EVE Search - Reduce Thoraxes bay to 100m3


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Ante	Posted - 2005.08.22 21:49:00 - [1] Originally by: Eyeshadow Rax bay gets nerfed to 100m3. It gets 100 grid increase and 40 CPU base. This should allow it to squeeze on a rack of ions with a mwd and a light tank, the way a blaster boat should. Deimos should then get a slight increase in speed (by 10/15 m/s) OR a slight reduction in mass (10/15%). It would be nice to give it a little extra grid so it could fit a mix of neuts and ions but this may make it totally uber in the DPS stakes You suggesting that the thorax be given more grid and cpu but not the deimos?
Ante	Posted - 2005.08.24 02:53:00 - [2] I don't use drones so this may seem fairly outrageous however I'd like you all to take a step back and take a look at this suggestion: 8 heavy drones can pump out 200 dps - this was shown earlier in the thread. A Cerberus (for those that have looked into it) will do on average, with good skills, ~250 dps. It seems to me a bit silly that drones can pump out comparative damage to any ship much less a heavy assault cruiser. Perhaps rather than nerfing the thorax, perhaps nerf drones? Their dps seems waaaay to high to somebody that doesn't use drones.
Ante DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2005.08.24 02:53:00 - [3] I don't use drones so this may seem fairly outrageous however I'd like you all to take a step back and take a look at this suggestion: 8 heavy drones can pump out 200 dps - this was shown earlier in the thread. A Cerberus (for those that have looked into it) will do on average, with good skills, ~250 dps. It seems to me a bit silly that drones can pump out comparative damage to any ship much less a heavy assault cruiser. Perhaps rather than nerfing the thorax, perhaps nerf drones? Their dps seems waaaay to high to somebody that doesn't use drones.
Ante	Posted - 2005.08.24 03:04:00 - [4] Edited by: Ante on 24/08/2005 03:06:13 Originally by: Fidelis Deus A cerebus can pump out the same damage at an extreme range and be able to run when the going gets tought. The Thorax is only able to pump out that damage at extreme close range. I agree perfectly with the person two posts above me - that the thorax is what all cruisers should be, a capable combat vessel that is deadly in skilled hands. My point is that the Cerberus doesn't have another cruiser right next to it's target hammering it. It seems to me that if a pilot wanted to change their primary weapon (blasters) into secondary weapons, and their secondary weapon (drones) into primary weapons, there should be a penalty in efficiency not a huge increase. Something is definitely wrong there but I don't agree with changing the thorax. It is unique because of it's large drone bay and I'd prefer it stayed that way. EDIT: Added the quote to maintain order... the post above me wasn't there when I started typing this out
Ante DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2005.08.24 03:04:00 - [5] Edited by: Ante on 24/08/2005 03:06:13 Originally by: Fidelis Deus A cerebus can pump out the same damage at an extreme range and be able to run when the going gets tought. The Thorax is only able to pump out that damage at extreme close range. I agree perfectly with the person two posts above me - that the thorax is what all cruisers should be, a capable combat vessel that is deadly in skilled hands. My point is that the Cerberus doesn't have another cruiser right next to it's target hammering it. It seems to me that if a pilot wanted to change their primary weapon (blasters) into secondary weapons, and their secondary weapon (drones) into primary weapons, there should be a penalty in efficiency not a huge increase. Something is definitely wrong there but I don't agree with changing the thorax. It is unique because of it's large drone bay and I'd prefer it stayed that way. EDIT: Added the quote to maintain order... the post above me wasn't there when I started typing this out
Ante	Posted - 2005.08.24 06:33:00 - [6] Originally by: j0sephine Uhmm... * light electron blaster, skills maxed, no ship bonus: 13.84 dps * heavy electron blaster, skills maxed, Thorax bonus: 23.33 dps if ~70% more damage is 'little advantage' then it's kinda scary to think what a 'fair advantage' would be... :/ People generally complain about hybrid turrets lacking in general so feel free to apply this across the board: light electron blaster: 4 power grid requirement heavy electron blaster: 100 power grid requirement That 70% damage increase is suddenly devalued when you consider the plethora of fitting options (read: battleship plate) opened up to a thorax pilot, shockingly, because they can still do a huge amount of damage through drones. The damage increase is not worth the huge power grid requirement. As a side point it's interesting that Caldari cruiser weapons only use 100 grid all 'round when the weakest cruiser blaster uses the same and has ~1/50th the range for totallynotworthit damage.
Ante DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2005.08.24 06:33:00 - [7] Originally by: j0sephine Uhmm... * light electron blaster, skills maxed, no ship bonus: 13.84 dps * heavy electron blaster, skills maxed, Thorax bonus: 23.33 dps if ~70% more damage is 'little advantage' then it's kinda scary to think what a 'fair advantage' would be... :/ People generally complain about hybrid turrets lacking in general so feel free to apply this across the board: light electron blaster: 4 power grid requirement heavy electron blaster: 100 power grid requirement That 70% damage increase is suddenly devalued when you consider the plethora of fitting options (read: battleship plate) opened up to a thorax pilot, shockingly, because they can still do a huge amount of damage through drones. The damage increase is not worth the huge power grid requirement. As a side point it's interesting that Caldari cruiser weapons only use 100 grid all 'round when the weakest cruiser blaster uses the same and has ~1/50th the range for totallynotworthit damage.
Ante	Posted - 2005.08.24 18:30:00 - [8] Edited by: Ante on 24/08/2005 18:30:55 Edited by: Ante on 24/08/2005 18:30:28 Originally by: j0sephine "light electron blaster: 4 power grid requirement heavy electron blaster: 100 power grid requirement That 70% damage increase is suddenly devalued when you consider the plethora of fitting options (read: battleship plate) opened up to a thorax pilot, shockingly, because they can still do a huge amount of damage through drones." Congratulations, you summed up everything that's wrong with a Thorax in a single sentence -- that is, the ability to mount battleship sized defense and still do huge amount of damage... like no other cruiser.. That was my intention. I'm not for a thorax nerf however. Quote: "The damage increase is not worth the huge power grid requirement." How much damage would be worth that grid increase then? 100%... 200%... 500%? more that that, even..? The grid increase would have to be worth enough to make blasters + plate + drones < medium blasters. At the moment it just isn't happening yet I don't think the plate is to blame (all cruisers can fit it so it's not unique) and neither is the size of the drone bay. IMO medium blasters seems to use a silly amount of grid despite the very average dps. Could do with a grid reduction perhaps ... ? Meanwhile... the drones are capable of doing dps equal to a HAC (Cerberus) which to me seems to be the problem. The drones are doing too much damage yet I'm for a reduction in the damage of drones not a reduction in the number of drones. Quote: "As a side point it's interesting that Caldari cruiser weapons only use 100 grid all 'round when the weakest cruiser blaster uses the same and has ~1/50th the range for totallynotworthit damage." Caldari cruiser weapons do also ~40% less damage than cruiser turrets. If they costed as much grid as other turrets with this kind of sh.tty performance, you'd likely have either bbq party at CCP headquarters or no one would be using them... My point exactly. I'm Caldari so it's in my best interests not to be 40% weaker than the other races. Boost heavy missiles ... ? EDIT: Broken tags.
Ante DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2005.08.24 18:30:00 - [9] Edited by: Ante on 24/08/2005 18:30:55 Edited by: Ante on 24/08/2005 18:30:28 Originally by: j0sephine "light electron blaster: 4 power grid requirement heavy electron blaster: 100 power grid requirement That 70% damage increase is suddenly devalued when you consider the plethora of fitting options (read: battleship plate) opened up to a thorax pilot, shockingly, because they can still do a huge amount of damage through drones." Congratulations, you summed up everything that's wrong with a Thorax in a single sentence -- that is, the ability to mount battleship sized defense and still do huge amount of damage... like no other cruiser.. That was my intention. I'm not for a thorax nerf however. Quote: "The damage increase is not worth the huge power grid requirement." How much damage would be worth that grid increase then? 100%... 200%... 500%? more that that, even..? The grid increase would have to be worth enough to make blasters + plate + drones < medium blasters. At the moment it just isn't happening yet I don't think the plate is to blame (all cruisers can fit it so it's not unique) and neither is the size of the drone bay. IMO medium blasters seems to use a silly amount of grid despite the very average dps. Could do with a grid reduction perhaps ... ? Meanwhile... the drones are capable of doing dps equal to a HAC (Cerberus) which to me seems to be the problem. The drones are doing too much damage yet I'm for a reduction in the damage of drones not a reduction in the number of drones. Quote: "As a side point it's interesting that Caldari cruiser weapons only use 100 grid all 'round when the weakest cruiser blaster uses the same and has ~1/50th the range for totallynotworthit damage." Caldari cruiser weapons do also ~40% less damage than cruiser turrets. If they costed as much grid as other turrets with this kind of sh.tty performance, you'd likely have either bbq party at CCP headquarters or no one would be using them... My point exactly. I'm Caldari so it's in my best interests not to be 40% weaker than the other races. Boost heavy missiles ... ? EDIT: Broken tags.
Ante	Posted - 2005.08.24 19:30:00 - [10] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: Ante Meanwhile... the drones are capable of doing dps equal to a HAC (Cerberus) which to me seems to be the problem. The drones are doing too much damage yet I'm for a reduction in the damage of drones not a reduction in the number of drones. I am not playing dumb, but i do not understand why. Reduction of damage, but no reduction of number, would be just downgrading the size of drones: 10 mediums instead of 8 heavies ? This is exactly, more drones, but less damage. Mediums are faster, track better, are more difficult to destroy with big guns/missiles. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. What about reducing the damage dealt by drones? With weapons of destruction like blasters how would it even be possible for drones to out-do them? Drones seem to me to be too powerful comparatively with the thorax being a great example of it. Originally by: j0sephine "IMO medium blasters seems to use a silly amount of grid despite the very average dps. Could do with a grid reduction perhaps ... ?" ... "very average dps" compared to what other medium weapon? o.O; come on, this is really playing down things bit too much... the 'smallest' medium blasters outdamage the longer range weapons by some 40-60% ... and do 2-2.5x the damage of medium missiles. About the only thing that comes close to them in performance is the autocannons. Which is overall okay, means the blastership can be taken quite a bit in the armour on the approach and still stands the fair chance of winning if it gets the other guy within fire range by then... that's with guns alone. Drones added on top of it make it so one sided it's not even funny. o.O; My point was that blasters are designed to wreck havoc, have huge grid requirements suitable for their damage, yet no cruisers can fit them properly because of low grid. Compare this to an Omen for example which has almost the same grid output yet has one less turret to use. With one extra turret perhaps the thorax (with the deimos following suit) should get an extra 200 grid? That would certainly make blasters a lot more enticing. Quote: (if there's one thing that's pretty odd in overall picture, it's the fitting requirements of autocannons across the board... pretty light in comparison to blasters, use way less cap if at all, can mix damage types and the performance is pretty close to what the blasters can do. I suppose one could argue blasters should get tiny grid reduction while autocannons might use very tiny increase of the grid they need. I said 'tiny', mind you -.o Can't say I've put much thought into autocannons, but I like the idea of a grid reduction for blasters.

Ante DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2005.08.24 19:30:00 - [11] Originally by: Naughty Boy Originally by: Ante Meanwhile... the drones are capable of doing dps equal to a HAC (Cerberus) which to me seems to be the problem. The drones are doing too much damage yet I'm for a reduction in the damage of drones not a reduction in the number of drones. I am not playing dumb, but i do not understand why. Reduction of damage, but no reduction of number, would be just downgrading the size of drones: 10 mediums instead of 8 heavies ? This is exactly, more drones, but less damage. Mediums are faster, track better, are more difficult to destroy with big guns/missiles. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. What about reducing the damage dealt by drones? With weapons of destruction like blasters how would it even be possible for drones to out-do them? Drones seem to me to be too powerful comparatively with the thorax being a great example of it. Originally by: j0sephine "IMO medium blasters seems to use a silly amount of grid despite the very average dps. Could do with a grid reduction perhaps ... ?" ... "very average dps" compared to what other medium weapon? o.O; come on, this is really playing down things bit too much... the 'smallest' medium blasters outdamage the longer range weapons by some 40-60% ... and do 2-2.5x the damage of medium missiles. About the only thing that comes close to them in performance is the autocannons. Which is overall okay, means the blastership can be taken quite a bit in the armour on the approach and still stands the fair chance of winning if it gets the other guy within fire range by then... that's with guns alone. Drones added on top of it make it so one sided it's not even funny. o.O; My point was that blasters are designed to wreck havoc, have huge grid requirements suitable for their damage, yet no cruisers can fit them properly because of low grid. Compare this to an Omen for example which has almost the same grid output yet has one less turret to use. With one extra turret perhaps the thorax (with the deimos following suit) should get an extra 200 grid? That would certainly make blasters a lot more enticing. Quote: (if there's one thing that's pretty odd in overall picture, it's the fitting requirements of autocannons across the board... pretty light in comparison to blasters, use way less cap if at all, can mix damage types and the performance is pretty close to what the blasters can do. I suppose one could argue blasters should get tiny grid reduction while autocannons might use very tiny increase of the grid they need. I said 'tiny', mind you -.o Can't say I've put much thought into autocannons, but I like the idea of a grid reduction for blasters.

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.