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
4433
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote: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.
Yup, your post is very welcome. Consider my reply a confirmation that those kinds of things are being thought about and that we welcome the discussion of them. Just don't want people to get the impression that we're limiting ourselves to these stat changes because of the fact that this is all we can announce at this time. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
672
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:04:00 -
[32] - Quote
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.
The Rifter isn't worse any anything else because of any metagame problems, it's worse than other frigates because it's statistically worse in pretty much every meaningful way. The fact that you aren't fixing the rifter in this change suggests you plan on doing it through "metagame changes" which is just not going to work. Unless you want to buff the Rifter's stats, aren't going to in this patch for some reason?
Why do you think the Breacher is bad? It has higher speed, competitive tank and only slightly worse DPS (that it can apply in full out to 10km) than other frigates in addition to full damage type selection.
The Punisher is already good, just not solo. If you give it a straight buff, it becomes overpowered in gangs. If you change the slot layout to give it 3 mids (the only thing making it a mediocre solo platform), then it becomes a Tormentor clone. |
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:04:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bagehi wrote: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.
All missiles ranges need a nerf especially rockets and HAMS... aswell as the TD, TE, TC changes. |
AyayaPanda
15 Minute Outliers Novus Dominatum
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:08:00 -
[34] - Quote
Capt ****** wrote:
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.
Well at least under certain circumstances the current Moros is a little bit too better than Rev:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=195124
Oh and you know the new Nag will be very useful, at killing Moros (Explosive hole) XD |
Seranova Farreach
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
431
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
i somewhat feel the nag could have been better to give it the choise of having 3 guns or 3 launchers insted of 2/2 or 3/1 but ill read further and see if this could work better. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1226
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:09:00 -
[36] - Quote
Since you're addressing the "Strengths of the Missile Speed fits"...
I really don't think they're that overpowered. The major issue is that people have to be ready to counter them. They're great guerrilla fleets, and they're very risky and very squishy in the long run.
We've lost a lot of Kessies in the last week running Kessie Kite fleets, but at the same time killed a lot in the face of overwhelming numbers. Does that seem unfair?
Well.. no. One time there was a sniper Cormorant hitting at 70-100 that was giving us a REALLY bad time in actually hurting his buddies. The fight was, no joke, 25 v 3. We killed a Griffin and a slasher because they were separating themselves and getting arrogant, and we lost a kestrel. We kept getting forced off the field when they were in a pack because they had an actual COUNTER ready - the Cormorant. And that's what made it a fun engagement. We realized we needed to make some modifications to counter the counter, and even then still had to be aware of other problems.
The issue isn't the missile kites, it's that people have to be more adaptive to counters. This is forcing the exact thing we want to see in fleets, more diversity. Bring anti-frigate ships, bring anti-snipe ships, bring anti-xyz ships.
You want to be ready? Then commit resources to being ready for the counter on the field. Otherwise, sit in the back of the pack with the amateurs. Where I am. |
Ashen Darksabre
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:18:00 -
[37] - 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?
They gotta keep the art department happy Blood. Can't demand anything too drastic like adding a turret hardpoint. A utility slot would be cool, but I don't see myself nos-ing much other than tackle, and we all know dreads that can take on tackle is OP. |
Vincent Gaines
Double-Down Transmission Lost
302
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the idea.
Didn't the art department just crank out 4 brand-spanking new ships? Didn't a fellow from the art department just do a Q&A and said they could easily do it?
I was under the impression the act of modifying a model to have another hardpoint was something that was along the lines of "old ccp" thinking.
This is a constructive question, in that in my limited knowledge of modeling and others' more advanced knowledge, that adding a hardpoint shouldn't be too difficult.
In fact, I believe a hardpoint on a ship was just recently modified. I'll take a minute to look up which ship that was. |
Antir
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:29:00 -
[39] - Quote
As a quick fix to the nag this is very nice, I don't care if it gets a 3rd turrent later or not it's great to finally lose the split weapons. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4434
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:31:00 -
[40] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the idea. Didn't the art department just crank out 4 brand-spanking new ships? Didn't a fellow from the art department just do a Q&A and said they could easily do it? I was under the impression the act of modifying a model to have another hardpoint was something that was along the lines of "old ccp" thinking. This is a constructive question, in that in my limited knowledge of modeling and others' more advanced knowledge, that adding a hardpoint shouldn't be too difficult. In fact, I believe a hardpoint on a ship was just recently modified. I'll take a minute to look up which ship that was. From the latest patch notes:: Quote: The locations of turrets on an Enyo have been changed to display properly.
One some ships its a lot easier than others. On the Ferox they were able to do it without too much trouble for Retri 1.1. For the Nag we evaluated the cost-benefit of changing the model vs adding the role bonus and decided the role bonus was the better stewardship of the time we have available.
It comes down to the fact that if we make the most efficient use of the time we have available we can make the best product possible for you all.
Edit: (and the Enyo as well) Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
369
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:31:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. One word : lazy.
Madracoon wrote:What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others? What about the new nag not needing cap to pew and having access to tracking-bonus ammos ? 'Not saying that the nag is becoming the new OP dread, but people needs to remember that the moros is the most cap-hungry dread of the game (yes, worst than a reve).
I think the new nag is fine. But a better solution would be to... change some numbers with the cap missiles. Explosion radius buff, explosion velocity buff, the nag model/stats don't need any modification and the phoenix/levie are playable.
Don't be lazy. |
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1227
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:32:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ashen Darksabre wrote: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?
They gotta keep the art department happy Blood. Can't demand anything too drastic like adding a turret hardpoint. A utility slot would be cool, but I don't see myself nos-ing much other than tackle, and we all know dreads that can take on tackle is OP.
HAAAAAI AAAAAAAAASHHH!!
I don't know what you're talking about, I'd be totally running Salvager Dread while blapping. Pro-PVP and ISK making!
I think we need more Utility High slot options honestly. That's another discussion for another day though...
Neut/Nos/Salvager/Auto-Target Module as the only options are a bit lackluster.
WTB more variety in the Utility High Slots! Where I am. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1076
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:36:00 -
[43] - Quote
Every 'change thread' there are invariably demands for a return of SP. To be honest most of us roll our eyes at those demands. However- when you get to capital ships- there really aren't too many options to use those skills elsewhere. I have citadel torps trained to lvl 5 and citadel cruise trained to lvl 4. I have no intention of training into a Phoenix and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat.
Also - you made the Tristan faster? That ship is borderline OP as is! |
Vincent Gaines
Double-Down Transmission Lost
302
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:37:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One some ships its a lot easier than others. On the Ferox they were able to do it without too much trouble for Retri 1.1. For the Nag we evaluated the cost-benefit of changing the model vs adding the role bonus and decided the role bonus was the better stewardship of the time we have available.
It comes down to the fact that if we make the most efficient use of the time we have available we can make the best product possible for you all.
Edit: (and the Enyo as well)
I understand, just it's easier to say the resource cost just isn't economically viable.
To be honest I like the change you've made- the only issue would be someone wanting to split fire but in a dread I don't see anyone with a brain ever doing that.
Can yo9 edit your first post also to reflect that the change will drop a high? for a while I was getting all excited over 3 utility highs.
Thanks, and you are doing god's work, son. |
Vincent Gaines
Double-Down Transmission Lost
302
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:40:00 -
[45] - Quote
Madracoon wrote:What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others?
Moros @ 30km vs Nag @ 30km, yes Moros @ 50km vs Nag @ 50km.... someone with time crunch that for me.
Remember you don't need to cloud lows with BCS anymore.
Nag also has best shield recharge time. I'm not going to say neuts won't hurt it, but it can hold up better than the moros which needs cap like a fat man needs McDonald's. |
Ava Starfire
Gradient Electus Matari
756
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:40:00 -
[46] - Quote
With regard to the frigate changes:
The Tormentor stats are appealing. Its a good ship; basically a slower rifter with a drone bay. After this, it should be a good matchup for the Tristan, and better able to deal with even some faction frigates like hookbills.
Punisher getting a small cap regen bonus at the expense of cap amount puzzles me, and feels like a change "just to change things". It still suffers from its poor speed, but post-round1 changes, it is much, much better than it was.
Tristan is fine. Why does it need more velocity and less mass? Its already probably the best stand-and-fight frigate, overall, in the T1 lineup. Solid tank, fitting, and generous drone bay. Why does it need to be faster? What does a droneboat have to chase down, exactly?
The Kestrel, Rifter, and Breacher changes just make me ask "what"? Why? is there an outcry regarding their armor and hull amounts? More armor is better than nothing, I guess, just not sure what purpose these changes have? A speed bonus, especially given the prevalence of Condors at the moment, if you intend to leave them as is (see below) would make more sense to me.
Also, seriously? Youre leaving the condor alone? Seriously? They are far, far more aggravating - and common - than Dramiels ever were.
Once again, these changes feel like theyre being implemented just so changes can be implemented. |
Ava Starfire
Gradient Electus Matari
756
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:45:00 -
[47] - 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.
Ahhh. Read whole thread, then post.
Ok, you know about lml stuff, and you recognize it. Hope fixes come soonGäó! |
Weasel Juice
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:48:00 -
[48] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:[quote=AyayaPanda] 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.
Confirming you are lying. The resist profile are practically the same, and in fact the Moros has a slightly better profile. Why? Well. Higher kinetic resistance because - guess what - ANTI MOROS.
In addition, if you really wanted to sacrifice a tank mod, it would the Moros. Why? Because with the massively superior damage and tracking at any given range (yes, ANY) the chances of finishing your job in one siege cycle less are much much better anyway, while the Revelation is more likely to derp around for extended periods. Also you are assuming a case where you are never being shot or neuted at. Pretty weak to use the "I can gtfo if nobody looks at me" argument here.
The only 3 advantages the Revelation has are:
It's pretty. It's not as crappy as the Nag or Phoenix at the moment. It does not use much ammo.
And these are not worth sacrificing much needed tracking and a whopping 60% damage at point black, and 25-30% damage at any comparable optimal/falloff over the Revelation.
But I have trust in Fozzies infinite wisdom - Moros will probably receive a significant nerf. Hopefully in terms of optimal range, since that's what the Blasters downside should be. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
149
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:52:00 -
[49] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. One word : lazy. Madracoon wrote:What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others? What about the new nag not needing cap to pew and having access to tracking-bonus ammos ? 'Not saying that the nag is becoming the new OP dread, but people needs to remember that the moros is the most cap-hungry dread of the game (yes, worst than a reve). I think the new nag is fine. But a better solution would be to... change some numbers with the cap missiles. Explosion radius buff, explosion velocity buff, the nag model/stats don't need any modification and the phoenix/levie are playable. Don't be lazy.
The model for a dread is a LOT bigger. It has a lot more vertices. Monkeying with larger wire frame models takes a lot more time and effort than smaller ones (like the Enyo). |
Vincent Gaines
Double-Down Transmission Lost
302
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Weasel Juice wrote: the massively superior damage and tracking at any given range (yes, ANY) the chances of finishing your job in one siege cycle less are much much better anyway, while the Revelation is more likely to derp around for extended periods. Also you are assuming a case where you are never being shot or neuted at. Pretty weak to use the "I can gtfo if nobody looks at me" argument here.
The only 3 advantages the Revelation has are:
It's pretty. It's not as crappy as the Nag or Phoenix at the moment. It does not use much ammo.
And these are not worth sacrificing much needed tracking and a whopping 60% damage at point black, and 25-30% damage at any comparable optimal/falloff over the Revelation.
But I have trust in Fozzies infinite wisdom - Moros will probably receive a significant nerf. Hopefully in terms of optimal range, since that's what the Blasters downside should be.
Sieged Phoenix vs a Moros at 60km the Phoenix will win every time, unless the pilot is an idiot.
edit: unless you are saying it's superior va the rev only
|
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Newbs Fighting Back
42
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 15:57:00 -
[51] - Quote
The main issue with T1 frigates right now is that the gap between frigates and T1 cruisers is larger than ever--even before the original frigate buffs--which seems to me counter-productive to the goal of helping newer players perform useful roles in PVP. This is because cruisers (and, I'd add, BCs) track frigates far too well. It needs to be quite a bit harder to track frigates in a bigger ship unless you are sporting small guns.
More specifically with the T1 frig re-re-balances, I think the tormentor and the tristan are the two strongest T1 frigs atm, and buffing them is probably unwise. Both can already field a massive tank for a T1 frig, have great DPS and damage projection, and a utility high. I would recommend not giving them velocity bonuses--their slow speed is the only thing that hurts them atm (and honestly the tormentor is not too slow as is). Both ships got a massive buff, in fact, with the armor tanking changes, allowing 400m plates to fit quite easily. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
149
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:00:00 -
[52] - Quote
Weasel Juice wrote:Bagehi wrote:[quote=AyayaPanda] 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.
Confirming you are lying. The resist profile are practically the same, and in fact the Moros has a slightly better profile. Why? Well. Higher kinetic resistance because - guess what - ANTI MOROS. In addition, if you really wanted to sacrifice a tank mod, it would the Moros. Why? Because with the massively superior damage and tracking at any given range (yes, ANY) the chances of finishing your job in one siege cycle less are much much better anyway, while the Revelation is more likely to derp around for extended periods. Also you are assuming a case where you are never being shot or neuted at. Pretty weak to use the "I can gtfo if nobody looks at me" argument here. The only 3 advantages the Revelation has are: It's pretty. It's not as crappy as the Nag or Phoenix at the moment. It does not use much ammo. And these are not worth sacrificing much needed tracking and a whopping 60% damage at point black, and 25-30% damage at any comparable optimal/falloff over the Revelation. But I have trust in Fozzies infinite wisdom - Moros will probably receive a significant nerf. Hopefully in terms of optimal range, since that's what the Blasters downside should be.
Sorry, it wasn't the resist profile, it was the slot count that made the difference. I was wrong. 7 lows on the Moros, 8 on the Rev. Allowing you to fit either additional tank or a CPR, which is a better increase in cap recharge than the mid-slot cap recharger alternative. Coupled with the 10%/level ship bonus to cap recharge, the Rev comes out of siege at around jump cap, while the Moros has to take time to cap up.
|
Rillek Ratseye
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
That Naglfar change could change the entire landscape of 0.0.
With these changes, a Arty Naglfar can alpha up to 90.000 depending on skills/fit.
With 277 Naglfars, you'll alpha a supercarrier every 19 seconds.....(+tidi factor!) (calculating with 25m EHP per super carrier)
Before you needed 416 Naglfars, but could add 2 large smartbombs to them, so they were untouchable by fighter bombers. (832 large smarties will destroy fighterbombers pretty fast...) Now you need a dedicated firewall against the fighter bombers, so the fight will not be completly one-sided. There is a fighting chance for both sides, and the sup-capital part of the fight will win/loose the fight.
With current Alpha fleet doctrines already out there, I bet this will happen.
People already fly Maelstrom fleets, so they have minnie BS trained. And Large arty. And this summer the entry is lowered to BS4 to start train minny dread.
Maybe this is an intended counter to Super Capital Online....?
I look forward to the change and the tears when the first super carrier gets torn apart in less than a second.
/Ratseye |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
229
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:17:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Full Naglfar changes are: New Fixed Role Bonus: +50% Capital Projectile Weapon Damage -2 High Slots -2 Launcher Slots -144000 Powergrid -180 CPU
this just leaves the phoenix as the only pure and utter **** dread Official CSM 8 Campaign HQ * Unforgiven Storm for CSM8 * My Blog
|
Lydia vanPersie
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
[notadreadpilot]
The new naglfar looks significantly better, but capital missiles are currently complete rubbish. They're useless as a POS module due to the CPU requirement, and on a Phoenix it can be speed-tanked by an armor BS or even a triage carrier that's getting bumps from a fleetmate. Citadel missiles need an exp radius buff (not sure what happenned with increasing it in the last rebalance), an exp. velocity buff so that they could hit a non-triaged Archon for at least 85% damage and a reduced time of flight/increased velocity so that it could actually hit the primary target. The Phoenix really ought to get selectable damage types, and in addition to having the velocity/radius penalty removed from the siege module, should have sieged/unsieged changes handles like a Stealth Bomber cloaking, not hitting for for 0 damage regardless.
[/notadreadpilot] |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
556
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:25:00 -
[56] - Quote
Lydia vanPersie wrote:[notadreadpilot]
The new naglfar looks significantly better, but capital missiles are currently complete rubbish. They're useless as a POS module due to the CPU requirement, and on a Phoenix it can be speed-tanked by an armor BS or even a triage carrier that's getting bumps from a fleetmate. Citadel missiles need an exp radius buff (not sure what happenned with increasing it in the last rebalance), an exp. velocity buff so that they could hit a non-triaged Archon for at least 85% damage and a reduced time of flight/increased velocity so that it could actually hit the primary target. The Phoenix really ought to get selectable damage types, and in addition to having the velocity/radius penalty removed from the siege module, should have sieged/unsieged changes handles like a Stealth Bomber cloaking, not hitting for for 0 damage regardless.
[/notadreadpilot]
There's a funny thing about citadel missiles and the GMP changes - Fozzie was insistent that GMP would apply to subcapital missiles only - "Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles". But something may have gone wrong; when I checked last month, GMP and Rigours were affecting citadel missiles on the test server, giving citadel torps/cruise explosion radii of 1500 m and 1313 m - even EFT agrees too!
I didn't check TQ because I wasn't going to waste money on a Phoenix though - even with GMP affecting them, they're still pointless. |
Vincent Gaines
Double-Down Transmission Lost
302
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Full Naglfar changes are: New Fixed Role Bonus: +50% Capital Projectile Weapon Damage -2 High Slots -2 Launcher Slots -144000 Powergrid -180 CPU
this just leaves the phoenix as the only pure and utter **** dread
It's not complete crap, it's very good against sieged caps as long as they're stationary, and has an amazing tank.
All it'd need is a tiny tweak to explosion velocity and it'll be stellar. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
33
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
I'm not sure why this took three ******* pages, but is the Naglfar going to compensate in the fact that it only needs to fit two guns to deal almost as much damage as the Moros and more damage than the Revelation do with three? Cost / efficiency is skewed here. One gun less to fit and 33% less ammo to use, it seems unfair. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
556
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:33:00 -
[59] - Quote
Vincent Gaines wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Full Naglfar changes are: New Fixed Role Bonus: +50% Capital Projectile Weapon Damage -2 High Slots -2 Launcher Slots -144000 Powergrid -180 CPU
this just leaves the phoenix as the only pure and utter **** dread It's not complete crap, it's very good against sieged caps as long as they're stationary, and has an amazing tank.
Its performance against stationary caps is considerably inferior to Moros and new Naglfar. The kinetic-only damage bonus is easily made worthless by in-combat refitting (this really should be all-damage-types). It's only arguably better at hitting other caps than the Revelation, and even there the raw DPS figures are very similar, it's only the Rev's awful damage types vs. generic armour caps that gives the Phoenix an advantage.
It's usable against other caps, but there's no reason to fly it really. |
Luscius Uta
Unleashed' Fury Forsaken Federation
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 16:42:00 -
[60] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: 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!"
Unless CCP applies the same principle to other 3 dreads it's not going to be a good idea. Because capital projectile turrets don't need capacitor and can do any type damage I sense Naglfar is going to be OP (no, I don't want it to stay sucky, just balanced...same goes for Phoenix). |
|
|
|
|
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 |