|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
999
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 01:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm not really thrilled that all the t2 frigates and cruiser get the same role bonus.
I realize null sec pilots may like this bonus but as a low sec pilot its very limited in value.
Scram removes the bonus and sig tanking generally means you are in scram (and neut) range. In low sec flying any of these expect a bunch of frigates to get under your guns while you die with your role bonused mwd turned off.
Some variety would be good ccp. Not all t2s need to have the same "role" of sig tanking battleship sized guns while your bubbled. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Schmell wrote:So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution
zealot- 438 sac - 490 cerb - 473 eagle - 525 ishtar - 508 deimos - 560 muninn- 455 vaga- 403
So how helpful will this bonus be actually?
Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger
As for links...don't even start Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships. Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss
The shield extenders and mwds work well because you range tank with them. The reason this bonus is bad is it tries to make you sig tank with them. Given that sig tanking involves getting under guns, usually by getting within scram and neut range (unless you are dealing with larger classed guns) this will not really be beneficial. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Please show us a bit more creativity, and make the hacs a bit more interesting rather than giving them all the same role bonus as the assault frigates.
Pulled from the last 10 pages
Jori McKie wrote: I like the idea of a unique bonus for HACs but the 50% sig bonus while MWDing isn't cutting it. Sure it's nice to have it on some occasions (real 1v1) but in any skirmish fleet fights the transversal/angular is negligible and the sig bonus has no usefulness at all. .
Namamai wrote: The main issue I have with the MWD role bonus for HACs is that the Eve tracking equation is a game of thresholds. .
Omnathious Deninard wrote: And yet with the MWD bonus they are neither fast enough to speed tank nor small enough to sig tank.
elitatwo wrote: Nope they won't help either, since most of the time you want to be in scram range anyway.
...
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There are some very large signature radii for the AHACs. I don't know how effective that 50% MWD penalty reduction is going to be with the likes of 140m, 145m, 150m, and even 160m signatures. Add in shield tanking and yikes.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1001
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 14:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rn Bonnet wrote: Yeah I will take 200% more EHP over 50% sig radius every day of the week and twice on tuesday considering one unbonused target painter "cures" your sig radius bonus.
Alticus C Bear wrote:What I would have liked to have seen.
Unique and interesting role bonuses
Harvey James wrote: Indeed they really need to come up with either a stronger bonus or severely reduce the sig radius of these ships. Also some new skills to help reduce the penalties of mwd and shield extenders wouldn't go amiss
Schmell wrote:So about new role bonus against large guns with 400m resolution
zealot- 438 sac - 490 cerb - 473 eagle - 525 ishtar - 508 deimos - 560 muninn- 455 vaga- 403
So how helpful will this bonus be actually?
Those are numbers without links and any shield modules, so in reality for shield ships it will be way bigger
As for links...don't even start
Also I like the idea of making the vaga something other than a worse cynabal but it needs an extra mid.
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Anyway a shipo with a Shield boost bonus should NOT be 4 mids. That goes along with the effects of TE nerf last patch, now having lots of low slots is not so much useful for vaga.
Please consider +1 Mid -1 Low. Would make the vaga a more concise ship and help it to be the Fast brawler while keeping the speeding nuts role to the Cynabal.
+1 Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Noisrevbus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: You clearly haven't fought one of these yet, they can be pretty nasty but yes have to pick their fights, those are not pownmobiles just because they can fit an XL-ASB
I might be in the minority side thinking this bonus isn't bad but in certain situations will make it clearly op specially considering when lowering the ASB size the ship can fit bigger guns.
I don't think you're getting it mate, but that's my fault for using sarcasm.
- EVE Online is a sandbox MMO.
- It's not designed around 1v1, it's designed around PvX.
- I don't mind if there is a duelling culture or similar in the game. It's a sandbox, any creative way to play is good.
- However, if we start designing the game around 1v1 (or any similar targetted setting) we are in deep water.
- What is "clearly OP" to you in a duel-setting is clearly not OP if you decide to take on more difficult odds.
- Even if you prefer flying alone, a solo gameplay does not mean you don't fight larger groups 1vX.
This is similar to when we have to lecture PvE players on the principle that PvE in a sandbox means PvX where you are meant to conduct your PvE in a setting of both PvE and PvP (ie., PvX). Many of the new-school PvP players are just as stupid and seclusionist as the empire PvE players they like to mock. I've never had any issue with PvE players, I only growl a little bit when it comes to seclusionists with entitlement issues. Entitlement issues like "the Vagabond is good for what i do with it, where i pick my consentual fights without travelling". Don't take me wrong I do understand all the points you made but I still think options and alternatives can't hurt pvp in any shape or form be it for solo small gang or massive fights. I have a lot more experience in large fleets fights be it as dumb F1 BS shooter as dictor as inty or anti support pilot (I have logis skills but I don't fly them I hate them all so hard you can't imagine, remove them from the game dammit !!), not good but rather nice experience in roaming gangs but absolutely terrible in 1vs1 fights and will not excuse my lack of skills in this playing area because I don't use OGB despite being able to. Back to the point about Vaga, I still think this isn't a very bad change and fits quite well in the "emergent content" ability of Vaga, now for fleets if you ask me this bonus is absolutely terrible, horrible, does nothing and I'll take an SFI over the Vaga every time.
This guy gets it. Vaga is currently a worse cynabal. SFI is also competition. Allowing the vaga to do something else better than both of them is a good thing for this ship. The shield boost fits well with the minmatar resists. But it needs an extra mid.
If you want the old vaga fly a cynabal. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1005
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 16:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Warcalibre wrote:I don't get what the HAC roles are supposed to be. Why shouldn't I just fly ABC or navy?
Looking forward to next revision!
I'm not sure what the role is either.
But it seems the role is very limitted and exactly same for every ship. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids.
Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore.
I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 17:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Cearain wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote: 3. The vagabond. You're calling it a close-range shield brawler, giving it a rep bonus...with 4 mid slots? Excuse me? if you had any sense at all, you're realize that even the HAWK has 5 mid slots. Think about this. Think about it hard.
Hawk and hookbill both have 5 mids. Vaga could easilly drop a low slot since if it is going to brawl it doesn't need 2 of the nerfed tes anymore. I would even rather it to drop 2 lows and move them to mids. Thing is the brawling isn't what a Vaga is for! Vagabonds, or should I say Minmatar, are the skirmish warfare race. What the Vaga ACTUALLY needed was more EHP and grid (to beat out the Cynabal) and instead of a shield boost bonus (which is ignored on all Minmatar ships except the Cyclone) a bonus to tracking or agility or something that helped its kiting ability. A 5th mid would also be called for All HACs should have 16 slots [except the Ishtar,15 slots]
I disagree the vaga needs to "beat out" the cynabal at the same role. I'm more interested in variety.
I would be happy if it is no longer fixed into the function of being a kiter. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 19:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Giving the ships an extra slot might make them worth it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1010
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
IMO
Hacs should have better tank and dps than navy faction cruisers, but generally not as agile or fast.
Pirate faction are even faster than navy faction, same dps as hacs but perhaps not the tank
Hacs faster and more agile than bcs but not quite the dps and tank.
The resist bonuses mean hacs are a good choice for active tanking bonuses.
This applys to frigates as well. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1011
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 20:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ben Yahtzee Croshaw wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Role Bonus: Can fit Target Spectrum Breaker. -90% to fitting and capacitor usage.
Now the HAC has a purpose that T1 cruisers, faction cruisers and aBCs can't do nearly as well. Engage the blob and perform decently at it. Now moving those utility high slots to a medium makes even more sense. Easily the best idea by far.
I'm personally not a fan of this idea. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1012
|
Posted - 2013.07.19 23:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well i view HAC's as either lonewolfs or a pack of wolves if in a fleet ...
so a web resistance role bonus along with the MWD role bonus would be great as a anti recon ship.. Also nerf scrams, webs and OP recon bonuses and links.
I would also suggest making dual prop much easier to fit on these ships aswell as buffing AB's....
What if the role bonus was that these ships were specially rigged so that their mwd had a higher warp core strength.
It could work lots of different ways:
1) mwd could turn into an ab if scrammed (t2 mwd=t2 ab)
2) MWD might work at half efficiency if 1 scram and be turned off by 2 scrams. The sig bloom might remain full if its half turned off. Or it might be halved.
3) some other variation on the theme.
edit: the amount of cap it requires could be changed as well. Also it might still get some inherent reduction to sig bloom and perhaps mass increase from mwd. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1012
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 04:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:I definatly wouldnt mind if the HACs got a role bonus along the lines of decrase to effectiveness of webs, or some sort of other ewar, make them harder to counter, which could be their nitch strength. what if scrams did not turn off the hacs mwd? that would be a nifty bonus eh? Role Bonus: Micro Warp Drive immune to Warp Scrambler that would make them unique and worth the isk investment over comparable alternatives...
I think there are lots of people thinking along these lines. The ships cost a relatively high amount of isk so make them a bit elusive.
Making the mwd immune to scrams might be a bit much but I proposed sort of a compromise.
Cearain wrote:
What if the role bonus was that these ships were specially rigged so that their mwd had a higher warp core strength.
It could work lots of different ways:
1) mwd could turn into an ab if scrammed (t2 mwd=t2 ab)
2) MWD might work at half efficiency if 1 scram and be turned off by 2 scrams. The sig bloom might remain full if its half turned off. Or it might be halved.
3) some other variation on the theme.
edit: the amount of cap it requires could be changed as well. Also it might still get some inherent reduction to sig bloom and perhaps mass increase from mwd.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1012
|
Posted - 2013.07.21 15:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:To mare wrote:vagabond changes are rubbish, it will be slower than the actual one for a useless bonus no one will ever use (no fitting to make use of that),first if you really insist on rolling the speed bonus on the hull then the base speed should be 300 not 290, second any other bonus will be better than a brawling bonus wich doesnt suit the vaga at all (tracking, mass or sig reduction, capacito,r damage or whatever) You know almost everyone fits their vaga's with XLasb's now right?
Actually to the extent people fly vagas anymore they do fit asbs.
Everyone flys cynabals for the role that to old vaga used to fill.
This change is a very good change for the vagabond. It is dumb to have two almost identical ships (cynabal and vaga) that are going for the exact same role. Vaga is the better choice for a brawler asb boost due to its resists.
Vaga needs an extra mid or 2, possibly some more fitting room and it is fixed.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1013
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 00:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Who would like to see HACs (High EHP) reduced to one ship for each race and the others relegated to a new class of skirmish cruisers (High speed, lower sig)?
I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.
But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 15:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Cearain wrote:I think the navy cruisers should generally be higher speed and lower sig.
But really eve is about creative fittings. Most ships shouldn't have set "roles" ccp should give them some reasonable bonuses, slots and stats for the cost and let the players figure out how to use them. That is T1 territory, T2 is supposed to take one and amplify it at the cost of other options without removing said options entirely .. question is if CCP are still playing by those guidelines as there are several T1 revisions that would be more appropriate on T2 and vice versa,
I'm not really seeing what you say with the t2 frigates versus navy frigates.
The frigate/destroyer classes may not be perfect but they work well, and they follow the general guideline I gave.
Navy frigates generally are faster than t2 but t2 offers more dps and tank. Pirate ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and have the same dps as t2 but not the tank.
Destroyers are sort of like the bcs. They are bigger and slower than the t2 frigates. But they tend to have about the same tank and dps. Their slow speed is compensated by being more affordable than the t2 frigates.
The same general model can be followed for cruisers.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.22 21:06:00 -
[17] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:
VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning. (Roll the max speed into the hull.)
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; Max velocity: 299 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 110
I'm not sure what your going for here.
The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room.
I would prefer that to what you posted here.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 02:51:00 -
[18] - Quote
nikar galvren wrote:Cearain wrote:nikar galvren wrote:
VAGABOND: Formerly the king of skirmishing, recent advances forced the Minmatar scientists to completely redesign the Vagabond's propulsion system. The results were stunning. (Roll the max speed into the hull.)
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Optimal
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses: 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 5L; Max velocity: 299 Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 330 / 5 Sensor strength: 14 Ladar Signature radius: 110
I'm not sure what your going for here. The shield boost bonus was great on this ship, as long as it gets at least 1 more mid, a bit more shield buffer, and enough fitting room. I would prefer that to what you posted here. Going for the "Strike" theme. This proposal was focused on damage projection without pigeon holing the Vaga into a shield tank. I don't want to say that I'm against the shield tank idea, but I like the thought of being able to project damage far enough out to really make use of the speed.
Ok even though we don't agree I think you make a good points and we may sort of epitomize a split in thinking.
I think in terms of low sec small ship pvp. You might think in terms of null sec larger ships.
In low sec hacs are going to be larger ships since there are so many dessies and frigates.
So the mwd will quickly get turned off from a frigate flying under my guns. As a low sec pilot I must be able to address that or I am not taking the ship out.
You think in terms of speed to allow you to snipe. I think speed in terms of being able to increase or (just as important) decrease transversal. The whole mwd reduced sig won't help because I will be scrammed and my mwd will be turned off. this is why I don't take hacs out in low sec.
Yes that bonus will be nice in null sec bubbles where you can zip around and large battleship guns won't hit well. But in low sec your no drone vaga just dies to a few fast frigates with scrams.
I would like a hac that Is slippery enough that I can decrease transversal against scram frigates and not just sit there and slowly die like a sick cow.
I will spend 200 mill if that ship gives me the chance of clearing out the 10 dessies and frigates that might jump in at me. (even if I just end up killing some) But if I know that one frigate will scram me then the whole fight will end with me killing only one if I am lucky I am not going to spend the isk.
With 8 different hacs there is no reason we can't both get something.
I think this is the sort of practical problems players need to start posting about instead of abstract stuff about potential roles.
For me the ability to still reduce the transversal so I can hit smaller ships will be a big plus. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 16:15:00 -
[19] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Quote:I think this nicely sums up the glaring issues with this HAC pass. It doesn't seem that they have a clear vision for HACs at the moment (highest dps, most agile, highest ehp, etc.), so you end up with situations like this where Navy and faction ships are much better performers.
A Vigilant will do more dps with 5x blasters than a Deimos and have a much more desirable 90% web bonus. The VNI, as pointed out in this post performs as an all arounder, with the Drone MWD bonus, more ehp, faster, etc. It's a similar picture with the Exequror Navy Issue as well. Granted, these are all Gallente ships, but I'm sure the overall view is much the same in comparing a Vagabond with a Cynabal with a Stabber Fleet Issue (and likely the regular Stabber, too).
So what is it with HACs? What gives them their special snowflake status? I think many of us thought that they would be the best damage performers, with T1 being strong performers on the cheap (small tank), Navy ships being stronger ehp-wise than a T1 (maybe slightly below or on par with HACs) and offer different/unique damage styles. T3s would offer a solid mid-pack performance with their tanks being over HACs but with less damage, and Command Ships (the combat ones/all in the future) being the tankiest with dps below a T3 but above T1 (probably on par with Navy (trades mobility for tank)). Faction, in this picture, would likely keep strong dps performance (near HAC, likely slightly ahead of T3s) and excellent mobility, obviously sacrificing tank but keeping their unique faction bonuses.
But there doesn't seem to be a "theme" with the HACs beyond the "50% reduction to sig under MWD." Are they kiters? That would seem to be the most obvious answer, considering the MWD bonus and other bonuses that indicate these ships should perform at range (Sac's new bonus to HML, Ishtar's drone optimal bonus, etc.). If so, does that mean that they should perform poorly at brawling? Is that what faction ships will end up being? Is that purpose for Navy? T1? I think the vigilant definitely outperforms any possible brawling fit a Deimos could ever use... which suggests a more Vaga based approach .. i just don't why anyone would use a HAC to brawl or even snipe when you have ABC's and bc's and Faction cruisers all which can outperform HAC's up close and at extreme ranges.
ABCs are bad up close brawling. They have horrible tracking and very weak tanks.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1016
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 18:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:TBH I think of HACS as fast damage ships with a robust Tank. That would mean that they have to be positioned between BC's and Faction cruisers
In terms of speed: slightly slower then Faction Cruisers, due to is heavier tank, but way faster then BC's. That would mean in the range of the 1600 m/s to 1800 m/s
In terms off tank: Less EHP then BC's but better then Faction Cruisers. That would mean a tank of 60K to 75K EHP
In terms of damage: Better damage then Faction Cruisers and almost the same has BC's (except the old tier 3 ones). That would mean a a damage between 650-750 DPS.
All these salted with the proper virtues of each race:
The minni Hacs will be faster then the others but less tanky.
The Amarr ones will have have more tank but less speed.
The Gallentean will be in the midle with less speed then Minmatar and less tanky then the amarr ones but with more DPS.
The caldari ones with slower speed of them all, with a tank near the Galentean ones but capable of deploying the damage at longer distances.
Yep this is basically how the frigates work and its pretty well balanced.
navy frigates have less ehp and dps but are a bit faster than t2 frigates.
Destroyers (equivalent of battlecruisers)) tend to have slightly more ehp and more dps than t2 but are slower and cant active tank as well. They are also a bit cheaper than t2 firgates.
Pirate faction ships tend to be even faster than the navy frigates and just as much dps as t2 frigates but not the ehp.
It is working well with the frigate classes why not use the same general model with cruisers?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1018
|
Posted - 2013.07.24 14:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Kane Fenris wrote:Stridsflygplan wrote:the old vagabond is 8.75m/s faster then the new one. that is about 75m/s nerf when MWD is running and two nano fitted. why nerf the speed on a ship that is supposed to be specialized to going fast? why you people ***** about this 75m/s when the problem why the ship isnt as dangerous as it used to be lies elsewhere... the problem of the vaga is with blaster rebalance te nerf and ship reworks and taloses out there its prey went nearly extinct to be a viable solo ship (there need to be more solo ships) it needs to be ale to kite cause in solo ships you need to be able to engage against the odds and be able to run, brawling solo will just get you webed scramed and killed. when you want the vaga to be viable solo ship again you need to up its dmg projection at kite range and maybe up its kite range by buffing longpoits or giveing it a longpoint bonus. Sure needs 5km/s speed 15m sign radius hit with 425mm at 50 km (at least) and able to fit double xl-asb before implants ogb and combat boosters. Minmatar are the fastest (except stupid Cynabal) do the best dps in fall off and selectable dmg, Vaga problem lies somewhere else: SFI and Stabber good enough to do the same job for cheaper, that's it. I think that the bigger problem is the Cynabal, since most nano gangs are composed of Cynabals and fast tackle, plus boosts. The Vaga will become viable when it is either A) 50% of the cost of a Cynabal or B) Better than the Cynabal.
And then the cynabal will be obsolete.
I agree with ccp that the 2 nearly identical ships shouldn't be geared to be flown the exact same way. Given the vagabonds resists it makes sense for ccp to have that ship break from the current mold and give it the shield boost. They just need to make soem other changes around that role like more fitting room and at least another midslot.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|