open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Tech II ships coming in Trinity, new Dev Blog by Fendahl
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (18)

Author Topic

Rina Tsukimura
Posted - 2007.10.24 13:56:00 - [361]
 

1. The Dominix should have been the Gallente Marauder, not the Megathron. The Megathron looks much more 'stealthy', the Dominix looks like a fat, old loot mobile... and the Dominix is what most Gallente mission-grind in now.

2. The Torpedo changes, if they go live, make the Golem kind of sad. At their current, shorter range... they're not very well-suited for missioning. If cruise missiles are used instead of Torpedos, they get hit by the defender-spam issue quite severly under the 4 launcher scheme... as others have said.

Both seem close to something very nice - but as they stand, I don't see a Dominix or CNR mission-runner feeling a lot of pressure to move up into their respective marauders for the purpose of continued mission running. Epsecially if they've already "Power of Two'd" a salvage/looting alt up.

Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
Warped Aggression
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:05:00 - [362]
 

I like some of the ideas... I REALLY detest that we're adding yet another ship to the game that's intended purpose is to grief people in their home systems. While I am a recon pilot and do go to enemy territory and attack them from cloaked positions I don't go cloak, afk for hours so they don't know if I'm there or not, and then go back to killing when I feel like it.

This is the whole problem with cloaking as it stands today. The ability for any pilot to slap a cloak on their ship and go sit cloaked (usually afk) for HOURS, effectively removing any chance of a organization to make isk safely. They don't know if you're there and active or if you're afk. All they know is there is a hostile in system in a ship capable of incinerating a miner or ratter.

Adding YET ANOTHER ship that can do this, and further making it a ship that doesn't even have the calibration delay after decloaking (like stealth bombers) and ... omfg... making it use Battleship weapons.... I'm sorry I have a problem with this. I may be alone... I may be seen as a whiner... I really don't care. I think this is 100% the wrong direction to go in EVE. We already have enough AFK cloakers in EVE. Right now if you DO catch them at least you can pod them and get rid of them for a while... now not so! I got podded!!!!!

"No prob little buddy... lemme just log my stealth cyno alt on"
"There you go, jump to that system in your new cloaker"
"Thanks big buddy"

Now the cloakers not only are impossible to run down without various bait/trap techniques but even if you DO catch them they'll be back in minutes because they can be portalled in with an undetectable cyno field? Who's brilliant idea was this?

========================================
Now... I never complain without offering a compromise/solution to my complaint:
========================================
I'm a recon pilot, preferred ship is the rapier so bear in mind that I DO fly cloakers. My proposal is simple:

1) ALL cloaks should use cap to run. Standard cloaks, fitted on X ship should use cap equal to what a MWD of the appropriate class would.

What does this mean? Ok if you stick a standard cloak (T1 or T2) on a Frigate it would require, to activate and run, the same ammount of cap as activating and running a 1mn MWD. An improved T2 cloak would require the same ammount of cap to activate and run as a 1mn MWD II. On a cruiser? 10mn MWD cap useage.

2) COVERT OPS CLOAKS would use 75% of the ammt of cap that a MWD of the appropriate class uses. (yes, this means their cap would be stable and they could cloak indefinitely).

3) In order for a cloak to activate a pilot must NOT have any active aggression timer. IE: If you attack someone you have to wait 15 minutes before you can cloak. This would make it a lot tougher for cloaker gank squads to hang out behind enemy lines, find some poor schlep mining, gank the crap out of him and then vanish before help can even begin to arrive. They would have to pick their attacks a lot more carefully.

That's my suggestions, as a recon pilot myself. I am fully willing to admit that the current state of cloaking is way overpowered very unbalancing and very unfair as it is almost impossible to evict a smart cloaker pilot once they get in place. These steps would make it much tougher for cloakers to do this, and would also make it nearly impossible for people to sit around cloaked all day in anything but a ship specifically designed for it (thus removing the cloaked fleet tactic that so many folks are starting to adopt).

Garia666
Amarr
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
Xenon-Empire
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:17:00 - [363]
 

I have another question..

heat was kinda specialy implemented for the tech 2 bs.

how has heat have its effect on these ships?

any special abbility?


Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:34:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: Perry

Suggested Apocalypse MKII:
7 HI
5 ME
7 LO
150m Dronebay
BS Bonus1 > -10% cap use of large energy turrets
BS Bonus 2 > +7,5% tracking of large energy turrets



this is just as bad as the current apoc....well actually no...it may be worse. only improvement is the increase in dronebay size really.



Polinus
Caldari
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:55:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne
Originally by: Perry

Suggested Apocalypse MKII:
7 HI
5 ME
7 LO
150m Dronebay
BS Bonus1 > -10% cap use of large energy turrets
BS Bonus 2 > +7,5% tracking of large energy turrets



this is just as bad as the current apoc....well actually no...it may be worse. only improvement is the increase in dronebay size really.





No, it woudl use very few cap to fire with 4 guns, and the extra drones get the needed extra firepower.

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.24 14:56:00 - [366]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

Thats why:
1. i know cheap sources
2. i bought quite a lot in advance (atm abt 2-4bil in cores/decryptors)
3. im runing my rnd agents

Also the so called "killing" passed already. Mech.eng. cores are slowly stabilising, the times when you could sell em for 3-4mil/piece already passed. Same for decryptors, sorry :)


Don't be sorry -- it won't be a big deal to me. I'm just pointing out that for the "common man" it will be expensive to invent these things, and without BPOs, there will be no baseline for pricing and availability.



Oh but there IS baseline. Its base production costs (materials) + invention costs (including chances to get BPC, per one run). Atm it was abt 550/650 (tier1/2 t2 bs) materials + 100mil invention costs (per each run). And i guess baseline will be abt 700/800mil for em (+-100mil). Ofc when prices stabilise, first months will be insane tho.

As for "starting inventors"... well materials to build one ship cost over 0,5b - so its WAY out of their reach. Also include prices of ship interfaces...

New inventors should start with modules. Fairly cheap, easy to invent, neats good results.

SO: "common man": modules, frigs/dictors/maybe HACs... T2 bs/commands need much more iskies for starters (but on other hand if succesfull can give VERY nice results).


Interesting numbers -- not knowing what a T2 battleship's material requirements are, I can't really judge how accurate they might be. So, you're saying you expect 700-800 mil baseline to invent the BPC and build one ship?

If so, how much will people charge for profit? Right now, a decent command ship gets about 2x-3x build cost. So, would you guess we'd be seeing 1.4 billion to 2.4 billion as the market price (after initial insanity rush dies down)? That's sort of sickening compared to what a dread or carrier costs, plus it doesn't take into account supply and demand. How long does it take to build the ship once you have the BPC? How many could an inventor produce per month vs. what a BPO holder could do if BPOs existed?

Plus, the longer the market prices remain high, the more likely people are going to want to try to invent their own, increasing demand (and prices) for invention materials.

The people who want to fly T2 battleships had better hope they don't lose them, too, because insurance payout will be a joke compared to the price tag. ugh

Tootz
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:03:00 - [367]
 

Any reason why we haven't had any sort of DEV response on the concerns raised in this thread, when in contrast they can't seem to stay out of a thread about backing down on the Carrier changes?

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:18:00 - [368]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/10/2007 15:19:20
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: Deva Blackfire



Oh but there IS baseline. Its base production costs (materials) + invention costs (including chances to get BPC, per one run). Atm it was abt 550/650 (tier1/2 t2 bs) materials + 100mil invention costs (per each run). And i guess baseline will be abt 700/800mil for em (+-100mil). Ofc when prices stabilise, first months will be insane tho.

As for "starting inventors"... well materials to build one ship cost over 0,5b - so its WAY out of their reach. Also include prices of ship interfaces...

New inventors should start with modules. Fairly cheap, easy to invent, neats good results.

SO: "common man": modules, frigs/dictors/maybe HACs... T2 bs/commands need much more iskies for starters (but on other hand if succesfull can give VERY nice results).


Interesting numbers -- not knowing what a T2 battleship's material requirements are, I can't really judge how accurate they might be. So, you're saying you expect 700-800 mil baseline to invent the BPC and build one ship?



No - i know that baseline from sisi already. Poeple invented em and translated sisi material requirements to TQ component prices. And it gave abt 550mil for tier1 BS and 6xx for tier2 t2 BS. Invention is easy to calculate by using chance to get 1 run, so its abt 100mil per ship.

Quote:

If so, how much will people charge for profit? Right now, a decent command ship gets about 2x-3x build cost. So, would you guess we'd be seeing 1.4 billion to 2.4 billion as the market price (after initial insanity rush dies down)? That's sort of sickening compared to what a dread or carrier costs, plus it doesn't take into account supply and demand. How long does it take to build the ship once you have the BPC? How many could an inventor produce per month vs. what a BPO holder could do if BPOs existed?



Wrong. Build costs for command ships are high. I built em from BPC (copies from Original, so high ME and PE) and ship alone costed around 80mil isk. Comparing this to 100mil for fleet CBCs it means that most of prod. comes from BPOs, and ppl who invented em (and got fleet version) are on the loss.

Quote:

Plus, the longer the market prices remain high, the more likely people are going to want to try to invent their own, increasing demand (and prices) for invention materials.



True. But when they check skill req's half of them goes back to the cave they crawled out of ;p

Quote:

The people who want to fly T2 battleships had better hope they don't lose them, too, because insurance payout will be a joke compared to the price tag. ugh



Yup. Tho as CBCs get 50mil insurance (from 80 or so mil isk component cost) it seems that t2 bs might be insurable at 200-300mil isk level.

EDIT:
as for BS prices. I "heard" that BS construction skill reduces components needed so it might reduce ship costs. But i need confirmation on this one.

Nick Marsh
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:24:00 - [369]
 

actually when the dust settles down and invention and production get steady:
marauders about 500M
black ops about 400M
+ the profit of the inventors/producers

and ofc when its just introduced there wont be a lot available so i image prices way over a billion for the first 't2' BS...

still I aint interested cos ccp hates amarr...

Gut Punch
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:25:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: Taram Caldar
3) In order for a cloak to activate a pilot must NOT have any active aggression timer. IE: If you attack someone you have to wait 15 minutes before you can cloak.


What a completely wacked out and off the wall suggestion. Force Recons don't all have tanks. They are paper thin as it is. The only defense they have is the ability to cloak. Taking that away from Force Recons is a sure fire way to end their usefulness.

Kazuma Saruwatari
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:32:00 - [371]
 

Yet again I see a lack of Amarr help in the new ships. Seriously, web effectiveness bonus on the Amarr Marauder?!

Isnt it enough that you've invalidated the Apocalypse long ago CCP? Must you slap every amarr flyer in the face yet again?

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:48:00 - [372]
 

Edited by: Mack Dorgeans on 24/10/2007 15:48:08

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/10/2007 15:19:20
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: Deva Blackfire



Oh but there IS baseline. Its base production costs (materials) + invention costs (including chances to get BPC, per one run). Atm it was abt 550/650 (tier1/2 t2 bs) materials + 100mil invention costs (per each run). And i guess baseline will be abt 700/800mil for em (+-100mil). Ofc when prices stabilise, first months will be insane tho.

As for "starting inventors"... well materials to build one ship cost over 0,5b - so its WAY out of their reach. Also include prices of ship interfaces...

New inventors should start with modules. Fairly cheap, easy to invent, neats good results.

SO: "common man": modules, frigs/dictors/maybe HACs... T2 bs/commands need much more iskies for starters (but on other hand if succesfull can give VERY nice results).


Interesting numbers -- not knowing what a T2 battleship's material requirements are, I can't really judge how accurate they might be. So, you're saying you expect 700-800 mil baseline to invent the BPC and build one ship?



No - i know that baseline from sisi already. Poeple invented em and translated sisi material requirements to TQ component prices. And it gave abt 550mil for tier1 BS and 6xx for tier2 t2 BS. Invention is easy to calculate by using chance to get 1 run, so its abt 100mil per ship.

Quote:

If so, how much will people charge for profit? Right now, a decent command ship gets about 2x-3x build cost. So, would you guess we'd be seeing 1.4 billion to 2.4 billion as the market price (after initial insanity rush dies down)? That's sort of sickening compared to what a dread or carrier costs, plus it doesn't take into account supply and demand. How long does it take to build the ship once you have the BPC? How many could an inventor produce per month vs. what a BPO holder could do if BPOs existed?



Wrong. Build costs for command ships are high. I built em from BPC (copies from Original, so high ME and PE) and ship alone costed around 80mil isk. Comparing this to 100mil for fleet CBCs it means that most of prod. comes from BPOs, and ppl who invented em (and got fleet version) are on the loss.

Quote:

Plus, the longer the market prices remain high, the more likely people are going to want to try to invent their own, increasing demand (and prices) for invention materials.



True. But when they check skill req's half of them goes back to the cave they crawled out of ;p

Quote:

The people who want to fly T2 battleships had better hope they don't lose them, too, because insurance payout will be a joke compared to the price tag. ugh



Yup. Tho as CBCs get 50mil insurance (from 80 or so mil isk component cost) it seems that t2 bs might be insurable at 200-300mil isk level.

EDIT:
as for BS prices. I "heard" that BS construction skill reduces components needed so it might reduce ship costs. But i need confirmation on this one.


In my experience, the Astarte costs about 65-75 million to build, depending upon market fluctuations. The Brutix required is about 20-23 million of that total. Yet the ship sells for easily twice what it costs to build. If there are no BPOs for the new T2s, I would expect people to charge AT LEAST 2x the build cost, which is going to have to include waste from invented BPC stats. A 50% waste BPC is pretty common, so 1.5x the cost of components/minerals plus the cost of the T1 ship would be the total build cost average. Then double that, and figure out the minimum expected price for a high-demand ship.

Again, demand is going to far outstrip supply without BPOs, so I would expect prices to be much worse than 2x build cost. Resellers are common enough and smart enough at manipulating markets to snatch up any T2 battleship that goes on the market for a low markup, and they'll turn around and slap on a nice profit margin. The smaller ships won't be as bad, though.

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:55:00 - [373]
 

By the way, despite all the whines and complaints in this thread, a T2 Raven or Mega, or whatever is going to be in high demand, and you can expect them to cost quite a bit more than a faction battleship. I see CNRs all over the place these days, and I think the Golem will be preferred by mission runners even if the DPS is similar. For one thing, pilots will save on ammo costs. For another, the large cargo bay and tractor bonus will make cleaning up after a mission easier without having to change ships. If the T2s tank better than T1/faction, mission runners (and mission isk farmers -- they're becoming more and more common it appears) are going to be all over the Marauders.

Well, maybe not the Amarr, but then what else is new?

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.24 15:57:00 - [374]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
as for BS prices. I "heard" that BS construction skill reduces components needed so it might reduce ship costs. But i need confirmation on this one.


Well, that will certainly help prices if true, but if that's the case, a lot of us T2 producers are going to be screaming for a similar reduction bonus on the other construction skills. Why should T2 BS builders be the only ones getting a bonus like that?

Deadly Huntress
Mining Bytes Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:02:00 - [375]
 

As an Amarr pilot I'm kind of saddened about the new ships. The Khandid changes were awesome and made me think that CCP was finally going to give us some power back.That being said I'd like to look at the new ships.

Sentinel
The sentinel has an effective range of up to 18km with tech 2 neutralizers and can sustain 3 of them when optimized for capacitor recharge. This makes the Sentinel a serious threat even to battleships.
You are joking right? A frigate with no tank that has to close into 18km on a BS and can run 3 SMALL Neuts with no tank is a threat??? Yeah if they don't have drones. This is even more true with all the webbing bonuses on T2 ships coming out. Oh and could you not use such an ugly hull design for a t2 ship?

Devoter
Okay so its a maller? You either get tank or gank with those and I'm not overly thrilled about this "immune to remote help" idea. Basically I'd be better of sitting in my nanodictor and running away after I drop a bubble.

Redeemer
Okay I'm kind of giddy about black-ops so I'll leave this one be for now. But warping cloaked would be kind of nice because it'll be hard enough to drop behind enemy lines without that ability. Unless I don't jump drive correctly.

Paladin
Can we change the name? I don't think of Paladins as these dark things like all the other amarr ships. I like the overall idea however I don't see it being used in missions as much as pvp, and even then fairly limited use.

Overall however I feel that the Amarr are still the red-headed step children of eve. I feel the other races ships out perform them in every class (1v1 idea).

d026
temp holding
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:12:00 - [376]
 

Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 16:12:56
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
By the way, despite all the whines and complaints in this thread, a T2 Raven or Mega, or whatever is going to be in high demand, and you can expect them to cost quite a bit more than a faction battleship. I see CNRs all over the place these days, and I think the Golem will be preferred by mission runners even if the DPS is similar. For one thing, pilots will save on ammo costs. For another, the large cargo bay and tractor bonus will make cleaning up after a mission easier without having to change ships. If the T2s tank better than T1/faction, mission runners (and mission isk farmers -- they're becoming more and more common it appears) are going to be all over the Marauders.

Well, maybe not the Amarr, but then what else is new?



i dont agree. as a smart mission runner you will find out that lp is worth MUCH more than any possible salvage/loot you can expect from a mission. Thus you are going to try to speed up missions as fast as possible. Unfortunately you will NEVER be able to run missions as fast and efficient in a GOLEM than in a CNR. Thus you never gonna switch to a Golem if you run missions for pure straight ISK. Also if you are allready running missions in your pimped CNR, why would you downgrade? CNR kills better and can field a 100% adequate tank for all lvl4s existing on TQ atm. And you are wrong (Golem dps == Raven dps ) < CNR dps.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:13:00 - [377]
 

First, those Marauders are weird, from a design point of view. It's as if two guys got their own ideas about a specialised exploration/mission-running ship (it's pretty obvious they were not made with ratting as the primary goal, you don't need tanking bonuses to tank the small dps npcs in belt dish out), and they applied those idea to the ships, without checking what the other was doing. It's most obvious with the Golem: the TP/exp velocity bonuses scream Torpedo usage, but torps aren't optimal for missions/exploration. IT's just not practical enough.


Chronos: That's basically what a Marauder should be: Noticeable DPS increase, but not HAC-level increase, and a bonus to active tanking only, that will be usefull for missions and solo pvp, only marginally usefull in small gang pvp, and totally useless in fleet pvp. But, it has too much powergrid. It should be able to fit 4 425mm rails, afterburner, and two large rep. Not the 4 neutrons, 3 heavy neuts, MWD+cap injector and double large rep I'm hearing about.


Vargur: What does it do better than a Maelstrom, in terms of DPS/tanking? Not enough. The tracking bonus is meh, because autocanons don't need it, and the falloff bonus, while good for pvp, isn't much for pve. With 30k falloff with faction ammos, you'll still miss oe hell of a lot with half the npc battleships, those that orbit at 40-50km. And the ship is in bd need of powergrid, to at least be able to fit 1200mm artilleries.


Paladin: There's something I think CCP hasn't considered here: Laser boats are used only against blood raiders/sanchas/drones & mercenaries. Since those can be tanked with only 1 large rep, 1 EM and 2 active hardeners, that means you don't really need a tanking bonus. Oh, it's still a nice thing to have, but an Abaddon does a better job at mission-whoring than a Paladin with those stats. The tracking bonus is meh, I have no trouble killing cruisers with my current armageddon, and the web bonus mean frigs won't be a problem either, even without tracking bonus.


Golem: What to say that isn't obvious? If used with torps, the lack of range will be pain in the ass, and the explosion velocity bonus usefull only against frigs, the BS/cruiser NPC rarely move at more than 200m/sec. If used with cruises, both the target painter and explosion velocity bonuses are useless (TP bonus only marginally useful against frigs, and that's about 5-10% of what you'll spend time firing at). In either cases, the exp velocity bonus is decently usefull only in pvp, and those are specialized pve ships. There is a serious design dissonance with that battleship.


So, how about proposals to correct things?

There's one thing to keep in mind first: as an almost universal rule, pve players will use weapons that can hit consitently at 40km, even if that means less dps.

- Change the 100% damage role bonus to 115%. To prevent the chronos from being a pvp solopwnmobile, nerf it's powergrid, and drone bandwitch to 50, or even 25. The marauders won't be be-all-end-all ships. Still very vulnerables to EW, still barely more survivables thant T1 BS agsint small gangs, and everyone know Eve's pvp is ganks most of the time.

- Scrap the Golem's explosion velocity, it's useless, and replace it with a velocity bonus. OR, if you want it to use cruise missiles, replace this bonus by the old RoF bonus of the Raven.

- About the paladin, the role bonus would do the job, but an 10% optimal bonus instead of the 7.5% tracking one would also be fine.

- At least, increase the Vargur's PG so it can have an effective artillery pve fit.

Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:22:00 - [378]
 

Originally by: d026
Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 16:12:56
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
By the way, despite all the whines and complaints in this thread, a T2 Raven or Mega, or whatever is going to be in high demand, and you can expect them to cost quite a bit more than a faction battleship. I see CNRs all over the place these days, and I think the Golem will be preferred by mission runners even if the DPS is similar. For one thing, pilots will save on ammo costs. For another, the large cargo bay and tractor bonus will make cleaning up after a mission easier without having to change ships. If the T2s tank better than T1/faction, mission runners (and mission isk farmers -- they're becoming more and more common it appears) are going to be all over the Marauders.

Well, maybe not the Amarr, but then what else is new?



i dont agree. as a smart mission runner you will find out that lp is worth MUCH more than any possible salvage/loot you can expect from a mission. Thus you are going to try to speed up missions as fast as possible. Unfortunately you will NEVER be able to run missions as fast and efficient in a GOLEM than in a CNR. Thus you never gonna switch to a Golem if you run missions for pure straight ISK. Also if you are allready running missions in your pimped CNR, why would you downgrade? CNR kills better and can field a 100% adequate tank for all lvl4s existing on TQ atm. And you are wrong (Golem dps == Raven dps ) < CNR dps.



Based on past experience, I expect many of the T2 ships to be tweaked either before release or soon after due to player complaints and feedback, especially once enough people have had a chance to actually fly them.

Even without any changes, I still think the Golem and Kronos in particular are going to be popular. I saw people badmouthing the Astarte quite a bit, but based on my sales figures (I've built and sold/traded over 500 of them thus far), it is a lot of hot air.

LoKesh
Amarr
Nex Exercitus
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:47:00 - [379]
 

This might be the perfect time for CCP to look at and start to break the mold on Caldari EW ships?

ECM was nerfed/adjusted and as a result the recon ships (namely Falcon and Rook) were adjusted to give them large bonuses. In fear that ECM was to powerful, the bonuses were kept just to ECM. However, the other racial ships received bonuses to two types of electronic warfare

Amarr got nos/neut and tracking disruptors
Gallente got damps and warp scrams
Minnie got painters and webs (and now a MWD bonus)

These dual bonuses made these ships very flexible - they were fun for solo, they could be setup for pure fleet and all of them could be paired with a sensor damp (web bonus+damp = OMG). However, due to the inherent fear of ECM the Caldari ships are left with one bonus.

Now... with scorpions, blackbirds, falcons and rooks the ECM only bonuses are fine. They perform well in fleets and small gangs. However, with the Kitsune I think we're getting the short end of the stick. These ships are frigates - the first time the ECM fails, the ship is going to get popped by one volley. What if we drop the ECM range bonus for something else?

5% level to damage/rof? (optional damage dealer?)
5% level speed boost? (mini ceptor?)
10% level to scan resolution? (tackler/first strike)
20% level to missile speed? (make it a true long range thing)

Maybe leave the bonus but increase grid and the total number of hislots/launchers. As it is, the ship is a fragile one-trick pony.


Law Enforcer
Still Undecided
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:57:00 - [380]
 

well the problem is this:

tomb and tuxford got together to design the kronos thus it kicks ass.
zulu designed the rest of the ships and took a special interest in the paladin.

Ryan Darkwolf
Amarr
Sins Of Lost Souls
Einherjar Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 16:59:00 - [381]
 

I have nothing to add in reality..just wondering though since I can't actually see the ships...

what color is the Paladin gonna be...(make it balck)
because you know...everyone wants it (make it black)
cause actually I think the apoc should be the black op ship (just paint it black)

ShockedShocked
Make it black

d026
temp holding
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:17:00 - [382]
 

Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
Originally by: d026
Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 16:12:56
Originally by: Mack Dorgeans
By the way, despite all the whines and complaints in this thread, a T2 Raven or Mega, or whatever is going to be in high demand, and you can expect them to cost quite a bit more than a faction battleship. I see CNRs all over the place these days, and I think the Golem will be preferred by mission runners even if the DPS is similar. For one thing, pilots will save on ammo costs. For another, the large cargo bay and tractor bonus will make cleaning up after a mission easier without having to change ships. If the T2s tank better than T1/faction, mission runners (and mission isk farmers -- they're becoming more and more common it appears) are going to be all over the Marauders.

Well, maybe not the Amarr, but then what else is new?



i dont agree. as a smart mission runner you will find out that lp is worth MUCH more than any possible salvage/loot you can expect from a mission. Thus you are going to try to speed up missions as fast as possible. Unfortunately you will NEVER be able to run missions as fast and efficient in a GOLEM than in a CNR. Thus you never gonna switch to a Golem if you run missions for pure straight ISK. Also if you are allready running missions in your pimped CNR, why would you downgrade? CNR kills better and can field a 100% adequate tank for all lvl4s existing on TQ atm. And you are wrong (Golem dps == Raven dps ) < CNR dps.



Based on past experience, I expect many of the T2 ships to be tweaked either before release or soon after due to player complaints and feedback, especially once enough people have had a chance to actually fly them.

Even without any changes, I still think the Golem and Kronos in particular are going to be popular. I saw people badmouthing the Astarte quite a bit, but based on my sales figures (I've built and sold/traded over 500 of them thus far), it is a lot of hot air.



Be hapopy you gonna sell even more astartes after the eos nurf:) Anyway i dont think people who have the isk to buy a Golem (if the pricetag is above a cnr) are going to bother pveing in a expensivbe but underpowered T1 raven disguised as TII (just noticed that t1 raven can outgank a golem with its additional lowslot:).





Polinus
Caldari
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:23:00 - [383]
 

Originally by: Law Enforcer
well the problem is this:

tomb and tuxford got together to design the kronos thus it kicks ass.
zulu designed the rest of the ships and took a special interest in the paladin.


lol that guy is marked for rest of life.

Zulu, better change your nickname, make a fresh start over :P

Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 17:50:00 - [384]
 

Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 24/10/2007 17:51:30
Originally by: Polinus
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne
Originally by: Perry

Suggested Apocalypse MKII:
...


this is just as bad as the current apoc....well actually no...it may be worse. only improvement is the increase in dronebay size really.



No, it woudl use very few cap to fire with 4 guns, and the extra drones get the needed extra firepower.


it was an apoc suggestion not paladin suggestion so the 4 turret stuff doesnt apply. even then it would still be sucky because you dont really need that extra 50% cap use reduction if your already down to 4 turrets.

also note that the damage from lasers would sill be crappy with his idea...you would just have better tracking...wich i'm not sure is really needed.




Renosha Argaron
Caldari
IronPig
Sev3rance
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:08:00 - [385]
 

I also heard that there is a Jump Capable Frieghter on its way?....is this true?

Regards

RenoshaVery Happy

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2007.10.24 18:33:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: TZeer on 24/10/2007 18:34:24
Widow need a better ecm boost...

20%

81km range on racials with 41km falloff and that weak jamming is suicidal on that ship.


On top of that you need black ops to lvl 5 to get the same jammingpower as a blackbird or scorp.


d026
temp holding
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:06:00 - [387]
 

After further examination of the Golem i really have to ask you:

Why does the Golem do less DPS than its T1 counterpart missing a lowslot and 2 turret hardpoints?


Janus Ovellian
Minmatar
Firebird Squadron
Terra-Incognita
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:46:00 - [388]
 

In the devblog it lists the broadsword bonus as 5% shield resistances per level of Min Cruiser, and on sisi the description says 'armor'.

Also, all of the heavy interdictor ships seem to have 75% and 50% resist bonuses to race resists rather than the listed 50% and 25%. Don't know which is correct, although I hope its the version on sisi. More resists are always nice. :)

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:50:00 - [389]
 

Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Venkul Mul


Repeating it every second post will not make it true.

Marauders have very little interest for missions runners.




I think the marauders are more intended for ratting and exploration than missioning.


I think we have a winner!

You have given me a reason to train for them, if they have enough grid (I was thinking to do that with teh Cov Ops BS, but probably the marauders work better). .

Re'Lon
Posted - 2007.10.24 19:56:00 - [390]
 

All the Golem needs to fix most of the complaints is to increase the Missile speed bonus to 20 or 25%. That way you could still use Torps, and cruise missiles would out run defenders.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (18)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only