Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kaileen Starsong
Amarr Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 17:56:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Kaileen Starsong on 14/09/2009 17:57:38 Well, that's a bit of a difference in usage, heh. I'm more thinking about BC/Cruiser gangs. You'd have basically 3 ways to fly Hurricane - ACs+Plate(works nice), ACs+LSE(comedy-fit most of the time - OH YEAH IT'S GOOD AT STAYING ALIVE) and Arties+LSE. With LSEs you'd want to stay at distance and arties really can and do outperform ACs at 15km+. Allows for much better gang efficiency, too ;)
PS. That's for low-sec, 0.0 is different, naturally.
|
Lili Lu
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 18:10:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Lili Lu on 14/09/2009 18:15:15
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Quote: The point is too many people/cows whining about the always greener grass across the fence calling for it to be sprayed/nerfed, without having experience with the mainteance or taste of both grasses.
And too many cows that have tasted the super green grass refusing to stop being overpowered. The same kind of defensiveness was brought up when people talked about nerfing the ecm, damps, dictors, nanos, nanos, etc. -Liang
And where did those nerfs get us. Recons with wierd roles and still no balance (ecm still preferable). Broken damp ships. Broken web ships. NOS being sorta a joke module (I'll suck your blood uh until we have equal amounts (v-v) ). Weak dictors...
Time to stop the madness. And, I think you really agree anyway "I agree. No need to remove them. Far and away the best answer for long range weaponry is to boost projectiles, not nerf lasers."
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 18:47:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Kaileen Starsong Well, that's a bit of a difference in usage, heh. I'm more thinking about BC/Cruiser gangs. You'd have basically 3 ways to fly Hurricane - ACs+Plate(works nice), ACs+LSE(comedy-fit most of the time - OH YEAH IT'S GOOD AT STAYING ALIVE) and Arties+LSE. With LSEs you'd want to stay at distance and arties really can and do outperform ACs at 15km+. Allows for much better gang efficiency, too ;)
PS. That's for low-sec, 0.0 is different, naturally.
IMO, there's 2 ways to fly a Cane: - Vagacane - Artycane (RF EMP, gank any frigs/inties/dictors you see, etc)
And yes, I know about Arties vs ACs at 15km, but they lack the tackle defense that the Vagacane has (which is important in 0.0 and lowsec both).
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Davinel Lulinvega
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:21:00 -
[94]
I don't know why this thread is about canes now, but I prefer acs on a shieldcane simply because if I wanted to fit arties I would rather just fly a harb.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke!
inb4 stealth edit |
SuiJuris
Absinthe Brothers Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:34:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Davinel Lulinvega I don't know why this thread is about canes now, but I prefer acs on a shieldcane simply because if I wanted to fit arties I would rather just fly a harb. Because Lasers are better at Mid Range...
Made it swing full circle for ya Dav, now the thread might get back on topic --- http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1177119 |
MukkBarovian
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:42:00 -
[96]
Edited by: MukkBarovian on 14/09/2009 19:47:53 #1 You cannot buff active tanks unless you've completely given up on solo pvp. People need to be able to kill each other. And then even if you buff them alot people in large fleets will still prefer RR, because RR scales with gang size. At some point RR will outpreform local tank guaranteed.
All buffing local tank would do if **** over solo players and encourage a minimum of blobbing to just kill someone. This is not going to fix the problem that blasters/lasers are only balanced at near 1v1 situations.
#2 Lasers do less DPS than blasters by a moderate chunk. Something like 80% to 70% of blaster DPS. They dont get 20% to 30% more range though. To go from blaster optimals to laser optimals you multiply by whole numbers. Lasers also have an absolute tracking that is pretty crap. The problem is that the tracking formula is borked. Range always increases tracking preformance. So at laser optimals, they track comparatively better than blasters do at their optimals.
#3 The tracking formula is totally borked. It takes into account angular velocity and signature radius. Angular velocity is a function of how fast a ship is going and how far away that ship is. The further away a ship is, the smaller the angular velocity just like geometry IRL.
Signature radius doesn't ever change. This is a problem. If you went to a marksman, and asked him which was easier to hit: A stationary target 10m away or a stationary target 1 km away? He would tell you the one right in front of him would be a turkey shoot. You can confirm this with a squirtgun if you really need to. Stationary targets that are farther away are harder to hit because they physically appear smaller to you.
Simple testing with an EVE ship will tell you completely the opposite. Signature radius doesn't scale with range. It stays constant.
If they fixed the tracking formula so that signature radius also depended on range it would go a long way towards fixing blasters and lasers.
#4 The RRBS fleet depends completely on gank/tank. Amarr BS have the best gank/tank combination at the expense of all utility. Utility doesn't matter much in huge fleet fights.
#5 ^This is all large guns. When you go down from battleships t1 Amarr ship tend to suck really bad with the exception of the harbinger, and the arbitrator which isn't even a laser boat.
By comparison Minmatar have one of the nicest lineup of sub-battleship t1 ships in the game.
The difference probably has something to do with the mobility of battleships compared to smaller craft and the nature of projectiles.
Projectiles, like lasers, do a fraction of the damage of blasters. About 80% - 70%. Instead of optimal they get falloff. But they retain tracking that is almost as good as blasters. This means that they do moderately good dps at short range. When they go to optimal + falloff their dps is halved but the tracking is very good. This is why a vagabond can pop a disruptor fit ceptor orbiting at 24km very quickly.
Small fast minmatar ships can take advantage of this. At one end of the spectrum a minmatar pilot can close much more quickly to 0 than a plated galente one. The minmatar pilot will be able to do more damage on the way in because falloff lets them start shooting sooner. And fast minmatar boats will reach optimal range sooner. If the target dies relatively quickly a nanod shield-buffer minmatar ac boat can easily outdamage a galente blaster boat simply because it takes more time for the galente to put the fury of his guns on the primary.
If a small minmatar ship is fighting a laser boat he can give the lasor boat all kinds of issues by just orbiting it at 500m. He will outdamage it and outtrack it.
On the other side of the spectrum a minmatar cruiser sized ship can orbit an enemy outside of web/scram range, hold range unless a tackle frigate comes in, and put a steady stream of low dps on the target. Some targets like blaster boats would be unable to hit back.
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 19:53:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 14/09/2009 19:53:23
Originally by: MukkBarovian When they go to optimal + falloff their dps is halved but the tracking is very good.
Your opinion is very well reasoned, but you're lacking some information here. At optimal + falloff, DPS isn't half... it's ~38.5% if you totally neglect tracking. The reason a Vaga ****s over inties is because inties really have no Hitpoints and there's a falloff bonus that makes it reasonable to deal damage beyond 13km. A zealot can do the same (at range).
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Iria Ahrens
Amarr 101st Space Marine Force Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:13:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Iria Ahrens on 14/09/2009 23:14:22 Why isn't it half. The tracking guides all say falloff = 50% fewer hits. So should be half right? What little detail am I overlooking? --
EVE is about balls, brains, and paranoia. SP comes in a distant fourth place. |
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:14:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 14/09/2009 23:15:26
Originally by: Iria Ahrens Why isn't it half. The tracking guides all say falloff = 50% fewer hits. So should be half right?
50% fewer hits, yes. But chance to hit affects hit quality.
Original Formula by Naughty Boy ((1.0/2.0) ** ((((Transv/(Range*Tracking))*(Sig_Res/Sig_Rad)) ** 2) +((max(0,Range-Optimal))/Falloff) ** 2))
Original hit quality formula by KzIg (http://www.scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?p=114333#114333) Expected damage per shot = normal damage * [min(chance to hit, 1%)*3 + max(0,chance to hit - 1%)*(0.99+chance to hit)/2]
-Liang
Ed: Also, I have personally verified KzIg's formula. It seems to hold up within 1% (which I attribute to human (me) error).
-- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Twilight Mourning
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:41:00 -
[100]
I would support a slight nerf to lazors if in exchange they made their cap usage along the same lines as other races and gave Amarr ships back their wasted ship bonus that is there JUST so they can use lazors. You don't see Gallente ships wasting a bonus just so it can use a blaster. Or Minmatard ships wasting a bonus JUST so it can use it's racial weapon.
That being said, I think Lazors are fine. It just makes other races have to think how they fight the Amarr.
|
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:53:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Twilight Mourning Or Minmatard ships wasting a bonus JUST so it can use it's racial weapon.
Clueless poster spotted!
All minnie ships have a built in 5% ROF bonus to counter the weak base stats on projectiles, in an attempt to keep them off other races' ships.
Quote: That being said, I think Lazors are fine. It just makes other races have to think how they fight the Amarr.
I lol'd
|
Caleb Fury
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:59:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Twilight Mourning I would support a slight nerf to lazors if in exchange they made their cap usage along the same lines as other races and gave Amarr ships back their wasted ship bonus that is there JUST so they can use lazors. You don't see Gallente ships wasting a bonus just so it can use a blaster. Or Minmatard ships wasting a bonus JUST so it can use it's racial weapon.
That being said, I think Lazors are fine. It just makes other races have to think how they fight the Amarr.
What secondary ship bonus would YOU propose if the laser cap usage was changed? If they were all the same, or used about the same amount of cap, I would guess that people would start putting lasers on everything.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:00:00 -
[103]
Originally by: BiggestT If they reduce the ridiculous fitting req's for shield rr, shield tanks/ shield gangs would be stronger, em holes would have less of an impact, and lasers might not need a nerf.
Conversely it may make lasers more OP as they'd be essential to stop the shield-rr raven gangs *shrug*
Uggg... shield rep is already so much more efficient than armor rep that this is just silly. The only reason armor is the pvp king at the moment is because it's better at buffer. If they make shield RR even easier to fit, honestly it moves to overpowered.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:06:00 -
[104]
Originally by: MukkBarovian Edited by: MukkBarovian on 14/09/2009 19:47:53
Signature radius doesn't ever change. This is a problem. If you went to a marksman, and asked him which was easier to hit: A stationary target 10m away or a stationary target 1 km away? He would tell you the one right in front of him would be a turkey shoot. You can confirm this with a squirtgun if you really need to. Stationary targets that are farther away are harder to hit because they physically appear smaller to you.
Just pointing out that is as it should be. Signature radius and direct vision are not the same thing. No offense mate but you're comparing apples and oranges with your marksman example.
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:15:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Twilight Mourning ...
Protip: fit a cap booster. Protip: rate of fire is the Minmatar racial skill that makes the weapons useful.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Davinel Lulinvega
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:21:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Tom Peeping
Originally by: MukkBarovian Edited by: MukkBarovian on 14/09/2009 19:47:53
Signature radius doesn't ever change. This is a problem. If you went to a marksman, and asked him which was easier to hit: A stationary target 10m away or a stationary target 1 km away? He would tell you the one right in front of him would be a turkey shoot. You can confirm this with a squirtgun if you really need to. Stationary targets that are farther away are harder to hit because they physically appear smaller to you.
Just pointing out that is as it should be. Signature radius and direct vision are not the same thing. No offense mate but you're comparing apples and oranges with your marksman example.
It actually does make sense, but trying to bring realistic sense into video game balance is a mistake.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke!
inb4 stealth edit |
Deathbarrage
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:24:00 -
[107]
Ok please stop throwing numbers and get a grip. Please realize that pure numbers, damage downrange, tracking, don't really mean anything if you don't put it in an actual situation or talk about an actual ship. Guns are only a small part of today's eve pvp scene. I hear alot of very situational advantages of lasers. I understand that amarr has a niche ad mid-range, this in fact has been the main point of whining from the amarr players (''Mid-range is no pvp field''). Tbh your expectations aren't quite realistic. Gallente players don't want lasers to be as powerfull downrage as they are now because they want to be able to close the gap while repping peacefully, get ''under the guns'' and be able to effectively reach their nich, short rane, 10 out of 10 times so they can **** amarr. Minmatar want to be able to not be tracked so they can beat laser boats 10 out of 10 times. I haven't actually heard alot of complaining from caldari ships though i suppose that may have something to do with the fact that amarr ships are so ridiculously easy to EW down to a piece of flying dishwasher.
All in all please take a step back and put into perspective the very thin area of the current laser niche. You can throw numbers all you want and it will in fact sound pretty serious but at the end of the day it will come down to the fact that if you don't want to fight an amarr ship in its limited niche-area, you won't have to. You can always warp out (and perhaps warp back in at range more to your liking). On the other hand, if an amarr ship is in either the minmatar or gallente's area of expertise, you can't warp out, you're screwed. Put a megathron, dominix or a hyperion vs an amarr ship under 20km i won't hear any of you guys whining. No matter how you put it a minmatar ship within 20km can destroy a pulse-fitted ship. Ask all the happy sleipnir pilots or crazy AC maelstroms, who i haven't seen in this forum post yet anyway. Just take a step back, stop throwing meaningless numbers and put into perspective the actual (not situational) relevance of a 45km pulse laser optimal, other than the fact that you actually have to think about how you're going to react when you see an amarr ship these days.
I've (almost) only talked about the BS-sized weapons/ships but tbh i think the same goes for cruiser-sized ships. As a matter of fact it's easier for a cruiser-sized ships to dictate range because the amarr ''niche scorch optimal'' is inside tackling range, bar the zealot.
I'm not complaining amarr suck, on the contrary, just saying that now that amarr ships are actually viable, don't try to hit it back down just because you trained a fotm a couple of years ago and are too shortsighted to adapt.
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:27:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Tom Peeping Just pointing out that is as it should be. Signature radius and direct vision are not the same thing. No offense mate but you're comparing apples and oranges with your marksman example.
You're totally correct, but there's no logical inconsistency in what he said. In Eve, sig radius is treated as "how big something is" - from scanning to missiles to guns. He was saying that range should play a role in how big something appears to be to your guns. WHICH IS TRUE.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:29:00 -
[109]
Edited by: AstroPhobic on 15/09/2009 00:32:34
Originally by: Deathbarrage All in all please take a step back and put into perspective the very thin area of the current laser niche.
I read this and stopped reading, and I also stopped taking you seriously.
The problem with lasers is that they fill EVERY niche. And yes, I have t2 weapons for every race/ 60m+ combat SP between my main/alt.. don't kid yourself, and stop whining like someone stole your big bag of candy.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:39:00 -
[110]
I'd like to point out that "getting under his guns" becomes meaningless the moment a 2nd enemy ship is on the field.
|
|
Deathbarrage
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:43:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Ecky X I'd like to point out that "getting under his guns" becomes meaningless the moment a 2nd enemy ship is on the field.
a so now you are implying you should be able to kill 2 amarr ships, and if you can't lasers are OP
nice
add to the equasion a gangmember of yours with 2 TD's...
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:45:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Deathbarrage
Originally by: Ecky X I'd like to point out that "getting under his guns" becomes meaningless the moment a 2nd enemy ship is on the field.
a so now you are implying you should be able to kill 2 amarr ships, and if you can't lasers are OP
nice
add to the equasion a gangmember of yours with 2 TD's...
Quoting failure.
Honestly dude if you don't know anything about eve combat just don't respond. The situation applies to 2 on 2 as well, d'oh
|
Iria Ahrens
Amarr 101st Space Marine Force Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:48:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 14/09/2009 23:15:26
Originally by: Iria Ahrens Why isn't it half. The tracking guides all say falloff = 50% fewer hits. So should be half right?
50% fewer hits, yes. But chance to hit affects hit quality.
Ohh, thank you Liang. That makes sense now that you point it out. --
EVE is about balls, brains, and paranoia. SP comes in a distant fourth place. |
Twilight Mourning
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 01:00:00 -
[114]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: Twilight Mourning Or Minmatard ships wasting a bonus JUST so it can use it's racial weapon.
Clueless poster spotted!
All minnie ships have a built in 5% ROF bonus to counter the weak base stats on projectiles, in an attempt to keep them off other races' ships.
Quote: That being said, I think Lazors are fine. It just makes other races have to think how they fight the Amarr.
I lol'd
Hello pot, I'm kettle.
Minnies get a built in bonus... which means it's an extra bonus above and beyond. Amarr have one of their bonuses wasted which means T1 get only 1 bonus and T2 get only 3 bonuses. While if what you are saying is true, Minmatar T1 get 3 bonuses and T2 get 5? Yah, that's fair.
Hi pot.
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 01:12:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Twilight Mourning Minnies get a built in bonus... which means it's an extra bonus above and beyond. Amarr have one of their bonuses wasted which means T1 get only 1 bonus and T2 get only 3 bonuses. While if what you are saying is true, Minmatar T1 get 3 bonuses and T2 get 5? Yah, that's fair.
Hi pot.
Reading comprehension ftw?
Projectiles are PRENERFED. IE balance them with other weapon systems, then nerf the ROF by 25%. Then add 5% ROF bonuses to every minmatar ship in order to get them back to where they started. So a double damage bonused minnie ship is essentially a single damage bonused minnie ship, and all minnie ships have essentially one bonus.
D'oh
|
Twilight Mourning
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 01:36:00 -
[116]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Clueless poster spotted!
All minnie ships have a built in 5% ROF bonus to counter the weak base stats on projectiles, in an attempt to keep them off other races' ships.
So you're saying I didn't comprehend what you wrote there? Maybe you should work on saying what you mean instead of word vomiting just the stuff that comes to mind.
So minmatar's get a bonus because their guns suck, yet amarr get penalized because their guns are good is what you are saying? So on that logic Minmatar guns need to be boosted and Amarr ships need to be boosted?
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 01:52:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Twilight Mourning So minmatar's get a bonus because their guns suck, yet amarr get penalized because their guns are good is what you are saying? So on that logic Minmatar guns need to be boosted and Amarr ships need to be boosted?
No, I think he's trying to say that Amarr get a bonus because their guns "suck" capacitor. You really are a clueless troll. :)
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Twilight Mourning
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 02:23:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Twilight Mourning So minmatar's get a bonus because their guns suck, yet amarr get penalized because their guns are good is what you are saying? So on that logic Minmatar guns need to be boosted and Amarr ships need to be boosted?
No, I think he's trying to say that Amarr get a bonus because their guns "suck" capacitor. You really are a clueless troll. :)
-Liang
Calling me a troll implies that I'm posting for attention. I was posting my opinion on the Amarr ships. Which is that they lose one of their ship bonuses so that they can even use their weapon effectively.
He posted like he was correcting me so I was trying to get clarity which he failed to give. You on the other hand by calling me a clueless troll are being that which you are calling me by insulting me.
Now if you care to explain what you are saying then I will listen, otherwise you aren't any better than that which you are trying to say I am. Troll.
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 02:24:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Twilight Mourning
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Clueless poster spotted!
All minnie ships have a built in 5% ROF bonus to counter the weak base stats on projectiles, in an attempt to keep them off other races' ships.
So you're saying I didn't comprehend what you wrote there? Maybe you should work on saying what you mean instead of word vomiting just the stuff that comes to mind.
So minmatar's get a bonus because their guns suck, yet amarr get penalized because their guns are good is what you are saying? So on that logic Minmatar guns need to be boosted and Amarr ships need to be boosted?
terrible troll, biomass asap please.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 02:34:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Deathbarrage
Originally by: Ecky X I'd like to point out that "getting under his guns" becomes meaningless the moment a 2nd enemy ship is on the field.
a so now you are implying you should be able to kill 2 amarr ships, and if you can't lasers are OP
nice
add to the equasion a gangmember of yours with 2 TD's...
.
I'm not implying you should be able to kill 2 amarrs ships with a Minmatar ship, I'm stating that if there are a number of enemy ships on the field greater than 1, tracking is irrelevant and should not be a major balancing factor.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |