Is EVE Revenant just more nano kitey garbage?

For a game that is renown for its destructive battles, it seems really disconnected to constantly buff risk adverse gameplay.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, is it not the design goal of factional warfare gates to encourage smaller hull specific conflict zones? Why is there a need for more ‘fast paced’ anything ? For a long while there it was a single stabber with oversize prop mod in every ESS, sure that is a lot of pace but very much lacked skirmish.

Ok so it is a siphon unit? What is the point of fiddling with the skyhooks so much, first they were 24/7 robbable with ramping, now they have some weird random vulnerability window with a 50% unrobbable bonus room. Will there be the same mess of temperate planets getting merc’d until people complain about that too?


So an oversize stealth bomber with a fancy bomb ( watch people complain when its needs bomb deployment 5 ) launcher that ignores shield/armour. Yeah that is not OP at all, totally doesn’t crap all over everything not based of a Gallente hull.

Resistance to webs? Why not keep with the bonus to AB/MWD ? The last thing the game needs is ships to be resistant to stasis webbification crashing back to gate over and over, it was bad enough trying to get a curse and a hugin into an ESS to blow up the stabber botters, now its going to be almost mandatory, as its not like CCP is going to fix the ESS, or even better, just remove the mechanic entirely right ?

Ganruntee if these things end up with nullification it’ll be the bad old days of uncatchable T3C’s with massive buffer tanks flying around everywhere.

4 Likes

From the people who said that the (then) new T3 destroyers would not massively destroy the pvp environment.

2 Likes

The video in the blog says they ignore resistances, but apply normally to shields, then armor etc.

CCP does indeed have a tendency to mess up new game elements when added, so I understand some gloom and dooming. We’ll probably need more details before we can make a better estimate of Revenant’s impact on the game, though.

2 Likes

Like a reverse polarised weapon. Gross.

Well as long as we’re bringing back really bad ideas, let’s resurrect the Burn Eden Raven too

1 Like

Probably even worse. Polarized weapons are self-limiting - to use them, you have to accept the negative consequences on your own ship (risk vs. reward). Scarab pods apply all the negative consequences to the target, multiplying the effect of any imbalance in the implementation (reward * reward).

It’s good to see CCP experimenting with new things, but as usual CCP seems to have little grasp of how their ideas may actually play out in the game or how to balance them. I guess we’ll see if they’ve learned any lessons from the past, soon enough.

3 Likes

It’s a skillpoint sinkhole.

1 Like

They sound interesting. We need something to shake up the current metas…

Is this the raven with dual MWD that you fly at the same speed as the torpedo’s that are launched at the same target? Or something else?

Sensor damps and more sensor damps. Whole fleets of sensor damping torp ravens setting the sky on fire. For a few months, everybody hated Burn Eden more than they hated BoB or Goons.

Nothing wrong with training bomb deployment to 5.

It’s a short skill.

It’s a buff for polarized ship fits!

When you fight one of these new ships you can use the superior fire rate of polarized weapons without the negatives.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.