| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
342
   |
Posted - 2012.09.13 19:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
So with the inevitable offgrid mindlinked link T3, a rigged Arbitrator will have TDs that each have -92.25% to optimal or tracking? Wow.
(hope those numbers are right  ) |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
342
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 10:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
MintyRoadkill wrote:Harvey James wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Some of them could certainly use some nudging, but saying that as a class they need much more speed and mobility is just wrong. I don't even have a problem with slow brawl fit cruisers being kited by Tier 3s. They're fast and fragile, just they're meant to be - it's a good game mechanic.
-Liang so if BC's are allowed to be faster than a cruiser than what is the point of a cruiser? might as-well remove them from the game as useless pieces of junk :P And btw at the moment the tier 3 bc's have better tank then cruisers too They also cost 10 times as much and are more skill intensive. What's your point?
Neither cost nor SP are important balancing factors.
Anyway, the problem isn't the balance between cruisers and t3 BCs, they're sufficiently different. The problem is between cruisers and t1/2 BCs. Right now it's distressingly easy to make a t1/2 BC with not only more tank, but also better-tracking, longer-ranged and much more DPS than a cruiser, with frequently only marginal inferiority in mobility.
This makes t1/2 BCs effectively high-tier cruisers - and therefore this relationship needs to be a victim of tiericide. Increasing cruiser mobility is a good way to differentiate them, but I suspect more will be needed. Nerfing t2 BCs will be a good idea. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
342
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 12:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'd love to know what you've got planned for ECM. The current mechanic is terrible, but I've never been able to come up with a good ECM mechanism that's still recognisably ECM. The least bad idea I could come up with was to get rid of ECM entirely, take RSDs from Gallente to Caldari and boost their power a chunk, then give Gallente an anti-missile ewar while not introducing the missile TD effect on TDs, then give Caldari a new secondary ewar that reduces the range and transfer amount of RR mods, to make up for the loss of ECM's anti-logi role.
This idea was pretty good though, it has ECM reducing the number of targets that can be locked, which is a bit more refined than the current straight no-effect/jammed mechanism. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
342
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 16:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:7.5% bonus per level? Did you realize that this is dramatically better than what the T2 ships have? So even if T2 cruisers are planned to be brought in line with this later on, we will have a period of at least several months, or maybe even a year, where cheap t1 cruisers will be better at the jobs their T2 versions are supposed to be specialized in? This is ridiculous and completely unacceptable.
First you change FW so that 2-day-old alts can earn 100+ million ISK/hour in T1 frigates worth 3 million, now this. Please realize that you just can't make some changes without changing something else... at the same time, not many months later. If we change the tracking disruptor bonus on the Arbitrator and Crucifier, we will change the bonus on the T2 versions at the same time.
Do you think that 92% tracking disruptors and 78% RSDs are really a good idea? If not, you need to do something about warfare links. When even the Gallente info links are arguably overpowered, there's a real problem. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
342
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 16:28:00 -
[5] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Warfare links, regardless of on grid or off grid, are overpowered as hell. Why do we have a ship providing +50% bonuses in a game where people train months for 2% more damage? I really hope we see links becoming nice to haves instead of must haves like they are becoming now.
I say this as someone with ~25M SP (and counting) invested in Leadership.
-Liang
I agree completely. I also think it's crazy that it's so cheap to get large link benefits, relative to, say, sticking deadspace hardeners, RF points or FN webs on your entire gang. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
342
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 16:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:X Gallentius wrote:I think basically every frigate should fear the Bellicose, and any ship that can't hit out to 24 km should fear it too since it will just kite you to death with its speed and missiles. And if it does get caught, it can always release the ec-600's and gtfo. No risk pvp is here!
I assume you're talking about a 2km/s AML kite fit with a TP and dual webs or something? I'd feel pretty comfortable taking the ship on with any of the new T1 attack frigates. -Liang Forgive me for being a bit skeptical. Please tell us how you'd do it. No worries man. The basic problem is that Light Missiles basically don't hit anything going faster than 3.5km/s. The new T1 frigs are that fast, at the very least. So for the Bellicose to deal damage, it'd have to close with the frig and get webs, but that's about as likely as a cruiser webbing a Slicer. It can happen but it requires the Slicer pilot to **** up pretty hard. The Drones (provided they fit 5 light ECM/5 light Warriors) would by far be the biggest threat. The Condor can just straight tank them and the others will just kill them. -Liang Ed: Remember, the Caracal is able to do this because its missiles go 50% faster than the Bellicose.
Yes, I once tried to use an AML Navy Osprey but found that the missiles weren't quick enough to actually hit an intelligently flown, fast frigate that wasn't just flying straight at me. They just ran out of flight time first.
But there's a difference between "take on" and "kill"...  |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:
Everybody knows Sig bloom equals missile damage but it also means turret tracking.
Correct.
Wrong, or at least deeply confused. There is no difference between turret "chance to hit" and tracking, they're the same thing. There isn't a separate "to hit" chance, there is only tracking - target signature and gun resolution act as modifiers to gun tracking speeds. Painting a target by 30% has exactly the same effect as activating a 30% tracking tracking computer. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
411
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 09:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Are you sure about this chance based falloff mecanic ? I always thought falloff only reduced EWAR effectiveness (ie at opti+falloff, ewar effect is halfed, but always hit). The issue is EWAR has to be amongst the least well documented parts of Eve. So I don't know.
Falloff for ewar works in exactly the same fashion as it does for guns - it gives them a "to-hit" chance. You don't see your guns' damage modifier changing instead, do you?
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
411
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 11:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Falloff for ewar works in exactly the same fashion as it does for guns - it gives them a "to-hit" chance. You don't see your guns' damage modifier changing instead, do you?
Yes you do : hit quality.
 Well yes. Er. I was trying to say that ewar doesn't have a hit quality, so it must work by a straight hit/miss dynamic. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
411
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 11:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote: Well yes. Er. I was trying to say that ewar doesn't have a hit quality, so it must work by a straight hit/miss dynamic. ;-) While being chance based, if you only consider dps, falloff do decrease turret effectiveness. Considering you have sometimes many turrets, the chance thing is already alleviated almost to an average ; the spread between low and high hit quality is reduced. EWAR is not chance based at its core, so I though the falloff would not change this. This is interesting though. If it's the same for ECM, that mean that ECM in falloff have two rolls of dice, though the ECM strength is always the same whatever the range. And that mean that a range dampener will damp for full effect in falloff but the target will have some windows to lock you.
EWAR (apart for ECM ofc) isn't chance based, but falloff is. So for TDs, painters and RSDs in falloff, you will either hit the target for full effect, or miss it altogether, because you're in falloff. It's a while since I paid attention to ewaring something at such long range to get noticeable falloff, but I'd be very surprised if it had changed in the last few years.
But for ECM, then there's zero mathematical difference in jam chance between ECM operating in falloff with a straight hit/miss chance, and ECM that always hits in falloff but with its strength reduced - the two are indistinguishable in terms of final jam chance. |
| |
|