|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the fear of being burned alive what needs to be done is a change to the fitting needs of LSE. I do agree though that if it is tight to fit a rax with ions and a 800 plate this might need to be changed. The biggest help to everything would be to make it harder to fit LSE to sub BS ships. As they way it is now they are way to easy to fit to everything. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Just realized rail thorax will actually be great.
Go wash your mouth out with soap after saying something a vulgar as that. LMAO I hope one day rails will be good. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:On first glance the Caracal changes looked a bit flacid. Where other already exceptional cruisers become still more epic, the Caldari joke boat would only become useable.
After reading the proposed missile changes I see now that this initial impression was in error. The Caracal will end up worse off than it is today -- a cruiser pushing the DPS of a T1 frigate.
Try putting HAMS on this and see if it is still a Joke. With the HM on it you can hit out to 90k with ~250 DPS in any damage type. This is not the DPS of a T1 frig. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Dan Carter Murray wrote:how to make 800 plates slightly worth using?
increase mass addition of 1600 plates to at least 2x 800 plate mass (2,750,000 kg current, 3,750,000 kg proposed). Yes because what EVE needs is slower armor cruisers fit with 1600mm plates. If they removed or made unfittible the 1600mm plate the effect would be no one using 800mm plates as current or the armor ships they go on unless they can jigger up a shield fit. The problem is not 1600mm plates being too good, it is a mix of armor balance and 800mm giving low HP. 1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.
There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: 1600mm plates are oversized. Oversized modules are often the cause of various problems that we have come to accept as the norm.
And I have written positively everywhere that that is the case. I did not say 1600mm Plates should stay as Cruiser Mods, just that as current removing them from the equation will not help 800mm plates get put into practical use period. MIrple wrote: There is much truth in this. If it was harder to fit oversized plates on every ship more ships would be used because the EHP differences wouldn't be as large between ships and make more ships viable.
Yes because Cruisers that are fit with 1600mm plates being terrible the obvious solution is to nerf them further, that will make them more used. Cutting their HP close to in half is not the solution. Making 800mm Plates worth it to fit and fixing the core tanking imbalance is.
I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:There is nothing wrong with the HP bonus from each plate, the T2 plates each offer 3x the thickness in HP bonus and each plate is 2x thicker than the last, the problem comes in where the mass addition from each "group" of plates. 50mm 100mm frigate size plates mass addition is OK, 200mm and 400mm cruiser size plates need 1,000,000 kg added to each, 800mm and 1600mm each need 10,000,000kg added to the as they are battleship size plates. The fitting requirements are OK for what they do.
Your joking right? If you are serious then what about shield extenders they must be severely broken as they can be fit multiple times to cruisers and it is difficult to fit 1 1600 to most cruisers. 800 mm are cruiser sized plates.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:46:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:MIrple wrote:I dont think a slight buff to HP and a little lowering of mass on the 800's would be that game breaking while still making them more attractive then the current situation. Maybe small buff to eight-hundreds would be fine but what about sixteen-hundreds then? I feels like this is the same situation like with HMLs vs other medium LRs. You are forced to buffer tank everything if you want to use armour because active is so terrible on most platforms in most cases. The problem being that some hulls simply have no synergy with armour buffer because of huge mobility loss. Making active viable could really change that picture for good and give us real options in that area. But I'm just biased. I active tank almost everything on armour and then die in flames few seconds after.
What could be done to make active tanking more attractive is giving active tanking ships resist bonuses so we can have fewer actual HP but still more EHP that way we can still broadcast in time for reps. While the passive or buffer tanking ships could get a bonus to HP so they have more HP to buffer to allow for reps. You would need to lower the pg on active tanking ships so they couldn't add the plates to make up for this and still keep them fast and agile while the HP bonuses ships could have more PG to fit the plates as they are slower already. Probably not a good idea but this makes more sense to me as in fleets local tank is just not realistic. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
Wivabel wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:MIrple wrote: I am agreeing with you there have been numerous times when people say you cant join cause that ship cant fit a 1600 plate. This needs to be changed. Now maybe 800 need a boost to HP I'm not sure but 1600 works well on BS so I don't think they need to be changed.
A small HP boost would be good, right now they get a very anemic 2400 HP T2 with severe mass penalties. If their HP was driven up to say 2800-3000 for T2 that would put them into the realm of viable on ships that currently need an ACR but no longer would. The excess fitting allowing a combination of higher guns and a 3rd Trimark giving them a respectable middle. Still would not make them good though, lowering the mass of 800mm's to a static 137500o like Meta 4's get and changing Armor Rig Penalties or removing them would. The end result would be reasonable HP buffers around 30-35k EHP with speed and Dmg making up the difference while being slower then Shield Ships they would have a good mix of tank, tackle and Dmg. But that is just my take on it. I don't know, I always imagined buffer tankers as slow and clumsy and lifting those penalties is something I don't agree with. Active tank on the other hand really needs a rework. Lifting rig penalties for it and making it plain better than it is now is the way to go I think. slow buffer without cap reliance vs fast active with cap reliance Both options should be viable ( just with different setups ) But that is just my take on it. Damnit forum ate my post TLDR removing rig penaltiies (using skills) would allow player skills and fit to decide the performance of a ship. shield is already faster and more agile with better damage projection. If I want to fit my armor ship with speed rigs don't penalize me 2 times first by me not fitting trimarks and then by having a darn penalty. LOL penalize
Yes this should take away hull points not armor points. It would go more inline with nanos that way also.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
I am very excited to get to try all these great ships. Roaming around null in T1 gang killing everyone will be a blast. The only thing that will be a pain is that clones will cost more then the ships. :( |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sgt Napalm wrote:It would appear that the Thorax is being set up for modules which currently do not exist in the game. Interesting.
Can you expand on this line of thinking? Are you referring to the Micro Jump Drive? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
Martin0 wrote:Martin0 wrote: Fozzie. Give us more powergrid. NOW.
Armor tanking a ship that is supposed to go fast, is stupid.
You dont really gain much from the TE if you change it out for a RCII you can fit Neutrons and have the same range as you did with your Ions plus tracking. You will lose a little in the tracking but you are going to be on top of it so it shouldn't matter. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Deerin wrote: If you are planning to use blasters your effective range will be very low. This means you'll go into brawling range. In that case you could use scram instead of long point. also if you are planningto go for a brawl you might want to check viabiltiy of XL-ASB with electrons here.
If you are planning to dictate range by staying beyond 15k range, you should check the rails.
I put T2 long point to show that it has a room for it. I agree that in most cases scram will perform better on blaster boat. Exterminatus Illexis wrote: Go take a look at some of the passive drake loss mails, some of them have taken more damage than capital ships. Drakes can get absurd levels of tank for a battle-cruiser, my PVE drake gets 90k EHP in just the shields. Edit: I should probably say that thing is buffer fit. And no I wasn't talking about EHP recharge, that nears 1k if you get the resists right but you have to sacrifice a bit of resists in order to get a point on there.
There are NO passive buffer fit that regenerate 500 shield HP per seconds. It's not possible in Eve online unless you are talking about some absurd 5b worth fit with Titan bonus, Shield links, +5 implants etc.
This is a brick fit. It can tank 855 DPS a second. Yes I know its not the pure recharge rate but I think this is what people are talking about. Yes I know it does poor damage also.
[Drake, Brick]
Damage Control II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II Shield Power Relay II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II Heavy Missile Launcher II [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I Medium Core Defense Field Purger I Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 15:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hope your still reading this CCP Foozie.
I love the changes to these cruisers. Has there been any talk about changing rig penalties? If on the rigs that give a resistance bonus or a bonus to rep amount I think it should come with a lessened drawback. This would make sense as your not adding any mass or size to the ship unlike CDFE or Trimarks. This would go a long way in helping Gallente ships be able to close in and catch other races.
Also on the Astronautics rigs why do they take away from the armor wouldn't it make more sense to take away from the Hull? Lets not make flying Gal or Amarr ship dual penalized.
Just a thought |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 15:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Zhephell wrote:CCP Fozzie, i suppose that you ll be paying much more attention with the missiles, but i have a question about the omen. I think the new omen is cool, it has a nice fitting now, but i don't understand the 5% rate of fire bonus, i mean. Why not a 5% damage bonus? I can understand a 5% of rate of fire in a ship with missiles or projectile weapons, but a ship with lasers with a 5% rate of fire, like the omen, or the armageddon... It is a ship that has a bonus of 10% to the turret capacitor use, and on the other hand a 5% rate of fire, that is the same that use a 25% more cap with your turrets to do a 25% more dps, at the same time you use 50% less capacitor with your turrets to be able to fit lasers. I think it's a contradiction, it ll have more sense to put a 5% damage bonus like many gallente ships. Or maybe I should think that amarr engineers haven't common sense?
You do get a better DSP increase with ROF opposed to Damage Increase but I think you have a good point on this. Also the Damage Increase would give it a higher alpha if you are going beam. So maybe not a bad idea. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
126
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
serras bang wrote:really another ship with velocity to missle why ? especialy now that the heavy missle recieved a nerf and that of the fury in dmg potential i mean really ? is there any point in flying missle boats any more ?
Run the numbers on the ship before you post something like this. New Caracal will be able to hit at 90k doing roughly the same amount of damage it currently doe in Kin but with all missile types. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
Using EVE HQ I was able to put the new ship stats in and have a peek at the new Caracal. I really like how it all works out the only question I have is. Will there be a CPU PG change on the HAM system and will there be any increase in the DPS of HAMS as well. A dual BCU HAM Caracal tops out at 350 DSP. This is a little anemic compared to the other close range weapon systems. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:51:00 -
[18] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: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.
Dont you dare touch how they have this ship set up. I have 2 fits that work perfectly with the bonuses. If you don't believe me put together a Shield 200mm Rail Rax. It can kite at 2200m/s and hit for around 400 dps. It is going to own :)
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
143
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
Nyancat Audeles wrote:Still no word on how Navy or T2 ships will be buffed in response to these buffs?
Soon. They have said they will get to them after BC and BS are done hold your cookies. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 18:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Meldorn Vaash wrote:Johnny Bloomington wrote:Meldorn Vaash wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Meldorn Vaash wrote: even without drones cruiser can be fit to kill every frigs easily -While I agree with you in regards to capability, not everyone wants to fit and fly cruisers as dedicated frig killers. As you mentioned, we have destroyers for that.
the only attack cruiser with a drone bay should be the vexor because its a gallente boat (even the talos got one). omen, stabber and caracal should be without. I'm assuming you meant the Thorax when referencing Attack Cruiser. Beyond stating "it's Gallente", why does the Thorax need still drones then? What makes it the exception? In that case if you minus the drones then add another gun to the Thorax. - Thorax doesn't need another gun. It already puts out almost double the DPS and volley damage of the Stabber, Omen, and Caracal. And that without throwing drones into the mix. I agree with your 5th gun for the Stabber, however the fact that the Thorax has drones at all is the fact that it is a Gallente ship and they are the predominant drone race. I'm totally happy to reduce its drone bay from 50m3 to 25m3 to facilitate use of light fast drones, keeping with the hit and run theme. Also removing the drone bay from the Stabber, Caracal and Omen. - If that's the case, then the Thorax should rely on its drones for damage and not its guns. Drop the gun damage bonus and replace it for drone damage and keep its current bay size. You can't have it both ways.
The thorax can only do high damage at point blank range. |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
160
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 15:39:00 -
[21] - Quote
Looking at the numbers I would not be against giving the stabber 25m3 drone bay or 5% ROF to launchers
|
|
|
|