EVE Search - Feedback on Rocket Changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Feedback on Rocket Changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.09.29 19:13:00 - [61] Originally by: CCP Chronotis ...To give a little insight using very quick paper exercise before I must depart for the evening, these current changes approximately doubles the effective damage an AB'ing interceptor receives to use the most dramatic case of sig/speed pairing. That was changed in Dominion .. AB Dramiel has 30%+ speed and same signature. Still, if damage doubles then it would apply to those infernal things as well Now if only SiSi could get up and running ... grrrr
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation	Posted - 2010.09.29 19:18:00 - [62] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Grimpak soooo is it right to say that of these rocket changes, the increase of explosion velocity is the main change, while the RoF/dmg mod/clip size changes are more like functionality changes that don't contribute that much for raw damage applied (discounting reloads)? I think they are tweaking the mythical DRF Damage Reduction Factor(?) as well so rocks will even better against small targets. Won't help against anything else so for versatility guns on Vengeance will still be superior :( Kind of sad that there will no missile on the frig level that is remotely competitive against cruiser and up. Putting all my faith in the ship changes though, the applicable ships can still turn out godly with rocks. then that's what I'm saying. raw damage of the rockets remains nigh on altered (ok it's increased a measly 5%), but what makes them actually do damage is the fact that they now have propper explosion velocity. in real-world results, the damage is unaltered, what was altered was they way they hit (thus do more damage). rest of changes is pretty much functional in nature. that or I'm talking a load of gibberish. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Kadesh Priestess Scalding Chill	Posted - 2010.09.29 19:52:00 - [63] I'm afraid raw increase in DPS of 5.6% won't help much. Rockets as weapon are awful imo; the reason why they're still alive are awesome rocket platforms. Anathema: Never tried messing with rockets on it. Will lose to properly fitted battle helios anyway. Kestrel: Damn cheap and effective rocket platform. Nice DPS at 10 km range, its MSE fit lacked ability to deliver DPS which was fixed (at least vs interceptors which were caught into scrambler; vs dramiel lack of web hurts) by increased explosion velocity. It's still not close to 100% like with new rockets and web (in plated fitting), but not bad. Crow: Don't think it will benefit much from the boost. Fittings with expensive scrambler and web is viable rocket fitting, but web means real DPS won't affect performance of the ship - which is awful imo (rocket malediction is better, crow is just made for standard missiles - which lack proper explosion velocity much more than rockets btw; look how much damage crow inflicts with light missiles vs standard dual-overdrive crusader burning at 5200 m/s with 65-75m signature). Hawk: Didn't try it out much, but imo it's victim of active tank concept. While active tank is much more viable on frigate platforms than battleships (although it's still viable primarily for duels where incoming dps isn't huge, like those in the lowsec plexes - and it's the only role they're good at atm; i can't imagine other role which ccp will introduce for AFs after AF boost), hawk should be fixed by boosting active tank (too vulnerable to ganking and neuting) or nerfing passive one (nanonerf-like - there's just too much module groups which boost passive tank w/o penalizing bonus of each other). In terms of damage it's now like a kestrel (with proposed changes), but strong side of hawk is it's super-duper tank. As someone mentioned, without good damage output hawk HAS to have good control distance, otherwise any ship will escape easily. But without MSE buffer (web + scram + ab + SB) it will need raw shield HP boost imo, if not 5th slot for cap booster (which may be misused for things like tracking disruptor). Vengeance: Brutally tanking AF, almost always makes use of the web; can control distance and angular speed vs other targets, the reason why many prefer projectiles (and sometimes even blasters) over rockets - lower CPU requirements and higher DPS output. If you can't control distance then rockets are better because of the 10km flight range. Good example of awesome platform which makes use of awful weapon. Malediction: In expensive fitting - best dueller vs other interceptors imo. With cheap fitting (plated) it's not better than most of other damage interceptors, with the bias to tank from gank (which is bad in this case). Problem of solo malediction is that it can't kill anything fast, but needs just tons of time. For tackling rocket boost won't change much imo, as you fit either standards or rockets with defenders. As proper close-range malediction always fits web it won't benefit much from the boost. Flycatcher, heretic, eris: for interdiction role these will probably always fit the cheapest weapons in the terms of using grid and cpu (125mm ftw). For mixed and solo fittings all 3 can fit web in addition to scram, so again i don't think things will change much. Flycatcher as platform is good due to number of mid slots (extreme flexibility), eris need major overhaul, heretic... not so desperately as eris, but some boost would be nice. Though i'd better nerf sabre (i love concept where t2 ships are not just better variants of t1, but worse in terms of combat, in turn they get some special ability/role). Several rockets benefits over other small weapon platforms: they can inflict some damage (unlike utterly sucking standards, ships with rockets work in scram/web rangee), they do it reliably independently of range, they invulnerable to tracking disruptors, on most platforms you can choose damage type without huge dps loss.
Kadesh Priestess Scalding Chill	Posted - 2010.09.29 20:10:00 - [64] Edited by: Kadesh Priestess on 29/09/2010 20:13:01 Flaws: 1) Awful dps limits its usage greatly (to, erm, duels where you can use their range benefits properly) 2) Need to have web or 2 (as i mentioned, it's a must because you'll need it to control range and to increase real dps output; and as raw dps output isn't high, you need to be really good at range control), 3) Inability to hit fast moving/maneuvering targets (targets like light drones, but not due to slow explosion velocity - rockets expire before they hit eg Warrior II engaging you/flying around your ship at 5km/s, while you're orbiting some other target at 3-4 km/s - that's pecularity of missile 'tick' flight mechanics which can be easily fixed). No weapon kills engaging drones better than pulse lasers with scorches or beam laser with standards on sader). In fact, my small artillery on malediction does more dps to engaging my ship warriors than pack of 3 rocket launchers, that's just weird. I really have no clue how proposed rocket fix combines with planned ship changes, so won't speculate on it until ship changes are published. I hope that ship changes will force players to use rockets on rocket platforms: but not via "+xx damage to rockets" for each of them but by wise revision of combat style for each ship (as good example i'd give hawk explosion velocity bonus and better damage for rockets and more capacity to shield hp, which will remove requirement to fit web (as it will be used only for distance control which isn't a must when you can kill your victim fast) and give it one spare slot for cap booster; obviously, it will need proper pg/cpu adjustments and probably capbooster pg bonus so that players won't use it as awesome-rocket-dps platform with web and huge buffer from MSE). Also, rockets could make use of breaking tanking layer uniformity factor, which will make damage seep through shield/armor not at 0-25% but at ~50-60%, so a rocket dedicated platform could kill, say, dramiel without need to break its peak shield recharge rate - with their damage they do it really-really bad.
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.09.29 21:00:00 - [65] Originally by: CCP Chronotis having a constant 70+ DPS beating down on a ship is a big no. We won't be returning to the days or rocket crows > rest. I very much doubt that would happen even if rockets could do constant dps (though I'm not advocating they should). More has changed since those days than just rocket balance. The new warp scramblers changed 'ceptor combat considerably. The Crow's lack of tank would most likely compensate for the ability to do constant DPS. Admittedly, a duel prop Malediction would be bit of beast. I do not have sisi set up, but my initial thoughts are that this isn't enough. I have no idea why you've fiddled with ROF/damage the way you have, considering it means just a 5% increase in damage and more efficient rocket use. Clip size is still smaller than other weapons with similar properties (though I guess it should almost be adequate, and hey, weapons are meant to be different). If the increase in EV does more than I expect then perhaps it will be sufficient. But as someone who uses rockets on a semi-regular basis, I doubt it. I think the real test will be whether you still need a web to hit drones for reasonable damage. That would be my first test actually, get someone to sick some warrior II's on a Crow/Malediction and see how many volleys they take to pop. Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2010.09.29 22:04:00 - [66] Originally by: Kadesh Priestess Flycatcher, heretic, eris: for interdiction role these will probably always fit the cheapest weapons in the terms of using grid and cpu (125mm ftw). For mixed and solo fittings all 3 can fit web in addition to scram, so again i don't think things will change much. Flycatcher as platform is good due to number of mid slots (extreme flexibility), eris need major overhaul, heretic... not so desperately as eris, but some boost would be nice. Though i'd better nerf sabre (i love concept where t2 ships are not just better variants of t1, but worse in terms of combat, in turn they get some special ability/role). Yeh but there is little problem: t1 versions already suck in general combat and in some cases even frigs can kill them (especially assault frigs). So putting t2 version UNDER t1 is kinda weird idea. Granted sabre is a little bit OP but in case of dictors id prefer to balance them towards sabre, not towards eris. They have kinda crap survivalability so they should at least be able to remove tacklers off themselves. Also it shows that Hawk, Veng, Heretic have CPU issues while fitting rockets, thats why quite a few pilots prefer to use ACs there. IMO rocket launcher (and standard launcher) fittings are too harsh compared to their usefulness.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2010.09.29 22:26:00 - [67] Originally by: Kadesh Priestess I'm afraid raw increase in DPS of 5.6% won't help much. I'm afraid you didn't read topic from start and just picking numbers between lines. 5.6% in spherical DPS not even nearly enough describes the changes. -- Thanks CCP for cu
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.29 22:44:00 - [68] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Kadesh Priestess I'm afraid raw increase in DPS of 5.6% won't help much. I'm afraid you didn't read topic from start and just picking numbers between lines. 5.6% in spherical DPS not even nearly enough describes the changes. Indeed, this appears to have been quite a bad maths day with CCP Chronotis saying we've got the wrong formula plus the muddle over 5.6% dps. Guess we'll have to wait and see what it looks like on sisi before we judge. _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2010.09.29 23:18:00 - [69] Originally by: yani dumyat Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Kadesh Priestess I'm afraid raw increase in DPS of 5.6% won't help much. I'm afraid you didn't read topic from start and just picking numbers between lines. 5.6% in spherical DPS not even nearly enough describes the changes. Indeed, this appears to have been quite a bad maths day with CCP Chronotis saying we've got the wrong formula plus the muddle over 5.6% dps. Guess we'll have to wait and see what it looks like on sisi before we judge. And how is your reply related to my quote? -- Thanks CCP for cu
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.09.29 23:30:00 - [70] Originally by: Tonto Auri And how is your reply related to my quote? Pretty sure he was just agreeing with you. Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.

yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.29 23:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Tonto Auri And how is your reply related to my quote? I was agreeing that the 5.6% dps boost doesn't describe the changes very much. Was also trying to point out that without access to the correct formula any number crunching before we can test on sisi is pretty meaningless. _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Kadesh Priestess Scalding Chill	Posted - 2010.09.30 06:12:00 - [72] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Kadesh Priestess I'm afraid raw increase in DPS of 5.6% won't help much. I'm afraid you didn't read topic from start and just picking numbers between lines. 5.6% in spherical DPS not even nearly enough describes the changes. Your assumption that i don't know missile damage formula and how it applies to small unguided missiles is wrong - i separated raw dps from ability to deliver this dps/real dps.
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.09.30 07:16:00 - [73] Originally by: Kadesh Priestess ]Your assumption that i don't know missile damage formula and how it applies to small unguided missiles is wrong. CCP Chonotis has said that the missile formula we've been using is wrong, though TBH I'm skeptical about how wrong it is. I suspect it's not terribly far off. Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.09.30 07:28:00 - [74] Originally by: Braitai Originally by: Kadesh Priestess ]Your assumption that i don't know missile damage formula and how it applies to small unguided missiles is wrong. CCP Chonotis has said that the missile formula we've been using is wrong, though TBH I'm skeptical about how wrong it is. I suspect it's not terribly far off. Me too. I bet the basic idea of damage mitigation if speed > explosion velocity, or if explosion radius > sig radius, with excess sig being able to counter excess speed but not vice versa, is absolutely right. I think that the only thing that Stafen may have not got quite right is the way the damage falls off in imperfect conditions. He uses the log(DRF)/log(5.5) modifier which seems to give reasonable results but probably isn't exactly what CCP uses.
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.30 09:35:00 - [75] Sisi still down, what do you think the devs have been doing to that poor server? A) Having mass frigate fights to work out why the hawk fails. B) Testing incarna by playing late night poker games in a strip club. C) The hamsters went on strike and won't work till they get more noms and paid holidays. D) An adventurous group of devs wandered in to the catacombs of new eden's legacy code, said devs haven't been seen for two days now and there are fears for their safely. E) Something else _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Kadesh Priestess Scalding Chill	Posted - 2010.09.30 10:57:00 - [76] Originally by: Braitai Originally by: Kadesh Priestess ]Your assumption that i don't know missile damage formula and how it applies to small unguided missiles is wrong. CCP Chonotis has said that the missile formula we've been using is wrong, though TBH I'm skeptical about how wrong it is. I suspect it's not terribly far off. He talked about our wrong calculations of rof influence on final rocket dps, not about missile damage formula.
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.09.30 11:09:00 - [77] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Will also look into whether we should and would release the missile formula, if my eve-search foo has worked, the one you are using is fairly different which explains your focus on DRF. Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C	Posted - 2010.09.30 11:09:00 - [78] Originally by: Kadesh Priestess Originally by: Braitai Originally by: Kadesh Priestess ]Your assumption that i don't know missile damage formula and how it applies to small unguided missiles is wrong. CCP Chonotis has said that the missile formula we've been using is wrong, though TBH I'm skeptical about how wrong it is. I suspect it's not terribly far off. He talked about our wrong calculations of rof influence on final rocket dps, not about missile damage formula. Nope he specifically said that we are putting too much stress on the DRF and he's asking around if he can release the correct missile damage formula because the one we're using is different from the real one and causes us to think the DRF is more important than it really is. That said I think the guys at ccp are busy with 1.1 deployment. Not a big patch but it's usually quite a small crisis every time a patch goes on the retail server.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2010.09.30 13:27:00 - [79] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 30/09/2010 13:35:32 Its a very nice start indeed. This needs some testing on Sisi. Aslo, can you fix the kestrel so it has 2 bonuses, not 1? :) (Compare the Kestrel to Hookbill, then do the same for the other races and you see what I mean ;) (or maybe its me daydreaming, and I want a rocket frig with two bonuses proper like, and in that case fix all rocker frigs (T1))) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
OT Smithers	Posted - 2010.09.30 15:13:00 - [80] This certainly does not sound like a large enough change to fix rockets or elevate Caldari frigates into any sort of parity. Other races frigates perform like Ferarri's, Caldari frigates putter along like those ridiculous electric scooters you see under fat people at Walmart. You have proposed painting a racing stripe down the side and calling it good. Radical suggestion: you could make Caldari ships actually BALANCED. Since you are looking at frigates, study the best Frigates in the game and then make Caldari frigates competetive with those.

Kai Yuen	Posted - 2010.09.30 15:51:00 - [81] You couldn't increase rocket velocity while you were at it so my rockets actually CATCH their targets before they expire. Right now their velocity is pitiful and ABing frigs laugh at them. I also think the rate of fire nerf was too much. 5.6% more dps isn't going to save anyone. could we at least get 20%?
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.09.30 16:15:00 - [82] Originally by: OT Smithers Other races frigates perform like Ferarri's, Caldari frigates putter along like those ridiculous electric scooters you see under fat people at Walmart. Boost Scooters!. Yeah, sorry I'm bored. On a more serious note, a list of things to look at on sisi: Rockets vs Interceptors - can we hit the damn things and if so how much for? Rockets vs Drones - Comparison to other weapon types Rockets vs AF's - will we end up with the constant dps CCP Chronotis wanted to avoid? Rockets without a web - will it be viable at all? Hawk - Still no word from Chronotis about what role it's meant to fill. With a 5/4/2 slot layout and increased damage its immediate contemporaries would be the harpy, wolf, ishkur, enyo and retribution as these have 5 highs and 6 mid/lows, ie mini-hacs. I'll probably try and test it against as many ships as possible but want to see it both tackle and kill other AF's in 1vs1 combat while using a shield booster. I honestly doubt the changes proposed by CCP will bring it anywhere near the level of the wolf or ishkur. Crow - Should be able to kill a claw when the fight is at the very edge of scramble range. If forcing your opponent to fight in falloff is not a viable tactic then the rocket crow will not be a viable ship. Kestrel/Crow - I'm interested to see if MSE fits are going to be viable again or will we be forced to plate fit caldari ships? Also will the hawk be able to scare a rifter? Malediction - Will this become overpowered for a tackle inty? Just thinking off the top of my head so have probably missed quite a lot of stuff like destroyer hulls, vengeance and more. Perhaps others might want to add to the list of things we should be looking at when sisi is up? _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
NoX Trade	Posted - 2010.09.30 17:34:00 - [83] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 29/09/2010 16:03:44 Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Deva Blackfire Possibly even more due to longer time between reloads. yeah but like, isn't a 25% RoF bonus equivalent to a 33% damage bonus? If its positive yes: 100dps * 1,33 damage = 133dps 100dps / 0,75 (base 1 but 25% "boost" thus 0,75) = 133,(3)dps 100dps * 1,32 (damage) / 1.25 (base 1 PLUS 25%) = 105,6dps --> thus 5,6% boost. Your math is so wrong the correct one is: 100dps * 1,32 (damage) * 0.75(rof decreased 25%) = 99dps --> 1% decrease and if you dont know where you did wrong is this 1 / 1,25 = 0,80 so you decreased rof only by 20% not 25%
Ferin Eineneu	Posted - 2010.09.30 18:27:00 - [84] CCP, unbonused AC's still deal more damage on vengeance and malediction than rockets. Intended?

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.09.30 18:40:00 - [85] Originally by: Zach Donnell EDIT: CCP Chronotis, I eagerly await to test the changes, but I do have to ask. Was changing the hawks bonus to a shield resist bonus instead a boost bonus (as per all other caldari tank bonus ships) ever considered? Originally by: yani dumyat Could you please tell us what role you intend the hawk to fill, this will be very useful to know if we are to give feedback from sisi. I assume it's meant to fill one of the roles you outlined in the rocket thread? Originally by: CCP Chronotis One approach we have explored a little is splitting the varieties more to give a more distinct difference in role so one may be remain the armoured gank 'mini-hac' whilst the other might fulfill a heavy tackler role perhaps as one idea to cover the two main scenarios and potential roles. The hawk changes do not really factor in previous comments regarding a potential future direction for the assault frigate class as quoted above. The changes leave the role open to either standard missile sniper or close range tackler with rockets or some interesting combination using rigs. They are intended to make fitting slightly easier for the powergrid hungry setups but as some have pointed out, the cpu based ones can still fall short. WRT shield resists, the main concern there is the inevitable push and consequential pull towards 'homogeneity balance' and that everyone wants the same basic setup just in different sized hulls is of greater concern to us. In many scenarios resists would be more useful and hence more popular than an active tank bonus which lends itself more to smaller fights and roaming so we can see why people would prefer that overall. Originally by: Stafen Oh no, I cannot be wrong! Well if it does get released, I look forward to seeing how it matches up with what I tried to deduce. The role DRF plays in my formula seemed to fit with my measurements and even matched up with the hidden attribute oaeDamageReductionSensitivity, but I only had 5 data points for different DRF values. (see DRF_graph ) Probably what is happening is that I have an approximation to the real formula. The real formula would be something which a CPU could calculate quicker as it does not involve logarithms or powers. (/me now tries to guess what it is approximating) Actually, looking at that link, the formula is very different from the original formula I saw in your original thread (Gypsio III's reference to log(DRF)/log(5.5) in the latter replies made me re-look at the thread and this reply). The basic principles are correct in that version though they are still different, not had chance to run it through maple though but its pretty close yeah. We cannot divulge more right now in that area but it is important for us, people also fly these ships for real in addition to paper exercises hence we are encouraging actual combat scenario testing in addition to theory crafting. Originally by: Sidus Isaacs [ Its a very nice start indeed. This needs some testing on Sisi. Aslo, can you fix the kestrel so it has 2 bonuses, not 1? :) (Compare the Kestrel to Hookbill, then do the same for the other races and you see what I mean ;) (or maybe its me daydreaming, and I want a rocket frig with two bonuses proper like, and in that case fix all rocker frigs (T1))) Edit: I do support a resistance bonus on the hawk as well, would make it bit as both an active and a buffer tank, giving you more options. The kestrel is getting dangerously close to a little overpowered really for a T1 frigate and the hookbill is a very good ride already. The other interceptors perform admirably here like the crow but not in the 2007 version which was king above all others. Comparing the other ships to the hookbill will be always skewing the outlook since a "pimp'bill" will be very powerful in the right hands with these changes and some good fits.


CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.09.30 18:44:00 - [86] cont. Everyone has their own perception of power when they imagine each scenario and use case and the good old rock, paper scissors debate. It is quite possible more changes will come in after these changes have been out in the while for a week or so (also because some of us will be out of the office next week so the next big update will be after that!) but until then, please continue with the good feedback. Originally by: Mona X Originally by: CCP Chronotis longer to get round to everyone and that might slow me down from moving through some tech 2 ammo changes! You're nerfing Scorch or fixing short range versions? Possibly both, most likely the latter but nothing definite yet. Got a few hoops we have to jump through first but it would be nice to get them in the release.

Chack'Nul GK inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.09.30 19:25:00 - [87] Edited by: Chack''Nul on 30/09/2010 19:26:05 50dps, rof 1s. With a 32% damage increase and a 25% rof decrease. (50x1.32)x0.75=49.5 DPS WHAT AM I DOING WRONG.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.09.30 19:36:00 - [88] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 30/09/2010 19:37:55 Originally by: CCP Chronotis WRT shield resists, the main concern there is the inevitable push and consequential pull towards 'homogeneity balance' and that everyone wants the same basic setup just in different sized hulls is of greater concern to us. Like it or not, that's just the way things are. Once people figure out the ideal setup, they're going to want to use it wherever possible. Even if you nerf the ideal setup, you just produce a NEW ideal setup which will be duplicated on every ship where it is possible, and those ships that can't fit the ideal setup will be thrown into the reprocessing facility. In terms of the Hawk's bonus: 1) If anything, the boost bonus (and lack of grid/cpu for a proper buffer setup) hurts diversity since you're forced to use an active tank, and probably an AB + close-range fit so you have enough cap to do so. Swapping it for a resist bonus has minimal impact on the existing active tank setups, but allows passive tanks to function properly. While this might be less important for the rocket Hawk, the long-range (and therefore dependent on a cap-hungry MWD) light missile Hawk really needs a buffer tank. 2) Active shield tanking bonuses are for Minmatar ships, other than the special case of the Golem. I understand if there is a desire for more diversity in setups, but active tanking is not a good choice for a race that is focused heavily on fleet combat (and therefore buffer tanks) over solo (where active tanks can work). Quote: hookbill is a very good ride already. No, it really isn't. Even with a rocket boost (and hopefully a bit more dps), the Hookbill is impossible to fit (at least without expensive faction modules). It doesn't have even close to enough grid for a proper buffer tank or long-range fit, and it doesn't have even close to enough CPU to fill its mid slots properly. -----------
Zach Donnell Ghost-Busters	Posted - 2010.09.30 19:49:00 - [89] Originally by: Chack'Nul Edited by: Chack''Nul on 30/09/2010 19:26:05 50dps, rof 1s. With a 32% damage increase and a 25% rof decrease. (50x1.32)x0.75=49.5 DPS WHAT AM I DOING WRONG. It's a little counter intuitive, but you are applying the ROF penalty incorrectly. If your example ROF is 1s a 25% ROF penalty would mean the ROF is now 1.25s. Thus the ratio of old ROF to new is 1/1.25 = 0.8 So the calculation becomes 501.320.8 = 52.8, 2.8/50 = 0.056 or 5.6% :) ------------------------------------------------- "Bustin' makes me feel good!"
Zach Donnell Ghost-Busters	Posted - 2010.09.30 20:05:00 - [90] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 30/09/2010 19:37:55 Originally by: CCP Chronotis WRT shield resists, the main concern there is the inevitable push and consequential pull towards 'homogeneity balance' and that everyone wants the same basic setup just in different sized hulls is of greater concern to us. Like it or not, that's just the way things are. Once people figure out the ideal setup, they're going to want to use it wherever possible. Even if you nerf the ideal setup, you just produce a NEW ideal setup which will be duplicated on every ship where it is possible, and those ships that can't fit the ideal setup will be thrown into the reprocessing facility. Merin is stretching the scenario quite a bit, but has a good point. Chronotis you seem to want to "force" (too strong of a word, but Ill use it for sake of explanation) the boost fit, in order to keep variety. Variety is good, but maybe this hints at a bigger problem with active shield tanking on smaller ship classes. A gistii jag is the only ship I can think of active shield tanking in recent memory. tl;dr: My opinion, make hawk have a resist bonus, and look into why active shield tanking on small ships is not as practical currently as buffer fits. ------------------------------------------------- "Bustin' makes me feel good!"



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: 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.