Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
93
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:31:00 -
[211] - Quote
Rabble rabble something about Navy Megas and 8 turrets.
Oh well, good changes otherwise Odyssey will be interesting to say the least. |
TehCloud
Carnivore Company
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:31:00 -
[212] - Quote
I don't like all of the changes but some are pretty decent. Can't understand why the Napoc looks almost completely the same as the normal Apoc with 1k PG and 40CPU more.
I really hoped to see that the 200-300mil it costs extra are worth it, I fear they won't. A Damage Bonus on it would make it at least feel superior to the normal one. Or maybe give it the Hyperion treatment. Swap 1 or 2 guns for an adequate damage bonus and extra slots.
But I think I'm just speaking for myself here :3 My Condor costs less than that module! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5034
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:35:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu. Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =) Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list.
|
Taoist Dragon
No.1 Crazy Fighter Squadron
433
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:37:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships You're right, these things too. Theres so much to do!
Do not make TD"s affect missiles unless you nerf unbonussed TD's into the ground! There are already lots of mitigating tactics to reduce the medium DPS of missiles as is making TD affect missiles would make them the most OP e-war mods in game.
Other than that I like the new navy ships. I might even fly some of them soon. maybe... That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
973
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:42:00 -
[215] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu. Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =) Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list.
well they already looked at fittings so...
how about decrease cap activation cost by 15%
increase rate of fire by 5%
increase base damage by 10%
that should do it.
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
530
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:47:00 -
[216] - Quote
Edit, seems like it's not on sisi right now after all... Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
106
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:48:00 -
[217] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships You're right, these things too. Theres so much to do! Do not make TD"s affect missiles unless you nerf unbonussed TD's into the ground! There are already lots of mitigating tactics to reduce the medium DPS of missiles as is making TD affect missiles would make them the most OP e-war mods in game. Other than that I like the new navy ships. I might even fly some of them soon. maybe...
TD already affect missiles since retribution, Optimal reduces flight time and Tracking reduces Explosion Velocity and Increases Explosion Radius., but Tracking Computers don't buff them, bit BIAS don't you think? Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
TehCloud
Carnivore Company
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:51:00 -
[218] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
TD already affect missiles since retribution, Optimal reduces flight time and Tracking reduces Explosion Velocity and Increases Explosion Radius., but Tracking Computers don't buff them, bit BIAS don't you think?
That is complete and utter bullcrap. The changes were postponed. My Condor costs less than that module! |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3632
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:51:00 -
[219] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu. Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =) Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list. Wrong. Medium rails.
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:52:00 -
[220] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Malcanis wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:
the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful.
It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha. They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead. I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR. -Liang
I agree with Liang. This is a nerf for torp-CNR's.
The Explosion Radius bonus is slightly better than the bonus from a T2 Rigor rig (20%, but rigor rigs doesn't have a stacking penalty, this is important). Anyone who already uses Rigor rigs will save at most one rig slot and loose 14% raw DPS (1- 8 / (7 / 0.75)) for a very slight increase in damage application. The 14% DPS that was lost can not be gained back by fitting a T2 Loading Accelerator rig (15% ROF bonus) instead, this is because this rig has a stacking penalty with the Ballistic Control Units that will surely be on the ship already. This is a net loss. The only people who gain are those who didn't know they needed Rigors to begin with.
To be fair. It will however be slightly easier to get out more damage from T2 Fury ammo, especially for ships who are still Rigor crazy. Although, fury ammo is still the easiest one to speed tank against, so it will not work so great against "fast" targets (base speed or with AB, MWD has sig bloom which mostly cancels out the bonus from speed). An example of "fast" when the target has 420m sig radius is: old CNR (T2 fury ammo, all skills 5, two T2 rigor's, no implants) does half damage against the target when it is moving at 177m/s, the new CNR does half damage against the target when it is moving at 235m/s (for navy torps, the corresponding values are 360m/s and 479m/s).
|
|
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:52:00 -
[221] - Quote
Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:55:00 -
[222] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:This list. I don't suppose we can get any sneak peeks at what's in store for rebalance in the near future? Not in any order, obviously, but just to see what's on the menu. Of course, no promises in terms of order or anything - but the short list includes things like medium rails, hacs, eafs, beams, some other t2 classes like inties/maurders, and some other mods which i don't want to name atm incase they get pushed back awhile. =) Beams need to be the absolute first thing on your list. Wrong. Medium rails.
medium rails?
umm...
increase base damage by 12.5% fixed?
so tech II 150 without skills will go from 1.98 to 2.2275 tech II 200 without skills will go from 2.64 to 2.97 tech II 250 without skills will go from 3.63 to 4.08375 Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:56:00 -
[223] - Quote
MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked...
drones.
apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1519
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:58:00 -
[224] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Quote:please tell me TD's with missiles are on there and command links /T3 nerf and command ships You're right, these things too. Theres so much to do! Do not make TD"s affect missiles unless you nerf unbonussed TD's into the ground! There are already lots of mitigating tactics to reduce the medium DPS of missiles as is making TD affect missiles would make them the most OP e-war mods in game. Other than that I like the new navy ships. I might even fly some of them soon. maybe... TD already affect missiles since retribution, Optimal reduces flight time and Tracking reduces Explosion Velocity and Increases Explosion Radius., but Tracking Computers don't buff them, bit BIAS don't you think?
Yea so this change never actually happened, I hope you haven't been TD'ing missile boats thinking you were doing anything. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1519
|
Posted - 2013.05.13 23:59:00 -
[225] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason.
Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:01:00 -
[226] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot.
ok i understand jammer reps or dps but when was the last time you used the other options? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
106
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:06:00 -
[227] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Malcanis wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:
the cnr having the same base dps as the raven isn't a good thing imo, ok I know it will be better applied in this version but forcing it to use 8 launchers instead of the 6 of the raven to get the same result is painful.
It's not the same result, though: it's qualitatively superior in damage application and alpha. They'll both be equally good for shooting structures and capitals, I suppose. For anything else, the CNR will be a quantum step ahead. I dunno man. Stop and think about it this way. The damage application on the CNR is already good enough that people weren't clamoring to use Cruise Golems despite the dramatically superior damage application. The new bonus is extremely underwhelming and an outright nerf to the CNR. -Liang I agree with Liang. This is a nerf for torp-CNR's. The Explosion Radius bonus is slightly better than the bonus from a T2 Rigor rig (20%, but rigor rigs doesn't have a stacking penalty, this is important). Anyone who already uses Rigor rigs will save at most one rig slot and loose 14% raw DPS (1- 8 / (7 / 0.75)) for a very slight increase in damage application. The 14% DPS that was lost can not be gained back by fitting a T2 Loading Accelerator rig (15% ROF bonus) instead, this is because this rig has a stacking penalty with the Ballistic Control Units that will surely be on the ship already. This is a net loss. The only people who gain are those who didn't know they needed Rigors to begin with. To be fair. It will however be slightly easier to get out more damage from T2 Fury ammo, especially for ships who are still Rigor crazy. Although, fury ammo is still the easiest one to speed tank against, so it will not work so great against "fast" targets (base speed or with AB, MWD has sig bloom which mostly cancels out the bonus from speed). An example of "fast" when the target has 420m sig radius is: old CNR (T2 fury ammo, all skills 5, two T2 rigor's, no implants) does half damage against the target when it is moving at 177m/s, the new CNR does half damage against the target when it is moving at 235m/s (for navy torps, the corresponding values are 360m/s and 479m/s).
Oh boohoo, CNR is no longer quite as good at bashing a POS, I don't GAF, its actually more viable for PvP because of application finally. Im happy, eight launchers that apply really well. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1522
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:09:00 -
[228] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot. ok i understand jammer reps or dps but when was the last time you used the other options?
Didn't say they get used, just outlining the mentality behind the reason.
EDIT: Also web drones can be shockingly useful if you run by yourself a lot. |
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:09:00 -
[229] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot.
An armor tanked ship isn't going to NEED drones for EWAR with 6 mids. As the domi only has 6 turrets, 90% of the time drones are used for DPS. As the navy variant will be keeping the turret bonus, it will promote needing to use magstabs in addition to drone damage augs thus meaning a smaller tank. As drones have expressly been stated as needing work, saying that the flexibility of drones = 1 low slot is hardly right. If that were the case the Mega would need to lose a low as it has plenty of drone options as well. |
Tim Ryder
Flippin DaBird Corporation 2
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:11:00 -
[230] - Quote
For the CNR. 45 extra CPU and an extra midslot. And where's the CPU to drive that extra launcher? With 2x t2 rigors, 1x t1 flare - which maybe would be t2 rigor, t2 flare, t1 flare after Odyssey - a single launcher with Weapon Upgrades V, Launcher Rigging IV takes 58.96 tf. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
974
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:16:00 -
[231] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot. ok i understand jammer reps or dps but when was the last time you used the other options? Didn't say they get used, just outlining the mentality behind the reason. EDIT: Also web drones can be shockingly useful if you run by yourself a lot.
indeed.
drones need a major overhaul alla crime watch got...
for me it would be great if i could set my logi drone to rep myself
i would boost non ecm electronic drones... well i would nerf ecm drones and then make tech II electronic drones and make tech II ecm drones as good as they are now... but that would also make tech II sensor damp drones good and ect.
i would add small and medium sentry drones
i would balance ecm/therm/kin/ex drones
also make it so i can use nanite paste to repair my drones while they are in the drone bay.
hehe just to prove the point how useless non ecm drones can be you forgot to mention neuting drones... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
482
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:17:00 -
[232] - Quote
The navy Mega really needs another turret slot.
As it stands now, it has slightly better base tank and a utility slot over the non-navy version. It's fairly underwhelming. A few extra drones don't really help much.
With an 8th turret slot, it will still do less damage than a vindicator, with less sensor strength and won't have the omgwtfbbq web bonus, so it won't be overpowered. |
Caljiav Ocanon
12
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:19:00 -
[233] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:No. You guys need to get over the "8" number for the turrets. As its been said quite a few times, less turrets = less ammo and more importantly, less cap. As long as the damage is working out the same, then by all means, CCP, cut the amount of turrets for cap-using weapons.
Give me a compelling reason to buy a Navy Megathron then. Because right now, there really isn't one.
As it stands, more buffer isn't worth ~300m ISK. The extra drone DPS is situational at best. Though I fly through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am aligned to a safespot and warping out. - Me 2013 |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
107
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:20:00 -
[234] - Quote
Tim Ryder wrote:For the CNR. 45 extra CPU and an extra midslot. And where's the CPU to drive that extra launcher? With 2x t2 rigors, 1x t1 flare - which maybe would be t2 rigor, t2 flare, t1 flare after Odyssey - a single launcher with Weapon Upgrades V, Launcher Rigging IV takes 58.96 tf.
I think they want you to use a Co-Processor in the 5th Low Slot Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Tim Ryder
Flippin DaBird Corporation 2
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:21:00 -
[235] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:Tim Ryder wrote:For the CNR. 45 extra CPU and an extra midslot. And where's the CPU to drive that extra launcher? With 2x t2 rigors, 1x t1 flare - which maybe would be t2 rigor, t2 flare, t1 flare after Odyssey - a single launcher with Weapon Upgrades V, Launcher Rigging IV takes 58.96 tf. I think they want you to use a Co-Processor in the 5th Low Slot
There's already one there, that's how tight the fit is now. Agreed I'd probably be able to finnagle something out, but definitely not happy. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1522
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:23:00 -
[236] - Quote
MinutemanKirk wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:MinutemanKirk wrote:Any particular reason why you don't want to make the Dominix have 20 fitting slots like every other Navy BS? Would be kinda nice to have 8 low slots since it's a split weapon platform AND supposed to be armor tanked... drones. apparently drone utility negates a fitting slot for some reason. Because drones can imitate a target painter, web, jammer, dampener, reps, or dps, so ships that specialize in high drone payloads receive one less slot. An armor tanked ship isn't going to NEED drones for EWAR with 6 mids. As the domi only has 6 turrets, 90% of the time drones are used for DPS. As the navy variant will be keeping the turret bonus, it will promote needing to use magstabs in addition to drone damage augs thus meaning a smaller tank. As drones have expressly been stated as needing work, saying that the flexibility of drones = 1 low slot is hardly right. If that were the case the Mega would need to lose a low as it has plenty of drone options as well.
I'm not sure if anybody has bothered to tell you this yet in life, but I'll go ahead and be the first::
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong or factually incorrect.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1523
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:26:00 -
[237] - Quote
Caljiav Ocanon wrote:
Give me a compelling reason to buy a Navy Megathron then.
No, don't buy one if you don't find it worth your money, I own two and am thinking of picking up a 3rd. |
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:27:00 -
[238] - Quote
[quote=Grath Telkin I'm not sure if anybody has bothered to tell you this yet in life, but I'll go ahead and be the first::
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong or factually incorrect. [/quote]
Har, har, funny man. I'm fairly sure this thread is for the feedback of what was proposed, which is what I gave. "Life lessons" is in the other thread |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
3445
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:28:00 -
[239] - Quote
Grunnax Aurelius wrote: Oh boohoo, CNR is no longer quite as good at bashing a POS, I don't GAF, its actually more viable for PvP because of application finally. Im happy, eight launchers that apply really well.
It's actually straight up worse in PVP because it doesn't have a utility high now. It also has less overall DPS.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1523
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:29:00 -
[240] - Quote
MinutemanKirk wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: I'm not sure if anybody has bothered to tell you this yet in life, but I'll go ahead and be the first::
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong or factually incorrect.
Har, har, funny man. I'm fairly sure this thread is for the feedback of what was proposed, which is what I gave. "Life lessons" is in the other thread
I wasn't being funny, I was being serious, just because you do not agree with their reasoning doesn't make that reasoning wrong.
Liang Nuren wrote:Grunnax Aurelius wrote: Oh boohoo, CNR is no longer quite as good at bashing a POS, I don't GAF, its actually more viable for PvP because of application finally. Im happy, eight launchers that apply really well.
It's actually straight up worse in PVP because it doesn't have a utility high now. It also has less overall DPS. -Liang
I also fully disagree with Liang, the CNR looks sexy as hell now. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |