EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2009-10-14 22:27
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-16 02:51
  • Number of Posts: 120
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 144

Wivabel

Security Status 2.4
  • Ladies on top Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev Blog: Long-Distance Travel Changes Inbound in EVE Information Center

    Can we add something like a mini jump freighter with the carrying capacity of a carrier so us average pilots can move our stuff around.

  • Burner mission payout Bugged? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Thanks for the info guys. I am not much of a mission runner so I did not know that it takes a bit for the game to adjust the rewards to the proper level.

  • Burner mission payout Bugged? in EVE Gameplay Center

    I just did the new burner mission with the enyo and 2 navitas. LP payout was ~1200 is that what others are seeing?

  • Battleships??? in EVE Communication Center

    For all the ******** spew in this thread it has made me miss my mega/hyp so much I must go get a few blown up solo in the near future.

    Also the Hyp is essentially the old mega so if you want your neut or whatever fly it. it is the solo blaster ship.

    Finally fit micro jump drive then pesky little inties have to come within your scram web range to keep you around. Then they become mt easy killamanjaro.

  • [Odyssey 1.1] Heavy Assault Cruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I really think we need to let them fit the micro jump drive.

    On top of splitting them into kiting/brawling categories.

    Adding the Micro jump drive would make them somewhat unique.

  • [Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Gallente in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I am happy now. These changes are great. The only thing that I would argue at this point is switching the roles of the mega and the hyperion since active armor fits the attack role better but I can happily live with these changes.

    The Hype may become the scariest small gang BS in eve. It also looks to have the slots to be possible in fleets after the TE nerf those extra mids for possible TCs will be strong. I will have to run some numbers to be sure but it looks promising.


    WivBig smile

  • The Micro Jump Drive in EVE Gameplay Center

    MJD is epic on the megathron. Anything that wants to tackle you has to get into scram range anything that gets into scram range is dead. I love it. Also for those who do not know when activating the MJD you do not lose lock on your target nor do you lose speed on your ship. so you can insta point / insta warp away. its awesome.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Goldensaver wrote:




    So at this point and I won't call it final untill I played arround with EFT and maybe with it in game.


    "and maybe with it in game."

    I mean no offense to the specific individual who said this but this is the problem with the majority of the posters in this thread. Put down the EFT and load up Sisi fly the new ships then come back and post your nonsense at least then you will have some practical experience to back it up.

    Some Ship musing

    Dual rep MAR2/MAAR Brutix stats without implants drugs fleet or a booster alt. Rigs: nano pump/nanobot acc/(anti-ex pump or anc current router depending on useful utility high or not.

    No heat 1350 every 7.6 Seconds
    Heat 1476 every 6.5 Seconds

    2 trimarks and a meta4 1600 give about 8757 raw armor you have to live 38 seconds for your active tank to be better.
    3 trimarks 800t2plate 7492 you have to live for 32 seconds for your active tank to be better.

    Its a pretty decent active tank for solo and small gang pew. You also get the benefit of being faster while active tanked. Add boosters drugs fleet bonuses and implants and you really have something. Of course the same can be said of armor buffer tanks.

    I played around with a possible fleet fit brutix. 200mm rails get you a respectable 512 DPS @ 15 and 34 with cn anti(1x MFS 356 + 155 From drones) About 60000 EHP with 66% being the lowest resist. Not terrible IMO

    Like has been said I still think the Brutix needs a little more PG. Also if one of the gal ships loses the active bonus make it the Myrm. The Myrm will benefit far more from other bonuses then the brutix will Give it a bonus to help it apply its drone damage. Anybody that uses heavy drones knows how challenging it can be.

    WivCool

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Hakan MacTrew wrote:
    Gypsio III wrote:
    Balance ships, not bonuses.

    Are you suggesting then we should remove all bonuses from all thips and just give them all the the same layouts, the same stats and give them all the same amount of turret and missiles slots as well as the same amount of drones?

    How about we get rid of all meta and T2 gear too?

    Then everything will be balanced, right down the middle.


    Alternatively, we can accept the fact that ship bonuses are an intrinsic and integral part of what makes a ship both unique and what it is.



    What he means by the statement balance ships not bonuses is for example if the drake needs a 50% damage bonus to be competitive with other ships within its class then so be it.

    One ship could have a 5% bonus while another has a 50% bonus as long as the ships themselves are balanced it does not matter that one gets a bigger bonus.

    Gallente battlecruisers: I really feel that the tanking bonus is not as bad as it used to be if either ship should lose this bonus I vote the myrm. triple rep myrm fits are cute and all but the ship would do well with a bunch of possible other choices drone tracking drone MWD speed etc etc.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    The only reason AAR and ASB are easier to fit is because the prototypes are to be compared with T1 variants - Testing T2 normal reps vs T1 (meta 0) Ancillary mods doesn't give the right picture entirely...

    Pinky


    True but Meta 4 tends to have lower fitting requirements then meta 0 and equal effectiveness with Meta 5/T2 mods. It is probobly best to compare things with what is currently in game rather than what may come in the future. Not that I do not agree with your point.

    WivWhat?

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    Minor tweaks (since nobody want to touch a finger unless it smells like a grave mistake...)

    Brutix

    I fit a Brutix like this and I am 12,27 PG short of being able to fit a rig to enhance my active tank:
    6x T2 Ions, T2 Warfare Link,
    MWD, Cap Booster (both best named),
    2 x T2 MAR, 2 x T2 EANM and 1 x T2 MFS.
    I was using 1 ACR rig and no other rigs.

    I have perfect fitting skills apart from missing armor rigging level 5 - do I really need implants and/or more than 1 ACR rig to use those rigs or any hybrid rigs? And then what do you expect from AWU 3 or 4 players?
    10 more base PG would provide a ~13,75 extra powergrid on the fit which should be enough and seemingly very fair to allow max skilled players a little playspan (T2 MWD, T2 cap booster, trying to avoid the ACR rig etc etc)

    Harbinger

    I've tried to fit a Harbinger in various configurations mixing focused and heavy pulse lasers with dual MAR and 1600 plate setups and it all comes back striking me very balanced on the powergrid side, however almost all of them except the most downgraded and underpowered would not be able to fit even a T1 Warfare Link even if I fit a POU rig (CPU). Compared to all other battlecruisers I believe the Harbinger NEED 25-30 base cpu to work. The ship is already heavily undertanked and only have the dps and optimal ranges working for it yet seems limited to an bigger extent than any other ship.

    Drake

    The Drake will be fine for most things, however if you want to fit a Warfare Link the Drake need at least 10 more base CPU - Even for the most scraped and gimped fit I could be persuaded to fly... A setup much less attractive than any of the other warfare link fitted battlecruisers. So plz consider adding extra cpu to the Drake...

    Hurricane

    Completely unlike the other battlecruisers I've fitted up (and I tried all of them with different setups) The Hurricane always came up with more cpu than necesary. Cut it tight - Remove 20 base cpu and people can still fit almost anything they want without implants or cpu rigs. Even the most cpu intensive shield cane setup I tried only required the minimal tweak to fit. And still way easier fitting than any other battlecruiser.

    Cyclone

    I am truly clueless about the ideas behind the Cyclone - Obvously trying to active tank the ship with HAMs for getting the most dps out of only 5 launcher slots, however no matter what I am trying I feel locked into only just 1 Viable setup:

    5 x T2 HAM, T2 Medium Neutralizer, T2 Warfare Link,
    Named MWD, T2 Invuln, 2 x Large ASB, T2 Scrambler,
    T2 DC, 2x Nanofiber, 2x T2 BCS
    1x POU rig (CPU)
    CPU/PG remaining: 0,3CPU/1,5PG

    But the Cyclone really need at least 3 BCS and as said I couldn't get any other viable setups without having tons of PG remaining and a lot of CPU short. I could go single Large ASB and 2x Invuln freeing up 150 PG and 50 CPU to get a 3rd BCS, but since the last ASB nerf going with single boosters sould be a mistake unless it's possible to oversize it. But it isn't...

    I'd definitely like an extra 30 or 35 base cpu, but I don't know if it's enough... You can do a lot of tanking, but with limited dps compared to other battlecruisers you need other advantages. The extra utility slot might work, as well as a good base velocity. But 5 slots for an active shield tank is on the edge already and it looks like you need at least 1 slot of E-war to give you any advantage. Certainly it's near impossible to dictate range without a web and impossible to outsmart a ship with less dps unless you can Tracking disrupt it or something similar.

    I don't know... I'd really consider finding an extra medslot for the Cyclone, some extra cpu or I don't know what to do with it. Having a ship with so few possible working setups seems wrong.

    Pinky


    AAR would probobly get that brutix to be able to fit active rigs. It has lower PG needs then t2 armor reps.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    These are in sisi stats with my skills so beware how eve calculates EHP differently then most popular fitting tools.

    Brutix with neutrons and t2 800 mm plate gets 60000 EHP with dual web point microwarpdrive and about 780 DPS while going about 1000m/s with Armor honeycombing 5 and armor rigging 4 Meta 4 800mm plate gets you about 56000 EHP and a speed of roughly the same as the Ferox.

    Ferox gets 60000 EHP with neutrons 1 large shield extender 2x invuln point microwarpdrive 725 dps and its speed is about 1038.

    These stats make it seem like both ships are capable of fitting the biggest guns with class appropriate tank. Both ships can Downgrade guns and get better tanks be they bigger buffer tanks or Strong active tanks. Not to bad IMO. I am not sure how other battlecruisers fit into this comparison but these two are equal.

    EDIT I just fit up an armor cane with a meta 4 1600 plate 425s microwarpdrive anc crurrent router and trimarks 581 dps and a 54000 ehp tank 0.o

    WivCool

  • [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 1.5 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Freighdee Katt wrote:
    Gypsio III wrote:
    Making ASBs cap-free was a fundamental mistake that shouldn't be repeated.

    This is a great point. They made a mistake. SO UNMAKE IT. There is this unstated premise in every CCP post here about the ASB / AAR that the mistakes made with the ASB can't be undone. It's your game. Change it. People told you neut immunity was a problem when the module came out. Now you admit neut immunity is a problem, and you say you're not going to go down that road with the AAR. Fine. No problem. Good move. Mission Accomplished: Learn From Your Mistakes.

    So when are you going to fix the problem you created by making the mistake in the first place?


    I do not think cap free ASBs are a total mistake. it is all but impossible to fit any kind of a cap booster on to Shield ships. Armor gets enough mids for prop full tackle and a cap booster on most ships. I think the main disparity comes into play when you realize that armor ships under heavy neut pressure basicly are completely shut down. They cannot shoot they cannot tank and they cannot move. While most shield ships can still tank and shoot under heavy neuts. These days neuts are less of a problem since the 1 cookie cutter ship that everybody has been flying no longer has the ability to fit 2 neuts(Hurricane). We should see less neuts overall in space so it should limit the perceived weakness some. CCP should look into lowering the fitting requirements of nos and maybe cap batteries right now they are challenging to fit to most ships.

    WivP

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Yxilan wrote:
    Having to use 3 powergrid rigs just to be able to fit what would be pretty much standard equipment kinda proves my point, don't you think? When's the last time you had to use 3 PG or CPU rigs to get a Drake fitted, Or a Cyclone. The Cyclone can easly fit LARGE booster, not medium, but large.

    There should be a little more equality across the board. Why can most ships can fit the best guns and their designated buffer or tank according to their bonuses and basic stats, not to mention shield reppers can easily fit oversized modules going all the way up to XLarge boosters on a BC and especially on command ships if you're really feeling cheesy.... whereas other have to struggle to get their standard modules to fit.


    He linked you a TQ fit that had none of the changes applied to it. It is irrelevant to the discussion. That being said you cannot really get an effective dual rep neutron Blaster fit on the Brutix. not without using a small cap booster and that is not enough for dual repairers. With Ions however you can get a pretty mean setup though I think you are right to ask for atleast enough power grid on the Brutix to be able to fit Neutrons while using 1 PG rig. Other ships have less problems when fitting the biggest guns and tank. It should require max fitting skills of course.

    WivSmile

  • [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 1.5 in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Fozzie would it be possible to get a comment on the idea of having the AAR rep amount selectable.

    ie The ability to choose to rep at either the 3/4 amount or the 3x amount(as long as nanite repair paste is loaded in the module). Even if it was something as simple as the module only uses the 3x boosted nanite repair paste amount when overheating (Until the paste runs out of course). Some have suggested that maybe when overheated with nanite paste loaded it would not cause heat damage maybe something to think about.

    I really believe adding this functionality will be the difference in the usefulness of this module. As it stands right now you essentially have a 1 rep tank with the ability to burst tank for a bit. This forces you to use your burst right away and hope you can burn your enemy down rather than truly saving the burst for the perfect moment where it may tip the scales in your favor. If we could have a 1 and 3/4 repper tank until burst was needed it would help to flesh out the repper and allow burst to be used in more extreme cases rather than right at the beginning of a fight.

    Otherwise I have tested the new repper alot and it is better than just another T2 rep but the flavor really is not there.


    WivCool

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    X Gallentius wrote:
    Wivabel wrote:

    You realize that the Brutix no longer has 7 turret slots right ??????????
    Just when I thought my work here was almost done...............lol
    WivShocked

    It'll be even better then! Big smile


    Yes get on sisi and try it you may be surprised.

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Freighdee Katt wrote:
    Wivabel wrote:
    Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers.

    Tier 3s are not attack ships. They are snipers and large target bashers. There are no "attack" BCs in the current plan.



    You realize that the attack class of ships are defined by higher speed and agility with less tank and more gank right. Exactly what the tier 3 battlecruisers provide to the battlecruiser class.

    You can also use most attack cruisers in the sniper role for instance 200mm rail thorax is a pretty effective sniper out to medium range. You do not see this much because the tier 3 battlecruisers just do it so much better. The tracking gained from medium long range weapons vs larges is not worth the damage lost.

    WivCool

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    X Gallentius wrote:
    Yxilan wrote:
    Can you post a couple of Brutix fits that actually use Neutrons and Armor reps effectively?


    It works! The ec-600's keep dps off the Brutix long enough for the reppers to do their job. (But it's a gimmick fit)

    [Brutix,Active Repper]

    Damage Control II
    Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
    Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
    Medium Armor Repairer II
    Medium Armor Repairer II

    10MN Microwarpdrive II
    Stasis Webifier II
    Warp Scrambler II
    Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I

    Heavy Neutron Blaster II
    Heavy Neutron Blaster II
    Heavy Neutron Blaster II
    Heavy Neutron Blaster II
    Heavy Neutron Blaster II
    Heavy Neutron Blaster II
    Heavy Neutron Blaster II

    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I

    Vespa EC-600 x5


    You realize that the Brutix no longer has 7 turret slots right ??????????

    Just when I thought my work here was almost done...............lol

    WivShocked

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Captain Semper wrote:
    It is still not clear why gallent and caldari have 2 ships with same spec?
    Or maybe CCP change there "vision" about attack and combat ships? Because both (brut\myrm and drake\ferox) have "combat" spec...
    And why ferox still has bonus on optimal? Someone use medium railguns? For what? Naga ftw Twisted


    Both the old tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers are combat battlecruisers. Tier 3 are attack battlecruisers.

    Many of us believe the bonus sharing kinda sucks but it has nothing to do specificaly with attack vs combat Hulls. It only really sucks from a diversity standpoint as the ships seem relatively well balanced against each other and against other classes of ships.

    WivSmile

  • [Retribution 1.1] Combat Battlecruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Lili Lu wrote:
    Yxilan wrote:


    Wouldn't it make more sense for armor ships to have significantly more powergrid then shield ships? Since Shield ships get ~20% more CPU anyway?

    Wow, thanks for pointing this out. Had totally missed the generous fittings on the Ferox. This stupid state of affairs mimics what they tried to do with the destroyers originally. They gimped the fittings on the Gallente destroyers in some attempt to restrict them to blasters and totally rule out any viable rail fits.

    Here they are doing it again at the BC level, and even worse in that you will be able to make a better blaster boat out of a Ferox than a Brutix. Fozzie, please stop this. I know you put some work into it but I highly doubt the active armor changes are enough to induce people to try to use the ship bonus. I think most will still strap on a flimsy shield tank and all gank in the lows. And then they will still have an inferior blaster ship as compared to a ferox.

    Please reconsider an hp per level bonus to replace the active armor bonus. Active armor simply doesn't work at this size. And for god's sake ungimp the fittings on the above ships that aren't Ferox. I mean wtfWhat?

    The only reason active armor works on the Incursus is because it's a frig. It's either fighting in small scale engagements where active repping is viable, or it's gatting alpha'd by something larger where the ship bonus doesn't matter anyway.

    edit - and I'm still not seeing any mention of increased shield regen time on BCs as a class for pve purposes. There needs to be some nerf to this. Thank you for reducing the Drake shield hp a little. But unless some slight nerf is given to shield regen we will still have people passive shielding their pve bcs, and we will still have Drakes out tanking any BC or BS (once the cap charges or pastes are spent). Even the BCs with more low slots have been passive shielded. I doubt that was ever intended.



    I have been flying dual repper astartes and brutixes on the test server (im lucky enough to have a stack of AARs) and I have been pretty happy. With the AAR added your cap is actually more stable because you are not perma running the AAR unless you are under overwhelming DPS. I make sure to fit medium cap boosters with navy 400s. this seems to be enough to tank and fend off 1 medium neut. The brutix with its utility high can now rather easily fit either a nos or a neut which allows for defensive or offensive cap warfare. The gal ships are comparably fast when active armor tanked ~1200m/s.

    As far as tank strength I took a dual rep tanked Astarte up against a dual xl asb sleipner on the test server and did really well. Random other dudes crashed the party but the ships were pretty even.

    http://sisi.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=14936 astarte loss missing slot is AAR of course.
    http://sisi.griefwatch.net/index.php?p=details&kill=14937 Sleipner loss

    The links only work if you copy and paste blame CCP or my fail forum skills.

    Sure fits can be argued but it went pretty well.

    Go check out the new changes and then come back and comment you may be surprised at what you find. I have not done enough testing myself but it deffinetly feels much much better now armor tanking that is.

    Edit. I also agree with the idea that the AAR should be able to be run at either the reduced rep rate or the nanite repair rate. It should be selectable. It would really solidify this module.

    edit again: A little more PG would not be bad on a ship that basicly needs a class apropriate cap booster to function. I would like to be able to fit neutrons with a PG rig and an empty or undersized utility slot. Ions would allow for medium utility high and electrons for overtanked crazy fits.Using the brut for example. all with atleast 1 medium cap booster.

    WivCool

Forum Signature

I am not sure if I am going to log in anymore.......