|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
   |
Posted - 2009.11.12 21:06:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Ranko
So, whats the insurance value on the Nyx?
You could always look into that suggestion that was made earlier: petition to get it moved to a station for some bogus reason (wanting to insure it), then accidentally hit the recycle/refine button instead… 
I'm willing to bet that you'd get more from the parts than the insurance.
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 21:32:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ragel Tropxe
(are you sure Nozh isnt Smedley in disguise?)
I've seen both Nozh and Smedley, and I'm going to guess "no" on that one…
…but maybe some kind of close cousin?
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 23:12:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Yosser Hughes
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Explosion Radius: 3500
Explosion Velocity: 45
Damage Reduction Factor: 6.5 (magic number)
Damage: 3600
What the hell, have you no idea how missiles work at all? With a 3500 explosion radius, supercarriers will be doing %50 damage to dreads.
Just for the record, based on those numbers you get:
Damage vs. Thanatos at no speed = ~3050.
Damage vs. Thanatos at full speed = ~1350.
Damage vs. Moros at no speed = ~1800.
Damage vs. Moros at full speed = ~800.
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 06:24:00 -
[4]
Originally by: SXYGeeK
Originally by: Tippia
Damage vs. Thanatos at no speed = ~3050 (so 6099 max DPS w/ Nozh's mystery fit, 7600 from Nyx)
Damage vs. Thanatos at full speed = ~1350 (so 2700 / 3375 DPS).
Damage vs. Moros at no speed = ~1800 (3600 / 4500 DPS).
Damage vs. Moros at full speed = ~800 (1600 / 2000 DPS).
do your calculations factor in the "damage reduction factor" ?
it is the magic number after all.
Yes.
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:05:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Artemis Rose
They are not DPS ships, they really never should be. The days of solo camping the Tama gate in Nyx are long gone, and good riddance to that. Even if CCP plans to have them fill an anti-capital role, the only ship you could possibly damage would be Sieged Dreads due to the other capitals fitting smart bombs. Its best just to disregard it and enjoy the expanded capabilities of the Super Carrier.
…well, yes, not with these changes they won't. 
Against sieged dreads, these "anti-cap" Moms will see themselves outdamaged by a two or three battleships ( again).
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 14:59:00 -
[6]
Originally by: gnome blood
What promises?
The ones made before fanfest, at fanfest, in the previous blogs, in particularly the promise that it would become an anti-cap ship — a role that it will not be able to fulfil in any useful way.
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 16:07:00 -
[7]
Originally by: The Internets
The 'magic number' the dev posted makes them effective against capitals but not smaller ships, I just don't know how though.
Yes well… we do know how the magic number works.
So no, not quite. The magic number makes them less effective against smaller ships, yes, but this is counteracted by the explosion velocity and -radius, which also makes them less effective against capitals.
So, either the numbers they posted are wrong, or they have changed the missile formula, or the DPS is less than stellar and with a sane battlefield setup, they are less capable at the anti-cap role than just about anything you'll encounter in a fleet (except maybe a normal carrier). It's a choice between them lying or being incompetent – neither option is particularly encouraging.
———
“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
|
Posted - 2009.11.14 09:43:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Tippia on 14/11/2009 09:45:40
Originally by: Baljos Arnjak
I think this has been suggested before, but instead of docking, why not let supper carriers be anchored and locked at a pos. Owner hits anchor button, sets the password, and ejects. The fact that it's parked at a pos gives it some protection, but if an enemy attacked while you were away it could end up being vulnerable, thus a major disincentive to do that.
It would be good for letting you go mess around for a couple hours but all-in-all, I would be too paranoid to let it just sit out in space. There would be no docking games with a system like this.
This could also be a good incentive to raid someones space. If they have some motherships parked and not a lot of activity, you might consider going in and killing the pos's that they're parked at. At the very least you would stir up some trouble, and at most you could cost an enemy tens of billions in stupid tax.
I like it, but then again, I have no intention of ever flying the bloody things…
———
“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 |
|
|
| |
|