Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Vinyl 41
Perkone Academy
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:13:00 -
[4051] - Quote
Katabrok First wrote:This is the undying thread!!! yup miner bumping mk II but now back to serious stuff - great news no TP nerf in rubi 1.1 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
457
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:29:00 -
[4052] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:(wrongly as it turns out, my simulations indicated that HM work as well as long range medium guns) Excuse me? That statement is as misleading as some of the arguments ive seen about that topic. First of all, Comparison of weaponsystems is difficult at at the least, but so far i haven't seen any of your data come from an unbonused hull, from 0 and all lvl 5 skills, and against all gun weapon systems. In order to judge the performance of a parabol, wich is the formula that gun tracking gives out you need at least 7 meaningfull measurepoints per parabol. Since we have 4, each with 3 variants weaponsystems each with 3 or more types of different damage application, and a lot more range application ammo, a minimum of 4 often encountered situations, against 6 generalized sized targets your talking a minimum of 6048 calculations that have to be performed, and verified before any such claim can be stated. The only comparison i've seen you do, is hm vs one type of Rail with One sort of ammo from a redesigned hull to a hull from a different class that still has to be redesigned. Any statement about heavy missile in such comparison is the same as comparing how delicious an anvil is compared to an apple, because they both start with the letter A (well thats a little exagerated but still) Drawing conclusions because the HM is performing adequatly in one specific set of conditions is blatent misinformation and you know it. No disrespect to you, some of your statements are absolutely true but that line just got me ticked.
I do not feel disrespected and I agree that it's a difficult comparison. Some pages back I compared railguns (both 250 and 200) on 2 hulls vs HMLs on 2 hulls, using EveHQ as the computation tool. The outcome was that peak dps is higher with guns (as you'd expect, since it requires some work on behalf of the antagonist to attain) but overall dps when (simply) integrating gun dps for all target directions was very similar. Notably, there are many areas of the curve in which missiles outperform guns - the most notable being at short range where guns find themselves unable to apply any dps whatsoever. T2 long range ammo in guns almost always leads to reduced DPS if there is a significant radial velocity.
i.e. vs a railgun on a similarly bonused hull, heavy missiles do on average the same applied damage if the gunnery pilot does not maneuver aggressively and compensate for range by changing ammo.
You may argue that it's unfair that guns users have the opportunity to maneuver for better performance, but they could as easily argue that it's unfair that missile users don't have to. Gunnery users may also cite the fact that tracking can be disrupted and missiles may not, that a kiting missile defender with a following attacker gets a range bonus (since velocities of ships and missiles are additive). Missile users may counter that they can't one-shot a frigate, gun users can counter argue that if the frigate gets in close orbit they will never hit it.... and so on.
With respect, I do not believe my statement is misleading and I stand by it. Guns and missiles have different characteristics, favouring different styles of pvp. That's all. Missiles are not deficient and I encourage their use in the small squads that I command.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:49:00 -
[4053] - Quote
Katabrok First wrote:This is the undying thread!!! Thanks to players like you.
Vinyl 41 wrote:but now back to serious stuff - great news no TP nerf in rubi 1.1 YayGǪ Still not using them, but all guns just got a nerf in the process. The tearsGǪ
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I do not feel disrespected and I agree that it's a difficult comparison. The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
457
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:57:00 -
[4054] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles?
A little less well now that you have to choose between tracking and range, which is probably desirable. Having said that, one long range web or painter on a sentry target is equivalent to a tracking computer on all sentries, so a well organised fleet will fit for range and suffer no ill effects.
If the FC is in a rapier, boosted by an Eos , he can still rain down 100% thermal Hell on anyone within 70k. Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:05:00 -
[4055] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:If the FC is in a rapier, boosted by an Eos , he can still rain down 100% thermal Hell on anyone within 70k. That's insaneGǪ and people think ECM is overpowered. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
457
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:24:00 -
[4056] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:If the FC is in a rapier, boosted by an Eos , he can still rain down 100% thermal Hell on anyone within 70k. That's insaneGǪ and people think ECM is overpowered.
ECM may be overpowered in a skirmish, but the counter is that every squad should have one, in which case it simply exacerbates any imbalance in fleet size.
The dominix/ishtar sentry hedgehog tactic is very difficult to counter since it favours the defenders who already have their drones slaved to the FC while the incoming fleet is still launching theirs. Siting inside a warp disruption bubble field can ensure that most attackers arrive nicely at optimal range.
The downside of course is that moving a sentry fleet quickly is lossy (you'll leave a lot of drones behind) and if the attacker can infiltrate the perimeter with an AoE weapon he can neutralise a good deal of the sentry fleet's offensive capability. One interceptor (or T3) could do this, fitted with a cyno generator with spectacular results.
It's extremely difficult for me to visualise how to even begin measuring the relative power of a sentry fleet vs other types. The problem space is somewhat large. Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1184
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:47:00 -
[4057] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles?
It's an interesting question. Just so long as anyone who decides to attempt that comparison remembers that Sentries are LARGE weapon platforms, and therefore should be compared to Cruise Missiles, Torpedoes, Heavy Drones and Large Turrets.
Of course there is bound to be some brainless muppet that decides to compare them to HM's |
Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:55:00 -
[4058] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles?
It's an interesting question. Just so long as anyone who decides to attempt that comparison remembers that Sentries are LARGE weapon platforms, and therefore should be compared to Cruise Missiles, Torpedoes, Heavy Drones and Large Turrets. Of course there is bound to be some brainless muppet that decides to compare them to HM's Excellent point. The campaign to have all cruiser hulls capped at a maximum drone bandwidth of 50 mbit and to lose all bonuses that apply to heavy/sentry drones starts here! Ceterum censeo, the RLML and HML nerfs must be undone. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
457
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:11:00 -
[4059] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles?
It's an interesting question. Just so long as anyone who decides to attempt that comparison remembers that Sentries are LARGE weapon platforms, and therefore should be compared to Cruise Missiles, Torpedoes, Heavy Drones and Large Turrets. Of course there is bound to be some brainless muppet that decides to compare them to HM's
Another way to see it is that drone warfare is asymmetric to projectile and missile warfare, using different mechanics.
The drone-only ships have an advantage over battleships when attacking cruisers (with sentries, at range when the target has little transversal) but they pay for this in reduced DPS, immobility and destructibility of the weapon.
Large drones (such as ogres) have quite a hard time hitting cruisers unless the attacker has the target at point blank range and held firmly by a web - even then, damage application is sketchy unless the drone ship has a drone tracking bonus.
If the target is outside web range, there is no reason for it to take damage from heavy drones (or sentries) whatsoever. It can outrun the former and out-track the latter.
I fight with drones a lot. I can say honestly that I never enter a fight feeling sure I am going to win.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:06:00 -
[4060] - Quote
I hate drones. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:53:00 -
[4061] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: The real question now is how do sentry drones stack up to guns and missiles?
It's an interesting question. Just so long as anyone who decides to attempt that comparison remembers that Sentries are LARGE weapon platforms, and therefore should be compared to Cruise Missiles, Torpedoes, Heavy Drones and Large Turrets. Of course there is bound to be some brainless muppet that decides to compare them to HM's
Not really true. They are heavily used on quite a few sub-BS hulls. |
Captain Hoax
Traveler 52
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:59:00 -
[4062] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Finally, I just want to say that the 'fun' factor of the mechanic is very difficult to evaluate objectively. There's evidence pointing in a lot of directions, and I still like the idea of doing something different more than sticking with something very safe and normal. The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally. I'm still trying to gather as much info as possible and if you guys are using it and are able to say it's not fun (separate from it not being good, which is a different issue and could be corrected with numbers tweaks like 30s reload or more ammo per launcher) please post and let me know.
This is going to sound weird, but I've had a bit of a play with RHML on a golem, and I think they fire too fast. The T2 RHML I was using hold 23 missiles a piece and fire once every 5.18 seconds. If my math is right then it will take just shy of 2 minutes till I need to spend 40 seconds reloading. So far so good. The problem I found was that since my missile velocity bonus is not being applied to RHML's I end up with so many fish in the water that the target often dies while 2, sometimes 3 volleys of missiles are still in flight. That adds up over the space of 2min, and when you only have 23 missiles per reload then any wasted missiles hurt that much more. Yes, some of the onus here is on me, a good missile pilot switches targets early, but when you have 2 or more volleys already in flight that can be a little bit difficult to judge. On top of that the damage projection of RHML is actually rather poor. Because they don't receive any of the native bonuses from my golem, I actually receive better hits and damage on small targets by fitting a second target painter and using cruise missiles. In addition, because they don't receive the velocity bonus the range for RHML's is only around 50 - 60km, about 20km better than if I was using torpedo's with the same fit.
I've tested and compared with the L4 mission Buzz Kill, one with an excessive number of frigates and cruisers. If ever there was a "right choice" for the RHML I would have thought it would be this mission, however I've found this to be very much not the case. My time to completion has been significantly worse when using RHML as compared to cruise missiles every single time. In its current iteration I don't see myself ever using RHML's again.
If it were up to me, I would increase rapid launcher capacity by 50%, lower RoF by around 40%, and reduce reload times to 20s instead of 40s. That, or allow all ship bonuses to apply to all rapid launcher types and increase capacity by around 30%. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:01:00 -
[4063] - Quote
Apparently stasis webs are slated for a review at some point in the not-too-distant future, which means there's a better than even chance they're going to get a nerf. So in effect, we did get some missile buffs after all. Now if we can just get that low-slot ballistics enhancer, we'll all be happy campers... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2779
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:03:00 -
[4064] - Quote
Captain Hoax wrote:If it were up to me, I would increase rapid launcher capacity by 50%GǪ And that's a good place to stopGǪ Rate of fire is ideal at the moment for both launchers. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Vinyl 41
Perkone Academy
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:49:00 -
[4065] - Quote
i was allways asking meself too why couldnt rapid heavys benefit from 50% missle velocity hull bonus i remember those profiting form the rate of fire one but not the velocity - but yeah i think there are more urgent problems those launchers have right now |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2781
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:54:00 -
[4066] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:i was allways asking meself too why couldnt rapid heavys benefit from 50% missle velocity hull bonus i remember those profiting form the rate of fire one but not the velocity - but yeah i think there are more urgent problems those launchers have right now I'd love the +50% missile velocity bonus on my Raven for RHMLs... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Vinyl 41
Perkone Academy
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:01:00 -
[4067] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Captain Hoax wrote:If it were up to me, I would increase rapid launcher capacity by 50%GǪ And that's a good place to stopGǪ Rate of fire is ideal at the moment for both launchers. They're just lacking with ammunition capacity, so the exact number is a 1.5555% increase (28 for T2 RLML, 36 for T2 RHML). and here we get a problem if we consider that heavys might get buffed in some time keeping that absurd rate of fire will require tweaking or even once again remaking those launchers to not create a burst dps monster system |
Vinyl 41
Perkone Academy
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:02:00 -
[4068] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Vinyl 41 wrote:i was allways asking meself too why couldnt rapid heavys benefit from 50% missle velocity hull bonus i remember those profiting form the rate of fire one but not the velocity - but yeah i think there are more urgent problems those launchers have right now I'd love the +50% missile velocity bonus on my Raven for RHMLs... so were allready 2 i would even exchange that rate of fire bonus to the velocity one - RHML raven |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2781
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:07:00 -
[4069] - Quote
Vinyl 41 wrote:so were allready 2 i would even exchange that rate of fire bonus to the velocity one - RHML raven Hey, let's not get crazy nowGǪ Leggo my rate of fire bonus. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Vinyl 41
Perkone Academy
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:24:00 -
[4070] - Quote
yup yup 1k+ paper dps now lets buff the heavys stats and we get a problem |
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
73
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:34:00 -
[4071] - Quote
Acutually in the 1.1 itteration where is the buff compared to guns? i mean with the TP changes now only giving the bonuses to overheat, the fact that due to low cycle time, and the generally less usefull situation where overheating truelly matters, the 15% bonus to tracking computers that guns have potentially outscales the missile buff.
|
Vinyl 41
Perkone Academy
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:46:00 -
[4072] - Quote
well they remain the same as on rubi 1.0 but you still can get that 20% bonus from OH - i thinkt thats a pretty good starting point to the future changes that should get paired with the webs nerf/change/rework |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:24:00 -
[4073] - Quote
CCP Rise, any update on what we might expect for Rubicon 1.1 with RLMLs and RHMLs? It would be have a bit of head's up so we can get you some feedback before it goes live at the end of January. A 55% bump in ammunition capacity would be preferable, but I'm not opposed to a 20-second reload (or some combination thereof). Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:31:00 -
[4074] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Rise, any update on what we might expect for Rubicon 1.1 with RLMLs and RHMLs? It would be have a bit of head's up so we can get you some feedback before it goes live at the end of January. A 55% bump in ammunition capacity would be preferable, but I'm not opposed to a 20-second reload (or some combination thereof). Thanks.
I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:33:00 -
[4075] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make. You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:49:00 -
[4076] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I am disposable wrote:I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make. You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward. Come up with a better idea and I'll gladly get behind it. Right now I've suggested three: 1. Buff ammunition capacity to RLML and RHMLs by 55.5%. 2. Reduce the reload time to 20-seconds (or some combination with #1). 3. Return RLMLs and RHMLs to their Odyssey/pre-Rubicon iterations, and adjust ammunition capacity to the same as proposed in #1 (RLML = 28/T2, RHML = 36/T2).I've highlighted which is the general player preference, even though this is probably the least realistic out of the three suggestions.
It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:51:00 -
[4077] - Quote
I am disposable wrote:It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch. The numbers and charts I posted show that a 55.5% ammunition bump is still less overall DPS than the original RLMLs and RHMLs, so why isn't it realistic? All three scenarios address the one current stumbling block with RLMLs and RHMLs: implementation of faster ammunition swaps.
I can't believe that CCP Rise would add insult to injury with the scenario you propose... CCP Rise, any comment? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
71
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:00:00 -
[4078] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I am disposable wrote:It isn't about your ideas or my ideas. I'm simply saying that the buffs you are asking for are not going to happen. They are going to increase magazine size by 10% (some other minor buff) and call it a day. Just watch. The numbers and charts I posted show that a 55.5% ammunition bump is still less overall DPS than the original RLMLs and RHMLs, so why isn't it realistic? All three scenarios address the one current stumbling block with RLMLs and RHMLs: implementation of faster ammunition swaps. I can't believe that CCP Rise would add insult to injury with the scenario you propose... CCP Rise, any comment?
I guess we will see. Their design decisions of late do not make me optimistic on the matter. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
73
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:21:00 -
[4079] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I am disposable wrote:I know they said they would make changes in 1.1, but I'll believe it when I see it. Also you are way too optimistic in terms of what changes they might make. You keep saying that... but I've yet to see your proposal(s) put forward. Come up with a better idea and I'll gladly get behind it. Right now I've suggested three: 1. Buff ammunition capacity to RLML and RHMLs by 55.5%. 2. Reduce the reload time to 20-seconds (or some combination with #1). 3. Return RLMLs and RHMLs to their Odyssey/pre-Rubicon iterations, and adjust ammunition capacity to the same as proposed in #1 (RLML = 28/T2, RHML = 36/T2).I've highlighted which is the general player preference, even though this is probably the least realistic out of the three suggestions. My personal preference is #1, because more ammunition capacity negates a longer reload time and is preferable to a 10 or 20-second reload reduction.
Next to these ideas a few options for the future adresses rapid missile launchers as a unique weapons system
1) Additional skill that reduces the reload time of Rapid launchers
A 5 or 10% reduction in reload time for rapid launchers skill, increasing the rapid launchers effectiveness on a skillpoint scaleable level, wich not only benefit current players but also future players
2) Additional stats on the Rapid Launchers, Meta level flexibility to reload time, and or ammo load
This allows meta and TII variants of rapid launchers affect varius stats. Eg a Meta 0 starts with the current 40 second reload time, a Meta 4 has a 36 second reload time This would also allow tweaking its performance, not only by rate of fire (Burst dps) but also reload time (Sustained dps) makeing some meta / faction or officer variants excell in either burst, or sustained, or both. Certain Meta levels haveing higher or lower ammo capacity can also severly benefit and the weapon selection.
Eg Should i choose the Meta level with 50% increased capacity, allowing more total damage to be applied, and thus able to kill larger targets before i have to reload, or should i choose the meta with a 20 second reload time but a verry limited amount of ammo, allowing me to relatively quickly change ammo type, and kill single frigates, but lose dps against cruisers?
3) Modules that alter the reload time of Rapid launchers
Eg if you have a Rig that has an absolute (eg -2 second reload time) or percentile (eg 10%) reduction in reload time.
3) New (Rapid) missile types
Missile excluseively designed for Rapid missiles, allows to better tweak damage application, damage projection, and damage types for rapid launchers. These missiles can then be used instead of, or in conjunction with standard missiles for its type.
Still problems with the damage projection/application of Rapid Light missile system, make the new generic rapid missile wich is a mix between the heavy and the light missile, allowing for more tweaking again.
Also you can "solve" a reload problem by makeing a generic all round damage type (25% of each damage type) missile that people choose to bypass choices they have to make on wich damage type to bring. On single damage bonus hulls like the Cerberus this would mean that only that part of the damage gets buffed. But more importantly this is probably a faster and less invasive way to by pass current reload issues for damage type selection. You can even make race flavored versions that have a selection of damage types EG Caldari, Primary damage type Kin (70% Kin), secondary damage type Therm (30% Therm) or even a multitude there off; EG Minmater, Primary Damage type Expl (55% Expl) with Secondary damage types EM and Kin (30% kin 15% Em) |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2787
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:31:00 -
[4080] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:1) Additional skill that reduces the reload time of Rapid launchers
2) Additional stats on the Rapid Launchers, Meta level flexibility to reload time, and or ammo load
3) Modules that alter the reload time of Rapid launchers
4) New (Rapid) missile types
1. I'm generally opposed to another SP skill sink. 2. I like the idea of extending this to reload times. as ammunition capacity already varies based on Meta. 3. I'd rather see a passive low-slot ballistic enhancer for general damage application improvements. I don't think rapid launchers necessitate their own module (I'd rather just see them improved so it's not needed). 4. Light and heavy missiles already have options with Precision and Fury ammunition types, so I'm not sure what additional types are needed. We have standard, FoF, Faction, Precision and Fury in all 4 flavours.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 138 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |