Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MrJordanIOI
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:53:00 -
[91]
Ok, all of that is maybe needed- but lets be fair when this goes in CCP
- remove the flat speed reduction on armor plates, the mass slows us down anyhow - make nanofiber plates add 40 % less mass, that way interceptors still have an option for plates - remove or lessen the powergrid prereqs - armor does not need energy and with mass it already impacts on the propulsion systems
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:55:00 -
[92]
Originally by: j0sephine Hmm... you know what's funny? This change as it currently is, appears to effectively kill the oversized afterburner "fix".
Maller with 'current' armour plate: with 10mn mwd: 1.67 km/sec, with 100mn afb: 1.24 km/sec (~440 m/sec difference)
same Maller, with "new" 800mm plate: with 10mn mwd: 1.25 km/sec, with 100mn afb: 1.13 km/sec (~120 m/sec difference)
same Maller, with "new" 1600mm plate: with 10mn mwd: 1.02 km/sec, with 100mn afb: 1.04 km/sec (yes it actually starts to move faster with oversized afb with that kind of mass :s
Now granted, it doesn't seem like there'll be cruisers able to mount 1600mm plate and the oversized afb, but 800mm plate + afb might actually find some takers... seeing how "correct" mwd no longer offers enough speed advantage to offset huge sig penalty, with such setup.
(note: numbers might be well off... were calculated using the propulsion modules formula from the sticky thread)
I can't see it happening tbh, the agility with an 800mm and a 100mn AB is absolutely horrible.
Rax w/ 800mm reinforced rolled tungsten + 10mn microwarpdrive I w/ my skills: (180 * 1.25 * 1.03 * 0.9) * (1 + (5 * 1.2 * 1.03 * 15,000,000/24,500,000)) = 997.75m/s
Just to give you an idea of agility: time to accelerate from 0 m/s to 90% max speed (898 m/s) = ~26 seconds
Rax w/ 800mm reinforced rolled tungsten + 100mn afterburner I w/ my skills: (180 * 1.25 * 1.03 * 0.9) * (1 + (1.05 * 1.2 * 1.03 * 150,000,000/69,500,000)) = 792.80m/s
Time to accelerate from 0 m/s to 90% max speed (714 m/s) = ~82 seconds
Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:57:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 24/09/2005 09:57:39
Originally by: Ithildin 800mm Plate - 1500 powergrid and 3750 armour. Large Shield Extender I - 2800 powergrid (2100 at level 5) and 6000 shield.
What he said. One reason for the need to rework plates is that they are not currently class-specific enough, allowing some ships to get much more armor than others of the same class because they can have/spare more grid. Would the plates be class-specific according to the fitting reqs, oversized plates becomes a thing of the past. You fit a plate of your class, or you don't. Then, an inertia/speed penalty would make much more sense than a mass penalty as it could be ofset by the use of nanofibers. The mass penalty only make sense when fitting oversized plates, which is no longer possible since the class of any plate is well defined by powergrid requirements.
This plate change is a massive nerf to close range ships, hence, a boost to gank-ships. Plates need an overhaul, but other solutions not as extreme could be better than the one currently on sisi.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. ---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 10:09:00 -
[94]
The more I look at it the worse this gets :/
I'm not opposed to nerfing the oversized plates... but Hacs and **** die so fast... you really NEED the extra hp.
|
res0nance
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 10:10:00 -
[95]
Err... why don't they stop nerfing pvp and start nerfing carebears.
Nerf r&d agents.
Nerf wcs.
Nerf wcs.
Nerf wcs.
Sig Master |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 10:16:00 -
[96]
Originally by: res0nance Err... why don't they stop nerfing pvp and start nerfing carebears.
Nerf r&d agents.
Nerf wcs.
Nerf wcs.
Nerf wcs.
i want webs and warp scrams to have optimals and falloff and stuff like other ecm, and warpcores should be like eccm backups.. :\ ------
|
Jorev
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 10:40:00 -
[97]
Cruisers get hit hardest by it. Thorax gets a double whammy.
I think the winner here are the AFs, of all ships.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 10:40:00 -
[98]
Eek overkill, Think everything worth saying has pretty much been said already so I'l just chuck in my two pence in support.
The mass increase on the 200mm for frigates and 800mm for cruisers are both severe overkill, I feel you want to curb usage of the oversized (400 on frigates, 1600 on cruisers) plates that make all other fittings obsolete, without making the ones that are usefull but not a no-brainer useless.
And by all means, if a small/moderate amount of buffage is needed to bring shield extenders up to where they get about as much consideration as plates, by all means do it, just don't overdo it so we end up repeating this in a few months when everyone is using extenders . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Gabby05
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 10:52:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Jorev Cruisers get hit hardest by it. Thorax gets a double whammy.
I think the winner here are the AFs, of all ships.
I knew when people complained about the thorax and its oversized plate that ccp would try and "balance" all cruisers.
Hope all nerfers stfu now
|
Verone
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:00:00 -
[100]
Originally by: FalloutBoy \o/ yay nerf the rax even more
=
MY NAME IS VERONE OF SNIGG, AND I'M GOING TO KILL YOU TILL YOU DIE FROM IT! |
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:06:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Gabby05 I knew when people complained about the thorax and its oversized plate that ccp would try and "balance" all cruisers.
Hope all nerfers stfu now
Okay, you get the clueless award of the day.
That is why people said that even though there was an issue with plates, the thorax drone bay was a whole different issue. It just happened that the two put together had a join effect.
The thorax drone bay nerf is a damage nerf. The plate nerf is a close range/tanking nerf.
Besides, it is people who wanted the thorax to keep its oversized drone bay that cryed for a plate nerf (as if less tanking for all cruisers would justify more damage for the thorax, or any other crap of the kind).
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. ---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Sister 9
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:10:00 -
[102]
it's the test server, so i wouldn't get your knickers in a twist yet. |
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:12:00 -
[103]
Better go to melt down my Thorax and learn some shield tanking skills. The Rax truly sucks now. The main problem with it easn't the droen bay, but the fact that it could use a 1600mm plate and still do a lot fo damage with drones (it has allways had a big dronebay and nobody has whined untill cruisers were let to use 1600mm plates). Now it has a small drone bay and can't even fit a 1600mm plate. Oor 800mm fro that matter. How am I supposed to use a blaster boat that will get killed before it even gets in range since it can't tank **** now.
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:20:00 -
[104]
But nerfing the plates (perhaps needed) means that there is no justification left for axing the Rax's dronebay. The whole point was that "it was intended to have more firepower because it is has far less surviveability than other "assault" cruisers. With the 1600 plate it has roughly the same surviveability so with all those drones its uber". If you nerf the plates then the argument for nerfing the Rax dronebay goes "poof". I am geniunely concerned and I hope the devs take the time to look into their projects on test server again.
PvP seems to be inty's and BSs only after these changes. even Hacs are substantially damaged by this. (Apart from my poor eagle in M rails set-up but thats pants to begin with innit?)
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:25:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Jon Xylur Better go to melt down my Thorax and learn some shield tanking skills. The Rax truly sucks now. The main problem with it easn't the droen bay, but the fact that it could use a 1600mm plate and still do a lot fo damage with drones (it has allways had a big dronebay and nobody has whined untill cruisers were let to use 1600mm plates). Now it has a small drone bay and can't even fit a 1600mm plate. Oor 800mm fro that matter. How am I supposed to use a blaster boat that will get killed before it even gets in range since it can't tank **** now.
Here it goes again. Best dps you can get out of a gank maller with heavy pulses: ~400 dps. Note that it involves maxed fitting skills and 6 heat sink t2. That is, as far as i know, the best damage you can get out of a t1 cruiser, bar the thorax. Dps of a thorax with med electrons 2 and no damage mod, 8 t1 heavy drones: ~400 dps. Only marginally more than the maller. Dps of a gank-thorax: >600 dps with t1 heavy drones.
The drone bay issue is only a damage issue, not a tanking issue. The fact that currently a thorax can do as much damage with a tank and mwd than any other cruiser fitting no tank at all is what is the problem. The fact that currently a gank thorax with t2 drones outdamage a gank-deimos with t2 drones is the problem. Finally, the fact that a gank thorax outdamage any t1 cruiser by more than 50% is a problem.
The plate nerf is a nerf to all close range ships, not only the thorax. Less tanking is a boost to mid/long range gank-ships, as manoeuvring is less possible/rewarding. And your 8 heavy drones or even 15 of them are of absolutely no use when you shot by gank-ships. Along with tanking getting nerfed, overall damage output will increase, so that is even less survivability for close range ships.
Meh.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. ---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:28:00 -
[106]
Tbh, this looks to be about 40% overdone on the mass imo.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues. |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:31:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Crellion But nerfing the plates (perhaps needed) means that there is no justification left for axing the Rax's dronebay. The whole point was that "it was intended to have more firepower because it is has far less surviveability than other "assault" cruisers. With the 1600 plate it has roughly the same surviveability so with all those drones its uber". If you nerf the plates then the argument for nerfing the Rax dronebay goes "poof". I am geniunely concerned and I hope the devs take the time to look into their projects on test server again.
If you check the post of 'tux about why they axed the drone bay, there is no mention of plate. Not that you'll listen to him anyway, you decided that the only issue, ever, with the thorax was the plate and ignore everything else.
Originally by: Crellion PvP seems to be inty's and BSs only after these changes. even Hacs are substantially damaged by this. (Apart from my poor eagle in M rails set-up but thats pants to begin with innit?)
That is something i agree with, except that in a plate-free world long range inty > close range inty and hence, we'll see more assault frigs not worried about close range inties. Concerns and complaints about nos and heavy drones tracking will raise more and more aswel. Yay.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy. ---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Agnar Koladrov
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 11:39:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: sableye what you going to do about oversized shield extenders perhaps a cap nerf for these maybe that will make all you nerfers happy.
Extenders are fine, pain in the ass to fit...as they should be.
Medium shield extender give the same hp boost as 400mm plates, large extenders give more hp then 800mm and lower then 1600mm
Shields, have less resistance, so more easily shot through then armor. I hope you see where im am going with this.
As some have said, adding weight to plates is good and logical. Though I do not use plates myself I can see that they added too much weight at this moment.
Far better thing would have been: - adding slight increase in weight to plates all over the board. - make fitting req run inline with intended ship class. Sort of like shield extenders are now.
|
throbbinnoggin
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 12:18:00 -
[109]
Originally by: FalloutBoy the problem is if they are only useable on the intended class then they are unuseable since they won't give enough of a boost to make them viable. the correct move would be to shift the penalties over one notch and add a 3200mm plate with the 1600s penalty and drop the lowest plate.
1600 and 3200 plates would be BS plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 400 and 800 would be cruiser plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 100 and 200 would be frig plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all
I agree the 1600 and 400 plates caused issues on cruisers and frigs. but 800s or 200s were fine on cruisers and frigs which are getting equally nerfed.
One of the better ideas I've seen. /me signs.
Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. 'Abraham Lincoln'
|
Elrathias
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 12:34:00 -
[110]
Originally by: sableye what you going to do about oversized shield extenders perhaps a cap nerf for these maybe that will make all you nerfers happy.
what about giving the ships mroe cpu so they can acctually FIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? --------------------------
|
|
Mangus Thermopyle
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 12:44:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Mangus Thermopyle on 24/09/2005 12:44:56 I think the best idea would be to give each plate a % mass increase, something like: 50mm: 5% 100mm: 10% 200mm: 20% 400mm: 40% 800mm: 80% 1600mm: 160%
That way, a 200mm plate for a frigate would weight less than a 200mm for a bigger ship, which is logical.
And the speed bonus should ofcourse be removed, increase in mass does not make ships go slower, only accelerate slower (atleast according to real life physics).
Besides, the way the afterburner and mwd works in game, a bigger mass will make the ship go slower anyway.
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 13:40:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Naughty Boy Edited by: Naughty Boy on 24/09/2005 09:57:39
Originally by: Ithildin 800mm Plate - 1500 powergrid and 3750 armour. Large Shield Extender I - 2800 powergrid (2100 at level 5) and 6000 shield.
What he said. One reason for the need to rework plates is that they are not currently class-specific enough, allowing some ships to get much more armor than others of the same class because they can have/spare more grid. Would the plates be class-specific according to the fitting reqs, oversized plates becomes a thing of the past. You fit a plate of your class, or you don't. Then, an inertia/speed penalty would make much more sense than a mass penalty as it could be ofset by the use of nanofibers. The mass penalty only make sense when fitting oversized plates, which is no longer possible since the class of any plate is well defined by powergrid requirements.
This plate change is a massive nerf to close range ships, hence, a boost to gank-ships. Plates need an overhaul, but other solutions not as extreme could be better than the one currently on sisi.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
/signed for making sense and keeping plates reasonable and useful.
PLATES CAN BE MADE CLASS SPECIFIC THROUGH POWERGRID REQS - THIS LEAVES THEM SIZED APPROPRIATELY AND USEFULL AS APPOSED TO THE PROPOSED MASS CHANGES WHICH WILL MAKE THEM NON_FEASIBLE FOR MOST PVP SETUPS.
Caps to make sure the point is heard.
Nyxus
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 13:48:00 -
[113]
Added what a few people have said they should be into my first post.
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
Stribog
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 14:19:00 -
[114]
My interceptors!! /o\
|
Sivona
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:07:00 -
[115]
This change was needed but i feel it has gone way to far to allow a balanced change.
To start with its crazy to include a penalty to agility and speed and then a second based on the mass of the ship it should be one or the other.
This changes seems to have been entirely to address the cruiser plate issue and no real thought has been given to the actual masses, but inadvertently it has also battered the plate bearing battleship. For example the megathron now faces a reduction of roughly 25% agility, acceleration and top speed, if it is using one plate if it is using two its faces a 50% reduction, i'm sure this news will frill all blastertron pilots as now they have the choice of plateless or being burned alive before they get near blaster range. The use of plates in fleetcombat is also limited as the extra armour gained will be negated by the additional time it takes to warp out.
Cruisers and battlecruisers suffer even more as they are faced by severe penalties to their agility and speed, while the speed is bearable the agility is not, a cruiser i tried on sisi took as long as a bs to turn, begging the question of why bother with one. Now thats fine and all the vegabond pilots (which i fly) and cerebus pilots are cheering from the rooftops as they can make a massive shieldtank without loss to their agility putting them at a huge competitive advantage but i dont think that is particulary right or fair.
With these changes most cruisers will be dropping the plates, which free's up huge powergrid for...Dirty great big Tech II Guns and lots of Tech II damage mods...which in turn results in the damage massively outclassing defence and so gank fests again which was precisely why the plates were upgraded about 2 months ago by CCP to counter these gank fests. Combat between cruisers will be extremely short and bloody - i know my rupture on sisi with its upgraded powergrid has diced non plated other cruisers in about 10 seconds flat without using tech II autocannons. So it appears CCP like to go between one extreme and the other with the current changes.
Now a more more reasonable change in my view of things would see the current agility 'set' penalties removed and the mass of the plates moved roughly to where the penalties currently cover so a 1600 would weigh an additional 10mil, an 800 5mil and so forward reducing all the weights by about 1/3rd.
The change is a good thing but its way out of wack and will hurt the varienty of ships and setups we see currently within eve.
|
Hanns
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:23:00 -
[116]
Yay even more reasons to fly a Heavy nossing BS, guess my HAC 5 and medium pulse spec 5 totally gone to waste!
*throws plates in the bin and puts a cover over his Zealot*
Basicly Cruisers and HAC's dont have enough hitpoints they die to fast, this is why plates are pretty much essential piece of kit, and i cant belive how CCP have so quickly nerfed plates, but heavy nos still havent been looked at.
Originally by: Oveur
I'll get right to the point!
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:26:00 -
[117]
Edited by: j0sephine on 24/09/2005 15:26:31
"I can't see it happening tbh, the agility with an 800mm and a 100mn AB is absolutely horrible."
Aye, i know the AFB makes the ship horribly sluggish... the catch is, ships get sluggish 'enough' just with oversized AFB alone, due to how much mass it adds. And the 'new' 800mm plate adds way *more* mass that the AFB (7.5 mil vs 5 mil) That'd mean just plate alone would make the ship terrible where it comes to acceleration, even with MWD or regular AFB. At which point it might be possible that any extra weight added by oversized AFB on top of it just doesn't make any significant difference ^^;;
with no test access can't test the thing, though :/
|
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:29:00 -
[118]
Stupid nerf.
|
Hanns
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:32:00 -
[119]
Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 24/09/2005 15:26:31
"I can't see it happening tbh, the agility with an 800mm and a 100mn AB is absolutely horrible."
Aye, i know the AFB makes the ship horribly sluggish... the catch is, ships get sluggish 'enough' just with oversized AFB alone, due to how much mass it adds. And the 'new' 800mm plate adds way *more* mass that the AFB (7.5 mil vs 5 mil) That'd mean just plate alone would make the ship terrible where it comes to acceleration, even with MWD or regular AFB. At which point it might be possible that any extra weight added by oversized AFB on top of it just doesn't make any significant difference ^^;;
with no test access can't test the thing, though :/
why dont you have test access?
Originally by: Oveur
I'll get right to the point!
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile
|
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:43:00 -
[120]
If I'm not mistaken. What's the point of adding more hp to your ship if it makes you slower, and in the case of cruisers, alot easier to hit?
I was under the impression CCP wanted combat to last longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |