Player Features and Ideas Discussion

+1

+1

It's a strafer, not a kiter. A long point and good falloff means you keep your tackle and damage while slingshoting around.

One TE and the falloff for that 150mm II is 14.6 km. The falloff for an unbonused 150 is 7.5km or 9.875km with a TE. 15.3km optimal + 14.6 falloff on a small rail for antimatter is more then significant.

As for blasters - TE again for the win. And a blaster cat pimp slaps an AC Thrasher so hard in terms of damage projection it isn't even funny.

I'll tell all the tornado pilots fitting arty that they're doing it wrong then. I'll also stop using my Harpy with 9.6km optimal on Null because obviously optimal bonuses don't help blasters at all.

I really dont see the logic behind giving the cormorant a second low, how is it going to benefit from it?

The ship is pretty much built around rails, the rail fitting needs midslots for webs if youre a middle range soloer or sensor boosters and tracking computers if youre long range fit.

Now both a sebo and a TC can be replaced by a lowslot module, but not webs. Dual web rail corm is a very viable fit and as a caldari ship it needs all the mids it can get.

Compare the post-change corm to a thrasher, lets say we fit blasters, a rocket launcher, MSE, scram and mwd in mids(generic lows) The corm will be slower, have worse damage projection, similar dps and similar tank. It would just get slaughtered by a thrasher in the approach since the thrasher can start dealing damage from outside scram range even with EMP, the corm will have to load null to get out to similar range and if it does the thrasher can just go up close and then the corm will have to choose between dealing worse dps up close or losing 5 seconds of damage application to reload close range ammo.
This is just against the thrasher, the catalyst will just roflstomp a blaster corm and a post-change coercer would be even worse.
A rail fit with 3 mids isnt viable because any frig will just get under your tracking, I know this because even if you web your target 75mm railguns have difficulty tracking a frigate orbiting at 500

Yes beam Coercer All powerfull and p overpowered... I'll leave that notion to those who've used a beam-Coercer solo. However, its uses are more for fleets, but then Cormorant and even a Catalyst will be and is currently superior with long range turrets = /

All powerfull indeed.

Even though the propose Coercer has 1 less low slot. Which means etheir less damage or range compared to what it is now. You know! A well deserved damage NERF since it's receiving a mid slot.

However, If the Coercer still had all its current slots and was given an extra mid slot it would be overpowered, but CCP didn't. Infact I was saying as much long ago, that if CCP did give a Coercer a mid slot. They would have to NERF it's damage or else OP.

If you look @ what CCP is proposing to do with a Catalyst. Using railguns a Catalyst will out damage and out range any Coercer setup. It's somewhat the same story with a Cormorant. Which will be on par damage wise to all Coercer setups.


CCP brought everthing else up to a Thrasher or Coercer level, in terms of damage or more with regard to the Catalyst.

Very interesting changes. Blasters don't benefit much from a bonus to optimal range, but I guess the agility buff will help, more so considering I now have 1 (or 2, haven't run the numbers yet) free rig slot to increase range even more. This opens new posibilities for the Cat, which is something I approve of.

Everything looks good except for the speed
Remember that Coercer and Catalyst is using armor tank, which is making them slower

Both of them already have slower speed than the shield destroyer, then armor tank them will make them more difficult
Also, with less shield and less mid, we can't shield tank it

Adding a mid for a low now means I lose a heatsink. I'd consider that a damage nerf. But then again, I'm one of these odd sorts that thinks the current 1 mid / 4 low Coercer is fine

I'll be happy to join this enlightened show of hands.

By the by, losing a low is not merely the loss of a HS but the potential for tank, tracking, speed, grid/cpu, ECCM .. you name it. Taking a low from a midslot slot deficient race such as Amarr is like making all Minmatar ships have split weapon bonuses (read: cripples most if not all of them).

SHORTER!!: Highslot to midslot, not lowslot to midslot. Losing 12.5% dps is a whole lot more palpable than losing ~25% and/or all the other options a low represents for Amarr.