These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Vanguard] Combat and Navy BC Rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Asuna Crossbreed
Kittens
#421 - 2015-09-17 07:41:18 UTC
Just looking at this I see the cyclone being a little left in the dust, something I felt it already was in with the last pass. The reason being that it has 5 launchers and a 5% bonus, where nearly every other ship in this class gets 6 and a 10% bonus. This seems a little unbalanced to me. A fair push of either the rof bonus or the number of launchers would go a long way. personally I feel that a double rof bonus could be a lot of fun along with a expanded cargo hold. Maybe even a ammo reload bonus in place with a smaller range bonus? there is a lot that could be done with this ship to give it that fun little edge instead of it just being a cheap claymore.

Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#422 - 2015-09-17 07:43:44 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Why after 10 years + we are still re-re-inventing the same old ships over and over again, is beyond me...

But don't worry, while we waste our time with this, we'll make the same ship look different for a nominal fee. That will distract you long enough for us to reconsider what we've done today.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:
MR Spleen wrote:
Well its nice to get a slight buff to these BC's and a range bonus is nice but we'll see, personally a damage output buff would have been better especially when the smaller the ship the more dps it seems to do per isk promoting large gangs to bring smaller ships against smaller gangs having larger ships and taking bigger personal risks and having the disadvantage of speed maneuverability and numbers, for example you can build a :-

Catalyst 500dps at a cost of 10mil isk
Brutix 800 dps at a cost of 50mil isk
Megathron 1200dps at a cost of 250mil isk
Thanatos 1800 dps at a cost of 2bil isk
Moros in siege doing 10k dps and not being able to move for 5mins 3Bil isk
Erebus doing 6k dps and being the most hunted ship in game as well as being only affordable to the richest players with a cost of around 100bil isk

So as can be seen the numbers don't scale and on top of this the larger the ship the harder it becomes to defend against the smaller ships!

Another point I'd like to bring up is the mention of ships like the above mentioned Brutix gaining a hull hp buff does this also come with a chocolate kettle as hull is generally not used as it is not a viable option unless your buffing hull repairers and remote hull repairers and bringing them inline with shields and armour as a viable option.



You do realize there is more to ships than dps numbers right?


Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets...

However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is.

But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones, and if the tackle modules in eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party.

[SNIP]


I mean, if you are having difficulty killing Sub-Caps with Dreads or Supers that, frankly, is a fault with your playstyle.

Right now, in my opinion, Capitals and Super-Carriers (I won't speak for Titans as I have no experience with them) are in a generally good place when it comes to on grid performance. There are a few hull specific exceptions such as the Nidhoggur and Revelation which aren't in great places but I am happy for CCP to take there time and sort these hulls out the right way.

Since the change to drone modules causing them to effect fighter-bombers and, particularly, fighters they have the potential to murder Subs, even a fairly small group of them put out huge DPS against cruiser+ targets with relatively minimal support.

Dreads are in a pretty similar boat, being an excellent burst DPS platform against BS size targets, fleets of which are very common at the moment due to there high DPS and flexibility. All you require is a few Vindis and some painters and you can easily chew larger subcaps, with good amount of tackle HACs/TIIIs and BC hulls are also fair game.

Carriers still reserve that very key place in many fleets as burst tank in triage form, long term tank in pantheon form or resilient DPS platforms in Combat form with good RR capabilities and lots of options in terms of dealing with threats because of there refitting abilities and the natural flexibility that comes with drone ships.

In short, I don't see an issue with caps on grid performance, strategic mobility is something that needs looked at yes but from a purely on grid perspective they are largely in a good place, your just doing it wrong.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#423 - 2015-09-17 09:38:56 UTC
Asuna Crossbreed wrote:
Just looking at this I see the cyclone being a little left in the dust, something I felt it already was in with the last pass. The reason being that it has 5 launchers and a 5% bonus, where nearly every other ship in this class gets 6 and a 10% bonus. This seems a little unbalanced to me. A fair push of either the rof bonus or the number of launchers would go a long way. personally I feel that a double rof bonus could be a lot of fun along with a expanded cargo hold. Maybe even a ammo reload bonus in place with a smaller range bonus? there is a lot that could be done with this ship to give it that fun little edge instead of it just being a cheap claymore.



I think the main strength of the Cyclone is the 2 Utility highs and the extra mobility that it has, with good fitting space. I have flown the Cyclone a lot and I personally feel like it is currently (pre-patch) one of the best BCs right now. I think the buffs it's already getting are enough.

Giving it +25m3 bay would help a bit though.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#424 - 2015-09-17 10:01:48 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I know some players will be dissapointed that the damage bonus continues to be restricted to kinetic, but we do believe that damage specific bonuses are a useful tool for creating interesting distinctions between ships and we have no plans to phase them out.


I don't think the Kinetic Damage bonus in this case really applies though. By Restricting a damage bonus to Kinetic you are able to 'over budget' damage missile damage and make it more powerful, at the expense of dealing predictable damage which can be taken advantage of by specific fittings like Resistance Modules, Reactive Hardeners and by choosing an Appropriate ship (i.e. Gallente T2) with 'under budget' damage for the other missile damage types.

Where this works well is the Hawk and the Flycatcher, for example, the Hawk has 4 Missile launchers, but gets 5% Rate of Fire, and 10% Kinetic Missile Damage bonuses. The Above average Kinetic Damage bonus in this case allows the Hawk to Achieve 8 effective launchers with kinetic damage, which is incredible. However, it only has 5.33 Universal Launchers (For Reference the Kestrel has 5, and when not using Kinetic Damage, the only damage advantage the Hawk has over the Kestrel is the fact that it gets 5% RoF instead of 5% damage). For other reference, Garmur has 6.75 Universal Launchers, Vengeance has 6.65. This is good because it allows the Hawk to achieve un-matched damage with Kinetic Missiles, but below average damage similar to it's frigate counterpart with non-kinetic throughout it's class.

It doesn't work well in the Drakes case though because 9 Kinetic Effective Launchers is average in today's world where most Missile Cruisers have been powered up. For example, the Orthrus has 10! Universal Launchers, outdamaging the Drake even with Kinetic with every single damage type. The Cerberus has 8 Universal and 10 Kinetic, again, outdamaging the Drake, both the Cerberus and Orthrus out project the Drake, and have other strengths which the Drake does not have. The Drake is also restricted to HAM and HML where the Cerberus and Orthrus can use RLML too, which is the most powerful and more used weapon system in the game right now.

I Understand that the Drake is more of a 'tanky' ship than those listed ships (altho cerb has better ehp/s from logi thanks to resists). But comparing it to Sacrilege, which is also more of a 'tanky' ship, which gets 8.3125 effective universal launchers with a bigger drone bay, and better fittings still appears shallow.

If the Drake had 15% Kinetic per level then it would achieve 10.5 effective launchers (5% more damage than Orthrus, Cerberus) with only HMLs and HAMs. and I think it would be reasonable to be locked then.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#425 - 2015-09-17 10:04:29 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
Great. BC are getting rebalanced again. CCP we are still waiting for T3, Capital and Black Ops...


They need to be looked at too, but this makes the biggest impact for the most players.


I kinda agree that as the most popular class they receive more attention but, pardon me, FFS everyone was crying so much that T3 are so OP that they brake the whole game that it would be wise to balance them ASAP. I don't mind little nerf to T3 as long as all subs are fixed and they are balanced against each other (HAM legion seems to be the new meta now while loki is in a poor state)
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#426 - 2015-09-17 10:13:00 UTC
Alternatively, nerf the Orthrus)))

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#427 - 2015-09-17 11:26:10 UTC
Suitonia wrote:

I think the main strength of the Cyclone is the 2 Utility highs and the extra mobility that it has, with good fitting space. I have flown the Cyclone a lot and I personally feel like it is currently (pre-patch) one of the best BCs right now. I think the buffs it's already getting are enough.

Giving it +25m3 bay would help a bit though.


I really don't see it. sure, it's a lot faster, but it loses so much for that. you typically only get 2 mids for tank, so you can pretty much only do invuln + xlasb - yeah, the overpoweredness of xlasbs mitigates this issue somewhat I guess. low paper dps like the guy says, which comes with low alpha and not great overheat potential (oh boy I sure do love ROF bonuses) and low range. do I really want 15% or so speed when I could fly a myrmidon and vastly improved tank and damage, with +1 midslot to play with after fitting the cap booster.

maybe being unable to undock without at least a stasis web to go with your neuts is a lowsec thing? the only use I see for this ship is getting underestimated because people don't see it much, but I'm not such a space hipster that I want it to be ******. I think I'd like it and the breacher a lot more if they were like the typhoon, i.e. not stuck with finicky ASB setups and bad damage.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#428 - 2015-09-17 12:16:26 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Suitonia wrote:

I think the main strength of the Cyclone is the 2 Utility highs and the extra mobility that it has, with good fitting space. I have flown the Cyclone a lot and I personally feel like it is currently (pre-patch) one of the best BCs right now. I think the buffs it's already getting are enough.

Giving it +25m3 bay would help a bit though.


I really don't see it. sure, it's a lot faster, but it loses so much for that. you typically only get 2 mids for tank, so you can pretty much only do invuln + xlasb - yeah, the overpoweredness of xlasbs mitigates this issue somewhat I guess. low paper dps like the guy says, which comes with low alpha and not great overheat potential (oh boy I sure do love ROF bonuses) and low range. do I really want 15% or so speed when I could fly a myrmidon and vastly improved tank and damage, with +1 midslot to play with after fitting the cap booster.

maybe being unable to undock without at least a stasis web to go with your neuts is a lowsec thing? the only use I see for this ship is getting underestimated because people don't see it much, but I'm not such a space hipster that I want it to be ******. I think I'd like it and the breacher a lot more if they were like the typhoon, i.e. not stuck with finicky ASB setups and bad damage.


I use a web on my fit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i68ij_ZjahA

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
MR Spleen
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#429 - 2015-09-17 12:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: MR Spleen
[/quote]

I mean, if you are having difficulty killing Sub-Caps with Dreads or Supers that, frankly, is a fault with your playstyle.

Right now, in my opinion, Capitals and Super-Carriers (I won't speak for Titans as I have no experience with them) are in a generally good place when it comes to on grid performance. There are a few hull specific exceptions such as the Nidhoggur and Revelation which aren't in great places but I am happy for CCP to take there time and sort these hulls out the right way.

Since the change to drone modules causing them to effect fighter-bombers and, particularly, fighters they have the potential to murder Subs, even a fairly small group of them put out huge DPS against cruiser+ targets with relatively minimal support.

Dreads are in a pretty similar boat, being an excellent burst DPS platform against BS size targets, fleets of which are very common at the moment due to there high DPS and flexibility. All you require is a few Vindis and some painters and you can easily chew larger subcaps, with good amount of tackle HACs/TIIIs and BC hulls are also fair game.

Carriers still reserve that very key place in many fleets as burst tank in triage form, long term tank in pantheon form or resilient DPS platforms in Combat form with good RR capabilities and lots of options in terms of dealing with threats because of there refitting abilities and the natural flexibility that comes with drone ships.

In short, I don't see an issue with caps on grid performance, strategic mobility is something that needs looked at yes but from a purely on grid perspective they are largely in a good place, your just doing it wrong.
[/quote]

I would have to agree about the carriers to an extent because as with all drone ships the drones are a bit overpowered as in they are the only weapon type you have to either tank or kill even when the ship is unable to lock you or apply damage due to ewar as for the super carriers as they only use fighters and fighter bombers I'm not sure about that, but the dps per isk is still low and any capital caught alone will die if unable to dock, I made a post probably about 8 years ago suggesting point defense batteries like you would have on real life carriers and battleships for dealing with smaller ships and I still feel this is a good idea as long as they are autotargeting and not controlled by the player, but that's another subject.

Drones are another issue all together as I said before they are the only weapon unaffected by any ewar and is probably why they have become so heavily over used by alliances for killing pos's with ishtars etc, especially as tracking is not really an issue for them, I would like to see ewar affect the drones as well as the ships that are having the ewar applied to them making non drone ships have a more level playing field against them and if you want proof that there OP just look at the alliance tournament where they made people use t1 drones.

Sorry for getting off topic slightly.

Now waiting for the comments telling me I'm wrong ↓

Join IAPUB in game if you want 0.0 pvp.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#430 - 2015-09-17 12:27:15 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem.

Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell.


Its not my fault if you can't see how fun that used to be. Eve is supposed to be a cold heartless game. Funny how hot dropping on frigates is a war crime in a game that promotes war crime behavior.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you.


Same function as a jump portal generator... which is fitted to Titans and happens to be Sov independent... didn't think I needed to break this down for you.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters..


Ask stupid questions... get stupid answers.


Well thankfully CCP doesn't follow your line of reasoning of "who cares if its game breaking, its fun, huurr". Cry more about how your "I win" button got a well deserved nerf. I'm sure you were some of those people using skynet with an insta-lock procurer on a gate for "elite pvp".

Yep, that is UNIQUE to titans (and to a lesser extent blops), something your corpmate and yourself have glazed over from the start of the conversation. Since you were looking at strictly dps, and omitted the fact a Titan can fire a DD or use a jump portal generator. Something a mega, carrier, brutix, catalyst can not do. Thats why looking at only dps figures is misleading and narrow minded. At this point i'd wager you're trolling, as no one could be this unknowingly dumb.

Ask relevant questions, get moving of the goal posts due to being unable to admit that your wrong and full of sh**.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
MR Spleen
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#431 - 2015-09-17 12:32:45 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


Please stop whining about capitals. You seem to have forgotten that a lil over a year ago capitals were jumping across the map in minutes, and dropping on frigates for lulz. Slowcats had the tank of a carrier and the application of a subcap with sentries(not to mention huge repping power). Before that we had max tracking titans and dreads that would literally volley a BS off grid. As you pointed out there was also the drive by DD. How many carriers are in operation now? Can you imagine a fight of nothing but DDs? As thats what would happen. If you couldnt see how horribly broken this was, thats your problem.

Im happy about the nerfs caps have recieved as its reigned them in. The new sov is whats pushed them into irrelevence, which will be addressed soon. Capitals are supposed to require sub cap support, that is intended and why they require support ships to kill smaller ships. Otherwise we would have nothing but caps roaming round and it would be boring as hell.


Its not my fault if you can't see how fun that used to be. Eve is supposed to be a cold heartless game. Funny how hot dropping on frigates is a war crime in a game that promotes war crime behavior.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

A jump bridge is a structure that is put down when you own sov. A mega on its own cannot jump across systems.. didnt think i needed to break this down for you.


Same function as a jump portal generator... which is fitted to Titans and happens to be Sov independent... didn't think I needed to break this down for you.

Stitch Kaneland wrote:

What carriers used to do is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, dont muddy the waters..


Ask stupid questions... get stupid answers.


Well thankfully CCP doesn't follow your line of reasoning of "who cares if its game breaking, its fun, huurr". Cry more about how your "I win" button got a well deserved nerf. I'm sure you were some of those people using skynet with an insta-lock procurer on a gate for "elite pvp".

Yep, that is UNIQUE to titans (and to a lesser extent blops), something your corpmate and yourself have glazed over from the start of the conversation. Since you were looking at strictly dps, and omitted the fact a Titan can fire a DD or use a jump portal generator. Something a mega, carrier, brutix, catalyst can not do. Thats why looking at only dps figures is misleading and narrow minded. At this point i'd wager you're trolling, as no one could be this unknowingly dumb.

Ask relevant questions, get moving of the goal posts due to being unable to admit that your wrong and full of sh**.


Personally I think your the troll and all comments are worthy of a view point whether you agree or not.

Join IAPUB in game if you want 0.0 pvp.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#432 - 2015-09-17 16:09:21 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


I'm sure you were some of those people using skynet with an insta-lock procurer on a gate for "elite pvp".


God, now those were good times.

And FYI, interceptors in a bubble worked wayyy better than a barge.... just sayin.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
aldhura
Blackjack and Exotic Dancers
Top Tier
#433 - 2015-09-17 20:11:35 UTC
sooo the nighthawk becomes more and more useless.. nice
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#434 - 2015-09-17 20:30:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ferox:
The Ferox is getting a very significant change in the form of a new skill bonus and slot changes. The shield resistance bonus is being swapped for hybrid damage, and a highslot (and turret) is being traded for a mid. This leaves the Ferox with 7.5 effective turrets (compared to 7 before) and the ability to use the new midslot to either compensate for the resistance bonus or to go in a completely different direction through tracking computers, webs, or whatever else you wish. The extra range provided by the role bonus is obviously valuable for fleet fighting with rails, and the addition of falloff helps the Ferox take advantage of its range advantage with blasters as well.

Caldari Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage (Was shield resistances)
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Role Bonus:
25% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range and falloff
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7H (-1), 6M (+1), 4L, 6 (-1) turrets
Fittings: 1250 PWG, 530 (+20) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250 (+250) / 3500 / 4000
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2900 (+150) / 725s (+1.5) / 4 (+0.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 (+10) / 0.63 (-0.03) / 13,250,000 / 11.75s (-0.55s)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km (+10) / 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295
Cargo capacity: 475


This.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#435 - 2015-09-17 20:38:11 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


The only person complaining about rockets having too much range is you. The medium weapon system with comparable range as rockets is medium, unbonused blasters. This isnt taking into account most rocket ships use rage missiles which drops them down to under 9km of range.

Regardless its still some pretty silly logic. Especially when you consider small railguns, beams and artillery have more range than rockets. Hell small acs with barrage or scorch pulse have same or better range.

HAMs = 20km
HML = 60km

rockets = 10km
LML = 42km

Torps = 20km
Cruise = 148km

One of these things is not like the other.. and its pretty obvious torps need a range buff and stealth bomber range bonus nerfed to keep it the same.

Or we could leave HAMs alone and keep ignoring this when its mentioned, as the whole argument is just rediculous.


pretty much
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#436 - 2015-09-17 20:58:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Poranius Fisc
Asuka Solo wrote:

Yes. And it seems sub caps online is the only ship class that enjoys any of those facets...

However, what my esteemed colleague was trying to emphasis in his own way, was that this new direction of pro-sub caps in Eve online has gimped the food chain the moment you go beyond battleship sized hulls. Sub caps are at a point where they enjoy more bonuses / perks (not to mention they are insanely cheap) compared to capitals and even super capitals (and lest not forget, they seem to be "more fun"). Capital and Super Capital hulls are in dire need of a mountain of love.... more hull options and a significant boost in teeth that can be applied to sub caps... after all, a risk free eve is bad. And right now, taking sub caps up against carriers, dreads, supers and titans seems to be as risk free as its going to get with this sesame street sov system and dumbass limitation on "force projection" called jump fatigue. Caps and supers need to become fun again... and being a giant "tackle me and apply F1 here" i-lose button is not fun. Sub cap pilots who beg to differ on these forums are free to logonski their titans while parking on a lowsec gate and notify the rest of us of their intentions so we can show you exactly how "much fun" it is.

But maybe if smaller ships did less damage to bigger targets like certain big ships do to little ones,eve were different sizes that were not only limited to certain hull sized, but affected different sized and if the tackle modules in hulls respectively, it'll be a step in the right direction to force sub cap pilots to bring more expensive toys to an expensive party.



So.. using a carrier and equiping it as dps means I can probably launch 15 drones... @ V, and a 25% bonus to dmg , thats 18.75 fighter drones.. that can warp and chase that guy who though he might make it till he hit those bubbles... cause you know, all capitol weapons when fired will follow and kill the target if they stay in system... oh wait, they don't...

Why do I think your asking for a "I fly carrier's so I win" button?

A solo rifter shouldn't be able to kill any capitol.. why is it unfair you can't instapop him unless you launch your 15 drones and he is dumb enough to get caught?

Maybe, what needs to happen is make carriers the counter to battleships instead on them being "the elite class". this would also mean making them cheaper, but id say the training times are still spot on since they are above battleships. lets make teh same with dreads.. but this also means taking away all that bloated EHP that that the capitol's enjoy. They'd still be higher than battleships and pretty safe, unless you get swarmed by however much DPS that can break your tank.

Cap's are going to be changed.. but I doubt they are getting the "I win" button. and with the new blog it's going to limit the usefulness of blobing them on a structure
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#437 - 2015-09-17 23:44:50 UTC
Poranius Fisc wrote:

New fozzie sov is in. your bloated HP for long structure grind is soon to not be needed anymore. Cap's are going to be changed.. but I doubt they are getting the "I win" button.


Heh, you might want to double check that. New Dev Blog, and all.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#438 - 2015-09-18 00:22:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Poranius Fisc wrote:

New fozzie sov is in. your bloated HP for long structure grind is soon to not be needed anymore. Cap's are going to be changed.. but I doubt they are getting the "I win" button.


Heh, you might want to double check that. New Dev Blog, and all.


Edited, but I still like my idea better.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#439 - 2015-09-18 03:32:50 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Alternatively, nerf the Orthrus)))


Better yet, both.
Rampage2010
State War Academy
Caldari State
#440 - 2015-09-18 04:18:25 UTC
Plz Do not forget the Gnosis