These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Machariel winter balance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#61 - 2013-09-11 17:28:58 UTC
Ghost Phius wrote:
Based on the OP's suggestions and others here it is clear that this thread is full of people that obviously don't fly the ship in the game.




thank you for the constructive feedback... now do you have anything usefull to say... or is it you like to troll

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Ghost Phius
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2013-09-11 18:11:09 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Ghost Phius wrote:
Based on the OP's suggestions and others here it is clear that this thread is full of people that obviously don't fly the ship in the game.




thank you for the constructive feedback... now do you have anything usefull to say... or is it you like to troll



No need to attack with name calling just because I am calling out an obvious nerf the faction Battleships thread for what it is. These types of nerf a ship I don't fly threads are subject to people calling BS.

If the only dev support for "any" changes to "any" of the twice already rebalanced, billion isk, double training top shelf Battleships is a 2009 post and we are at the end of 2013, then I call player nerf BS, which is exactly what this is.
Dave Stark
#63 - 2013-09-11 18:40:53 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
probably replace 1 shield extender rig with another ACR rig, and nothing has changed except a slight drop in EHP.

8k ehp loss, meh. it's still better than any of the proposed marauders for incursions.


so not enough ehp loss?

what would you suggest if i have not gone far enough?


all you did was take some of the fitting off, essentially nothing relevant was changed to address the gap between marauders and pirate battleships in an incursion environment.


read again I also reduced the falloff plus increased mass and sig and slowed it down. .. now I ask again how much shield hp and armor does it need to loose? 500-1000?


yeah, so you did nothing relevant to address the gap in an incursion environment.

losing armour and shields does nothing but either make it obsolete, or still better than a marauder. the tank isn't the issue, and never has been.
Rhea Rankin Nolen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-09-11 19:24:43 UTC
It already recieved significant nerf with TE change. You could also nerf Nightmare while you're at it. It's also "too awesome"! IMO Machariel is fine as is. Other pirate BS's might use a slight buff.

tldr. don't nerf mah Mach bro
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#65 - 2013-10-06 15:35:06 UTC
Rhea Rankin Nolen wrote:
It already recieved significant nerf with TE change. You could also nerf Nightmare while you're at it. It's also "too awesome"! IMO Machariel is fine as is. Other pirate BS's might use a slight buff.

tldr. don't nerf mah Mach bro


I really do think the mach offers a lot in one certain direction (mobility and flexible offense a la gistii) while still having to much of the rest. Mostly to much tank still, and to much drones. Two sets of mediums and a spare light is just unholy for a kiting ship. It's like a cynabal with endless support of EC-600s - given how untouchable you are while not tackled hard, and that a lot of solo/smallscale scenarios favor taking EC-600s along as it's you only *messup+correction* utility, it surely shouldn't be that well equipped on that side.

I agree that other ships might be in need of a correction aswell, mostly though less a buff/nerf, but rather a priceadjustment. Well and a 125mbit dronebay for the bhaalgorn, aswell as 7.5%-webs for the vindicator please :D