Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4421
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello gentlepilots! It's once again time to start soliciting feedback on more ship balance changes! We'll be starting off our Summer lineup gently with some proposed tweaks to a few of the previously adjusted T1 frigates and a change to the Naglfar that was frankly a long time coming (and that I didn't want to create a whole new sticky for).
Naglfar I'll start us off with the Nag change. Many of you know that in the past CCP has expressed a desire to remove the outdated and very annoying split weapon systems on the Naglfar Dreadnaught, but that fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the idea. Instead of requiring a complete redesign of the classic Naglfar hull to do our rebalancing, or waiting until our comprehensive Dread rebalance to touch this most glaring flaw, CCP Ytterbium decided that we'd get the job done using the tools available to us.
So we're removing both the two launcher hardpoints from the Nag, and replacing them with a fixed +50% Capital Projectile Weapon damage role bonus that puts the two-turreted Nag on roughly equal footing with its three turret peers. We're also removing some fitting to compansate for no longer needing the launchers fitted (although in practice this is fairly insignificant). You can expect us to swap the capital launchers for capital turrets in the build requirements at some point soonish (same way as we did for the Ragnarok) but I unfortunately cannot guarantee that the build requirement changes will happen at exactly the same time as the ship stat and bonus changes.
Full Naglfar changes are: New Fixed Role Bonus: +50% Capital Projectile Weapon Damage -2 High Slots -2 Launcher Slots -144000 Powergrid -180 CPU
Frigates And onwards to the frigate tweaks! Overall we're very happy with how the frigate changes have worked out so far. The gap between the best and worst frigates is massively smaller than it was pre-Inferno. Although it will take more time to fully see these ships settle into the metagame, there are some small changes we can make in the medium-term to help smooth out a few rough edges.
Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
Summary:
EXECUTIONER: +50 Armor
TORMENTOR: +1 PWG +50 Armor +25 Capacitor +12.5 Cap Recharge Time Cap/s unchanged +15 Velocity +0.05 Agility -100000 Mass -0.24s Align time
PUNISHER: -25 Capacitor -32.5s Cap Recharge Time +0.222 Cap/s
KESTREL: +50 Hull
TRISTAN: +15 Veloity -150000 Mass -0.48s Align time
RIFTER: +50 Armor
BREACHER: +50 Hull
Entire ship stats:
EXECUTIONER: Frigate skill bonuses: -10% to small energy turret capacitor use and +5% small energy turret damage per level Role bonus: 80% reduction in Propulsion Jamming systems activation cost Slot layout: 4H, 3M, 3L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 45 PWG, 140 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 250 / 450 (+50) / 350 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 360 / 180 s / 2 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 410 / 2.85 / 1090000 / 2.91s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / scan resolution / max locked targets): 27.5km / 920 / 4 Sensor strength: 8 Radar Signature radius: 31 Cargo capacity: 115
TORMENTOR: Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small energy turret damage and -10% to small energy turret capacitor use per level Slot layout: 3H, 3M, 4L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers. Fittings: 50 (+1) PWG, 130 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350 / 500 (+50) / 400 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 425 (+25) / 212.5 s (+12.5) / 2 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 335 (+15) / 3.1 (+0.05) / 1080000 (-100000) / 3.13 s (-0.24) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 620 / 4 Sensor strength: 9 Radar Signature radius: 35
PUNISHER: Frigate skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage and 5% bonus to armor resistances per skill level Slot layout: 4H, 2M, 4L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 55 PWG, 124 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350 / 500 / 450 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 400 (-25) / 180 s (-32.5s) / 2.222 (+0.222) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 330 / 3.35 / 1047000 / 3.28 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 25km / 640 / 4 Sensor strength: 9 Radar Signature radius: 37
KESTREL: Caldari Frigate bonuses: +5% to missile damage and +10% to missile velocity per level Slot layout: 4H, 4M, 2L; 0 turrets, 4 launchers Fittings: 45 PWG, 180 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 500 / 350 / 400 (+50) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 330 / 165 s / 2 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 320 / 3.27 / 1163000 / 3.56 s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 620 / 5 Sensor strength: 11 Gravimetric Signature radius: 38
TRISTAN: Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level Slot layout: 3H, 3M, 3L; 2 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 35 PWG, 130 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull): 350 / 450 / 650 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 350 / 175 s / 2 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 325 (+15) / 3.44 / 956000 (-150000) / 3.08 s (-0.48) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 40 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 600 / 5 Sensor strength: 9 Magnetometric Signature radius: 41
RIFTER: Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level Slot layout: 4H, 3M, 3L; 3 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 37 PWG, 125 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 450 / 450 (+50) / 350 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 25... Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1224
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Quick Naglfar Comments ::
Ok, so you still get the double dps bonus for the Nag hull, correct?
On a separate note on the Nag...
There was a fringe case using the Naglfar, because it had 5 high slots... and that the launchers weren't actually bonused... you could drop one launcher, and lets say... use a Neut, or a NOS or something else.
Would you be interested in doing -1 high slot, and leaving the utility slot on the Naglfar - something that Minmatar hulls do have a tendency of having anyways?
Where I am. |
Imperium Romanus
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
19
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Excellent - room for a covert cyno now on the Nag :D
No need for a siege module! |
Krell Kroenen
Miner Intimidation
125
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
The Naglfar changes are rather underwhelming, but an improvement none the less. But I wouldn't go and say it's on equal footing with the Moros. And I find it cute that the rifter was given 50 armor. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4422
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Quick Naglfar Comments ::
Ok, so you still get the double dps bonus for the Nag hull, correct?
On a separate note on the Nag...
There was a fringe case using the Naglfar, because it had 5 high slots... and that the launchers weren't actually bonused... you could drop one launcher, and lets say... use a Neut, or a NOS or something else.
Would you be interested in doing -1 high slot, and leaving the utility slot on the Naglfar - something that Minmatar hulls do have a tendency of having anyways?
Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.
As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Madracoon
Swift Redemption Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4318
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Madracoon wrote:What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others? Because blasters? Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
556
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 13:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
For the Naglfar could you consider biasing the armor/shields towards armor and/or adding an additional low slot.
I ask this because it cannot have escaped your notice that shield capitals in pvp are on the verge of going the way of the dodo - probably already deceased in your former alma mater. There are enough pilots and ships to impose doctrines to this - and as armor based capitals have had the best stats (armor and damage versus shield and ????) the doctrine will be armor based. The current best use for a Nidhoggur is in triage, repping a POS.
A Naglfar without an armor tank will be as welcome in a capital fleet as a Mael would be in an Abbadon fleet irrespective of the changes you are making here. |
Robert Harrison
Aperture Harmonics K162
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots.
Citadel Torps are amazing at anti-structure and anti-capital warfare. They just suck for blapping. |
|
Madracoon
Swift Redemption Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Madracoon wrote:What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others? Because blasters? The capital turrets are all pretty balanced. They don't really have a short range like the sub cap blasters so the extra DPS isn't making up for much. |
Gheyna
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
78
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
give the nag one more low and remove a mid or 2 so we can armor tank it :D
Its good that you remove the torps btw |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't have anything to comment about frigate changes, but the way you fixed the issue with Naglfar seems like just hiding stuff under the carpet to me. Of course, it would be perfect if Naglfar had 3 turret slot like all other dreads. Are your graphical designers too lazy to change the ship's model to accomodate this? But you changed the Megathron model some time ago, even though it wasn't an ugly ship.
However, I wouldn't mind having split weapon systems on Naglfar it if its launcher slots had any bonus, in that case I would change ship's bonuses to this:
10% to capital projectile turret damage (or rate of fire) per level 10% to citadel missile explosion velocity per level
Also, siege module should have its penalty to explosion velocity removed. You already did the same with tracking. Penalties to scan resolution and number of lockable targets are also rather annoying.
On a related note, capital turrets have rather pathetic sounds, way underwhelming for such devastating weapons of mass destruction. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
556
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Robert Harrison wrote:Gypsio III wrote:What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots. Citadel Torps are amazing at anti-structure and anti-capital warfare. They just suck for blapping.
While they're certainly usable there, do they have any serious advantage over turrets in the anti-structure/capital roles? Because if not, then there's no reason to use them instead of turrets, which also work fine in those roles (hence my cunning edit from "useless" to "pointless"). Selectable damage could be an advantage, but the Phoenix is constrained by the kinetic-only bonus.
Also regarding Naglfar lowslots - I don't think the solution to problems of shield caps involves removing them. |
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Quote:We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
Now see, without a glimpse into these meta changes I can hardly comment on the frig changes, except that the rifter needs more of your love. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1224
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
Your fix for the Breacher is adding hull?
The fitting is so tight on a lot of the higher end fits, that running a damage control is almost not an option, so adding hull doesn't really enhance your survival that much at all.
It seems that in order to not make the minmatar ships "compete" with the caldari missile boats, you're shaving them back way too much honestly. I see this happen in many ways for the Breacher, Talwar, Bellicose and Claymore. I get that they're not supposed to be the "king" of it... but, seriously, they will always be glossed over as you move them forward in favor of Caldari unless you really find a space for them on the battlefield.
And hull isn't going to make that happen.
The real issue for the Breacher at the moment is that the Medium Ancillary Shield booster is the only REAL answer for a tank using the shield bonus on it, and because the ASB's last rebalance really didn't "fix" the ASB (and broke it in ways expected)... Running 1 MASB Should be enough for ONE FIGHT for a Solo breacher, but instead it's not quite good enough. So you're forced to run 2 MASB's, which really makes it hard to fit a creative setup on a Breacher to survive and use that shield bonus. (i.e. scram, web, MASB, AB, kite short range at 8km from turret boats, and hope to survive).
IMHO, fix ASB's = fix Breacher. Add Navy Cap Booster 50's = Fix Breacher
To highlight the situation... We've been running Kite Kestrels in packs of 10 lately. And early on, one person asked me, "how about we make a breacher version? and I went... "Meh" I'm a huge MInmatar fan. But, immediately, the Breacher is going to be left in the dust with the Kestrel pack.
So, Lets compare the Breacher to the Caldari sibling, the Kestrel.
If I take almost exactly similar kite fits, minus one launcher... and +1 low slot.
At max skills, The Breacher has about 13 less powergrid than the kestrel... obviously this is to account for the fact it has one less launcher... however the irony is I end up being 3 powergrid short to fit a similar fit to the Kestrel. So, inevitably, the two / rig Low slots which SHOULD BE GOING to make a unique creative setup for the Breacher, end up being forced to be fitting modules. So, ok, you say :: Well, we don't want the breacher to be "another kestrel". Fine.
Then, why does a Breacher with an MASB vs a Kestrel with an MASB only get (According to EFT) an unimpressive 20 effective repair better, and how does that make it tactically more viable?
It doesn't add anything. It can't shoot as far, about half its DPS damage comes from its drone damage, but inevitably insignificant in the Alpha volley environment. It will get swarmed when we go up against packs of 30+ frigates which we try and target if we make it a "short range brawly interceptor to save a kestrel" fit.
The only way I'd roll a Breacher kite fleet is if we get enough of them that we have about 20+ warrior II's that could swarm one target while we take another one out with alpha. But, the fitting is so grossly tight on CPU and Powergrid, I'd struggle to get the locking range, the damage projection and the EWAR in place to make me comfortable with it.
I'm going to try a Breacher Kite fleet this week and get back to you on that one. However... I really think you need to tweak a few of the decisions on fitting ability a tiny bit more.
If I remember, didn't the T1 Minmatar ships shields used to get a SLIGHT EM resist of like 5-10%? Whatever happened to that? Or am I delusional? Where I am. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4320
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:I don't have anything to comment about frigate changes, but the way you fixed the issue with Naglfar seems like just hiding stuff under the carpet to me. Of course, it would be perfect if Naglfar had 3 turret slot like all other dreads. Are your graphical designers too lazy to change the ship's model to accomodate this? But you changed the Megathron model some time ago, even though it wasn't an ugly ship. Someone like you says it would be nice if there were a third turret because of the graphics. A Naglfar pilot says "SWEET! My guns work better and only require half the ammo as before!" Malcanis for CSM 8 Module activation timers are buggy - CCP please fix |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
556
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:33:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:If I remember, didn't the T1 Minmatar ships shields used to get a SLIGHT EM resist of like 5-10%? Whatever happened to that? Or am I delusional?
You're delusional I'm afraid. The racial resist thingy on T1 ships only ever applied to armour resists, not shields. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
149
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:For the Naglfar could you consider biasing the armor/shields towards armor and/or adding an additional low slot.
I ask this because it cannot have escaped your notice that shield capitals in pvp are on the verge of going the way of the dodo - probably already deceased in your former alma mater. There are enough pilots and ships to impose doctrines to this - and as armor based capitals have had the best stats (armor and damage versus shield and ????) the doctrine will be armor based. The current best use for a Nidhoggur is in triage, repping a POS.
A Naglfar without an armor tank will be as welcome in a capital fleet as a Mael would be in an Abbadon fleet irrespective of the changes you are making here.
Shield capitals are going the way of the dodo because the ships are bad. It has nothing to do with the tank. Nag isn't used much because of the horrible split weapon, Phoenix is rarely used because good luck hitting anything with citadel missiles. Fix those two issues and people will use them again (let's not forget the Phoenix fleets of old).
|
AyayaPanda
15 Minute Outliers Novus Dominatum
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.
As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers.
Hmm do you mean the
Incoming 5% ROF 5% dmg of Nag? : http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com/author/serpentinelogic/
Okay so
New Nag: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level
Current Moros: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level
Current Revelation: 10% cap 5% dmg per level
Would Moros and Nag out-dps Rev a little bit too much? How about give Reva fixed bonus (-40% or -50% cap usage), and 5% ROF 5% dmg per level as well? or 10% cap 7.5%~10%dmg per level? (ROF is little better than flat dmg, right?)
Me no dread pilot though. |
|
mr passie
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
with the naglfar changes something in my pants feels vertical
|
Yankunytjatjara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
47
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame. Would you please try to be more specific if possible? The rifter is suffering from the comparison with the slasher, which already has less tank, and adding some tank wouldn't really help when the bar is set by the incursus and punisher... Minnies simply have to go back to their ganky origins, and copy from the rupture the double damage to weapons for the rifter!! Some more alpha and you kill all the pesky drones quickly, then who needs tank ;-) tactical overview option for solo/small gangs: Ship Velocity Vectors - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=599319 |
Luteros
Cronos Titan Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:45:00 -
[23] - Quote
Regarding the Naglfar changes: + No split weapons + No low-slots wasted for Ballistic Control Systems + Damage of three guns / Ammo use of two
Sounds like a good start to me |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4431
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:46:00 -
[24] - Quote
Going to requote one paragraph from the OP that is important, even while apologizing for the fact that it is necessarily vague at this time.
Quote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Going to requote one paragraph from the OP that is important, even while apologizing for the fact that it is necessarily vague at this time. Quote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
does this include nerfing the range of rockets? |
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
AyayaPanda wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.
As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers.
Hmm do you mean the Incoming 5% ROF 5% dmg of Nag? : http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com/author/serpentinelogic/Okay so New Nag: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level Current Moros: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level Current Revelation: 10% cap 5% dmg per level Would Moros and Nag out-dps Rev a little bit too much? How about give Reva fixed bonus (-40% or -50% cap usage), and 5% ROF 5% dmg per level as well? or 10% cap 7.5%~10%dmg per level? (ROF is little better than flat dmg, right?) Me no dread pilot though.
Ok - so somewhat happier about the Nag now .. but again, lets not get too excited. Overall, its shield doctrine that makes Minnie and Caldari suck somehwhat, but as a change its fine. Turret damage? Rev has damn good range and tracking, with no reloads. It doesnt need more damage imho. Blasters get the DPS but range is their issue at max damage, and the midpoint is Projectile with falloff.
Of course, I wasted skillpoints on Capital Missiles .. if only the changes came with a chance to shift them specifically to Cap Projectiles.
|
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
517
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Thank you fozzie for correcting part of the Naglfar, it is one step closer to actually becoming viable.
Unfortunately though the tank slots you've given it are just not enough to keep it, as you say, "In-Line" with the other Dreads. It does need either an extra mid/low depending on how CCP want to see this Naglfar used. Or maybe +1 to both to give it the variety most minmatar ships have. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
149
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:56:00 -
[28] - Quote
AyayaPanda wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.
As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers.
Hmm do you mean the Incoming 5% ROF 5% dmg of Nag? : http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com/author/serpentinelogic/Okay so New Nag: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level Current Moros: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level Current Revelation: 10% cap 5% dmg per level Would Moros and Nag out-dps Rev a little bit too much? How about give Reva fixed bonus (-40% or -50% cap usage), and 5% ROF 5% dmg per level as well? or 10% cap 7.5%~10%dmg per level? (ROF is little better than flat dmg, right?) Me no dread pilot though.
Moros does more damage, Revelation doesn't use ammo. Rev also has better base resists, so you can sacrifice a tank mod for a cap mod, leaving you with a ship that can exit siege, after shooting, at around jump cap (unlike the Moros). There is a good trade off between the two ships.
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1225
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Going to requote one paragraph from the OP that is important, even while apologizing for the fact that it is necessarily vague at this time. Quote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
I understand, I'm just tackling the discussion that you're obviously hinting at...
Unless you expect me to focus only on the +50 hull bonus?
I'm sure we could have a long night of alcohol induced debate and in-depth mathematical invocations over the pros and cons value of +50 hull...
Or we can talk about how we can address the next issue at hand. Where I am. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
149
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:59:00 -
[30] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Going to requote one paragraph from the OP that is important, even while apologizing for the fact that it is necessarily vague at this time. Quote:Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
Incoming nerf to light missile range? It would make sense considering how overwhelmingly powerful Talwars are currently. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |