large plates and shield extenders too be impossible to fit on medium hulls this will halve the penalties of sig bloom and mass increase and nerfs t3's and bc's tank in one go making battleships more desirable. Now ofc the medium plates/extenders may need a slight buff/balance to bridge some of the loss of tank and too increase their fitting requirements so frigs have to use smalls etc.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.
We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet.
so CCP Fozzie what is the solution you're working on?
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. Don't worry I have not forgotten this thread. I just finished reading all the posts I had missed over the weekend.
We're very aware of the issues facing armor tanking, and how those issues hurt ships like the Omen. We're working on it, although I can't give you all an ETA quite yet. so CCP Fozzie what is the solution you're working on? Changing all the things. Also heat. Lots and lots of heat.
lol... is this a jest or a hint maybe some work on overheating mods for longer ? |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:38:00 -
[16] - Quote
Serwenta wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Thorax: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret tracking speed
Wouldn't it be more in line with how you have reshaped the Atron to make the Tracking bonus a fall-off bonus? It'd also make sense when you consider the Deimos's fall-off bonus too ... If there is a reason why you have done it this way round could you please explain?
yes attack cruisers are meant to be like T1 HACS surely. So kiting being the theme so a healthy 10% falloff makes more sense as blasters already have strong tracking close range the only issue is getting into range. Especially now the moa is a brawler it makes more sense. Also buff its shield HP a little. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 15:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
Stabber could definitely do with another turret and remove drones or add some. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 11:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
mm... perhaps reducing the base mass of armour boats would help negate the speed/agility loss as-well as adding a little more speed, but i definitely think they need to sort out the use of over-sized mods in the game cruisers and bs shouldn't share the same tank/prop mods any day of the week.
on the Omen and maller they both could use stronger damage/ROF bonus's. and maybe split the omens drones with the maller. For the omen think of it as compensation for the omen having to use the cap bonus |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
nah the bs ones should be unfittable to cruisers. So they need to buff the 200 and 400mm plates to be worthwhile on cruisers and do the same for 50 and 100mm for frigs. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:@ Harvey James
You're suggesting 1600mm plates on a Cruiser are OP'd?
Or, are you suggesting 1600mm plated T1 cruisers have too much EHP?
Or, are you suggesting that 1600mm plates are Nerfed on BS's and BS's need more EHP?
Because if none of those are true, then 1600mm plates are balanced as they are.
Because if you buff 200mm and 400mm plates to be relevent on a Cruiser, then you either make 800mm and 1600mm irrelevent on BSs OR you increase the potential EHP you can get on a BS.
My solution leaves the balanced modules (400mm and 1600mm plates) alone.
mm... well 1600 is probably too much for a cruiser but not a great deal so i would say buff the 1600 and 800 and make them only usable on bs. Then buff the 400 and 800 to about 85% of where the current 800 and 1600 is and same with the frig sized ones. |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Harvey James wrote: mm... well 1600 is probably too much for a cruiser but not a great deal so i would say buff the 1600 and 800 and make them only usable on bs. Then buff the 400 and 800 to about 85% of where the current 800 and 1600 is and same with the frig sized ones.
Because what Eve needs is more EHP in Armour BSs? Right? And I don't buy "probably too much for a Cruiser". 1600mm Plate cruisers aren't going around wiping the floor with everything else (well the Rupture is... but that's not 'cos of the plate). Really, your argument is about an aesthetic choice that 'BS modules shouldn't be on Cruiser hulls'.
well you also have to consider the penalties of using oversized mods on hulls they were not designed for i.e. it helps to lessen the speed and agility penalty on armour cruisers and the same goes for sig bloom on shields.
Plus bs will be looked at anyway so they can reduce thier HP if needed |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:The Thorax is already as powerful as a Rupture. Which isn't suppose to be the case, based on what CCP has said. Apparently, a Combat cruiser has more defense and does significantly more damage compared to an attack cruiser.
The Thorax is an anomaly and is more of a Combat cruiser, instead of a attack cruiser. It has non of the weakness of attack cruisers. The only other attack cruiser that comes close to Combat cruiser damage is a Omen, but it has a pretty weak tank by comparison.
Both a Rupture and Thorax do around the same damage @ 20,000m (20km). Both have around the same effective hit-points with any close range setup. The velocity of both ships is similar too.
Gallente tech 1 cruisers have been boosted far beyond the rest and they SHOULD because of blaster range limitations. Which kinda got delt with in another boost, by making them more inline with Minmatar falloff. However, I believe the Vexor may have been boosted TOO much.
well the solution is to change the tracking bonus into a falloff and design it for null range |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 13:59:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ok now on to the more anticipated cruisers in this rebalance pass. These are the faster and lighter of the fighting cruisers. They're mostly made from the former tier II cruisers, with the exception of the Thorax.
yet the combat cruisers are lighter whats up with that CCP Fozzie? |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Fidelium Mortis wrote:As an Amarr pilot I'm still a bit disappointed in the Omen. I've found that the primary shortcoming of the ship is it's somewhat lackluster DPS compared to the Thorax and Rupture, and the bonuses really don't lend well to take advantage of the laser turrets. Sustaining damage over the course of a fight due to the cap usage from lasers has rarely come into play (at least in PvP), so on the whole the cap reduction bonus is somewhat lost in many situations. A tracking or optimal range bonus would really do wonders for the ship, and allow it to contribute to a T1 cruiser battle in a unique way with some very nice medium range projected DPS (15-20km), with an option to close for some higher dps in a brawl.
how about if they gave it a 7.5% ROF and improved its cap recharge?
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:17:00 -
[25] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Harvey James wrote:Major Killz wrote:The Thorax is already as powerful as a Rupture. Which isn't suppose to be the case, based on what CCP has said. Apparently, a Combat cruiser has more defense and does significantly more damage compared to an attack cruiser.
The Thorax is an anomaly and is more of a Combat cruiser, instead of a attack cruiser. It has non of the weakness of attack cruisers. The only other attack cruiser that comes close to Combat cruiser damage is a Omen, but it has a pretty weak tank by comparison.
Both a Rupture and Thorax do around the same damage @ 20,000m (20km). Both have around the same effective hit-points with any close range setup. The velocity of both ships is similar too.
Gallente tech 1 cruisers have been boosted far beyond the rest and they SHOULD because of blaster range limitations. Which kinda got delt with in another boost, by making them more inline with Minmatar falloff. However, I believe the Vexor may have been boosted TOO much. well the solution is to change the tracking bonus into a falloff and design it for null range No no NO! >_< Why do people try to kite ******* everything.. ****.. Also there is no rule that says that attack cruisers should lose to combat cruisers in a fair fight. Just that Combat are supposed to be tankier and attack faster.. The true stupid thing is that the rupture is actually faster.
It should be a bit like a HAC vs BC fight the HAC is designed to keep range and whittle the bc down. Now the T1 attack cruisers should be able to do the same thing but to a lesser degree to combat cruiser as it would be less efficient but same theme..... Rupture would be able to beat all the attack cruisers that is the problem
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 09:58:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Goldensaver wrote:
I was thinking something similar. Each plate higher should take 1/2 the slots, and have double mass. Give double the armor and have more than double the fitting requirements. Effectively, I'd like to see 2x 100mm's equal a 200mm in HP and mass, but at the cost of one more slot, but less fitting(10% less overall?). This may be how it is now (I don't know, too lazy to check), but it isn't consistently like that. I'd like to see that passed on all the way up.
It's like that for each 'Class' of plates. But it's an order of magnitude different between classes of plates. (50,100 are Frig class; 200, 400 are Cruiser; 800,1600 are BS). You only need 4 plates to give variety (2,4,8 and 16 '00). Make 200's frig mass class (75,000Kg); 800's (750,000Kg) cruiser weight class and you solve most of those size plates problems.
Well i think the differences should be in the meta variations of each size a 'role' if you will CCP have mentioned something about module tiercide so yeah one plate for each size and then the metas could provide different bonuses/characteristics. so more HP on some less mass on others etc. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 18:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
i'd love to know why the stabber has too be so much faster than the rest? surely the others shouldn't be so far behind give them more speed and also lower their mass so they are the lightest T1 cruisers as the OP suggests they should be improving their ability to get to their top speed and improving their agility would be a good thing. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 13:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Quick update on these guys, got a few tweaks to polish them a bit and help differentiate them from the Combat Cruisers:
Omen -100 Structure +10 Velocity -10 Sig Radius
Caracal -100 Structure +5 Velocity -1,000,000 mass +0.035 Agility -10 Sig Radius
Thorax -100 Structure +5 Velocity -10 Sig Radius
Stabber -100 Structure +5 Velocity Removed the dronebay and bandwidth -5 Sig Radius
very tame changes stabber is too quick and these are still heavier than combat cruisers why? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 14:32:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:There are changes to the Combat cruisers coming through the pipeline atm that will be the more significant part of ensuring each ship has its own flavour.
good that rupture needs a overhaul |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 21:25:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Current Attack Ships are fine as long as the Rupture doesn't remain faster than all of them. Omen and Caracal project very well, Thorax for in your face brawl and Stabber is teh best kiter.
mm.. well thorax can do very nice dmg with rails as it happens but the stabber could do with another turret really although not sure about armour tanking ships in this group maybe 800mm's might be okay but armour tanking definitely needs some re-balancing |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 23:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
Dischordant wrote:Watching Sard Caid fitting the attack cruisers on his stream, the stabber is looking really meh to me now. It's damage projection is great, but it's damage is pretty poor, combined with it fighting in falloff makes it even worse. With 2 gyros 1 TE it was 220 DPS w/ 32km falloff. 3 Gyros was 250 dps/25km falloff. It may be worth it to fit missiles to get more dps out of it, leaving it nearly defenceless against frigates, with the lack of drone-bay/neuts then.
The Omen (while having less tank, shield fit) was doing over 300 dps with turrets with a 30km optimal, plus drones, and a very similar looking cap stability while firing guns it seemed.
I'm excited for this change, and I'll be flying the hell out of the stabber, but I'm starting to think it may not stack up against the others.
yep the stabber is too much speed not enough gank |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 19:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
perhaps it does need some drones afterall then maybe 3 lights might do it. afterall the vaga has 5 lights. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 19:30:00 -
[33] - Quote
Stephen O'Malley wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:The Stabber shouldn't be able to compete in a brawl, otherwise we're back at Winmatar.
It's supposed to be good at hit and runs, kiting and killing frigates. It's absolutely supposed to sit at 20-30 km and slowly kill a Thorax and die horribly if it cannot maintain range. If it could comfortably win in web range with brute force alone then the other non-Minmatar cruisers would be nearly useless as they don't have the same mobility, damage selection, capless guns and utility highslots. It shouldn't be able to compete in a brawl, no. It should have a chance to win a fight before capping out. The cap stability looks like itneeds to cycle the mwd to have any chance at having cap last long enough to wear down another cruiser, but by doing that, especially against these other attack cruisers, you're probably going to get caught.
you're not supposed to perma run mwd you pulse it as and when you need to |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 19:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sheynan wrote:Olerie Viliana wrote:CCP should highly consider giving all of these cruisers a serious role bonus for MWD capacitor use. They are not much of an attack vessel if their cap is literally gone in 60 seconds. After seeing them on duality, this is still true after these changes. I like most of the changes, and the thinking behind them, but they don't go far enough. Cruisers are still just weak BC's and the necessary train time and isk cost is close enough BC's that they are just a waste of time getting into. The need to have more cap, more tracking, more speed, and more tank. The only role they can really fill in a small gang is as anti tackle, but they simply cannot stay on the field against BC's. They just get out ranged, out tanked, out DPS'd too hard and they still aren't fast enough to compensate. I realize BC's are supposed to be better than cruisers, but BC's can literally do everything a cruiser does, just much better.
I would give the cruisers a cap bonus for mwd usage, reduce the sigs further, give them all tracking bonus's and give them a small resist buff. This way they can stay in close with the fleet denying tackle, not run out of cap in 1 minute, and not get forced off the field in 1 or 2 volleys from a BC. This would help a lot with the range disparity between cruisers and BC's and actually give them a unique niche that BC's don't have, as anti tackle platforms. They won't have the speed of frigs and dessies so they will have to stay in close with the main fleet to be safe, where frigs and dessies are free to chase down or tackle enemy ships but can't really handle multiple enemy tacklers the way cruisers could. I'd rather nerf BCs a bit, especially in agilitiy and tracking. Going further down with signature and up with tracking gets us to destroyer levels. That said, I ended up fitting cap boosters to my Duality Stabbers and Thoraxes and I'm not too sure what to think of it, as it gimps their tank even more.
These suggestions are more for HACS i would think maybe they need to boost cap regen on these ships more |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 20:21:00 -
[35] - Quote
i think you need to wait for the bc rebalance too know whether cruisers will be as useful to train i suspect the attack cruisers will be a viable alternative to fleet fights instead of the current tier2 bc fights |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 21:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I wouldn't get too attached to a BC comparison. I expect the tier one BC to be upgraded from 16 to 17 slots and refocused with their slot layouts and bonuses. I expect the tier 2 BC to be nerfed from 18 to 17 slots. It would be interesting if they do this, it has merit and might give new life to Battleships as well.
I think 15/16 would be more than enough slots for bc's 15 being drone boats ofc. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
89
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 17:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Teebling wrote: Please replace the old cap usage bonus on the Omen with something more useful.
Still hoping they will surprise me with a 7.5 or 10% Opt bonus + RoF > Dmg Bonus and make it a baby Zealot.
the only way they could balance an optimal range bonus on an omen is to nerf the range of medium lasers afterall a zealot can reach 40km optimal range easy enough |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 16:22:00 -
[38] - Quote
Deena Amaj wrote:A popular buff was to have ships with +% in AB per level. Used to be desired feature by the fanbase for Assault Frigates, but for whatever reason (probably too OP), it got turned down.
I still hope it could be used somewhere, because, as said above, even with all those little things like no-sig bloom, unscrammable, AB is still rarely worth applying. I would love to rely more on AB, but - oooh well :D.
the problem with AB's is as soon as you get webbed you lose much of the advantage of using it webs are too strong for AB's to be effective and then there's the issue of range either in keeping it or needing to get into it in the first place. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:31:00 -
[39] - Quote
Also it doesn't help that rapiers webs and arazu's scramble range get such long range as they do. the rapiers webs can go as far as 100km quite easily using faction OH and links.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
113
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 18:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
perhaps stacking the falloff with the ROF and then adding a missile ROF bonus might make using missiles on it worthwhile along with a dronebay it needs. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 13:57:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Meldorn Vaash wrote:Fozzie,
Are you still evaluating and tweaking ships at this point or have you locked everything down for Retribution's deployment? Your dev blog seems to suggest you're done for now. At this point we're generally in bugfix and polish mode for Retri, although we do have lots of chances to tweak things in the new year if we see the need once they're all out in the wild. This is more ships than we've ever rebalanced at once so we're going into it expecting that there will need to be some follow-up.
That's nice to know as i expect the stabber will need a dronebay again at some point :) Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Cyanerd wrote:Are the navy faction equivilants of these ships being left unchanged? Caracal Navy Issue for example. The navy versions aren't being changed in Retribution, but they will be changed.
when when!!!!!!! :) Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 14:52:00 -
[43] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I tried to fit up an armor Stabber...
I felt very good about having a versatile hull capable of being used in many kinds of fleets and not only shield. I have perfect fitting skills and I had to use a single ACR rig to plug in a massive 1600mm RT plate but it felt worth it.
My only real regret is to be less than 1 (one!!) powergrid shot of being able to fit 4x dual 180mm T2 and 2x rocket launcher T2... I wasn't even trying to fit cruiser sized missile launchers... It was the smallest I could chose while still appearing to be effecient.
I would hope players with maxed out fitting skills would be capable of fitting an easily available cruiser like the Stabber with the smallest guns and frigate launchers without the need of implants (already used 1 rig slot for PG) It is already out of the question to use gunnery rigs and I wasn't even thinking about neutralizers or cap booster. Implants should be for people without maxed skills or people who want bigger weapons hehe
Here is the setup I tried:
Dc2, 1600mm RT plate, double EANM Named MWD, double webifier, warp scrambler 4 x T2 dual 180mm + 2 x T2 Rocket launchers 1 x ACR rig + 2 x Trimark
trying to get a cheap stabber fleet issue eh... its bonus and lack of tank suggest its not a great idea. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
|
|
|