Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
228
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 14:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
velicitia wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:[Abaddon, BIG] Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II
X-Large Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
6x2500mm Heavy Gallium Repeating Cannon, EMP XL [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I nice. Though, I would imagine you get better DPS from 8x lazors... I'm pretty sure you'd get more DPS with 2x lazors. Or a flight of Valkyries. Either one by itself. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
344
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 10:46:00 -
[32] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:velicitia wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:[Abaddon, BIG] Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II Reactor Control Unit II
X-Large Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
6x2500mm Heavy Gallium Repeating Cannon, EMP XL [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I nice. Though, I would imagine you get better DPS from 8x lazors... I'm pretty sure you'd get more DPS with 2x lazors. Or a flight of Valkyries. Either one by itself.
But thats no fun!
EDIT: Wait a second, where the hell did you get this from because i havent posted in this thread before. |
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote: ... snip ...
But thats no fun!
EDIT: Wait a second, where the hell did you get this from because i havent posted in this thread before.
I included a link to that thread in my top post. :)
I thought it was relevant from a POS/Anti-POS discussion, since it shows that it is POSSIBLE to mount a Capital weapon already, but the damage output, without being able to engage a Siege module meant it was pretty pointless from the DPS perspective. Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
CraftyCroc
Gunpoint Diplomacy
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 02:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
i think a new class of BS would be EPIC
mini dreads you say????
YES.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
230
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 15:38:00 -
[35] - Quote
JP Nakamura wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:EDIT: Wait a second, where the hell did you get this from because i havent posted in this thread before. I included a link to that thread in my top post. :) I thought it was relevant from a POS/Anti-POS discussion I was going to post it in that thread, but it was locked so I posted it here. Hope you don't mind. I just like to put things in perspective so we don't have noobs wandering around saying "oh ya well I know a guy who puts cap weapons on his abaddon and sieges POSes!!" -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:03:00 -
[36] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:EDIT: Wait a second, where the hell did you get this from because i havent posted in this thread before. I included a link to that thread in my top post. :) I thought it was relevant from a POS/Anti-POS discussion I was going to post it in that thread, but it was locked so I posted it here. Hope you don't mind. I just like to put things in perspective so we don't have noobs wandering around saying "oh ya well I know a guy who puts cap weapons on his abaddon and sieges POSes!!"
I felt the same way. If that thread hadn't been locked, I probably would have brought up this idea there, but since it was, I fleshed out my idea a bit more and presented it in a new thread.
I certainly don't mind you posting here, since I think its a relevant part of the discussion (or else I wouldn't have posted the link to the other closed thread).
My fear was that as soon as I proposed the idea of a BS mounting Cap weapons someone would say "Well sure, you can do it now. /thread closed", and link a fit like that one. As you so rightly pointed out, the DPS from a Cap weapon on a BS is a joke. Without being able to either utilize a siege module, or have some Role bonus tied to mounting the Cap Weapon that mimicked a siege module, it is good for a few laughs, but thats about it.
As far as my goal of: - a POS bashing focussed BS - trades off the Tank of a Dreadnought for a fraction of a Dreadnoughts DPS - can still out-DPS a BS vs a POS but with the poor tracking and scan resolution of Cap weapons to mean in BS vs BS pew pew it'd be in trouble (unless escorted) - can go places current Dreads can't (High-Sec, Wormhole space)
But that thread and some of the comments were very relevant to getting the discussion going. Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
230
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:09:00 -
[37] - Quote
JP Nakamura wrote:I certainly don't mind you posting here, since I think its a relevant part of the discussion (or else I wouldn't have posted the link to the other closed thread). I was actually asking if Nalha Saldana minded :P -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:37:00 -
[38] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:I certainly don't mind you posting here, since I think its a relevant part of the discussion (or else I wouldn't have posted the link to the other closed thread). I was actually asking if Nalha Saldana minded :P
Ah ... well ... then ... "never mind" Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
431
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
JP Nakamura wrote:
I've seen quite a few Large POSes that are completely defenseless in high-sec with lots of shield hardeners.
We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS. |
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 16:24:00 -
[40] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:
I've seen quite a few Large POSes that are completely defenseless in high-sec with lots of shield hardeners.
We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS.
I don't mind that you picked out a small part of my Argument in favor of a short reply, but you seem to have left out the "Because" part of your Reply. I don't mind disagreeing viewpoints (and in fact encourage them, the give and take of opinions is part of how ideas get fleshed out), but without giving the reasoning behind your expression it becomes impossible for someone who disagrees with your position to understand why you reached it and either:
a) agree to disagree or b) agree with your argument and change their belief
Absent that, the only thing left is to reply with "N'uh uh" and let these sort of discussions turn into Kindergarden Recess (see: most AFK Cloaking Threads for instance). Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
|
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 15:40:00 -
[41] - Quote
Wondering if anyone had anything else to add, or other thoughts to throw in? Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:06:00 -
[42] - Quote
JP Nakamura wrote:Gypsio III wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:
I've seen quite a few Large POSes that are completely defenseless in high-sec with lots of shield hardeners.
We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS. I don't mind that you picked out a small part of my Argument in favor of a short reply, but you seem to have left out the "Because" part of your Reply.
We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS because defenceless POS are defenceless and can already be destroyed by (almost) any ship.
Is that better?
Ultimately you're complaining that these defenceless POS don't die quickly enough - which is essentially a reflection of laziness. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
230
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 03:26:00 -
[43] - Quote
I think the pocket dreadnought idea is great because it opens up so many nullsec pvp options. If it also gets used to siege highsec POSes, so be it. If it gets used to siege low-class WH system POSes, so be it. They'll just have to put more thought into their POS setup and defense if they have it in a danger zone. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
GizzyBoy
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 06:08:00 -
[44] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:Gypsio III wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:
I've seen quite a few Large POSes that are completely defenseless in high-sec with lots of shield hardeners.
We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS. I don't mind that you picked out a small part of my Argument in favor of a short reply, but you seem to have left out the "Because" part of your Reply. We don't need a new ship to destroy defenceless POS because defenceless POS are defenceless and can already be destroyed by (almost) any ship. Is that better? Ultimately you're complaining that these defenceless POS don't die quickly enough - which is essentially a reflection of laziness.
I agree with Gypso. what people are complaing about is lack of small gang warfare and the fight against blobs, and this ship is essentially going to work better in a blob, and basically WILL aggravate the situation.
it could and would be used against dreads and other capitals in siege mode. but with benefit of smaller sig and would be somewhat immune to fb's |
Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics Outer-Haven
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 06:38:00 -
[45] - Quote
Respectfully, -1.
GizzyBoy wrote: I agree with Gypso. what people are complaing about is lack of small gang warfare and the fight against blobs, and this ship is essentially going to work better in a blob, and basically WILL aggravate the situation.
it could and would be used against dreads and other capitals in siege mode. but with benefit of smaller sig and would be somewhat immune to fb's
I would love to see an intermediate step (something between a fleet BS and Dreads, but introducing one just to bash high-sec POS's seems like a lot of dev resources funneled into a problem that already has a solution.
As much as I like the idea of a mini-dread, Gypso/Grizzy boy are correct. Better game play means moving away from the blob fights. |
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 06:54:00 -
[46] - Quote
Having a specific type of blob that can counter another type of blob (capital blob) will make it so a blob is not only counterable by blobs. If my 500 pocket dreads and fight your 30 supers then surely a blob wont be a Iwin based solely on numbers. This would help push the trend away from bigger blobs IMO.
Also for regular subcap blobs just make bombers more powerful versus large groups of targets and less powerful versus small groups of targets. (but lets not talk about that here) |
Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics Outer-Haven
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 09:40:00 -
[47] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Having a specific type of blob that can counter another type of blob (capital blob) will make it so a blob is not only counterable by blobs. If my 500 pocket dreads and fight your 30 supers then surely a blob wont be a Iwin based solely on numbers. This would help push the trend away from bigger blobs IMO.
Absolutely, but this ship we are talking about is able to access high sec, where itGÇÖll be the biggest hammer out there. My concern lies there.
If it was a cap ship limited to low/null-sec, and thus able to supplement a big fleet op GǪ I think it would be a brilliant ship. Something that is small, fairly fast and considerably cheaper to get a poorer pilot into AND WELL BALANCED ... how could it be a bad thing? We already have a heavy and light carrier, why not the same for a dread?
|
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 16:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
Beta Miner wrote:Commander Ted wrote:Having a specific type of blob that can counter another type of blob (capital blob) will make it so a blob is not only counterable by blobs. If my 500 pocket dreads and fight your 30 supers then surely a blob wont be a Iwin based solely on numbers. This would help push the trend away from bigger blobs IMO.
Absolutely, but this ship we are talking about is able to access high sec, where itGÇÖll be the biggest hammer out there. My concern lies there. If it was a cap ship limited to low/null-sec, and thus able to supplement a big fleet op GǪ I think it would be a brilliant ship. Something that is small, fairly fast and considerably cheaper to get a poorer pilot into AND WELL BALANCED ... how could it be a bad thing? We already have a heavy and light carrier, why not the same for a dread?
Okay, so you're in favor of the ship idea, but feel it should be restricted to Low Sec/Null Sec?
I can understand the argument against keeping it out of High-Sec (and might even agree with it to some degree).
How about wormholes? Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1198
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 17:28:00 -
[49] - Quote
JP Nakamura wrote:...... Contrary to your belief, the numbers were not "pulled out of my rear end", they were pulled out of a POS fitter. I'm happily ready to admit they are off base, if they are. The numbers I was working with were an Amarr Large POS w/40m Shield, 10m Armor, 8m Structure and base resists of 0%/0%/25%/50% shield, 0%/0%/0%/0% armor, 99%/99%/99%/99% structure. Shield regen is 500 HP/s. Against Amarr weaponry the fitter is showing 851.5m EHP. ....... There's the problem. First, you only need to get the shields down to 25% to get it into reinforced. That's 75% of 40 million HP plus the shield resists. That will go much faster than you have been assuming, about 10 times faster. Next that 99% structure resist goes away once you get the stront used up. Generally, an undefended POS whats just come out of reinforced will pop in less time than it took to reinforce it in the first place. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Solutio Letum
Lost Dawn Chaos Stealth Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 18:06:00 -
[50] - Quote
problem is that if the only use is to pop structures in highsec it sounds silly.... maybe onece dust comes out its gonna be cool to add thing, to pop structures in dust highsec |
|
Alex Grison
Grison Interstellar
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 21:17:00 -
[51] - Quote
You are very right about the risk/reward balance.
There is not alot of risk in a hisec POS.
But there isn't alot of reward either |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
235
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 07:38:00 -
[52] - Quote
Solutio Letum wrote:problem is that if the only use is to pop structures in highsec it sounds silly.... maybe onece dust comes out its gonna be cool to add thing, to pop structures in dust highsec I doubt it would be used much at all in highsec. Where it really shines is as mobile DPS, and only against targets that themselves aren't very mobile. So aside from shooting war targets' POSes, pretty much the only time you'll see them in highsec is moving them across it to get to other parts of nullsec.
In nullsec, mobility is key. This ship would be very popular, perhaps a must-have in any POS-bash fleet. People would keep them on hand for system defense against hot-drops. And I'm sure they'd find plenty of uses for these that I don't see.
Alex Grison wrote:You are very right about the risk/reward balance.
There is not alot of risk in a hisec POS.
But there isn't alot of reward either If the risks went up, the rewards might go up too. Sometimes when supply is slightly higher than demand (due to maximum supply being easy to achieve), it can cause a catastrophic price crash in which market sale competition wins out and nobody is willing to pay much for the stuff because they know they can get it for cheap. But if you cut back supply just a bit, sometimes that's enough to yank the prices back up and make the industry profitable again.
If high-sec moon materials could only be farmed in a reasonable amount of danger and the POS had to be defended against vulture alliances trying to steal the moon, then you wouldn't have any scrub POS owners farming the resources. That means a higher minimum input cost for obtaining the materials, which drives the price up on its own. Then the price goes up even further as the profit margin expands to make room for losses incurred. Once you have a larger price margin, it is easier to take advantage of, and the people who run the business well will be able to get spacerich off of it. Economics 101. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
JP Nakamura
Union of Intergalactic Miners and Nano Assemblers
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 13:44:00 -
[53] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:JP Nakamura wrote:...... Contrary to your belief, the numbers were not "pulled out of my rear end", they were pulled out of a POS fitter. I'm happily ready to admit they are off base, if they are. The numbers I was working with were an Amarr Large POS w/40m Shield, 10m Armor, 8m Structure and base resists of 0%/0%/25%/50% shield, 0%/0%/0%/0% armor, 99%/99%/99%/99% structure. Shield regen is 500 HP/s. Against Amarr weaponry the fitter is showing 851.5m EHP. ....... There's the problem. First, you only need to get the shields down to 25% to get it into reinforced. That's 75% of 40 million HP plus the shield resists. That will go much faster than you have been assuming, about 10 times faster. Next that 99% structure resist goes away once you get the stront used up. Generally, an undefended POS whats just come out of reinforced will pop in less time than it took to reinforce it in the first place.
Thanks for the reply and explaining that part of it. It certainly does sound more feasible.
That said, I think there may still be a place for this hull type, possibly as a T2 BS, although if the POS revamp is really as close to happening as CCP have hinted at, then it would really make sense to do that first (or at least concurrently). Please Read & Comment ( good / bad / or ugly ): Anti-POS ship class idea - (Tier 3/T2) BattleShip / Pocket Dreadnought |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |