Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Alara IonStorm
3412
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 23:19:00 -
[901] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: We are speaking here about a kiting ship trying to kite a kiting ship.
No we are speaking about a close range armor blaster boat being better at shield kiting then a purpose build shield kiter while still retaining the ability to project firepower at close range.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Why should the stabber be the fastest cruiser (by a very large margin) and also be the best kiter ? What will become the other cruisers if the stabber finaly get it's damage buff and end having the most damage at range ?
Perhaps because kiting is its main play style while the other Cruisers have other play styles. Now if the speed margin becomes too large they should lessen it a bit.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: What will be able to kill such a stabber ?
Same things that kill Vega's which even with the buffs people have been proposing this thing won't be near as good as even if it keeps the speed. Vega has 5 Turrets, 2 Dmg bonuses, 5 Drones, fitting for a Medium Neut, 12.5% longer falloff, 37.5% better tracking, it's resist holes are naturally plugged and an extra slot. The reactionary response to the Stabber being buffed has been just silly.
Giving the Stabber 5 Drones will not break EVE Online. Alternative to that neither would a slight buff in its gun power break EVE Online. It will however leave the game with a good usable ship. |
Koujjo Dian
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 00:59:00 -
[902] - Quote
Anyone tried the new Omen on the test server? I just can't see this thing being any less useless than it currently is. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:10:00 -
[903] - Quote
That Kiting Rax fit will run into Cap issues faster than the Stabber.
Against a target going 2400 M/s Hammers won't do any damage, and Valks will do barely any. Max DPS will be achieved by Hobos.
You're also comparing it against a bad Stabber fit: it is the most cap intensive non-neuting fit, least able to do DPS against high-speed targets. This fit is a more realistic comparison: (25.4K EHP vs 20Kish for the 425 Stabber and 19Kish for the posted Neutron Shield Rax)
[Stabber, Kiter] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Barrage M Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Light Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Using EFT @20Km I got 209 DPS for my Stabber, 235 for a 425/HAM Stabber and 293 for a Neutron/Hobo Rax. It's cap will also run for 1:58 (29 Seconds longer than the 425/HAM fit).
With the extra EHP vs the extra DPS it'll be a close fight; and the extra cap stability and capless weapons of the Stabber may make it come out in their favour. (Against the 425/HAM fit - all other things being equal - you pretty well always win).
But that doesn't change the essential facts: in deep falloff a Shield Rax competes with a Stabber and can project decent DPS. Which means against targets which are not Stabbers, that Rax is probably better.
The reason the Rax does so well at that range is it's drones: they account for all of the Rax's DPS advantage. Give the Stabber 3-4 Drones and it will out-DPS a Shield-kiting Rax at about 18-20Km. It can afford to lose about 20m/s base speed (it's about 170m/s under MWD). Almost everybody will happily lose this speed for a Done-bay that at least competes with a Moa (or better yet 20m3). Alternatively you could add a 5th Turret slot: but this only solves the DPS problem at the expense of the Stabber's character.
Importantly, it sill leaves it as the fastest T1 Cruiser with only the Shield-Rax, Bellicose and the Scythe anywhere close. (Technically the Exequror is as well... but Shield Exeq seems unlikely).
BTW - I'm christening this change 20m/s for 20m3. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
555
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:21:00 -
[904] - Quote
Koujjo Dian wrote:Anyone tried the new Omen on the test server? I just can't see this thing being any less useless than it currently is.
I did. I expect it to be considered overpowered in cruiser vs cruiser scenarios. Judging by the numbers the Caracal is going to be just as good if not better. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:23:00 -
[905] - Quote
What, an Amarr ship can work with only 3 mids.. who knew? |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha.
70
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 14:47:00 -
[906] - Quote
Well, given the back to the future dev blog it seems that CCP is happy with the current cruiser changes and have moved on to other projects, so I am not expecting them to change any of the stats at this point. If that is case I wish they would officially tell us to bugger off. Instead of having us chase our own tails for their amusement when they have already made up their minds. |
Diesel47
My Little Pwnys
304
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 01:30:00 -
[907] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Well, given the back to the future dev blog it seems that CCP is happy with the current cruiser changes and have moved on to other projects, so I am not expecting them to change any of the stats at this point. If that is the case I wish they would officially tell us to bugger off. Instead of having us chase our own tails for their amusement when they have already made up their minds.
Wow, why change the crusiers at all if half of them are going to be not worth flying like before? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 02:14:00 -
[908] - Quote
I wish CCP would stop making laserboats work without four mids..
They need to completely rethink the design philosophy for those ships... Uncap bonused a set of lasers take up more cap then an MWD
what fozzie really needs to do is to find a way to make up for that. I actually tried a 1600/heavy pulse maller vs shield rupture on the test server starting at 0 with cap at 100%
Maller capped out completely at half armor even though i overheated everything from the start. So a brawly maller, can't outbrawl a kiter.. Its pathetic. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 02:35:00 -
[909] - Quote
I am bad and pressed quote instead of edit |
Meldorn Vaash
State War Academy Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:42:00 -
[910] - Quote
What if there was a role bonus attached to each ship class?
Since attack cruisers are about speed, maybe a cap bonus to MWD like what the thorax has now. Except the full 25% from the start instead of 5% per level?
Would that make them overpowered?
Would that help the laser and hybrid guns cap usage? |
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:39:00 -
[911] - Quote
It you make it so that an AB Attack Cruiser was never considered.
Buffing the base Cap by 10% or so would have much the same effect (better Cap stability / mitigate fitting an MWD) but would benefit AB fit ships as much as MWD fit ones. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:55:00 -
[912] - Quote
What's the point of AB if everything can permarun an MWD ? |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
98
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:04:00 -
[913] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:What's the point of AB if everything can permarun an MWD ?
No cap penalty, no sig penalty, fitting, unscrammable, there are lots of reasons to run an AB over an MWD. It's rarely worth it solo in ships bigger than frigates though. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:23:00 -
[914] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:What's the point of AB if everything can permarun an MWD ? No cap penalty, no sig penalty, fitting, unscrammable, there are lots of reasons to run an AB over an MWD. It's rarely worth it solo in ships bigger than frigates though. I mean, cap penalty is symbolic if everyone can permarun the MWD with everything else.
You said it infact : AB is already rarely worth all its advantages, and still, you want to buff MWD (more cap for ships is a buff to MWD, because let's face it : MWD is the most consumer of cap on most ships). |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:28:00 -
[915] - Quote
I want to buff the ships; the fact that almost all viable fits for them include an MWD means that cap is almost always an issue.
But I want to do it in a way that buffs the ships generally, not the MWD-fits specifically. And a 10% base cap increase does not make these fits cap stable. It merely improves their cap stability. (Even a 20% increase won't make them cap stable). |
Deena Amaj
Community for Justice
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 13:52:00 -
[916] - Quote
A popular buff was to have ships with +% in AB per level. Used to be desired feature by the fanbase for Assault Frigates, but for whatever reason (probably too OP), it got turned down.
I still hope it could be used somewhere, because, as said above, even with all those little things like no-sig bloom, unscrammable, AB is still rarely worth applying. I would love to rely more on AB, but - oooh well :D. confirthisposmed
I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 16:22:00 -
[917] - Quote
Deena Amaj wrote:A popular buff was to have ships with +% in AB per level. Used to be desired feature by the fanbase for Assault Frigates, but for whatever reason (probably too OP), it got turned down.
I still hope it could be used somewhere, because, as said above, even with all those little things like no-sig bloom, unscrammable, AB is still rarely worth applying. I would love to rely more on AB, but - oooh well :D.
the problem with AB's is as soon as you get webbed you lose much of the advantage of using it webs are too strong for AB's to be effective and then there's the issue of range either in keeping it or needing to get into it in the first place. |
Deena Amaj
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 04:58:00 -
[918] - Quote
Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.
Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.
A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.
Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap. confirthisposmed
I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 11:20:00 -
[919] - Quote
Deena Amaj wrote:Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.
Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.
A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.
Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap. But then, what would be the counter to AB ? |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
238
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 11:51:00 -
[920] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Deena Amaj wrote:Yeah. And doesn't make sense to nerf webs more.
Allthough... AB's having a internal resistance against webs would be interesting, or would that be overpowered? As ridiculous it may sound, it would give AB that slight advantage over MWD. Usually, several webs means death, but just maybe some resistant AB would help - as in making sure your velocity doesn't drop down too much. Not sure how mathematically it would work without hurting webs too much, but if AB is that underwhelming as mentioned, then I'd almost say - put that for AB.
A seperate active propulsion module with something like could be interesting as well.
Dual prop players could rejoice. Plus one cannot use MWD and AB at the same time, unless Chuck Norris is sitting on your lap. But then, what would be the counter to AB ?
I think the problem is that only one prop module can be active at any one time on your ship so being webbed by multiple webs makes the AB pointless. If you could have 2 afterburners working at the same time this would counter multiple webbing but that's not possible nor is it a good idea.
I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming. |
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
31
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 12:55:00 -
[921] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming.
Like everytihng in eve, it is situational. Yes a web slows you down and this result in an increase of damage on you. But that web would be even more lethal if you didn't have that AB in the first place. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
374
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 13:58:00 -
[922] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:...I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming. Been thinking the same, but not in the traditional buff sense more in the vein of "recommended" usage pattern .. adding some additional deliberations to the AB/MWD choice (not all at once mind you, just examples):
- Partial eWar immunity. Especially valuable when/if TDs become anti-missile and eWar in general is buffed/rebalanced. - Local/Remote rep amount modifier. - Weapon tracking/explosion radius bonus. - More agility, better inertia. - Etc.
Basically apply one or more to one drive type and the opposite (or near) to the other drive type. That way DP fits primarily get the current benefit of always being able to be at speed while 'pure-breds' get something different yet beneficial to their operation.
Example (numbers irrelevant, its the concep/idea): - AB gets local/remote rep bonus of 50% applied to it eWar affects it 20% more severely than normal. * AB fits are often reliant on local/remote for survival and due to close quarter fighting not as hard hit by 'ranged' eWar, potentially crippled by correctly used tracking script TD but can be mitigated by the clever pilot. - MWD is affected 25% less by eWar but overall powerdrain reduces any repair by 40%. * MWD fits are most often pure buffer tanks. Adding an AB (DP) will increase active repair slightly at expense of mass-fitting, partial eWar immunity gives them a slight protection against the soft measures most frewuently used to foil their plans. |
Deena Amaj
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 14:12:00 -
[923] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:[quote=Deena Amaj] But then, what would be the counter to AB ?
The webber itself actually. Just have to make the resistance value so that webbing does not kill speed fully but also so that webbing is not obsolete.
I know what you mean with counters for AB, but maybe expecting a counter for AB is too sharp. I know I am derailing, but since it has to do with all ships, 'ere we go.
AB doesn't essentially make that much of a speed buff when you think about it. How fast are for instance BSes with AB on? Just pulling this out of the hat, Typhoon should be the fastest of BSes with some 500m/s with Overdrives and average joe skills. The rest are 300m/s if it comes up.
Stabber around some 800 to 1000m/s'ish, the others a tad below. Frigates of course being lightest, they are even faster.
You can still get tackled, should it be a Rapier, a small flock of Interceptors or just raw fire.
Yet, even with the no-sig bloom etc, AB is underwhelming. If it had a bit of a speed-reduction resistance, that could help a bit. Say have some skill determine the bonus. Of course, a Rapier and other anti-frigate platforms should be able to kill these.
The other idea was to implement a seperate afterburner sort of propulsion that either consumes PI-goods or simply cap, giving you the bonus of some webbing resilience. Likewise, a new webber with different specs could be interesting too.
In simple words, have the AB apply a "limit" so that speed reduction does not fall under some ~80%. You'll be slow but cannot ridiculously slowed down. You're not "that fast" with an AB really unless you're actually in a light vessel or such, so webbing is not obsolete. Plus MWD would still be king as you'd be much faster with it.
That's all I can figure out. I just find that there is no need to worry all too much about a counter as one can play with that web-resistance value.
confirthisposmed
I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:31:00 -
[924] - Quote
Also it doesn't help that rapiers webs and arazu's scramble range get such long range as they do. the rapiers webs can go as far as 100km quite easily using faction OH and links.
|
Randy Wray
BLOOM. Verge of Collapse
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:45:00 -
[925] - Quote
AB is pretty fine IMO just gotta know how to use it. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
119
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:47:00 -
[926] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:...I would like to see AB's get some form of a buff because right now they're pretty underwhelming. Been thinking the same, but not in the traditional buff sense more in the vein of "recommended" usage pattern .. adding some additional deliberations to the AB/MWD choice (not all at once mind you, just examples): - Partial eWar immunity. Especially valuable when/if TDs become anti-missile and eWar in general is buffed/rebalanced. - Local/Remote rep amount modifier. - Weapon tracking/explosion radius bonus. - More agility, better inertia. - Etc. Basically apply one or more to one drive type and the opposite (or near) to the other drive type. That way DP fits primarily get the current benefit of always being able to be at speed while 'pure-breds' get something different yet beneficial to their operation. Example (numbers irrelevant, its the concep/idea): - AB gets local/remote rep bonus of 50% applied to it eWar affects it 20% more severely than normal. * AB fits are often reliant on local/remote for survival and due to close quarter fighting not as hard hit by 'ranged' eWar, potentially crippled by correctly used tracking script TD but can be mitigated by the clever pilot. - MWD is affected 25% less by eWar but overall powerdrain reduces any repair by 40%. * MWD fits are most often pure buffer tanks. Adding an AB (DP) will increase active repair slightly at expense of mass-fitting, partial eWar immunity gives them a slight protection against the soft measures most frewuently used to foil their plans.
Sounds nice, but I think it would narrow their usage too much instead of opening more options.
The minimum speed thing sounds better, however the bonus can't be too high, otherwise you gimp a lot of valid situations where web is used against ABs (especially in frig battles). |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
644
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 22:14:00 -
[927] - Quote
Sorry if this was asked and answered already. But are these ships going to make faction cruisers even more obsolete than they already are?
Will there be a buff to the faction cruisers? If so when? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1123
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 23:43:00 -
[928] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Sorry if this was asked and answered already. But are these ships going to make faction cruisers even more obsolete than they already are?
Will there be a buff to the faction cruisers? If so when?
faction and T2 stuff will be balanced some time later. I agree with you that balancing faction variants which are direct improvements to T1 variants at the same time would make sense, but that is not how CCP decided to do it. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Deena Amaj
Community for Justice Paradox Trust
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 05:21:00 -
[929] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Also it doesn't help that rapiers webs and arazu's scramble range get such long range as they do. the rapiers webs can go as far as 100km quite easily using faction OH and links.
Then it shouldn't be a problem to have some AB love patch. Not everybody uses a AB either.
Quote:AB is pretty fine IMO just gotta know how to use it.
This could probably backfire, but I don't see if that is quite true. MWD requires somewhere more skill since you have to know when to turn it on, how long, etc. AB only needs to be turn on and it works. But it is not that rewarding either as it may seem - and people already mentioned the flaws.
I just find AB should at least assure one of flying some 60% regardless of how many trillions of webber-stacks one has. confirthisposmed
I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
238
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 09:42:00 -
[930] - Quote
I'm starting to like the idea of web resistant afterburners. It would actually mean people would start to choose AB's over MWD's.
Also; what if a web resistant AB used more cap if it was being webbed as a drawback to the buff? For example whilst a ship is webbed with one web the AB would cost 25% more cap per cycle. 2 webs 50% more cap per cycle etc etc |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |