| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jita Jenn
   |
Posted - 2009.04.26 03:44:00 -
[91]
I'm not really an expert on dreads but I think it's safe to say that the people who design them are...
Dreadnoughts: Capital ships created for extended sieges of stationary installations.
Seems to me that you're bringing a trebuchet to a gunfight. =\
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 17:43:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Incantare on 28/04/2009 17:45:38
Ausser, I appreciate your posts even even though they go against my proposition because it is now clear you are genuinely concerned about this issue. And so am I.
I will attempt to be as clear as possible in giving you my reasons for posting this thread.
But first let's take a look at the dev posts you brought up. The posts by Oveur are contradictory (dreads being anti-battleship then only anti-POS) but aside from that I do not give them much weight because they precede their release and the concept of dreads was still being changed.
However Fendahl:
 Quote:
so Dreadnoughts will have an easier time hitting other capital ships while in siege mode, making them better suited as anti-capital ships as originally intended.
confirms what I was saying, dreads were "originally intended" as anti-capital ships. That's the concept they decided to go with in the end, rather than "anti-battleship/cap/POS" or just anti-POS/sieged dread.
Why I brought up the dread vs battleship example: every ship class can be effective against a lower sized one with proper (web/painter) support. There's nothing wrong there since it requires teamwork, coordination. I do not want the Phoenix to be an anti-battleship platform. That's not the point of this thread.
The point was why go with a phoenix which requires support to deal similar damage to a gun dreads firing at a carrier when you could use that same support and a gun dread to be effective against not only capitals, but also some sub caps.
I do not want citadels to be effective anti-battleship weapons. I do not want them to have more raw dps.
What I'm asking for is for more effective dps when firing at moving capitals of all types, so that their effectiveness is similar to that of gun based weapon systems as it was before the missile formula change.
The graph I posted on page one gives a good picture of the problem: if you're firing at a moving capital there's a very small window where citadels are better (extreme short range), at any other range guns are far, far better.
You're right in that missiles and guns have different advantages and that against a missile dread you can't maneuver to reduce damage. But when you're taking damage from multiple gun dreads you cannot maneuver to keep at short range / high transveral from all of them. On the other hand the disadvantage of citadels isn't reduced by engagement size.
The problem isn't that citadel damage is calculated differently, that's perfectly fine. The problem is how much damage they lose compared to guns against moving capitals without any sufficient compensating advantage. Overall different weapons systems should be roughly as effective, currently this is not the case at all.
I don't know where you picked up that I wanted citadels to deal 100% damage to moving supercaps. I don't. Only that they be about as effective as guns and currently they are not.
Let's put it this way: given a choice between two weapon systems, both of which are effective against POS and sieged dreads, but only one of which is effective against moving caps of all sizes. Which would you train?
Why explosion velocity is "the right screw" for this problem: it's the explosion velocity that causes the large damage difference, not the raw damage nor the explosion radius. However a simple way of making citadels effective against moving caps while keeping their effectiveness against battleships the same would be to:
1) Increase the explosion velocity.
2) Increase the explosion radius.
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 19:54:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Incantare on 29/04/2009 19:55:55
Citadels velocity is getting a boost. No change in explosion velocity though.
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 16:17:00 -
[94]
ahahah citadel velocity gets boosted, flight time shortened.... endstate goal: you still probably should shoot the secondary in a capital fight
and your explosion velocity on any cap moving over 20m/s is still terribad. woohooo for CCP fixing citadel torps and breaking them in the same patch (QR)
then boosting them for the sake of the naglfar w/o any real boost except a reduction on time to impact
----
People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Space Vikings |
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 16:24:00 -
[95]
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 00:25:00 -
[96]
I need a reason to start learning caldari dread skill , pls make phoenix an usefull ship. Currently you are better off in a torp raven wich will do much more dps than this huge crap, during any op, even if it is pos shooting.
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.05.10 21:11:00 -
[97]
Some good news from CCP:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Citadel torps vs moving cap ships
We acknowledge that citadel torps do not perform as well as turrets against cap ships which can move. We are looking at possible changes that could help in this area, many of which you have already mentioned such as a boost to explosion velocity or introduction of citadel cruise missiles to cite another common idea to reducing the explosion velocity penalty whilst in siege. Nothing is changing presently in this area but it is being looked at.
While we still don't know when this will be fixed, this is a great first step towards balanced capital missiles.
|
Tom Hanks
Raype Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.11 06:38:00 -
[98]
This needs immediate attention. CCP just needs to change one number around and the problem will be solved, or at least have a great band aid on until a more comprehensive change could be made.
Citadels need to be able to do damage approaching that as their other dread cousins, against a moving mothership or other moving capital ship.
As it stands, Citadels are a pathetic joke against carriers/MS.
Caldari Racial Purity
|
Tom Hanks
Raype Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.13 17:04:00 -
[99]
CCP is about to release the new patch to change citadel torpedoes but they arent changing explosion velocity.
THE THING THAT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE FIXED IS BEING IGNORED
CCP stop being ridiculous and fix explosion velocity on citadels, or at least tell us what your reasoning is for not fixing them now. It only requires you to change 1 number....CMON!!
End the speed tanking motherships
Caldari Racial Purity
|
Ausser
Cybertech Industrials Agency
|
Posted - 2009.05.21 23:02:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Incantare
Let's put it this way: given a choice between two weapon systems, both of which are effective against POS and sieged dreads, but only one of which is effective against moving caps of all sizes. Which would you train?
Phoenix. I love the alpha capability, even if it is nearly impossible to play out this card in a large battle. Revelation is just my second choice. I'm long enough in the game to seen lots of things nerfed/boosted. Even if my favorite toy is not the best one, i can enjoy to play with it. They will change it 10 times either.
Originally by: Incantare
Why explosion velocity is "the right screw" for this problem: it's the explosion velocity that causes the large damage difference, not the raw damage nor the explosion radius. However a simple way of making citadels effective against moving caps while keeping their effectiveness against battleships the same would be to:
1) Increase the explosion velocity.
2) Increase the explosion radius.
This. Two screws look better than one.
The drawback is, you get reduced dmg on structures like neuts. It would make a lot of ppl unhappy. So it would have to be an additional ammo type, which is not a good idea too. Defenders of a pos dont need to carry both ammo types, so the uphill fight gets worse for the attackers.
What about a script for the siege module? To carry 1m¦ more does not hurt. It has the nice itchiness to only be swappable when out of siege, which would force us to 'think first' and to plan which one to use in which phase in battle.
Even with both screws, i'm not sure if that is enough. How does the dmg on moving carriers/dreads/rorquals looks like? It would not be that good if they now get anihilated too easy whith an anti-supercap-weapon. Webbing/painting should still be worth the effort there. Did you have tried modified numbers in your tables? I think we will have to use the third screw 'supercap signature size/sensor strength' too.
The use of scripts would also allow to balance the diffrent dread weapons. Give each weapon type it's own script with specific attributes.
N.b.: If we turn just one screw at once, we end up with odd side effects, like the last change to citadel speed. Take a look at this thread in Game Development.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |