Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
682
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:18:00 -
[481] - Quote
If you think the Talos is a better 100 km sniper than the Naga, then you're madder than that notorious madman, Mad Jack McMad. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:36:00 -
[482] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:If you think the Talos is a better 100 km sniper than the Naga, then you're madder than that notorious madman, Mad Jack McMad.
Better damage potential and better tracking at 100km. I am saying exactly that because it is. On top of that, it is also a faster ship, that can use a small flight of drones. So if a frig manages to point you, that flight of ECM drones can potentially save your butt..
Yes, the Talos is a better sniper unless you are sniping from 250 out which is still suicide with probers these days.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
682
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:44:00 -
[483] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:If you think the Talos is a better 100 km sniper than the Naga, then you're madder than that notorious madman, Mad Jack McMad. Better damage potential and better tracking at 100km. I am saying exactly that because it is.
Alright, post your fit, and I'll post a superior Naga. This should be entertaining. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8891
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:51:00 -
[484] - Quote
The Talos is a great ship, but it's made for Blasters, not rails. Naga easily outclasses it as a sniper.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:55:00 -
[485] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:If you think the Talos is a better 100 km sniper than the Naga, then you're madder than that notorious madman, Mad Jack McMad. Better damage potential and better tracking at 100km. I am saying exactly that because it is. Alright, post your fit, and I'll post a superior Naga. This should be entertaining.
What fit needs to be posted. The Talos gets more low slots, has higher damage potential and a huge tracking bonus to which the naga does not.
So if you add all that up and then top it off with a flight of ECM for SHTF moments, then its a no brainer.
Alll you are doing is trying to justify an inferior ship when its obvious the Gallente version at 100km is superior. That is also including hitting smaller and faster targets that would be on the way to intercept you.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
683
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:00:00 -
[486] - Quote
If it's that obvious, it should be easy for you to post fits. Come on, don't get all wobbly now... |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
131
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:00:00 -
[487] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:If you think the Talos is a better 100 km sniper than the Naga, then you're madder than that notorious madman, Mad Jack McMad. Better damage potential and better tracking at 100km. I am saying exactly that because it is. Alright, post your fit, and I'll post a superior Naga. This should be entertaining. What fit needs to be posted. The Talos gets more low slots, has higher damage potential and a huge tracking bonus to which the naga does not. So if you add all that up and then top it off with a flight of ECM for SHTF moments, then its a no brainer. Alll you are doing is trying to justify an inferior ship when its obvious the Gallente version at 100km is superior. That is also including hitting smaller and faster targets that would be on the way to intercept you. I have no words to describe just how wrong you are |
Hagika
LEGI0N
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:22:00 -
[488] - Quote
Now back to our regular scheduled program of Caldari battleships.
The Raven could use a tank buff, not a nerf. Either add another launcher slot to compensate for dps. As it stands, the phoon with its new bonus will be applying more damage than the Raven and will have a superior tank as well.
For those who say wait for the Torp changes, what ever benefits the new torps give will benefit the ships evenly and the Phoon will still be better.
I would have no issue for dropping the Raven range bonus for a similar bonus or another launcher to add damage since it would not get a bonus like the phoons.
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:33:00 -
[489] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Hagika wrote:Gypsio III wrote:If you think the Talos is a better 100 km sniper than the Naga, then you're madder than that notorious madman, Mad Jack McMad. Better damage potential and better tracking at 100km. I am saying exactly that because it is. Alright, post your fit, and I'll post a superior Naga. This should be entertaining. What fit needs to be posted. The Talos gets more low slots, has higher damage potential and a huge tracking bonus to which the naga does not. So if you add all that up and then top it off with a flight of ECM for SHTF moments, then its a no brainer. Alll you are doing is trying to justify an inferior ship when its obvious the Gallente version at 100km is superior. That is also including hitting smaller and faster targets that would be on the way to intercept you. I have no words to describe just how wrong you are
So are you saying that a ship with higher dps,a huge tracking bonus, faster speed and drones for ECM use is worse than a ship that is slow,has a range bonus and low potential for damage?
Its rails guys, they are long range weapons. 100km is easy for either ship to obtain yet the gallente ship with better bonus and benefits is worse..
Funny, last time i checked, I see more talos used for close up and for range than the naga being used for range.
Words can not describe how ridiculously hard you are trying to make the naga seem better.
In which this is the battle ship forum.
Get back to battleships. Oh wait, you are the same couple who have been pushing against buffing them.. Closet minnie pilots are we?
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:52:00 -
[490] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:It doesnt matter what he did with the extra bandwidth. Changes nothing then why do it? It actually changes ,it is another unneded nerf for caldari. Honestly, raven will need a lot of nerf to compensate for the cruise missiles buff they just received. Not that it need for all the buff to be compensated, but it still end a LOT higher than it was.
Alot of nerf for a ship with a weak tank that just became weaker a loss of drone bandwith and when the Phoon gets a bonus to apply damage better while still maintaining the same number of launchers,smaller sig radius,more drone capability and a far better tank while applying similar dps?
What drugs are you on? Seriously.... |
|
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
321
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:53:00 -
[491] - Quote
Hagika wrote:
So are you saying that a ship with higher dps,a huge tracking bonus, faster speed and drones for ECM use is worse than a ship that is slow,has a range bonus and low potential for damage?
Its rails guys, they are long range weapons. 100km is easy for either ship to obtain yet the gallente ship with better bonus and benefits is worse..
Funny, last time i checked, I see more talos used for close up and for range than the naga being used for range.
Words can not describe how ridiculously hard you are trying to make the naga seem better.
In which this is the battle ship forum.
Get back to battleships. Oh wait, you are the same couple who have been pushing against buffing them.. Closet minnie pilots are we?
Yeah the naga does more dps at 100km due to its optimal bonus, so they are right the naga is better at that range. Not that it matters at all, the naga i so rare bird in caldari lineup , as it is very close to the other races ships both in dmg and speed ,not like the rest of the caldari ships.
|
Hagika
LEGI0N
25
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:06:00 -
[492] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Hagika wrote:
So are you saying that a ship with higher dps,a huge tracking bonus, faster speed and drones for ECM use is worse than a ship that is slow,has a range bonus and low potential for damage?
Its rails guys, they are long range weapons. 100km is easy for either ship to obtain yet the gallente ship with better bonus and benefits is worse..
Funny, last time i checked, I see more talos used for close up and for range than the naga being used for range.
Words can not describe how ridiculously hard you are trying to make the naga seem better.
In which this is the battle ship forum.
Get back to battleships. Oh wait, you are the same couple who have been pushing against buffing them.. Closet minnie pilots are we?
Yeah the naga does more dps at 100km due to its optimal bonus, so they are right the naga is better at that range. Not that it matters at all, the naga i so rare bird in caldari lineup , as it is very close to the other races ships both in dmg and speed ,not like the rest of the caldari ships.
Cal navy lead putting the Naga just over 100 km range will maximize the dps for that range, add 3 mag stabs. You can do the same for the Talos, which puts you just under 100km, but you have room for 2 track enhancers to put on the lows. Even if you switched to a slight shorter range ammo for the naga to put it higher, you can compensate by doing the same for the talos, dropping a TE to add a 4th Mag and just put on a tracking computer for optimal.
In which the Naga will not meet the dps, and still lacks in all other categories that I mentioned.
Creativity is a pita. =)
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
684
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:12:00 -
[493] - Quote
Hagika wrote: Cal navy lead putting the Naga just over 100 km range will maximize the dps for that range, add 3 mag stabs. You can do the same for the Talos, which puts you just under 100km, but you have room for 2 track enhancers to put on the lows.
Ahaha not quite, CN Lead will give a Naga an optimal of 140 km... now try using the correct ammo for 100 km, Plutonium... |
Kenshi Hanshin
Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now.
47
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 02:39:00 -
[494] - Quote
We are here to discuss the problems CCP Rise is causing to our BS not the BCs. Now people shall we stay on task?! If you kids can't manage that (you know who you are) then go form a new topic to discuss.
Regardless of the changes to CMLs, which sucked btw for PvP before, the Raven isn't being buffed. If it can't be sufficiently fitted with a tank than it doesn't matter. The glass cannons of the game are supposed to be the "Tier-3" BCs: Naga, Talos, Tornado & Oracle. Last I checked the Raven is not a BC...Raven needs a shield buff! Also stop giving Caldari ships stupidly large sig radius too. It adds insult to injury for our already ****** ships which you keep nerfing.
Oh and we want our old standard drake back...so then we have three (3) decent PvP ships. Against the freaking winmatar horde...kinda reminds me of the huns. Btw, that is not a compliment CCP Rise with regards to your work on Caldari Battleships. For that matter I also mean to include Amarr and to some extent Gallente Battleships as well. Thing I like about this "Odyssey" expansion are the new Faction BCs. That only cause it is about...time.
Hope you CCP guys had fun going pub-crawling over the weekend...please wait till your sober before working on the expansion. |
Parcheesie Sauce
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 05:21:00 -
[495] - Quote
okay I kind of understand lowering the resists on the rokh since they are doing the same to the abbadon, but from prior experiences with the rokh it's cap was too pathetice to even use active shield hardeners while attempting to maintain any sort of active tank not to mention the rather weak dps it gets with rails....seems a little unfair not to give it something in exchange for the slightly lowered resists, and that raven; tiericide? whats going on with the overall ehp? and speed increase is definatly long due, but with only six launchers and a range bonus it's still fairly weak in dps with cruise missiles, especially compared to some of the other battleships. *xigh* "makin it real hard to wanna stay caldari" |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 09:21:00 -
[496] - Quote
Hagika wrote: Cal navy lead putting the Naga just over 100 km range will maximize the dps for that range, add 3 mag stabs. You can do the same for the Talos, which puts you just under 100km, but you have room for 2 track enhancers to put on the lows. Even if you switched to a slight shorter range ammo for the naga to put it higher, you can compensate by doing the same for the talos, dropping a TE to add a 4th Mag and just put on a tracking computer for optimal.
In which the Naga will not meet the dps, and still lacks in all other categories that I mentioned.
Show your fits. I'm fairly sure you can't do what you're claiming for two reasons - firstly, you're assuming no meaningful tank at all, so anything that gets to the ship will kill it. A few light ECM drones won't cover that lack. Secondly, the Talos doesn't have the CPU to do what you're claiming, and adding CPU mods eats up those slots you're claiming makes it superior.
|
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 09:24:00 -
[497] - Quote
Parcheesie Sauce wrote:okay I kind of understand lowering the resists on the rokh since they are doing the same to the abbadon, but from prior experiences with the rokh it's cap was too pathetice to even use active shield hardeners while attempting to maintain any sort of active tank not to mention the rather weak dps it gets with rails....seems a little unfair not to give it something in exchange for the slightly lowered resists, and that raven; tiericide? whats going on with the overall ehp? and speed increase is definatly long due, but with only six launchers and a range bonus it's still fairly weak in dps with cruise missiles, especially compared to some of the other battleships. *xigh* "makin it real hard to wanna stay caldari"
I think balancing of shield battleships is being done with the assumption that we're fitting XLASBs to them all.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
684
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 10:07:00 -
[498] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:I think balancing of shield battleships is being done with the assumption that we're fitting XLASBs to them all.
Yeah. With seven meds the Raven can get a credible active tank now:
[NEW Raven, Cruise] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Warp Disruptor II or Sensor Booster II, depending on what you're up to. Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I
681 DPS,1095 DPS tank on full overload. But 1125 m/s. The problem is why would you use this when the Naga exists? The Naga does more damage at 100 km and without flight time, it's faster and has a much smaller sig - and can MWD without continually chewing boosters. The additional EHP and the 1100 DPS tank are nice, but I'm struggling to see gamespace that isn't crowded out by more mobile Typhoons with logi support, Nagas or Rokhs.
Hmm, take the shield tank and jam the mids full or TDs and RSDs, maybe? |
Hagika
LEGI0N
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 17:28:00 -
[499] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Josilin du Guesclin wrote:I think balancing of shield battleships is being done with the assumption that we're fitting XLASBs to them all.
Yeah. With seven meds the Raven can get a credible active tank now: [NEW Raven, Cruise] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Heavy Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Warp Disruptor II or Sensor Booster II, depending on what you're up to. Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile NEW Cruise Missile Launcher II, NEW Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-Kinetic Screen Reinforcer I 681 DPS,1095 DPS tank on full overload. But 1125 m/s. The problem is why would you use this when the Naga exists? The Naga does more damage at 100 km and without flight time, it's faster and has a much smaller sig - and can MWD without continually chewing boosters. The additional EHP and the 1100 DPS tank are nice, but I'm struggling to see gamespace that isn't crowded out by more mobile Typhoons with logi support, Nagas or Rokhs. Hmm, take the shield tank and jam the mids full or TDs and RSDs, maybe?
This is why the raven needs another launcher slot.
As for the naga, it is a better sniper at 100km, though not much better. I still feel the talos is a better ship and would keep it as that roll too.
Caldari BS, well 2 of them have issues that need to be looked into. Raven is sub par in terms of combat. As you pointed out, its pretty sad when a Naga can do better dps at that range. The new cruise buff is nice but not enough if the raven doesnt get another slot. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
32
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 17:41:00 -
[500] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Parcheesie Sauce wrote:okay I kind of understand lowering the resists on the rokh since they are doing the same to the abbadon, but from prior experiences with the rokh it's cap was too pathetice to even use active shield hardeners while attempting to maintain any sort of active tank not to mention the rather weak dps it gets with rails....seems a little unfair not to give it something in exchange for the slightly lowered resists, and that raven; tiericide? whats going on with the overall ehp? and speed increase is definatly long due, but with only six launchers and a range bonus it's still fairly weak in dps with cruise missiles, especially compared to some of the other battleships. *xigh* "makin it real hard to wanna stay caldari" I think balancing of shield battleships is being done with the assumption that we're fitting XLASBs to them all.
Which I really hope isnt the case, since I like to buffer fit mine. Even though the XLASB's are great, Missile bay loaded and then the charges on top of that, Either we sacrifice ammo for charges or vise versa..
Another trade off with caldari. It really gets old. The Rohk can manage it because hybrid ammo is small. Of course its getting a tank nerf now..
|
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
689
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 18:04:00 -
[501] - Quote
Hagika wrote:This is why the raven needs another launcher slot.
As for the naga, it is a better sniper at 100km, though not much better. I still feel the talos is a better ship and would keep it as that roll too.
Caldari BS, well 2 of them have issues that need to be looked into. Raven is sub par in terms of combat. As you pointed out, its pretty sad when a Naga can do better dps at that range. The new cruise buff is nice but not enough if the raven doesnt get another slot.
I don't think it's a problem that will be solved by simply throwing more DPS at the Raven. Attack BS need to be more different to ABCs, atm they're trying to do similar things, and yet mobility is so important in that role that the massive mobility advantage of the ABCs outweighs concerns of actual tank. And while more EHP for attack BS would be useful, they would then start to intrude on to combat BS and everything gets a bit messy.
The answer might lie more in cutting ABCs down more - less tracking, fatter sig, maybe less speed but certainly less agility. This will also help create gamespace in which HACs can live in. |
Kenshi Hanshin
Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now.
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 20:47:00 -
[502] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Parcheesie Sauce wrote:okay I kind of understand lowering the resists on the rokh since they are doing the same to the abbadon, but from prior experiences with the rokh it's cap was too pathetice to even use active shield hardeners while attempting to maintain any sort of active tank not to mention the rather weak dps it gets with rails....seems a little unfair not to give it something in exchange for the slightly lowered resists, and that raven; tiericide? whats going on with the overall ehp? and speed increase is definatly long due, but with only six launchers and a range bonus it's still fairly weak in dps with cruise missiles, especially compared to some of the other battleships. *xigh* "makin it real hard to wanna stay caldari" I think balancing of shield battleships is being done with the assumption that we're fitting XLASBs to them all. Which I really hope isnt the case, since I like to buffer fit mine. Even though the XLASB's are great, Missile bay loaded and then the charges on top of that, Either we sacrifice ammo for charges or vise versa.. Another trade off with caldari. It really gets old. The Rohk can manage it because hybrid ammo is small. Of course its getting a tank nerf now..
Winmatar are the ones better suited for active shield tanking. That is fairly clear if you look at the bonuses on some of their common shield-ships.
Caldari are best suited to be passive or buffer tanked. With some ability for active shield tanking. That would make sense given the lore of "Caldari are masters of shield and missile technology". A passive shield tank that is strong is in my opinion superior to an active one that requires a freaking indy ship full of cap charges to be feasible . I am only partially kidding about that. As I said it is my opinion,
Regardless of how you look at it, this is but another nerf to caldari ships. No matter what they did to 'buff' cruise missiles. Missiles the way they work now isn't feasible to solo/gang or fleet doctrines. Missile mechanics need to be changed to make them so as to not be double penalized by a ROF and the flight time. Pick one and minimize the other.
As for ships, Caldari need the strongest shields, mediocre armor (at best) and good structure. That would make the tanking ability of the ship match the lore for Caldari. Then give the ships bonuses or role-bonuses that give greater ability to passive tank. If wanted have some bonused for easier active shield tanking. But the bonuses and traits of the ships need to fit the lore of the race.
In case you forgot CCP the story of the races of Eve is gripping. It is one of the most cited reasons why people got into the game. Now please don't abandon that what makes Eve different from crappy kid games like WOW or Everquest etc. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 21:24:00 -
[503] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Hagika wrote:Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Parcheesie Sauce wrote:okay I kind of understand lowering the resists on the rokh since they are doing the same to the abbadon, but from prior experiences with the rokh it's cap was too pathetice to even use active shield hardeners while attempting to maintain any sort of active tank not to mention the rather weak dps it gets with rails....seems a little unfair not to give it something in exchange for the slightly lowered resists, and that raven; tiericide? whats going on with the overall ehp? and speed increase is definatly long due, but with only six launchers and a range bonus it's still fairly weak in dps with cruise missiles, especially compared to some of the other battleships. *xigh* "makin it real hard to wanna stay caldari" I think balancing of shield battleships is being done with the assumption that we're fitting XLASBs to them all. Which I really hope isnt the case, since I like to buffer fit mine. Even though the XLASB's are great, Missile bay loaded and then the charges on top of that, Either we sacrifice ammo for charges or vise versa.. Another trade off with caldari. It really gets old. The Rohk can manage it because hybrid ammo is small. Of course its getting a tank nerf now.. Winmatar are the ones better suited for active shield tanking. That is fairly clear if you look at the bonuses on some of their common shield-ships. Caldari are best suited to be passive or buffer tanked. With some ability for active shield tanking. That would make sense given the lore of "Caldari are masters of shield and missile technology". A passive shield tank that is strong is in my opinion superior to an active one that requires a freaking indy ship full of cap charges to be feasible . I am only partially kidding about that. As I said it is my opinion, Regardless of how you look at it, this is but another nerf to caldari ships. No matter what they did to 'buff' cruise missiles. Missiles the way they work now isn't feasible to solo/gang or fleet doctrines. Missile mechanics need to be changed to make them so as to not be double penalized by a ROF and the flight time. Pick one and minimize the other. As for ships, Caldari need the strongest shields, mediocre armor (at best) and good structure. That would make the tanking ability of the ship match the lore for Caldari. Then give the ships bonuses or role-bonuses that give greater ability to passive tank. If wanted have some bonused for easier active shield tanking. But the bonuses and traits of the ships need to fit the lore of the race. In case you forgot CCP the story of the races of Eve is gripping. It is one of the most cited reasons why people got into the game. Now please don't abandon that what makes Eve different from crappy kid games like WOW or Everquest etc.
I found Everquest 1 to be a decent game. WoW on the other hand made me want to /wrist.
|
Kenshi Hanshin
Karl XII's Dragoner Apocalypse Now.
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 21:32:00 -
[504] - Quote
Hagika wrote:I found Everquest 1 to be a decent game. WoW on the other hand made me want to /wrist.
I thought Everquest 1 was a good game as well. Please don't take offense, the point was the more important thing I wanted to communicate.
I picked a better substitute if that helps you feel any better. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 21:53:00 -
[505] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Hagika wrote:I found Everquest 1 to be a decent game. WoW on the other hand made me want to /wrist.
I thought Everquest 1 was a good game as well. Please don't take offense, the point was the more important thing I wanted to communicate. I picked a better substitute if that helps you feel any better.
OMG, I am just totally and utterly offended and destroyed
I completely agree with you. I started this game years ago seeing caldari lore and with shield and missiles systems. It tickled my military and nerdy trekkie side and I was hooked.
Though over the years, it has become a little depressing for caldari, and some good things have come along too.
I eventually sold of my Caldari pilot and fly Gallente and Amarr with a little bit of caldari in the mix on this pilot.
Though I still remain a fan and supporter of Caldari.
|
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 22:01:00 -
[506] - Quote
I don't think I ever seen a rohk being used in pvp, except for that rare newbie who loses it 3 seconds later and have it lol-fitted. Now with Naga and other attack battlecruisers I doubt it have a use at all since its not cost-effective. If anyone have a fit that isn't lol and doesn't include hugging a station all the time or alts with logistics, please post it, I'm really curious. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 23:31:00 -
[507] - Quote
I think the real problem the Rokh has at this time is that the niche it filled (150km+ sniper) is dead because of in-combat scanning and warp-ins. It's not agile enough to attempt this anyway as a skirmisher (unlike the ABCs), and in the 60-100km range there are many other ships that are as good or better. In large fleets being a shield ship has issue too, the "OMG armour sucks!" crew notwithstanding, if only because the shield carriers simply don't compete with Archons.
|
Calathorn Virpio
Golden Construction Inc. Legacy Rising
238
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 00:03:00 -
[508] - Quote
so the rokh, which is a sniper boat (if you want blaster, get a mega) will be losing some of it's resistance, which it heavily relies on as the mid slots are usually reserved for tracking and targetting gear....yay! not
my point is that as a rokh is a sniper, that reisitance bonus is extremly important as it gives it a greater chance to get away from whatever managed to shoot it in the first place.
the rokh is not the braler that the raven is, not the ECM that the scorp is.
instead of reducing it's tank, why not switch that bonus with the Naga's damage increase?
(i leave it to the rest of you to poke holes in my suggestions) CCP are the French gate camping=/=PVP everything else is fair game |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 01:40:00 -
[509] - Quote
If they did that the Rokh would 1) have an awful tank and/or no utility at all, and 2) would do way too much DPS. Unless you meant swapping the range bonus for a DPS raw bonus. This would probably cause the Rokh to completely eclipse the Apoc.
|
Rachel Starchaser
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 03:16:00 -
[510] - Quote
Hurray! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |