Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There were a few areas where we left the Raptor stronger even though it breaks the normal combat/tackle pattern because honestly I think the new Crow is plenty good as is and we want to avoid letting it get too overpowered.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible step in the wrong direction. Roden would have been a perfect counterpoint for an armor version of a Minmatar Fleet's shield selectable split weapons system. Now, we're going to have Roden (hybrid weapons), Duvolle (hybrid weapons), and CreoDron (drones)? Do you see something odd with those first two? And I hope you're not implying that Duvolle is going to go hybrid/drone split weapons. NOBODY likes old-style split weapons. Roden had a good and unique space it could have played in. Now, you've all but gutted that and we're going to effectively have one T2 Gallente manufacturer doing hybrid weapons with two different skins. Bad, bad change.

-1

Amen to that second paragraph. A small weapons system that hits to 40km (OH linked point range) easily with no reduction in damage from either range or the transversal velocity the attacker generated going 7km/s is ripe for abuse. And oh boy do people abuse it, at least in the Amarr-Minmatar warzone.

So does this mean CCP has plans in the future to introduce different variations of the same hull with corporation specific bonuses? That could be very interesting!

Dear DEV:

As someone who fights often in interceptors I feel I must give my two cents here.

The Raptor: The 3 midslot layout is just wrong for a caldari battle inty. For one the 3 slot layout forces the pilot to choose between some kind of tank (shield extender) or a web. If you took a raptor out for a spin and did some frig combat you will see that the lack of a web on an interceptor is a problem.

Forcing A caldari ship to choose between lack of web for a tank or vice versa is a little awkward. Especially in light of the fact that the stiletto has four medium slots. With amarr/gallente/minmatar inties having better options to fit a web and SOME kind of tank for survivability (via low slots).

While I understand that the point of an interceptor is agility this agility means little when in scram range. Consider this in the case of the raptor.

The Malidiction: Removing the fourth highslot really really messes with my combat malidiction layout. I.e. removing the slot for the NOS, an integral part for in interceptor with three midslots (i.e. the option to fit a web and get close for web/scram) In light of the fact that most larger ships utilize the utility hi slot with a neut just to combat tacklers.

The Crow: A bonus to Missle velocity does nothing to a ship that will never be able to utilize such bonus to the max with it's limited locking range (even with rigs) the crow will never fully benifit from level 5 missile velocity bonus.

I guess I cant have the ships fitted the way I wish. But as someone that has flown the interceptor class more than the average pilot I can tell you that interceptor combat/tackling is much more than ability to just hold point. i.e. TO many factors come into play (nuets/smartbombs/drones just to name a few).

Crusader and claw is still pretty bad.....

Did that dude who said he would change minds thru "reasoned arguments" get CCP to remove nullified Interceptors yet?

And why is that?

I used that little launcher point to help kill drones :( Im gonna miss it.

The ares still needs more pg, and the cpu loss seems unnecessary.