These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Mordu's Legion

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#1061 - 2014-05-24 03:55:19 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
No, its good as a ship, stat wise its amazing.

And even though it's not even close to the topic of this thread, you've got a better chance of getting Nestor feedback than you do getting some updates on the Mordu's ships.
I predict that the Mordu's ships will be rolled out just like the OP. Then a week or 2 later Fozziebear and Risiepoo will acknowledge that there are still issues to work out but they will get left behind when CCP starts work on the winter release. After a month or so Fozzie Q Bear will make a forum appearance to announce that the Mordu's ships metrics are exactly as expected and that they are satisfied with the ship. Then we will all interpret this for what it really means, they took on too much, did a half-assed job (again) and then moved on to another project.
But that's just my prediction and I would love to be proved completely wrong.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1062 - 2014-05-24 04:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
I predict that the Mordu's ships will be rolled out just like the OP. Then a week or 2 later Fozziebear and Risiepoo will acknowledge that there are still issues to work out but they will get left behind when CCP starts work on the winter release. After a month or so Fozzie Q Bear will make a forum appearance to announce that the Mordu's ships metrics are exactly as expected and that they are satisfied with the ship. Then we will all interpret this for what it really means, they took on too much, did a half-assed job (again) and then moved on to another project.

Deja doo-doo: The feeling that we've stepped in this crap before...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1063 - 2014-05-24 04:46:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Xequecal
Wolf is basically right here, the Nestor is balanced by its cost. If the Nestor cost 500m ISK like the Rattlesnake currently does it would be absurdly broken.

However, balancing by cost and SP is a thing and you should get used to it. The Ishtar is better than all non-pirate cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships at basically everything except ewar, but it's balanced by cost (twice as much as a BS after insurance) and the absurd amount of SP required to fly it to maximum potential.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1064 - 2014-05-24 04:47:05 UTC
To be fair, there is no more "Winter Release".. we are now on a 6 week cycle.. "medium" sized updates every 6 weeks rather than 2 yearly big ones and a few minor ones/medium ones with the leftovers from the big one. Also, I believe Rise said at Fanfest he's moving to another part of CCP, so this might be the last we see of him in the balance threads..

Hey.. when he's here, he's not bad. I love the warpspeed change to the Angels line.. and the new low on the Blood Raider frig.. When he's interacting with us we *normally* get to a good result.. The interacting part being the key part.

And for the few who think I'm over-reacting a little.. Rapid Heavy missile thread being put on at the last min and feedback ignored.. threads with a MONTH of no dev replies, filled with mostly trolls by the end cause everyone else has given up on meaningful results, etc.. It's not like I jumped on him the day after posting the thread..

Honestly, I would even be fine with a weekly "We've read the feedback and are not/considering changes.." Just something, some small glimmer of hope.. cause atm there's nothing to indicate the thread is being read by more than ISD's. No changes, no replies, no feedback.

As I in a letter to one of the CSM's, if they are done responding to feedback, just lock the thread.


Playing with the BS all day.. really does need a buff.. There are several T1 BS's that I'd sooner fly than it at this point.. I mean it has the faction tank, but without the ability to Apply it's DPS it's meaningless.. If CCP would give us the equivalent of TE's/TC's for Missiles this would be a moot point.. but as it stands now the ONLY way to make up for failing application is Rigs and Implants, which ties your hands.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#1065 - 2014-05-24 05:18:26 UTC
So, after a day of testing I can say that the concerns of the garbage Barghest are completely confirmed
The Barghest as a pirate battleship like the vindicator or machariel has not enough dps and too restrictive fitting the bad application of even heavy missiles forces the ship into brawling distance to apply a web even after using a target painter and the bad fitting space makes active tanking without use of fitting modules or implants impossible, this is not acceptable for a pirate battleship since the others do not have this issue

thus I reccomend increasing the damage bonus to 10% which gives it 10.5 effective launchers, still less the other pirate ships
and its base powergrid should be increased to 12500 while a rise in CPU would also help I don't see it as absolutely necessary



The Orthrus seems strong mainly due to its speed and the ability to keep even the fastest ships at arms length with its scram
I wouldn't quite call it OP yet but strong none the less

The Garmur's damage bonus is currently not working so can't say anything about that yet

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Sheimi Madaveda
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1066 - 2014-05-24 05:34:33 UTC
Crazy KSK wrote:
So, after a day of testing I can say that the concerns of the garbage Barghest are completely confirmed
The Barghest as a pirate battleship like the vindicator or machariel has not enough dps and too restrictive fitting the bad application of even heavy missiles forces the ship into brawling distance to apply a web even after using a target painter and the bad fitting space makes active tanking without use of fitting modules or implants impossible, this is not acceptable for a pirate battleship since the others do not have this issue

thus I reccomend increasing the damage bonus to 10% which gives it 10.5 effective launchers, still less the other pirate ships
and its base powergrid should be increased to 12500 while a rise in CPU would also help I don't see it as absolutely necessary



The Orthrus seems strong mainly due to its speed and the ability to keep even the fastest ships at arms length with its scram
I wouldn't quite call it OP yet but strong none the less

The Garmur's damage bonus is currently not working so can't say anything about that yet


All of this goodness is true.

It took a while for my Ashimmu to go back-and-forth to cap you out so I could leave, lol. To me, the defensive scram feels like you're trying to enter a POS shield without the password :(

I'd love to get a shot at the Garmur once the damage is fixed!

Arma Purgatorium - Once for the State, Now for the King Low Sec, PvP, Industrial - Open for Recruiting http://armapurgatorium.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/arpur_recruit1.png 
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1067 - 2014-05-24 05:50:49 UTC
Indeed.. the way I see the Battleship is like a Vindi, T2 Blasters, but without the tracking bonus, and without the web.. Sure on paper the DPS can be impressive, but in practice it just wouldn't be effective.. Except against POCO's and Cap's..

I had my suggestion from eariler -- https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4589746#post4589746
But after playing around with it, I think it needs more DPS AND the Application Bonus.. Or to move the Application bonus up to 25%, which would put it on the same level as the CNR, which I'd rather not do if it can be avoided.


I mean the best way of looking at it.. a CNR is a Domi, and this is a Navy Domi.. On paper, sure it does a little more DPS (well, in this case it's about the same DPS), but without the application bonus, it's just not as effective.
As it stands, the only pirate BS which has no application bonus is a Mach.. And it has tremendous alpha for engaging at range.. This isn't a long range platform, the scram makes it a mid-to-close range brawler.. Vindi has Web's AND Tracking bonus.. oh and the Highest DPSing subcap in the game.. Bhaal has webs, and neuts to supplement it's guns, plus drones.. NM has epic tracking.

The funny part it, the bonus to this ship can actually HURT it's DPS.. since the MWD blows up the sig.. I'd take a MWD BS with Webs on it, over a scammed ship with the MWD off.. at least for missile boats..
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1068 - 2014-05-24 09:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Sniper Smith wrote:
But after playing around with it, I think it needs more DPS AND the Application Bonus.. Or to move the Application bonus up to 25%, which would put it on the same level as the CNR, which I'd rather not do if it can be avoided.

Apparently launcher symmetry on the underside of the Barghest is just bizarre. Seriously CCP? This is what the Barghest needs:

1. More raw damage and better damage application (the Nestor gets several role bonuses, so there's already precedent). This is a minor increase from 8.75 to 9.00 effective launchers and a very reasonable compromise.
2. More grid and CPU (by dropping this to 6 launchers it solves both).
3. Launcher symmetry (6 launchers also solves this).
4. An additional low slot for an option to armor tank it, extra nano, power diagnostic, etc. (again, 6 launchers is the key to transfer a high to a low)

BARGHEST
Caldari Battleship Bonus per level: 10% bonus to missile damage
Gallente Battleship Bonus per level: 10% bonus to warp scrambler and warp disruptor range
Role Bonus: 200% bonus to missile velocity (50% penalty to missile flight time)
25% bonus to missile explosion velocity

Slot layout: 7H(-1), 6M, 7L(+1); 0 turrets, 6 launchers
Fittings: 11600 PWG, 730 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 11200 / 8750 / 8100
Capacitor (amount / cap/sec) : 6100 / 5.28
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 148 / .098 / 98467000 / 13.38s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 76km / 110 / 7
Sensor strength: 29
Signature radius: 370

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#1069 - 2014-05-24 09:29:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
These ships are going to be insanely powerful, except for the BS which will just be average, and probably never used seeing as the cost will be exorbitant. I just dislike the whole concept though. Rise's answer to all ship concepts seems to be simply give everything speed and agility, seems to be his answer for everything.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#1070 - 2014-05-24 09:37:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
Sheimi Madaveda wrote:
All of this goodness is true.

It took a while for my Ashimmu to go back-and-forth to cap you out so I could leave, lol. To me, the defensive scram feels like you're trying to enter a POS shield without the password :(

I'd love to get a shot at the Garmur once the damage is fixed!

What I and some others have been saying since the very beginning of this thread seems to be turning out to be true as predicted.

Medalyn Isis wrote:
Feodor Romanov wrote:
I do not think that Mordu's is OP, they have too many fit and role restrictions. I think You guys just don't want to find any new opponent to Angels and Serpentis ships.

The battleship is probably fine. The cruiser looks borderline OP. The frigate is very clearly OP, that is plain for anyone with even a small amount of pvp experience to see.


The issue is the speed and agility combined with that ultra long point range as I have been repeating ad nauseam without much impact it seems on either CCP Rise and also some of the other posters.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1071 - 2014-05-24 11:14:53 UTC
What the bs needs is higher dps on target (not paper), this can either be accomplished by a application bonus a dps bonus or a special role making rhmls viable (halfing reload or something similar - or a neagtive rog bonus with a huge flat dps bonus i.e. you shoot a third as often but hit 3 times as hard), it also needs free rigs for warp speed rigs to make it roamable in. lastly it needs higher sensor strenght to do what its designed for, if you take 5+ seconds to lock a 6km/s ceptor your not going to live very long.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#1072 - 2014-05-24 12:15:48 UTC
Crazy KSK wrote:
So, after a day of testing I can say that the concerns of the garbage Barghest are completely confirmed
The Barghest as a pirate battleship like the vindicator or machariel has not enough dps and too restrictive fitting the bad application of even heavy missiles forces the ship into brawling distance to apply a web even after using a target painter and the bad fitting space makes active tanking without use of fitting modules or implants impossible, this is not acceptable for a pirate battleship since the others do not have this issue

thus I reccomend increasing the damage bonus to 10% which gives it 10.5 effective launchers, still less the other pirate ships
and its base powergrid should be increased to 12500 while a rise in CPU would also help I don't see it as absolutely necessary



The Orthrus seems strong mainly due to its speed and the ability to keep even the fastest ships at arms length with its scram
I wouldn't quite call it OP yet but strong none the less

The Garmur's damage bonus is currently not working so can't say anything about that yet


Tbh though, I yet have to see a proper Barghfit on SiSi. If people fail to fit web/scram/point and a heavy neut, then no changes to the hull itself will fix people's kiting skills.
I'd agree that the damage bonus should be higher, but the rest makes for a pretty awesome ship.
Sino AYA
AdAstra. Beach Club
#1073 - 2014-05-24 14:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Sino AYA
Mordu's legion ships are greats !

I can't believe the asymmetrical hardpoints, hope they will fix that because the ship's skins are awesome, even if the orthus have this ugly front antenna.. to make it asymmetrical as well... Damn I was happy to finally have a least one Frigate/cruiser/battleship serie full symmetrical but there is always a little useless thing on one side. Sad
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1074 - 2014-05-24 15:06:37 UTC
Launcher symmetry.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1075 - 2014-05-24 15:22:41 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
What the bs needs is higher dps on target (not paper), this can either be accomplished by a application bonus a dps bonus or a special role making rhmls viable (halfing reload or something similar - or a neagtive rog bonus with a huge flat dps bonus i.e. you shoot a third as often but hit 3 times as hard), it also needs free rigs for warp speed rigs to make it roamable in. lastly it needs higher sensor strenght to do what its designed for, if you take 5+ seconds to lock a 6km/s ceptor your not going to live very long.



I agree.

As for the Bargest,

I already said it before and will repeat to say until it is done:

That missile tracking screwup that came in fall 2006 was just plain wrong. Make it disappear and all missile boats will all of a sudden be pvp viable again.

Then there will also be no reason not to undo the range gimp for torpedos you did and even the Phoenix is suddenly fixed.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1076 - 2014-05-24 15:51:37 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
That missile tracking screwup that came in fall 2006 was just plain wrong. Make it disappear and all missile boats will all of a sudden be pvp viable again.

If only wishing and wanting made it so...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1077 - 2014-05-24 16:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Seriously CCP, what do we have to do to engage you in the other half of the "discussion" of features and ideas? If we raise a valid point, at least some acknowledgement would be appreciated - even it's not something that can be immediately implemented. And while we also understand that you can't adopt every idea, even a short explanation why or a simple "no" goes a long way. So to re-cap, here is a short list of points raised with the Barghest:

• The warp disruption range bonus really isn't well-suited to the Barghest, so if it must remain - some type of damage application bonus as an additional role bonus (Nestor = precedent) would be preferable. A 25% missile explosion radius bonus would probably make the most sense and tie-in with the Caldari (unless you want to add a 25% missile explosion velocity bonus as part of an additional Minmatar racial skill).
• The damage bonus is a bit underwhelming. It's almost as if the Barghest was planned for 8 launchers and 1 dropped at the last minute. Adding that 8th launcher back in would really address all concerns - including asymmetrical launchers. The last point is really a sticking issue from an aesthetics standpoint and I'm not sure why it can't be addressed. Also, with 8 launchers damage application is no longer really an issue - so the previous point could be voided.
• The capacitor could stand a bit of a boost to the recharge.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#1078 - 2014-05-24 16:32:46 UTC
I couldn't care less if the launchers are symmetrical or not, that can be addressed after they fix the stuff that matters, application and damage
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1079 - 2014-05-24 16:54:58 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Seriously CCP, what do we have to do to engage you in the other half of the "discussion" of features and ideas? If we raise a valid point, at least some acknowledgement would be appreciated - even it's not something that can be immediately implemented. And while we also understand that you can't adopt every idea, even a short explanation why or a simple "no" goes a long way. So to re-cap, here is a short list of points raised with the Barghest:

• The warp disruption range bonus really isn't well-suited to the Barghest, so if it must remain - some type of damage application bonus as an additional role bonus (Nestor = precedent) would be preferable. A 25% missile explosion radius bonus would probably make the most sense and tie-in with the Caldari (unless you want to add a 25% missile explosion velocity bonus as part of an additional Minmatar racial skill).
• The damage bonus is a bit underwhelming. It's almost as if the Barghest was planned for 8 launchers and 1 dropped at the last minute. Adding that 8th launcher back in would really address all concerns - including asymmetrical launchers. The last point is really a sticking issue from an aesthetics standpoint and I'm not sure why it can't be addressed. Also, with 8 launchers damage application is no longer really an issue - so the previous point could be voided.
• The capacitor could stand a bit of a boost to the recharge.


why do you believe that this ship should have better missile tracking than other missile battleships?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#1080 - 2014-05-24 17:04:51 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Seriously CCP, what do we have to do to engage you in the other half of the "discussion" of features and ideas? If we raise a valid point, at least some acknowledgement would be appreciated - even it's not something that can be immediately implemented. And while we also understand that you can't adopt every idea, even a short explanation why or a simple "no" goes a long way. So to re-cap, here is a short list of points raised with the Barghest:

• The warp disruption range bonus really isn't well-suited to the Barghest, so if it must remain - some type of damage application bonus as an additional role bonus (Nestor = precedent) would be preferable. A 25% missile explosion radius bonus would probably make the most sense and tie-in with the Caldari (unless you want to add a 25% missile explosion velocity bonus as part of an additional Minmatar racial skill).
• The damage bonus is a bit underwhelming. It's almost as if the Barghest was planned for 8 launchers and 1 dropped at the last minute. Adding that 8th launcher back in would really address all concerns - including asymmetrical launchers. The last point is really a sticking issue from an aesthetics standpoint and I'm not sure why it can't be addressed. Also, with 8 launchers damage application is no longer really an issue - so the previous point could be voided.
• The capacitor could stand a bit of a boost to the recharge.


why do you believe that this ship should have better missile tracking than other missile battleships?

Because, and bare with me here because this is gonna get really crazy, it's a Pirate Battlesip. In the same way a Vindi is a more powerful Mega, and a Mach is more powerful than a Tempest, thus the Barghest should be more powerful than a Navy Raven or Fleet Typhoon.
Why do you believe the damage and application should be nerfed on the Mordu's but not the Vindi? Or Nightmare? Actually, don't bother to answer that.

Two people have already posted just how abysmal the Barghest is when compared to any other missile BS, pretty much just like has been said on this thread for 50 pages. And just like we have said, there has not been a scrap of Dev response to any of the feedback they have asked for. Just like the Rapid Missile thread, and the Pirate BS thread, this one will also quickly devolve into troll attempts and ISD's deleting posts (wait, can I not say that?) because the Devs aren't capable of finding the time to post a very brief response message with updates on the expansion dropping in just over a week. Like the Rapid Missile debacle we will be stuck with a BS that will see very little use by anyone twice, I think even the half-drone Rattlesnake is better off than the Barghest when it comes to being a missile Pirate BS. And BS is the applicable term for the current Barghest... (BS= Bull **** for non-English speakers)