Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
213
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 03:47:00 -
[61] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote: Sounds about right. Point I was making; do we really need Navy BC's, especially in the face of other changes that would be more welcome?
Yes, it would probably be nice but I could pimp a drake to about 300 mil and it'd probably fill the role.
[Brutix Navy Issue, Active T2] Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x5 Hammerhead II x5
Yes, I need this. I needs my fix, baby
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 05:17:00 -
[62] - Quote
TrueGrits Chris wrote:Who else thinks this would be a good add on to the game faction battlecruiser. I love to see a fleet issue hurricane or navy issue drake
Fleet issue cyclone and fleet issue ferox and brutix and prophecy maybe.
Drake and cane are already too good to need a navy version.
|
Capital T
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 06:05:00 -
[63] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:TrueGrits Chris wrote:Who else thinks this would be a good add on to the game faction battlecruiser. I love to see a fleet issue hurricane or navy issue drake Fleet issue cyclone and fleet issue ferox and brutix and prophecy maybe. Drake and cane are already too good to need a navy version.
IMO, there already exists an enhanced version of the Cyclone, Ferox, Prophecy and Brutix.... The command ships.
A navy issue cane, drake, myrm, and harbinger would be more logical imo. Maybe the command ships need a boost... lol |
ElCholo
BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 06:16:00 -
[64] - Quote
Capital T wrote: IMO, there already exists an enhanced version of the Cyclone, Ferox, Prophecy and Brutix.... The command ships.
A navy issue cane, drake, myrm, and harbinger would be more logical imo. Maybe the command ships need a boost... lol
Since when has that stopped them from anything?
Scorpion, Navy Scorpion, Widow. Raven, Navy Raven, Golem. RokhGǪ.
Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Panther. Tempest, Fleet Tempest, Vargur. MaelstromGǪ
Etc... |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 06:46:00 -
[65] - Quote
Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.
Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed. |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 07:55:00 -
[66] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.
Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed.
Command ships use Command links.
navy ships would not step on the toes of their role. Tech 3 cruisers already did that.
making navy BCs would be no different then what we have now in terms of Navy cruisers vs HACs etc. |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 08:43:00 -
[67] - Quote
There is also the problem of the skill for fling BC. Its an omni skill and the hulls right now only need frig4+cru3 to fly. So they will have to be very alike or every one will just spend the 5 days crossing in to the "best one"(realy bad if its brutix/ferox). This also makes pie one's almost impossible to do.
"You do realize... that the logi skills lead you into triage carrier skills..... right? I mean... that's not really a dead end there."
Cheshire Katt
I do but still feel that logi is a shallow tree, If taken to its fullest is just like you stated is good for carriers. Now look at that with "noob" eyes, see it?
every other T2 type go's in trees, usually starting at frigg and going up, skills, style of play, use, doctrine all overlapping. It makes them "seem" better because there is less of a time gap, logi's take a bit of time to get to, and carriers take longer. now compare it so some thing that also takes time to make it worth wile, cov op to recon to black op.
Almost as skill intensive, but has a flow the new player can start flying "sneaky" ships early and take it through a big chunk of play time.
And this in a nut shell is part of the problem with BC's ez to get, use what you needed to get there, and a big leap over what you had before. And that's why I feel "if" they do navy BC's they should help fill a play experience hole not just give us dream boats. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
75
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 11:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.
Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed.
False. Assuming you gave a harbinger the standard navy buffs of +50% HP and +50% sensor strength, it would still do less dps and have less tank than a comparably fit absolution. The raw EHP difference wouldn't be that big, but the resistance difference would be every bit as massive as it is compared to the base harbinger. That resistance makes a big difference the instant you start using any sort of RR. The real advantage of field CS's over ordinary BC's is not dps or EHP (although they have both), it's the shield/armor resistances. That advantage won't be infringed on with navy BC's assuming everything keeps the same bonuses.
That said, I wouldn't mind a minor CS buff. Fleet CS's should have 5% per lvl bonus to ganglinks (or nerf t3's to 3%) while field CS's should gain a slot or two and a little fitting resources to use them. In the case of my abso, a 4th mid and enough grid/CPU to fit a medium t2 cap booster would be nice. For the slep, an extra midslot would also be very welcome. Not sure on nighthawk and astarte, never messed with them. |
Wacktopia
Sicarius. The Kadeshi
69
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 02:09:00 -
[69] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Wacktopia wrote: Sounds about right. Point I was making; do we really need Navy BC's, especially in the face of other changes that would be more welcome?
Yes, it would probably be nice but I could pimp a drake to about 300 mil and it'd probably fill the role.
[Brutix Navy Issue, Active T2] Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I Hammerhead II x5 Hammerhead II x5 Yes, I need this. I needs my fix, baby-Liang
Lol I want that too now. |
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
70
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 14:13:00 -
[70] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote: Nerfing them could make it easier to balance Cruisers. [...]
No, it wouldn't, and why should it? They are two. Distinct.Classes. Of ships.
Alara Ionstorm wrote: I am not of course saying nerf everyone the same but bonus adjustments to make some more useful and others more in line with a Battlecruiser baseline if you would. You don't have to bring them all in line with the best but you don't need to bring them in line with the worst ether.
Yes, you are. Your picking of BCs as some kind of baseline--for a chassis that costs 1/4 as much and takes little time to train into, vs. a chassis that costs 4x more and needs high skills to get the most out of is proof of this. Your "baseline" is completely arbitrary. Why nerf-bat BCs to cruiser levels when,
A) That many cruisers are useless pieces of shite isn't any of the BCs' fault--nerfing BCs will not change or improve this, only improving the cruisers will. B) The--arguably only--Tech I cruiser that really works is the one that is most focussed around an explicit role, and that's the Caldari Blackbird, with its' Tech II variants expanding on this, at much greater cost. Why can't this be done for all cruisers?
And more to the point, again, what the f does nerfing a whole separate ship-class have to do with this? Especially as regards the EWAR example--no BC has this ability, beyond the nominal sense, IE you can fit an EWAR mod in any ship that has a free mid and use it (un-bonussed targetted ECM is usually not that great--ECM burst is stronger, but also begging to get CONCORD'ed outside of null/losec, but I'm digressing...)
Alara Ionstorm wrote:Decide exactly how useful you want them to be then buff Cruisers accordingly.
Yes, indeed: But deciding how cruisers should be buffed, and then doing it has nothing to do with BCs.
Read it slowly, once again:
They. Are. Distinct. From Each other.
FFS...
I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
|
Alara IonStorm
706
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 14:25:00 -
[71] - Quote
Lyrrashae wrote: No, it wouldn't, and why should it? They are two. Distinct.Classes. Of ships.
That interact with each other using the same types of weapons and modules.
Lyrrashae wrote: Yes, you are. Your picking of BCs as some kind of baseline--for a chassis that costs 1/4 as much and takes little time to train into, vs. a chassis that costs 4x more and needs high skills to get the most out of is proof of this. Your "baseline" is completely arbitrary. Why nerf-bat BCs to cruiser levels when,
Cost is not a factor in balance of Tier 1 Hulls. Roles are a the major factor. No they do not take high skill they take a few days longer more or equal skill. All Weapons are the same, Tank Modules are the same and the skill itself is only 2 ranks higher.
No ship should be considered better just different.
Lyrrashae wrote: A) That many cruisers are useless pieces of shite isn't any of the BCs' fault--nerfing BCs will not change or improve this, only improving the cruisers will. B) The--arguably only--Tech I cruiser that really works is the one that is most focussed around an explicit role, and that's the Caldari Blackbird, with its' Tech II variants expanding on this, at much greater cost. Why can't this be done for all cruisers?
You keep saying Nerfing battlecruisers when I continually refer to Drake and Cane.
I would prefer Battlecruisers were balanced around the other Battlecruisers not the most OP two.
Lyrrashae wrote: Yes, indeed: But deciding how cruisers should be buffed, and then doing it has nothing to do with BCs.
Absolutely it does because they are the main reason for the majorities disappearance from small gangs and fleets. Any Cruiser Rebalance has to look into how they scale against there main competition. |
Versuvius Marii
Browncoats of Persephone
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 20:08:00 -
[72] - Quote
ElCholo wrote:I would rather see the tier 1 BCs as faction issues. It would be fun to have a Fleet Cyclone. Maybe make them a little more viable since the tier 2 BCs usually make the tier 1 BCs obsolete. Clearly sir, you've never fought a properly fitted Cyclone. Or fought against one for that matter. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
226
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 20:23:00 -
[73] - Quote
Versuvius Marii wrote:ElCholo wrote:I would rather see the tier 1 BCs as faction issues. It would be fun to have a Fleet Cyclone. Maybe make them a little more viable since the tier 2 BCs usually make the tier 1 BCs obsolete. Clearly sir, you've never fought a properly fitted Cyclone. Or fought against one for that matter.
Does a "properly fitted Cyclone" include a faction fit, blue pill, crystal set, and tengu+loki booster?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
76
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 22:03:00 -
[74] - Quote
That's my conclusion on the cyclone. Even with all that it still isn't terribly impressive. And believe me, I've tried. How I wish I could do with a cyclone what I can do with a maelstrom. But it just isn't happening with only 5 mids. |
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 01:00:00 -
[75] - Quote
I would favor the absolution getting another turret or another mid along with extra fitting.
The sleipnir has 7 turrets with double damage bonus along with a 40m3 drone bay.
The Absolution has only 6 turrets with double damage bonus with a 25 m3 drone bay.
It needs another one. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
93
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 02:58:00 -
[76] - Quote
+1 for Tier 1's, maybe a Myrm, maybe a Harby. No navy issue drakes or canes please. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
227
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 03:14:00 -
[77] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:+1 for Tier 1's, maybe a Myrm, maybe a Harby. No navy issue drakes or canes please.
Does this mean I can't have my fleet issue stark white/stark black Hurricane? It would make my SWTOR PVP videos work oh so much better.... :(
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
57
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 05:40:00 -
[78] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.
Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed. Command ships use Command links. navy ships would not step on the toes of their role.
Are you saying the role of (field) Command ships is to fit the gang-links for the whopping 22.5% bonus at a cost of gimping their (already mediocre) performance?
You must be fitting a gank-link onto your Titan, too. Otherwise, behave yourself and cut the crap. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
BringerMC
The Ghost Division
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 05:56:00 -
[79] - Quote
How about we make T2 versions of the Tier 2 BC but they are glorified capital killers.
Make it so they can fit Capital Citadel Torpedos but no cloaky action like the stealth bombers. They can also not fit bomb launchers. They will be designed to be heavy tanked and designed to murder Capital Ships.
Just a thought. Really need a niche subcap that is designed for killings caps. |
Lunkwill Khashour
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 13:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
If anything the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane should be nerfed (loosing a slot at least). They are way too popular atm and obsolete too many other ships. If these three were brought inline, there would be more diversity in space than can be achieved by adding better hulls of these ships. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Mongoloids Inc.
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 13:25:00 -
[81] - Quote
TrueGrits Chris wrote:Who else thinks this would be a good add on to the game faction battlecruiser. I love to see a fleet issue hurricane or navy issue drake
I got a way better idea... How about we un-break command ships before we introduce tier 2 faction bcs that will obviously have 1 or 2 more slots, more ehp, and 3 rigs...
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Mongoloids Inc.
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 13:31:00 -
[82] - Quote
RougeOperator wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Navy Battlecruisers concerns me in that it would be equal or superior to field command ships. Command ships need buffing for the costs and the skill prerequisite needed to fly them.
Either Navy Battlecruisers have to be gimped, or Tech 2 Field Command Ships need to be buffed. Command ships use Command links. navy ships would not step on the toes of their role. Tech 3 cruisers already did that. making navy BCs would be no different then what we have now in terms of Navy cruisers vs HACs etc.
Field commands have the same bonuses to fitting command links as t1 bcs and I don't see everyone posting "Bcs are meant to fit Command links". Just like t1 bcs, fitting a command link to a field command often gimps them into the underwhelming category.
If you want to work with gang links fit a specialized off grid bc, fleet command, or t3 please...
Learn to fit field commands first before posting such a pigeonholed arguments.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
227
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 16:45:00 -
[83] - Quote
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:If anything the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane should be nerfed (loosing a slot at least). They are way too popular atm and obsolete too many other ships. If these three were brought inline, there would be more diversity in space than can be achieved by adding better hulls of these ships.
Sigh. Another one. What ships do you feel that they obsolete for the role they are supposed to fill?
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: any one more thing.... "The existence of Tier 2 Battlecruisers is totally immaterial to whether or not T1 cruisers are useful." just stop Liang...
Its true and you know it. We could delete all tier 2 BCs from the game tomorrow - or nerf them to have 1 high/mid/low each - and T1 cruisers would STILL be a bad choice 100% of the time.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Soon Shin
Abyssal Heavy Industries Narwhals Ate My Duck
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 19:00:00 -
[84] - Quote
The absolution should be given another gun since the sleipnir has one more turret and bigger drone bay than the hurricane, while the absolution has one less turret and smaller drone bay. The absolution should be given more grid and cpu to accomodate the 7th turret.
The nighthawk deserves another missile, I don't see a reason why it has less missiles than the drake. 7 heavy missiles will make the nighthawk worth using, it also needs a bit more grid and cpu.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Mongoloids Inc.
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 20:45:00 -
[85] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:The absolution should be given another gun since the sleipnir has one more turret and bigger drone bay than the hurricane, while the absolution has one less turret and smaller drone bay. The absolution should be given more grid and cpu to accomodate the 7th turret.
The nighthawk deserves another missile, I don't see a reason why it has less missiles than the drake. 7 heavy missiles will make the nighthawk worth using, it also needs a bit more grid and cpu.
I like these idea more or less.
Abso with +1 high and another turret +fittings would allow for it to compete with legions for medium laser dps king.
Imo Nighthawk should get +1 mid and have the kinetic bonus changed to a flat damage bonus allowing it to compete with it's tier 2 cousin. Currently the drake is more or less superior to the NH outside of specific situations where the beast kin/therm resistance shines. For those that do no know, the drake has 1 more total slot as well as an additional rig when compared to the Nighthawk, you know the command ship with an 8x Multiplier skill?.....
I'd like to see the Astarte get an additional low as well...
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
72
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 02:34:00 -
[86] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:[ Sigh. Another one. What ships do you feel that they obsolete for the role they are supposed to fill? Jerick Ludhowe wrote: any one more thing.... "The existence of Tier 2 Battlecruisers is totally immaterial to whether or not T1 cruisers are useful." just stop Liang...
Its true and you know it. We could delete all tier 2 BCs from the game tomorrow - or nerf them to have 1 high/mid/low each - and T1 cruisers would STILL be a bad choice 100% of the time. -Liang
Liang is right (as s/he often is), so quoting for truth.
And you all bloody well know it, so let's stop kidding ourselves.
Nerfing a distinct ship-class because another distinct ship-class to the first happens to suck teh meat? OOooooooooooooooooo-kay, I see the rock-solid logic there! It's not like the parallel you're drawing between them isn't 100 per cent arbitrary, and based totally on your own self-confirming biases, now is it.
Please Lumkill, or whatever, and others like him, just do yourselves a favour and stop posting without thinking.
E: For additional clarity and my usual typing-fail. I A/F/K cloak in Jita. Does that count? |
Luh Windan
S T R A T C O M
35
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 09:01:00 -
[87] - Quote
Berluth Luthian wrote:Would game mechanics allow something like a 'deep space battlecruiser'?
You could make something that operated akin to a capital ship in that it couldn't travel into high-sec, maybe had some scanning bonuses, +1 default warp core stabilizer, was a little nerfed for a BC, but had like an outrageously low mass so that you could take them in and out of WH's without worrying about collapsing them...
Just trying to get creative, don't know if it is necessary...
certainly one of the more interesting ideas. CCP played with WH specific ships with the Zephyr - it would be nice to see some more WH specific ships.
Given that you need to access Whs from k space of various flavours - perhaps they could fly in k-space but performed badly there - heavy penalties (justification being- systems heavily optimised for w-space don't work properly outside or something like that)
Perhaps you could apply this further. For example low sec optimised ships (justification being something like - they don't need to carry the security ID electronics. You could make them *always* flashy red in high and perhaps orange in low no matter what the sec status of the pilot).
it would certainly be nice to see a bit more creativity along these lines |
Opertone
Signal 7
61
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 08:47:00 -
[88] - Quote
relax navy ships are not top of the line PvP choices.
They are new players rewards for their first steps in missions and facwar. Long before they can fly tech 2 ships, navy versions which are more expensive and hard to get let them step into that 'semi tech II' field.
Of course Navy ships don't have extra resists, are too expensive for regular PvP, but they need clear and certain advantage over tech 1, nearing or surpassing tech 2. Speaking of which, +20 CPU is not a bonus.
+50 MB (up to 125) drone bandwidth will make Navy Vexxor and Navy Myrmidon a favorite beginner ship.
Navy drake can get extra launcher, missile explosion radius or double missile velocity (which is a hefty bonus)
Don't give navy ships stupid bonuses, you will not get them overpowered. Simply because they are role specific temporary solutions for low SP players. Pirate ships and tech 3 are the top end choices. Please give navies some life. |
Lunkwill Khashour
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:46:00 -
[89] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Lunkwill Khashour wrote:If anything the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane should be nerfed (loosing a slot at least). They are way too popular atm and obsolete too many other ships. If these three were brought inline, there would be more diversity in space than can be achieved by adding better hulls of these ships. Sigh. Another one. What ships do you feel that they obsolete for the role they are supposed to fill? -Liang
Any smaller hull that doesn't do the nano-kiting-sniping thing or doesn't do a support role is outclassed by a harby, drake or cane. This ranges from T1 frigs to T2 hac's to tech1 BC's. The smaller snipers are outclassed at sniping by the tech3 BC's and the drake-harby-cane nano-kite themselves very well. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
242
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 19:06:00 -
[90] - Quote
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Lunkwill Khashour wrote:If anything the Harbinger, Drake and Hurricane should be nerfed (loosing a slot at least). They are way too popular atm and obsolete too many other ships. If these three were brought inline, there would be more diversity in space than can be achieved by adding better hulls of these ships. Sigh. Another one. What ships do you feel that they obsolete for the role they are supposed to fill? -Liang Any smaller hull that doesn't do the nano-kiting-sniping thing or doesn't do a support role is outclassed by a harby, drake or cane. This ranges from T1 frigs to T2 hac's to tech1 BC's. The smaller snipers are outclassed at sniping by the tech3 BC's and the drake-harby-cane nano-kite themselves very well.
So basically what you're telling me is that T1 frigates are useless as DPS ships because tier 2 battlecruisers make them so.
Ok.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |