| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
   |
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Foozie, can you provide any details concerning the thoughts about what the changes to the e.g. the drake may when you get to that. I know there are other missile ships as well, but here I will focus on the drake.
I think (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of the discussion in this thread is based on the fact that it is not clear what the end effect on e.g. the drake will be, i.e. missile changes + drake changes.
Since the drake is so widely used it is clear that a lot of people will be affected and that they have an opinion about the proposed change.
Speaking strictly from a PVE perspective (I do not have any PVP experience to make a judgment here) the drake is a good ship for missions as a missile ship because it has adequate firepower (not great) to destroy the NPCs while tanking the incoming damage. For me the ship and heavy missiles were also convenient because it had a nice range so I did not have to move too much around since the drake is rather slow, at least for the fit I used (my focus was on tank rather than damage, but I guess this is a matter of playing style). For new players it is also nice ship because it is easy to get into so you can start running level 3 missions and earning isk.
Since I guess the overall issue with the drake is its firepower combined with its tanking ability I guess you have to take both into account in order to estimate the overall effect.
In general, I feel that the suggested changes affect missile ships too harshly, especially the damage reduction (I can somewhat understand the range reduction), but without knowing the changes to the ships it is difficult to estimate the end effect on the ships (not just the drake).
Getting back to the drake, will there be ways to offset the damage reduction, e.g. by adding an 8th launcher thereby sacrificing some grid and cpu which may have been used for e.g. tank. What is the likelihood that the resistance bonus will be removed, again forcing the player to make tradeoffs in terms of tank and damage?
I think that knowing the direction of the changes to the ships could provide a clearer picture of the heavy missile changes, and ideally since the heavy missiles are so widely used on drake I think the changes to the heavy missiles should be used at the same time as the changes to the bcs, including the drake.
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Some stats:
I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth.
Eve Kill Top 20
Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012
Date of extraction. 07.10.2012
Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
Ships:
RankShipsKillsRace*Type*
1Zealot 37.900 AmarrGun
2Drake 18.835 CaldariMissile
3Naga 12.417 CaldariGun
4Hurricane 12.164 MinmatarGun
5Loki 9.886 MinmatarGun
6Tornado 9.236 MinmatarGun
7Tengu 8.362 CaldariMissile
8Apocalypse Navy Issue 6.915 AmarrGun
9Stabber Fleet Issue 5.923 MinmatarGun
10Maelstrom 5.402 MinmatarGun
11Thrasher 4.684 MinmatarGun
12Huginn 4.671 MinmatarGun
13Sabre 4.670 MinmatarGun
14Rokh 4.467 CaldariGun
15Oracle 4.371 AmarrGun
16Apocalypse 4.163 AmarrGun
17Talos 4.109 GallenteGun
18Legion 3.890 AmarrGun
19Cynabal 3.851 MinmatarGun
20Proteus 3.519 GallenteGun
169.435
* my assumptions.
Analysis:
GunMissileTotal
Amarr 57.239 - 57.239
Caldari 16.884 27.197 44.081
Minmatar 60.487 - 60.487
Gallente 7.628 - 7.628
Total 142.238 27.197 169.435
GunMissileTotal
Amarr34%0%34%
Caldari10%16%26%
Minmatar36%0%36%
Gallente5%0%5%
Total84%16%100%
In category
1Minmatar, gun36%
2Amarr, gun34%
3Caldari missile16%
Overall
1Minmatar36%
2Amarr34%
3Caldari26%
Weapons:
RankWeaponsKillsType*Size*
1Heavy Pulse Laser II 9.517 LaserMedium
2Heavy Missile Launcher II 8.854 MissileMedium
3425mm AutoCannon II 5.984 ProjectileMedium
4Mega Pulse Laser II 5.280 LaserLarge
5200mm AutoCannon II 3.947 ProjectileSmall
6220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 3.513 ProjectileMedium
7425mm Railgun II 3.370 HybridLarge
8150mm Light AutoCannon II 3.323 ProjectileSmall
9125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 3.163 ProjectileSmall
10720mm Howitzer Artillery II 3.023 ProjectileMedium
11Light Neutron Blaster II 2.424 HybridSmall
12Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher 2.400 MissileLarge
13Neutron Blaster Cannon II 2.318 HybridLarge
141400mm Howitzer Artillery II 2.219 ProjectileLarge
15800mm Repeating Artillery II 1.560 ProjectileLarge
16Light Ion Blaster II 1.426 HybridSmall
17Heavy Neutron Blaster II 1.382 HybridMedium
18Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 1.279 ProjectileMedium
19Medium Pulse Laser II 1.114 LaserSmall
20250mm Light Artillery Cannon II 1.103 ProjectileSmall
67.199
* my assumptions.
Analysis:
SmallMediumLargeTotal
Laser 1.114 9.517 5.280 15.911
Missile - 8.854 2.400 11.254
Projectile 11.536 13.799 3.779 29.114
Hybrid 3.850 1.382 5.688 10.920
Total 16.500 33.552 17.147 67.199
SmallMediumLargeTotal
Laser2%14%8%24%
Missile0%13%4%17%
Projectile17%21%6%43%
Hybrid6%2%8%16%
Total25%50%26%100%
In category
1Projectile, medium21%
2Projectile, small17%
3Laser, medium14%
Overall
1Projectile43%
2Laser24%
3Missile17% |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hi
Earlier in this thread there were some discussions related to the statistics from EVE Kill about the most used weapon systems, including heavy missiles compared to other weapon systems as well as drakes/tengus compared to other ships.
I was just curious about what a more in depth analysis of the results would show.
This is just a general analysis of the data from EVE Kill, not a specific analysis of the medium long range weapon systems.
If you cannot use the data, just ignore them.
Addition: I just presented the data, how you want to use them is entirely up to you  |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Please note that the "Ship" list and the "Weapon" list are two separate lists with no direct link. SO do not assume a direct link.
As noted, the data was copied from the EVE Kill Top 20 web page, and I am not 100% sure how they extract the data. Again, the data do also not tell the entire truth only a part of it.
Please note that the number of is taken from EVE Kill, whereas my assumptions can always be discussed and you are right that these may be wrong. It was just what made sense to me.
In ships I took what I thought was most logical (you have ships with split weapon systems which I counted as guns). I assumed that Drake and Tengu were the only ships in the list dedicated to missiles. This may not be entirely true for the Tengu since it can fit guns.
With respect to weapons, I did not split it into short range vs. long range (which I could have done). I just used the rough size classification of the weapons from EVE.
I just wanted to present the data. I have tried to show for right or wrong how I got to the result. You may disagree, fair enough, I am OK with that. Anyway use them as you see fit. Or ignore them. That is entirely up to you.
And remember the graduation of lying: Lying, more lying, satistics - depending on ones intentions/perspective you can almost always prove anything with statistics :D. SO always be critical of presented statistics. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 13:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
@Lili Lu
As for the statistics. You are of course correct that period of reference is too short for the data to be representative. I thought I had indicated that in the post, but obviously not. So point taken.
As for GÇ£drake apologistGÇ¥. True I like both the drake and the tengu. However, that is not to say that they should not be changed to be more in line with other similar ships, as long as it is done in a balanced way. Personally, I think the second proposal is better than the first, but it is not necessarily perfect. I hope that in the end (after balancing of the ships themselves) the overall performance of the drake and tengu will be at the same general level as other similar ships (not worse or better), and the missile changes are just the first step.
In the end CCP that will do the balance (presumably based on posts in this mega-thread) and we will have to live with it whether we like it or not. As players we need to adjust to these changes either by cross training skills, adjusting fits etc. This has not been the first time and will probably not be the last. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 14:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Just a few (UTOPIAN) thoughts on em resistance and shields.
To me it would only seem logical that the Caldari (more or less specializing in/relying on shields on the majority of their ships) would have found a way no close the em hole in the shields.
The logic is that if the Minmatar can do it like they have on the T2 ships, then the Caldari should also be able to do it. And the Minmatar is not even specializing in shields to the same extent as the Caldari since Minmatar has both shield tanked and armor tanked ships.
I know that the T2 resists are based on countering the damage of the racial enemy, but I think it would still be logical that the Caldari would have found a way to close the em hole in the shields.
Therefore, a general em resist on all Caldari ships (only Caldari) would seem logical to me. Of course, the level of such resists should be fairly balanced.
I know very well that this is probably not going to happen since EVE is not always a game built on logic.
There are probably many who will disagree, but anyway these are just my (UTOPIAN) thoughts.
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 17:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
@Lili Lu
I acknowledge that the T2 resists are based on countering the damage of the racial enemy/opposing faction and that the closing of the em hole in the shields is very unlikely to happen. This was stated in my previous post.
Although this is fully in line with game mechanics / development, I personally just do not think that it is fully logical that a shield based race has not closed the hole in the defense it relies upon most GÇô especially when shield em resist does exist GÇô though granted this is T2 resist. This is just my personal opinion, and it is not likely to change anything.
However, as with everything in eve we just have to live with it and adapt to it if you want to play the game. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 18:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
@Lili Lu
Well the Minmatar probably stole the technology from the Caldari anyway by abducting the Caldari scientists who knew how to make em shield resists work :)
And since they are relying on both armor and shield tanking ships the Minmatar obviously have not found a way to make a standard serial implementation cost efficient enough to their shield tanking ships.
Jokes aside, it is clear that we are of different opinions on this issue, but I am sure that whatever we think CCP is going to choose design the game as they see fit.
Have a nice day :) |
| |
|