|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:25:00 -
[1]
Increasing the explosion velocity to 150 m/s gives 225 m/s after TNP V. The explosion radius of 20 m means that a 40-m-sig frigate such as a Jaguar would have to travel at 450 m/s to receive damage mitigation. In comparison, a Jag with an overheated AB and an ODI II can do ~600 m/s webbed, receiving ~85% damage (without the web, ~46%). In comparison, with the current TQ rockets, these numbers are 58% and 32% (lol).
Raw damage has only increased by ~5.6%, but it's MUCH easier to apply it to an ABing target - which is where the main problem was. I am, however, kinda disappointed that the DRF has not been changed. As seen with the percentages of damage mitigation above, a web is absolutely essential on a rocket ship, both for keeping your target out of its turret optimal and for actually applying your damage. This not only leads to predictable fits and tactics, but excludes two-medslot frigates such as the Inquisitor and Condor from being usable rocket platforms.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 17:52:00 -
[2]
The 10% kinetic bonus for the Hawk is very welcome indeed.
But the extra PG is slightly baffling. The rocket Hawk doesn't really have a problem with PG - you can fit a SSB, MWD, rockets and a Nos. Only when you try to fit an MSE instead do you hit PG problems, but not only is this not surprising, but it's also not difficult to fix with a MAPC. I don't think the SML fit has fundamental PG problems either - yeah, fitting a cap booster is tricky, but again a small ACR rig or MAPC solves that, unless you want a MSE on, in which case the proposed PG boost doesn't really help anyway.
I've always considered the Hawk to have greater trouble with CPU. For example, this rocket fit is 13 CPU short, despite using expensive low-CPU tackle:
[Hawk, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Small Shield Booster II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
and this SML fit is 10 CPU short:
[Hawk, SML] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Ballistic Control System II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Small Shield Booster II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 100 Warp Disruptor II
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile [empty high slot]
Small Ancillary Current Router I [empty rig slot]
I'd much rather have 15-20 CPU more, instead of the PG.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 23:19:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF.
Hello, Scorch L...?
Er, yeah, current comments on DRF are based on Stafen's missile damage formula. From my experience it's accurate enough, but it's very hard to tell in general combat because of all the variables. Certainly if we're all speaking nonsense because the formula is off then it would be useful to have the real one...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:12:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 29/09/2010 16:14:58
The extra clip size will certainly be useful. I killed a couple of blaster-Taranisii on Sisi with a rocket Crow a few days ago, and in both fights I had to reload...
Even though I think I first calculated the 5.6% increase, and you're all now agreeing with me, I can't now figure out how I did it - instead I'm getting a 1% decrease, but I know that that's wrong, because Chron said the raw DPS would go up a bit...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.29 16:28:00 -
[5]
Ah, I've got it. If we start with 10 DPS, with 100 damage every 10 seconds, then the current ROF is 10 seconds/shot, with 25% slower shooting giving 12.5 seconds/shot, which combined with 132 damage (32% increase from 100) gives 10.56 DPS, compared to the original 10 DPS - the 5.6% increase.
But CCP measures ROF as shots/second. 10 seconds/shot is 0.1 shot/second, and the 25% reduction gives 0.075 shot/second, which is 13.333 seconds/shot. 132 damage every 13.333 gives 9.9 DPS, a 1% decrease.
Damn I'm confused now.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.30 07:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Braitai
Originally by: Kadesh Priestess ]Your assumption that i don't know missile damage formula and how it applies to small unguided missiles is wrong.
CCP Chonotis has said that the missile formula we've been using is wrong, though TBH I'm skeptical about how wrong it is. I suspect it's not terribly far off.
Me too. I bet the basic idea of damage mitigation if speed > explosion velocity, or if explosion radius > sig radius, with excess sig being able to counter excess speed but not vice versa, is absolutely right. I think that the only thing that Stafen may have not got quite right is the way the damage falls off in imperfect conditions. He uses the log(DRF)/log(5.5) modifier which seems to give reasonable results but probably isn't exactly what CCP uses.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.30 22:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lake This is why you can focus on sig-tanking or speed-tanking individually for missiles, but must take them both in balance for turrets.
This is a very confusing explanation that makes you look like you don't understand missiles.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.01 08:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Mona X
Originally by: CCP Chronotis longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes!
You're nerfing Scorch or fixing short range versions?
Possibly both, most likely the latter but nothing definite yet.
Jav rockets give a velocity penalty. Why not bring Scorch and Barrage into line with Jav rockets, and give them a velocity penalty also? :evilgrin:
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.01 10:16:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 01/10/2010 10:17:51
With fixed rockets, the Hookbill will be a very impressive frigate - good speed, and the range-dictation offered by dual-web or web/scram/dual-prop combined with good DPS at range. But webs are fairly light on CPU to fit - I think people complaining about its CPU are focusing on SML/ewar support fits, with SMLs, a T2 disruptor and TDs requiring much more CPU than rockets, a scambler and webs. For example:
[Caldari Navy Hookbill, SML] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Warp Disruptor II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Small Ancillary Current Router I [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
That just leaves 13.25 CPU for two lowslots - less if you start adding missile rigs. IF you drop the painter for another TD, then you're already out of CPU! Okay, fitting nanos in those two lows would be useful, but would it really be so terrible if this fit could fit one nano and one BCS? Or a Damage Control? I suppose a counter argument to this is that ewar should belong on the T1/T2 ewar frigates - but it's straightforward to fit up a Caracal hull with HMLs and ewar.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.01 19:28:00 -
[10]
Test 001
Rocket Kestrel. Hull-tanked gank fit. 4x Rocket II with CN Thorn, MWD, web, scrambler, DC and BCS. Bay loading Acc I rig, 2x Aux thruster I rigs.
Relevant skills mostly V except Rocket Spec IV. Implants - none. In EFT: 146 DPS (no reloading), 2098 EHP (lol), 2800 m/s.
Target - AB Taranis. Pilot from 2005. Result - I tried to kite the Taranis, but after a couple of passes it was able to keep a scrambler on me and it closed to blaster range. I died when Taranis was entering hull. Conclusions - what did you expect to happen?
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.01 19:38:00 -
[11]
Test 002
Same Rocket Kestrel as 001. Target - Crucifier Result - Comedy civilian-fit neut Crucifier died. Conclusion - Again, what did you expect...?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 10:24:00 -
[12]
Quote: I dont want to see an eve where the races and the weapons used are only for asthetics. Please be careful and add to the game aposed to equalizing the damage/range of weapons ingame and therfore reducing game content.
Well, "races and weapons used only for aesthetics" is exactly what you get when balance is screwed up. Because then people only fly one race or ship, and the others never get used. Like seeing Dramiels everywhere... or ACs on frigates, or Sabres?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.02 15:41:00 -
[13]
Dual-prop Hookbill is brutal with these rockets.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 00:14:00 -
[14]
The Hawk now seems reasonably balanced against Jaguar and Wolf from what I've seen. I was trying to kite them to mitigate some of their DPS via falloff, while trying to tank the rest with a SSB and Blue Pill. It worked some of the time. I haven't tried the MSE Hawk yet, or the MSB option.
Hawk vs Ishkur is an interesting fight too. The Hawk has to reload to EM or explosive, and loses a third of its DPS straight away. But the new rockets are effective against drones, and if the Iskhur fits hybrids then it's hitting the Hawks highest resists.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.03 13:03:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon And rockets should feel like dumb brute force weapons. Quite HIGHER dps, but very bad against fast moving targets. That would mean rockets would be used when hunting cruisers and above.
Do we have to go through again why this is such a terrible idea?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.04 07:49:00 -
[16]
Originally by: OT Smithers Assuming, as several posters here have suggested, that this "fix" makes rockets somewhat less laughable, and perhaps even somewhat close (yet still inferior)to the effectiveness of other frigate weapons...
How in the heck is this a fix? It's all well and good to duel on test against others looking to duel. In such an environment the biggest drawback of Caldari frigates -- their terrible slow speed -- can be ignored. On live it makes all the difference.
If you combine the slowest frigates, worst drone capacity, and a short range weapon that requires a web to work, then for f*ck's sake make the weapon brutally effective.
I dislike replying to Caldari whinebears, especially ones that I haven't seen testing these new rockets at all, but in this generic whinge is a useful comment about speed and the realism of the test server environment. Pretty much all AFs on Sisi fit ABs. Many do on TQ also, but I've spent far too long chasing down and splatting AB AFs in cruisers. But this doesn't necessarily mean that MWD is the way forward. It may give you the ability to avoid a cruiser, but it still doesn't give you the ability to fight it very well, and you're probably dead meat to a Dramiel whatever you do. If this limits the target selection of AFs to other frigates, then we quickly realise that we don't need an expensive AF for that job.
Having said all that, the new rockets do not require a web to be effective against ABing AFs. It definitely improves their damage and the range control is very useful, but it isn't essential to actually hit someone for worthwhile damage. This makes a cap-injected MSB Hawk rather powerful on Sisi, although I have my doubts about how useful this fit would be on TQ.
The Hawk doesn't really have much of a speed disadvantage over other AFs - its speed is pretty similar to that of an Ishkur or Vengeance and, as you'd expect, it's considerably more agile. Only the Jaguar and Wolf have a meaningful speed advantage, but the Wolf lacks a web and is often plated to boot. When both are webbed with overheated ABs, the Jaguar has a 100 m/s speed advantage. It takes a long time for a ship to crawl 8 km from tackle range to AC optimal, especially when it's so vulnerable to kinetic damage.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.04 14:10:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Baron Agamemnon
Originally by: Gypsio III Dual-prop Hookbill is brutal with these rockets.
Yes.
But you tanked my hookbill in your hawk easily, too bad I forgot to bring any non kinetic ammo
I think that was the webless MSB Hawk? Which meant that we had pretty much exactly the same chance of killing each other.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 08:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Tsubutai No questions, but I'd love to see some data on the influence of the target's sig radius as well as its speed. Nice work!
I think we can safely assume that sig part of Stafen's missile damage formula is correct - so target sig divided by missile explosion radius acts as a MAX() function, and that targets travelling faster than the missile's explosion velocity can still receive max damage if their sig is proportionally higher. In this case, the sig ratio of 39/30 modifies the explosion velocities to 307.1 m/s and 286.7.
One thing that I fully expect to change is the stats of Rage rockets. Among other missiles, Rage and Furry missiles have explosion radii that indicate that they're designed to be used against targets "one size up". But the current Rage rocket has an explosion radius of just 30 m, while the Hawk target, along with plenty of other frigates, is considerably bigger at 39 m. Rage rockets best employed against cruisers (or maybe destroyers?) should probably have an explosion radius of somewhere 60 m.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.06 23:44:00 -
[19]
I stepped away from the Hawk and tested the rocket Kestrel again. After my first attempts at a hull-tanked web-scrambler gank Kessie exploded violently, I tried a webless MSE MWD fit:
[Kestrel, MSE MWD] Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Damage Control II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Medium Shield Extender II
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Bay Loading Accelerator I Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Warhead Flare Catalyst I
Standard Crash Booster
Which was rather effective. Possibly too effective? Tactics were simple - to get a good MWD speed up, open fire early overloaded from the start, try to tackle at maximum range (ideally skipping out of scrambler range then returning but this was very hard to pull off in practice) then, once I got tackled back, to use inertia to maintain range as long as possible. Once someone had me at optimal I tried to mess up the opponent's tracking, but I don't know who successful that actually was.
First to die was a fairly standard dual-prop Taranis. The Taranis did great damage once it got close to optimal, but it had lost too much EHP while getting there, as after getting scrambled my MWD speed had to bleed off. Even without a web my Kessie still did great damage to it.
Next was a trimarked 400 mm plated AB-web Rifter. Again, he took too much damage coming in and by the time he was applying his damage, it was too late. Then a 200 mm plated MWD Claw - same story, basically. Then the Taranis and Rifter pilot came back in an MSE AB Rifter with falloff rigs and a TE, for good damage application at range. He named it "**** rockets". It died. As did another pilot in a fairly typical active AB Rifter. Last up was a 400 mm plated blaster-Enyo. I had to reload to EM. I got it to about 1/3 armour before I died.
Now I'm no genius frigate pilot - it's over three years since I've spent much time in one. But I can't help thinking that these new rockets might be a bit too good...?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.07 09:38:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 07/10/2010 09:39:29
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Even with a web they are still considerably weaker damage wise than pretty much all gun options, the benefit is a pure damage type
The real benefit is the ability to start applying damage from the edge of tackle range without worrying about falloff.
But Peset's comment about finding a similarly-skilled pilot is good. I'm fairly sure that if I'd just charged straight on in to optimal, instead of manually piloting, I'd have just got blown up. Another thing to remember on the Kestrel vs. Rifter comparison is that, frankly, the Kestrel should have some sort of an advantage inside web range, because the faster, more agile Rifter has the advantage outside tackle range. (There's a tier issue here that I'm ignoring.)
It's a similar thing to the Hawk vs Jaguar issue - you should expect a Hawk to have the advantage inside tackle range, because the Jaguar is not only more mobile but also has its lowest resist as kinetic.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.07 10:02:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Sela Bacall Considering there's literally no way to mitigate rocket damage once within engagement range
Hey let's not exaggerate here. In general, rockets won't do max damage if you have an AB, or the rocket ship doesn't have a web. It's just that the applied damage in those circumstance has substantially increased.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 23:40:00 -
[22]
The Kestrel is not relatively fast, Proxxxxxyyyyy.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.10 12:20:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 10/10/2010 10:47:11 I love how people had no problems with the Jag being top of the line and the Ishkur being borderline overpowered but are now crying over the possibility of the Hawk being good.
"Minmatar is the speedy race so we should have the best frigates." "Waaa waaa boost Minmatar battleships and capitals, it's not fair that Minmatar mobility doesn't mean much here, ship classes should be balanced regardless of the racial generalisations"
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 07:33:00 -
[24]
Originally by: OT Smithers Borderline... H-Bill, how and compared to what?
PLease GTFO of this thread. Stop spamming it up with your whining.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 19:08:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 11/10/2010 19:10:03
Active Vengeance is a good ship but it's very vulnerable to neuting, while the Hawk has room for a small nos in active fit, or a neut in MSE fit. They seem fairly well balanced to me, especially with the Hawk's big kinetic-only bonus compared with the Vengeance's smaller multispectral bonus.
I'm really not keen on the idea of fitting a plate or armour rigs on one though, it sounds crazy considering the mobility loss.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.14 16:36:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: Tsubutai
As an aside, there's a very big problem with soliciting feedback on balance issues in threads like this - they are populated almost exclusively by people who have a vested interest in having 'their' weapon system/ship/playstyle/whatever boosted as far as it possibly can be. As such, any feedback obtained is inherently unreliable. People who don't use the systems in question won't be hugely inclined to pay attention until the changes hit TQ, by which time it's far too late to do anything about them. The obvious solution would be to have balancing be an ongoing process that can incorporate feedback from 'real' TQ engagements, but since that's unlikely to happen, it's important to discount the opinions of the 'buff me, nerf you' crowd appropriately.
Pretty much what i said for a few years already. Balance patches should be made evey 6 months using small steps instead of huge rebalance patches every 3+ years. Takes more commitment but you can actually see ongoing changes on live server instead of guessing what will work and seeing results on TQ working in totally oposite way you intended.
And back to rockets: the main problem here is web. If you make rockets so they work ok with web and are **** without - you will hurt ships which lack mids. If you make them good without web - they will be even better with. If you make them mediciore in web - they will be useless without. There is no other weapon system in game that relies on web in its own ship class (thats important!) more than rockets. Even torps work ok without web because most of their intended targets (and its something like 99,99% of them) dont use AB. Same for cruiser sized missiles. Sure there are AB HACs but they are generally used in blobs and blob fight = primary will be webbed anyways. In solo combat you can meet AB (or dualprop) HACs sometimes but they are fairly rare. Frigs? Quite a bit of AB or dualprop ships which NEED web to be countered. So when you look at ships you need to look at web as a counter to AB. no web vs no AB = should deal good damage. web vs AB = should deal good damage (counter). no web vs AB = you should die.
These are good posts. Especially about the "wahh wahh boost me nerf you" phenomenon.
If I had to define Proxxxxyyy in a few words, it would be "barely-literate logorrhoea". Which is a shame, because there are some good points buried in there, but you just have to wade through so much spam.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.15 09:22:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 15/10/2010 09:24:57
Originally by: Braitai
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs CCP said all our formulas are wrong. :)
So that is not a good enough basis to make proper adjustment to rockets imo.
The numbers that have been put on this thread show that it is most definitely wrong.
CCP said the formula was wrong, but CCP was referring to the wrong formula. When I posted a link to Stafen's formula, CCP said that was much better.
Here is a comparison for T1 rockets, using the data that Severian used to make his graph a few pages back. You may find it hard to distinguish between Stafen-predicted damage and actual damage, because they're virtually identical. Also shown is the "old" (current TQ) rocket damage:
Prod me
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 23:29:00 -
[28]
There's a new mirror on Sisi, so the rocket changes from page 1 are not currently on Sisi.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.06 10:07:00 -
[29]
It's also slightly sad that people use the Minmatar theme of mobility to justify having the best frigates/cruisers etc., but refuse to accept the inevitable converse - that Minmatar BS and capitals must be therefore be weakest. They just whine "boost me, nerf you" on that too.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 08:49:00 -
[30]
I'm not convinced about the Ishkur and Curse there, but the rest are pretty standard. And you can add the Archon and Apoc to that and also anything related to the completely broken nature of tanking disciplines on the BS scale and larger.
Also, it's worth repeating that faster, more mobile ships need to be at a disadvantage to slower ships when tackled, because otherwise there's no reason to fly the slower ships. I'm looking at you, Rifter and Jaguar. The Jaguar point is particularly apt, relative to the Hawk, because of the kinetic damage.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.08 14:04:00 -
[31]
Originally by: me
Originally by: Tsubutai Also, it's worth repeating that faster, more mobile ships need to be at a disadvantage to slower ships when tackled, because otherwise there's no reason to fly the slower ships. I'm looking at you, Rifter and Jaguar. The Jaguar point is particularly apt, relative to the Hawk, because of the kinetic damage.
This is a silly oversimplification that ignores a huge swath of factors that make ships effective in pvp. An active armor Myrm is faster than a plated Harbinger; are you really claiming that the Harbinger 'should' win if it winds up in scram range? How about a Mega or a torp Phoon versus an Apoc?
Yes, it's a colossal simplification. And yes, it obviously breaks down when comparing active tanks with buffers. But I used the term "disadvantage" in a very general sense, and I certainly didn't intend it to mean "automatically lose".
As a very general example, a fast frigate can use its superior mobility to better escape unfavourable situations and more easily tackle targets. This advantage should not be accompanied by a further advantage in tank 'n' gank once tackled - remembering of course that ease of application of damage within tackle range is influenced by mobility issues.
That doesn't mean that the slower frigate should automatically win. It should depend on fits (active vs buffer as you noted), pilot skill and SP. But it is inevitable that one ship must have an advantage, and I think that it would be wrong for that advantage to belong to the ship that already enjoys the advantage of superior mobility. The key is making sure that the advantage is of the correct magnitude - they're not frigates but I think that the Drake and (shield) Hurricane are well balanced here - the Drake's advantages in ease of fitting of tackle, EHP and DPS at range make up for the Hurricane's mobility advantage.
But what about, say, Rifter and Merlin? The Rifter is more mobile; the Merlin has more EHP and better DPS towards the edge of web range. Does the Rifter have a realistic advantage within tackle range in tank 'n' gank over the Merlin as well? If the Rifter has not only superior mobility, but also can reasonably expect to defeat the Merlin in a close-range fight, then I think there's a problem.
My point here isn't to answer that question, simply to pose it as an example of the thought processes that can contribute to the balancing process.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 13:05:00 -
[32]
Originally by: 7'th Tactical even with this new changes there is no way that a Hawk will take out a Rifter... Insert whatever you like, hell even make that 2 hawks as long as they are rocket fited.
what
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.10 14:20:00 -
[33]
I'm trolling no more than you are.
I'm at work atm so I can't "test it". But last time I checked, Sisi was still running the old rockets. So how would you fit a rocket Hawk?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.14 19:51:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tsubutai
Originally by: Gypsio III As a very general example, a fast frigate can use its superior mobility to better escape unfavourable situations and more easily tackle targets. This advantage should not be accompanied by a further advantage in tank 'n' gank once tackled - remembering of course that ease of application of damage within tackle range is influenced by mobility issues.
This absolutely does not follow. You're consistently ignoring the fact that the ability to apply damage at range is also hugely important - again, by your logic, it would be grossly unfair for a Mega to be both faster than a laser boat *and* to have a significant tank+DPS advantage at close quarters. In reality, it cannot function without both. The same goes for a frigate that is equally comfortable at 13km as it is at 0 versus one with an effective engagement range that tops out at 7 km (and doesn't really hit its maximum DPS potential until around 2 km or so).
I'm not ignoring the ease of application of damage at range! Honest! I'm absolutely counting that as part of the "advantage" that a slower frigate such as a rocket Kestrel or a null/rail Merlin needs to have over, say, a Rifter. It must be that way, because that still leaves the option open for the Rifter to win by getting in close soon enough - if the slower frigate had teh same ease of application of damage as the faster one, then it would almost always win, and any fight at close range would be stupidly predictable.
My entire point is that the balance between superior DPS-at-range must be finely balanced with the mobility advantage! With the current rockets, this isn't the case, because their damage is so feeble, but I'm optimistic that the Sisi rockets will be about right.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 08:48:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Kai Yuen So I finally got around to installing Sisi again and testing rockets. The results?
Comments:
Your active Hawks without webs are awful, either because your unwebbed target will fly straight up to its optimal and kill you, or it will disengage.
Oh FFS, you don't have a web on the other fit either.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 15:50:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Kronanius However, I notice that there seems to be little to no use of T2 rocket ammo; and personally, I can and do ***** out the rage rockets to rather decent effect on the vengeance and pve kestrel.
Rage rockets on Sisi had (have?) an explosion radius of 30 m. That's frigate-sized, in contradiction of Rage/Fury's "normal" role of being used against ships a size larger. So I haven't been using Rage in my tests agaisnt other frigates out of expectation that Rage's stats will get tweaked.
Originally by: Kronanius It would seem to me that the "range" issue that gets a lot of complaints could be fixed by capping the negative velocity effects of the javelin rockets to something like a max of ~15%.
The speed penalty to Jav is really annoying and makes it close to unusable on the frigate scale, where speed is most important and the extra few km gained is likely to be lost through missile flight dynamics and not very useful anyway, considering its position in the 10-20 km range range.
But why doesn't Scorch or Barrage get a similar speed penalty? Barrage doesn't because it supposed to be an offensive option, being used to stay out of the optimal of, e.g., blasterboats. But what about Scorch? Amarr ships are about as slow as Caldari ones, often more so after they stick several metres of armour on. Jav missiles are intended as a defensive weapon, to be used when you can't get close enough to hit a target with normal ammo, and Scorch should be the same, instead of its current status as offensive and defensive without any significant drawbacks.
Either a) give Scorch a ship velocity penalty to bring it into line with Javs as a defensive weapon, or b) remove the velocity penalty from Javs. Although b) is the sensible option, a) would be much more entertaining.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.17 23:17:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Kai Yuen HHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG
Oh this is too stupid for words.
Fit the web in one of your four medslots. Prop mod, web, scram, tank mod. You plug the EM hole with rigslots and DC. Desiring MWD stability on a ship designed to operate within scramble range is just moronic. You used kinetic ammo against T2 Gallente resists? WTF were you thinking?
Come on. It's hardly Challenge Anneka.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 09:13:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kai Yuen lol
Four tank mods, not one. SSB/MSE, DC, rig, rig. Knowingly making conclusions based upon the use of the wrong ammo is just stupid.
Come on, just use T1 and mentally adjust. If your opponent uses T1 ammo too then there's no problem at all. Hell, with the current Rage stats you can use that without too much problem, especially if you chug a Crash. Here's a proper Hawk fit for you.
[Hawk, Rocket MSE MWD] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Medium Shield Extender II Stasis Webifier II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
If you drop the neut and switch to a named MSE you can fit a BCS. The MSE fit is better against high-applied-damage opponents such Jag or Wolf. Against low-applied-damage opponents such as Vengeance, Hawk or Enyo a nos-powered SSB can work better.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 09:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Tsubutai
New rockets in general are OK, it's the Hawk's +25% damage that I take issue with. The Hawk beating most other AFs at 7km is fine and obviously working as intended. The problem is that it's also not appreciably disadvantaged at 1 km, especially compared to other frigates with decent DPS at range: 10k EHP and 170 - 190 DPS before heat with no issues applying that damage at any range makes it very competitive as a brawler, particularly when the attacking AF is going to have spent at least a few seconds getting pummeled by rockets while closing range. New rockets = good, +25% damage on the Hawk = excessive.
I certainly take the point that it's very hard to avoid the Hawk's damage. Possibly too hard; we'll see. I'm not completely convinced that the 10%/level kinetic damage bonus is excessive though. In the AF class, the kinetic bonus only "works" against the Jaguar and Wolf - against the other races' AFs, it doesn't really offer any bonus over hitting their resist hole. Okay, in TQ often you don't have time to reload, or the situation changes, so you're stuck with kinetic and the new bonus will certainly help - but the high kinetic resists limit the magnitude of this "help".
The case where it certainly does make a difference is obviously against the Jaguar and Wolf. Too big a difference? I'm not convinced. From my Sisi tests, a Wolf or Jag was competitive with a SSB Hawk, so I don't think it's a problem there. They found it tougher against a MSE Hawk, but the Wolf/Jag can also hit the Hawk's resist holes, whether with EMP or Barrage. In fact, I'm showing that a MSE II-DC II-2x shield resist-rigged Jaguar has more EHP to kinetic than a named MSE (PG)-DC II-2x shield resist rigged Hawk does to EMP. In any case, I suppose we just come back to my original comment that the Hawk should be have some sort of advantage against a Jaguar/Wolf...
Hang on, how are you getting 170-190 DPS before heat from a Hawk? And an ABing Jaguar will still get a some sort of 11-12% damage mitigation from speed.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.18 21:52:00 -
[40]
Oh man I'm being trolled silly here...
I gave you a buffer fit because you wanted a buffer fit, Einstein. No, applying rocket damage is still an issue, which is one of the reasons for the web. That fit does not have an EM hole. Its lowest EHP is to explosive. Neuting an opponent causes him to lose tackle, not you. Unless you're an idiot.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.19 08:54:00 -
[41]
Ok, I'm outa here. HF dying then blaming CCP for your terrible fits.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.23 16:05:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 23/11/2010 16:05:38
No, rockets got a 5.6% raw DPS increase, with the larger clip size and lower ROF increasing this further in practice. If that's insignificant to you, then you probably can't be bother to train many skills either, and would similarly regard a 5% cut in DPS as "insignificant".
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.11.24 14:24:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Major Graft I have to agree with Gypsio III applying the damage that rockets have is still to hard compared to turrets.
Did I say this? I don't think I did. To apply good damage against an ABing target you just need a web - but your typical turret boat wants a web also, for range (and transversal) control.
The ease of application of rocket damage is actually pretty good now. An opponent with overloaded AB will still get some damage reduction - as he deserves - but it's nowhere near as bad as how it used to be. Actually, considering the decent range of rockets, their damage is probably easier to apply than, say, blasters. I think Tsubutai(?) was quite worried about this in the case of the Hawk û I think he mentioned something about "unavoidable damage anywhere within web range", and I certainly see where heÆs coming from.
|
|
|
|