|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 13:51:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Wideen I don't see how this is a problem.
the moros will still have the advantage over other dreads of killing smaller ships (from frigates to bs) quickly with a neigh over-powered drone bonus, now it just has to commit to the fight before doing so. That it can do so in siege is however acceptable imo
The problem — in fact, the only problem with this change — is that in siege, it will take roughly 93 years (give or take) for a Moros to lock onto a subcap… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 15:18:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Crackzilla
Originally by: Tippia it will take roughly 93 years
plus the limitations on number of locked targets in siege. Considering the tower is target #1, if you're in a small ship that is locked by a moros in siege just warp on grid. You'd have to be nearly afk to get locked and shot at.
Ok, the only two things…
…and anyway, the target limitation wouldn't be that much of a limitation if the locking time was lower, so it's still only 1+ a problem at most. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 18:34:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Crackzilla Meanwhile a carrier can do the same.
Dreads are not carriers, though, and aren't meant to be all that useful against subcaps. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 16:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Seriously Bored Yeah, you've got it wrong.
By your math, if X = 50, and you give a 100% damage bonus to X, you'd end up with 50. A better way to say it would be: X = 50, X gets +250% damage. New damage would indeed be 175.
+250% Damage = 350% Damage.
Maths are awesome.
So is language. A 250% bonus means +250% for a total of 350%.
If X=50, a 100% bonus to X is another 50 for a total of 100. In your example, the 100% are not a bonus, but a base modifier. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 17:04:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Seriously Bored Okay, words this time.
It is actually in Lucas's example where the first 100% is not a bonus. From what I understand of his post, he believed the final damage, if X = 50, should be 125, which is not the case.
Krusten Kandis's original statements were correct. But due to the fact that there are multiple ways to express a bonus of 50% damage per level, other people got confused.
Yes, fair enough. It's just the misuse of "bonus" that I object to.
There's really nothing anyone should be confused about since that "50% damage bonus per level" only really has one meaning — that at lvl V, you have a 250% bonus, ie 250% on top of your base damage, ie. 350% of your base damage.
…or, well… it could be interpreted in another way (as being multiplicative between skill levels), but that's never the case in EVE anyway. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 20:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Crackzilla Most pilots fly the Moros because of that unsieged drone bonus. Without that bonus and with the weakness of the moros then other dreads are preferred.
So ask them to give you a bonus that makes it worth sieging it. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
|
|