EVE Search - Marauder Damage: A Petition For Change

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Game Development Forum

Marauder Damage: A Petition For Change

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Topic
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.01 16:54:00 - [31] Edited by: Trass on 01/11/2007 17:02:50 Delete defenders from NPC (all NPC uses defenders, but tracking disruptors - not), and change explosion radius bonus to rof bonus, then golem will be worth something 4 missiles with 100% dmg bonus do less dps than 6 launchers with 25% rof bonus. When defender destroy missile from Golem, you lost for example 1000hp dmg (500+100%), when defender destroy missile from Raven, you lost 1x500hp (500+0%). So ship for 90m (Raven) will be better for missions than ship for around 700m (Golem).
Mush Morton Caldari Wolf Echelon Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.11.01 16:59:00 - [32] Edited by: Mush Morton on 01/11/2007 17:06:53 I'd like to steer us back on topic. The ability to overheat your modules for extra damage, and subsequently repair the heat damage that is created, is neat but basically amounts to a band-aid solution for this problem. We need permanent damage-boosting solutions for the Marauders. The defender missile issue is another valid concern. Shooting down one of a Golem's missiles (per volley) effectively reduces their dps by 25%. Doing the same to a Raven is only a 16.7% reduction. In effect, the Golem has been designed to be more vulnerable to both jamming and defender missiles when compared to a Raven and a CNR. Is there any chance a Dev could comment on the probability of addressing this issue? I'm just curious to know if increasing Marauder damage is compatible with their vision for the ships; or if they are unwilling to consider a change. The numbers just don't add up here CCP. I understand these ships were not intended to be BS class HAC's, but this is just silly. I implore you to reconsider the Marauder damage potential. ----------------- Molon Labe!
Pattern Clarc Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.01 17:49:00 - [33] :( Looks like they intend the marauders to be nerfed, dps deficient,** bags of fail. Quote:** [02:31:17] ISD BH Kestrelprime > The Pally is powerful enough. [02:31:27] ISD BH Kestrelprime > All it needs is a hearthstone so it can Bubblehearth.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.01 17:52:00 - [34] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 01/11/2007 17:54:31 That nerf really don't affect the mission performance of the Kronos much, since in most missions you get the best effect from 5 meds. It is still a lot better than the other MADs. I would gladly take a drone bandwidth nerf down to 50 on the others to get a damage bonus in place of one of the sucky ones. In fact a nerfed drone bandwidth just like the nerfed sensor strength is a pretty good way to worsen the PvP performance without hurting the PvE performance much... There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.01 18:55:00 - [35] Edited by: Trass on 01/11/2007 18:56:44 Originally by: Leandro Salazar the nerfed sensor strength is a pretty good way to worsen the PvP performance without hurting the PvE performance much... LOL Low sensor strength is huge pain in ass in PVE, you will be (perma) jammed on half lvl3/4 missions against guristas. Jam = loss dps.
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.01 18:58:00 - [36] Edited by: Exlegion on 01/11/2007 18:58:38 Originally by: Trass Low sensor strength is huge pain in ass in PVE, you will be (perma) jammed on half lvl3/4 missions against guristas. NPC E-war is chance-based, not sensor strength-based. Now, the real question is: Are defender missiles considered ewar to NPCs? If a dev could answer this question for us it would put out some fires in reference to the Golem's 4 launcher points. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Trass Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.01 19:43:00 - [37] Originally by: Exlegion NPC E-war is chance-based, not sensor strength-based. Now, the real question is: First: Do 10 times same mission against guristas with and without eccm array.... Guess what - you wont be jammed so often with eccm. Originally by: Exlegion Are defender missiles considered ewar to NPCs? If a dev could answer this question Dev response isnt needed. Ewar means Electronic Warfare. Defenders are NOT ewar, they using explosive load to destroy target, not electronic load.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.01 19:52:00 - [38] Originally by: Trass Edited by: Trass on 01/11/2007 18:56:44 Originally by: Leandro Salazar the nerfed sensor strength is a pretty good way to worsen the PvP performance without hurting the PvE performance much... LOL Low sensor strength is huge pain in ass in PVE, you will be (perma) jammed on half lvl3/4 missions against guristas. Jam = loss dps. If you are masochistic enough to do missions against Guristas, you only have yourself to blame, not the Marauders :P Tbh though, as far as PvE goes, it would make a lot more sense to qualify the defender spam as the Guristas EW-equivalent and to do away with the NPC jamming. This would promote the use of turret ships for those missions as well as doing away with something that does not really make missions harder but just mnore annoying. There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Exlegion Caldari New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.01 20:10:00 - [39] Edited by: Exlegion on 01/11/2007 20:11:58 Originally by: Trass First: Do 10 times same mission against guristas with and without eccm array.... Guess what - you wont be jammed so often with eccm. This. "NPC ECM is % based. It is not effected by the targets Sensor strength. This means that the Marauders are effected exactly the same as any other ship by NPC ECM activities." Originally by: Trass Dev response isnt needed. Ewar means Electronic Warfare. Defenders are NOT ewar, they using explosive load to destroy target, not electronic load. Oh, I don't disagree with you. But so far the only response to the Golem's problem has been the above quote by Lingorm. I'm not totally convinced, but it seems he may be lumping defender missiles along with EW. Again, not sure and thus the reason I ask for clarification. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.01 21:02:00 - [40] Why does everything tech2 have to be eleventy billion times better than tech 1 for people not to complain? Marauders are not just for missions. They're for null sec ratting as well, this is why they have reduced ammo usage, large cargo bays etc. For 0.0 sec, long duration ratting they are exceptional. Changing the painter, or explosion velocity bonus to a dps or a range bonus would make them too powerful for pvp. The DPS of torpedos with a double range bonus would be too high, and giving it better than CNR damage is just insane. CCP is trying to extend combat duration, not shorten it by adding wtfpwn tech 2 pvp battleships. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005

Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.01 21:22:00 - [41] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Why does everything tech2 have to be eleventy billion times better than tech 1 for people not to complain? Marauders are not just for missions. They're for null sec ratting as well, this is why they have reduced ammo usage, large cargo bays etc. For 0.0 sec, long duration ratting they are exceptional. Changing the painter, or explosion velocity bonus to a dps or a range bonus would make them too powerful for pvp. The DPS of torpedos with a double range bonus would be too high, and giving it better than CNR damage is just insane. CCP is trying to extend combat duration, not shorten it by adding wtfpwn tech 2 pvp battleships. The point you are missing is that we don't want them to have MORE dps than T1 but the same. Currently they are WORSE! (except the Kronos). And that sits wrong with many people. And in all honesty, who is going to 0.0 rat in a 500mil+ ship? There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.11.01 21:52:00 - [42] Originally by: Pattern Clarc :( Looks like they intend the marauders to be nerfed, dps deficient,**** bags of fail. O M G Seriously CCP. Just stop. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Mush Morton Caldari Wolf Echelon Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.11.01 22:15:00 - [43] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Why does everything tech2 have to be eleventy billion times better than tech 1 for people not to complain? Marauders are not just for missions. They're for null sec ratting as well, this is why they have reduced ammo usage, large cargo bays etc. For 0.0 sec, long duration ratting they are exceptional. Changing the painter, or explosion velocity bonus to a dps or a range bonus would make them too powerful for pvp. The DPS of torpedos with a double range bonus would be too high, and giving it better than CNR damage is just insane. CCP is trying to extend combat duration, not shorten it by adding wtfpwn tech 2 pvp battleships. I'm not advocating a range bonus. I'm calling for a damage boost. I think it's reasonable given the reputation CCP gave the ships in their own press release: Quote: Marauder battleships û Optimized for massive damage output to spearhead assaults in enemy territory Press Release Going beyond this, I find it disappointing that the Marauders will break the trend of T2 ships out-damaging their T1 counterparts. Examples of this for the Caldari are everywhere! The Cerberus, Nighthawk, Eagle, and Hawk, just to name a few. Additionally, I think it's more than reasonable to assume that a T2 ship will out-perform it's faction competitor. A good example is the Cerberus wiping the floor with the Caldari Navy Caracal. There is a reason virtually no one flies the CNC - it stinks compared to the Cerb! Similarly, I expect the Golem to outperform the CNR - period. Additionally, the target painter bonus is easily negated by jamming the Golem. An explosion radius bonus can't be removed, even if the ship is jammed. An explosion velocity bonus is virtually useless for anything but torpedoes, which will themselves be useless now because of their range in all but a few tactical pvp-oriented situations. ----------------- Molon Labe!
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.01 22:52:00 - [44] Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 01/11/2007 22:55:40 Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 01/11/2007 22:53:25 Originally by: Leandro Salazar The point you are missing is that we don't want them to have MORE dps than T1 but the same. Currently they are WORSE! (except the Kronos). And that sits wrong with many people. And in all honesty, who is going to 0.0 rat in a 500mil+ ship? Raven = 6 launchers / (1-.25) = 8 launchers Golem = 4 launchers x (1+1) = 8 launchers Since defenders are percentage based independent events lets play with some math. Pretend there is a 1/4 chance that a torpedo is destroyed by defenders. Raven = 8(launched) x 1/4 = 2 destroyed per volley, 6 survive. Golem = 4(launched) x 1/4 = 1 destroyed per volley, 3 double damaging torpedos survive. So ignoring the painter bonus and the explosion velocity bonus, the dps is identical. Include these bonuses and you saved yourself 4 torpedos, took less thermal/kinetic damage, boosted your shield a lot more, and probably did more effective damage per torpedo due to explosion velocity and sig radius. I frequently use new math unintentionally. So let me know if I'm wrong. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.01 23:10:00 - [45] What I am comparing it to is the CNR actually, faction ships are T1 too :P And the Paladin does 25% less than an Abaddon, while the Vargur cannot fit arties. Of course it could be CCPs plan to keep the CNR as the best missile boat, the Abaddon/New Nightmare as best laser boat, and the Mael/Mach as best projecile boats. But then I have to wonder why even bother creating 3 of the 4 Marauders. And why one of them is all that it should be. There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Danjira Ryuujin Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.01 23:11:00 - [46] Originally by: Mush Morton Going beyond this, I find it disappointing that the Marauders will break the trend of T2 ships out-damaging their T1 counterparts. Examples of this for the Caldari are everywhere! The Cerberus, Nighthawk, Eagle, and Hawk, just to name a few. The devs have said many times that marauders were not intended to be "heavy assault" battleships in the sense that HAFs, and HACs are. Beyond you finding this disappointing its not relevant. Originally by: Mush Morton Similarly, I expect the Golem to outperform the CNR - period. Thats unfortunate. Amarr - Annoying the Eve Community since 2005
Goldis Caldari Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.01 23:15:00 - [47] Seems new features come pre-nerfed ---- De Gustibus et Coloribus non disputandum est.
Mush Morton Caldari Wolf Echelon Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.11.02 01:17:00 - [48] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin Edited by: Danjira Ryuujin on 01/11/2007 23:16:49 Raven = 6 launchers / (1-.25) = 8 launchers Golem = 4 launchers x (1+1) = 8 launchers Since defenders are percentage based independent events lets play with some math. Pretend there is a 1/4 chance that a torpedo is destroyed by defenders. Raven = 8(launched) x 1/4 = 2 destroyed per volley, 6 survive. Golem = 4(launched) x 1/4 = 1 destroyed per volley, 3 double damaging torpedos survive. So ignoring the painter bonus and the explosion velocity bonus, the dps is identical. Include these bonuses and you saved yourself 4 torpedos, took less thermal/kinetic damage, boosted your shield a lot more, and probably did more effective damage per torpedo due to explosion velocity and sig radius. I frequently use new math unintentionally. So let me know if I'm wrong, but thats atleast another marauder that is A-OK. We agree that the Golem and Raven produce the same effective number of missile launchers (8). The arithmetic for this is trivial. What I'm not certain about pertains to your assumption that defender missiles follow a probability algorithm. Specifically, I was under the impression that each incoming missile type could withstand a certain number of intercepting defender missiles. Torpedoes required two defender missiles to down, while cruise missiles need only be intercepted by one defender. If a ship could spit 4 defenders, those intercept missiles would seek out and destroy 4 incoming cruise missiles or 2 torpedoes. If this is true, then it follows that a ship firing 4 missiles will have an inherent disadvantage to a ship firing 6 or 7 missiles per volley. Let's do an experiment to find out... Your analysis for the alternate theory is suspect. First, the Raven does not shoot 8 missiles - it only spits 6. Using your work: Raven: 6 * (1/4) = 1.5 incoming missiles intercepted Golem: 4 * (1/4) = 1 incoming missiles intercepted Each Golem torpedo does twice it's normal damage (from ship bonuses alone). If we assume a "Raven" torpedo is a reference value, then we obtain: Raven: 4.5/(1-.25)= 6 equivalent Raven torpedoes inflicted Golem: 3 * 2 = 6 equivalent Raven torpedoes inflicted On the surface, this would seem to support your argument. The flaw with this theory is that your arithmetic assumed a uniform reduction in damage of 25% (1/4) for each ship. This will naturally give the result you wanted. The problem with this is that it requires a different number of defender missiles to be fired. To compare apples with apples, let's assume that it requires 2 defenders to take down a torpedo; and that your ship can fire 2 defenders every 4 seconds. Let's say a Golem salvo is producing 4 torpedoes every 8 seconds, and that a Raven is spitting 6 missiles in 6 seconds. Notice that these numbers correspond to the exact ratios of missile launchers and rof that exists between these ships. Let's turn this simulation on and allow the defenders to do their thing, and analyze the results after 24 seconds of combat. During this time: a) the Raven has shot 24 reference torpedoes in 24 seconds b) the Golem has shot 12 reference torpedoes in 24 seconds c) your ship has shot 12 defender missiles in 24 seconds For these conditions, the following will happen: a) the Raven will have lost 6 torpedoes to defender fire, resulting in 18 total torpedoes hitting the target b) the Golem has lost 6 torpedoes to defender fire, resulting in 6 total torpedoes hitting the target c) with the 100% damage bonus the Golem torpedoes receive, an effective 12 torpedoes have reached the target The result is striking - the Golem has done 33.33% less damage to the target than the Raven. It's important to note that the numbers chosen for this simulation could have been different, so long as the ratios between the raven and the Golem remain constant. The defender frequency is arbitrary, but does affect the percentage reduction in damage. ----------------- Molon Labe!
Altaica Amur	Posted - 2007.11.02 01:39:00 - [49] Actually it's a good bit worse then that after taking a look at a thread about the Vargur's inability to field even basic large artillery I decided to figure out myself just how bad things were when it came to fitting these t2 battleships. Now going into this I had expected the marauders to put out similar DPS to their t1 brethren while being able to tank a good bit better, I was to be sadly disappointed. The truth of the matter is they're all pretty tight fits, even the Kronos has trouble fitting, though admittedly it and the Golem are blessed with comparatively small problems next to those of the Amaar and Minmatar. Quote: Paladin * Slots: 7/4/7, 4 turrets * Fitting: 500tf, 13,500mw * Drones: 75Mbit/s bandwidth, 75m3 dronebay 2x LARP II 110tf, 4600mw 4x Tackyon II 252tf, 16500mw 362tf, 21100mw Golem * Slots: 7/7/4, 4 missiles * Fitting: 715tf, 6,500mw * Drones: 75Mbit/s bandwidth, 75m3 dronebay XL Shield Booster II 230tf, 550mw 4x Siege missile launcher II 352tf, 7352mw 582tf, 7902mw Kronos * Slots: 7/4/7, 4 turrets * Fitting: 550tf, 12,000mw * Drones: 125Mbit/s bandwidth, 125m3 dronebay 2x LARP II 110tf, 4600mw 4x 425mm rails II 308tf, 10500mw 418tf, 15100mw Vargur * Slots: 7/6/5, 4 turrets * Fitting: 625tf, 7,900mw * Drones: 75Mbit/s bandwidth, 75m3 dronebay XL Shield Booster II 230tf, 550mw 4x 1400mm Howitzer arty II 188tf, 14300mw 418 tf 14850mw Now a quick look over the numbers here will easily expose the biggest two offenders, the Vargur and the Paladin, both clearly unable to use big ranged weaponry even after bonus and without a tank fitted. Now I understand that perhaps there's some wish within CCP to prevent players from turning these things into gankmobiles of doom, but really they've already done that by halving the turrets and putting a lot of the bonuses into making up for that. With the exception of the Kronos these ships won't be out damaging their t1 brethren by much, if at all. However making them unable to preform at all seems to defeat the purpose of introducing them in the first place, after all with all the effort going into putting these ships out, what's the point if nobody flies them. I don't fly Minmatar or Amaar and certainly don't intend to any time soon, but it seems clear to me that they should at least be given the flexibility of having access to the largest guns in their class and fielding a decent tank, which seems the point of this class in the first place, if not that then what? My advice: Golem: * Fitting: 780tf, 7,200mw Vargur * Fitting: 650tf, 12,500mw Paladin * Fitting: 520tf, 17,200mw Kronos * Fitting: 550tf, 12,000mw * Drones: 75Mbit/s bandwidth, 75m3 dronebay Now fans of the Kronos are probably crying blue murder right now but really as much as 317 dps for free is a little much when you've already got a full slate of guns, I'm sure 158 will do just fine. Now to be clear, if this approach leads to any of these ships producing loads of DPS over t1s, I'd be fully in support of taming them down a bit, but do it through the bonuses, not through PG and CPU, that just kills the ability to play with our ships and make new and interesting fits and I think that's a big part of what EVE's all about.
vostok Minmatar Suns Of Korhal YouWhat	Posted - 2007.11.02 04:22:00 - [50] i think the marauders are ok... but not great. personally i would leave the golem damage as it is (since any more damage and its the highest damage marauder that doesnt have to pick its range!) but i think it should have a bonus explosion radius so it would be better suited for killing stuff in missions. i think the kronos should still get its 125m3 drone bandwidth since its the only marauder to have less drone bandwidth than its T1 counterpart. the vargur needs 2 reactor controls to fit 1400mm guns, i mean come on... thats before you get to the rest of the fitting. then you have the paladin that still has a cap bonus, personally i would have given the paladin a 5th turret since it had more turrets than any of the other ships in its class anyway and put the damage bonus into the BS skill slot and the useless bonus on the marauder slot like all the other marauders. i think all of the marauders need a little bit of a boost, poor old minmatar the most by far lol (it needs an extra 2k base grid really). i can only imagine that ccp dont want to make these ships OP but the fact that they exist is OP enough, a great use for them could have been a heavy logistics ship (instead of their idea of nerfing carriers to oblivion) and just give them mental tanks and logistics bonuses, which would of course never have been flown because people want killmails :/ overall i think the golem is still probably the best marauder in the game atm, and comparing it to the navy raven is a bad since the navy raven is quite frankly broken... it already matches a navy mega damage at some 8 times the range? and after patch will just outdamage it by 33% at twice the range... not to mentiuon being able to make a passive tank that can pretty much match it. i mean i dont really care, if i think its that good ill just train for it, missile skills dont take long :P but still, no more complaints lol, you already have the pick of the bunch for BS variations. also gotta think that maybe ccp didnt want to void all of those people who invested in the cnr it is by far the best navy ship in the game.

Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.02 07:37:00 - [51] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 02/11/2007 07:38:26 Originally by: vostok i think the marauders are ok... but not great. And here lies the big problem. For the price that they are likely going to cost, they should be great, not just ok. And to add insult to injury, the Gallente one IS great while the others are not. Quote: overall i think the golem is still probably the best marauder in the game atm, and comparing it to the navy raven is a bad since the navy raven is quite frankly broken... it already matches a navy mega damage at some 8 times the range? and after patch will just outdamage it by 33% at twice the range... not to mentiuon being able to make a passive tank that can pretty much match it. i mean i dont really care, if i think its that good ill just train for it, missile skills dont take long :P but still, no more complaints lol, you already have the pick of the bunch for BS variations. also gotta think that maybe ccp didnt want to void all of those people who invested in the cnr it is by far the best navy ship in the game. The Navy Raven is neither broken nor does it deal as much damage as you state. The main reason missiles are so popular in PvE is because they are most convenient, not because they are most efficient. And as CNR owner, I would LOVE to have a new toy to play with that is better. Especially considering that it will likely cost more than the CNR in the first place. And the only way to make a ship better at missioning is to give it more dps, or at the very least the same dps and more precision/range (tracking, optimal, exp radius, missile velocity or flight time) than the current top mission ships. The Kronos does that. The Vargur would do it if it had enough PG to fit arties. The other two just don't deliver at all. There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Adam Weishaupt Minmatar Pyrrhus Sicarii The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.02 08:30:00 - [52] The Vargur not being able to fit 1400's while the Kronos can fit 425's is just stupid.
RoCkEt X Caldari The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus	Posted - 2007.11.04 20:15:00 - [53] the damage on a golem is fine. Video of golem. i know. watch the vid. stop crying. Q: you are caldari and you dont want a boost? A: yes, i am caldari, and i always like boosts. but this one isnt needed. Q: what about the black ops / marauder damage ratio? A: ok, i'll say thats dodgey, if the golem is to be increased in damage, it shouldnt be given an extra 37.5% damage or more, maybe so before the kronos's bandwidth nerf, but now its fairly even. -rock. P.S. - dont flame me. i will cry.
NewDisease	Posted - 2007.11.04 21:26:00 - [54] I fly a Golem myself, i've specced 68milion SP in caldari, and i love it to the death. I got to say i'm sad i lost the ROF bonus the raven has, and i would kill a supernatural ammount of people to get it on the Golem. But by all means do not remove the explosion velocity bonus. It's the best bonus on the ship. It gives the golem the abilty to fit rage torps, and hitting battleships moving at a good speed. Remove the target painter bonus instead, noone will use it. ----------------------------------------------- There Is No Cure.
Alias11 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.04 21:37:00 - [55] Originally by: Altaica Amur A terrible post This argument is crap because skills like weapon upgrades, advanced weapon upgrades, engineering, and electronics exist in the game. Admittedly the Vargur has some problems but don't spew those numbers like they mean anything. Also, don't do anything in a class-wide damage boost. A boost to 125 or 150 would move the kronos from "Unstoppable killing machine" to "Physical manifestation of destruction". The vargur has some serious grid issues, and the golem does need an additional damage bonus somewhere(my vote is for an RoF bonus), but hardly anything warrant a plug up in the damage. Unless you want the kronos to top out north of 2000 dps
HeavyGunz 0331	Posted - 2007.11.05 01:12:00 - [56] Originally by: RoCkEt X the damage on a golem is fine. Video of golem. i know. watch the vid. stop crying. Q: you are caldari and you dont want a boost? A: yes, i am caldari, and i always like boosts. but this one isnt needed. Q: what about the black ops / marauder damage ratio? A: ok, i'll say thats dodgey, if the golem is to be increased in damage, it shouldnt be given an extra 37.5% damage or more, maybe so before the kronos's bandwidth nerf, but now its fairly even. -rock. P.S. - dont flame me. i will cry. I am glad to see the golem works one on one, however that isn't the issue that I am concerned about. I don't see how it will hold up in missions. If we have to use the cap charges like you that will completely fill our cargo so where are we supposed to put the loot? I'm not trying to attack your post I am asking with the very little experience I have in EVE what about missions? I don't have the skils to play around with it on sisi so if you could get a video of a golem doing a mission that would be a whole lot more assuring.
drenyyy	Posted - 2007.11.05 02:10:00 - [57] you all have excellent point about their DPS being very similar, but what you arent counting is that they will have far more available high slots. for example, you blaster-fit a kronos, and your fighting anything amarr: You will have the same DPS as a megathron sure, but you could also hit the enemy with 3 heavy nos's, so, they might not have mroe DPS, but they WILL be able to lower the enemy's DPS
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.05 02:18:00 - [58] Defenders ARE chance based, there is no reduction in damage. --------------------------------- Thorax type R&R. (Ribbed and R rated)
Adam Weishaupt Minmatar Pyrrhus Sicarii The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.05 02:33:00 - [59] Originally by: Arana Tellen Defenders ARE chance based, there is no reduction in damage. Even so, that effectively reduces your damage by whatever the base chance is, does it not? Now, depending on how the Golem's base DPS compares to that of the turret ships, if that reduction is signficant, you're looking at a ship that is, compared to the others, somewhat nerfed. Turret ships can create the conditions to hit something, but there's really no counter to defenders.
Valentina Gallatoire	Posted - 2007.11.05 22:33:00 - [60] Honestly, I'm fine with the damage. It's not uber but it's decent, and they have some versatility. If I could pick anything to change about them, I'd like for them to be able to fit a warfare link. That way missioners could add a little more tank, or added speed or whatever. For PvP, it would make them a little more versatile, and would offset the fact that they are likely to be permajammed and primaried. They could at least still contribute to the gang. It also makes sense in the context that they are the 'home away from home' BS. Definitely something nice to have in your gang. No need for bonuses or the ability to run more than one. It would be pretty cool to fit three of them, and use them one at a time, as the situation warrants. Getting hit hard? Turn on the Rapid Repair link. Need some speed? Rapid deployment! Gang needs to tackle? Interdiction Maneuvers! Sounds fun as hell to me, honestly. I don't think it would be particularly overpowered, keeping in mind the cost of these ships and their extreme vulnerability to ECM.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.