Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 19:52:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Dimitri Forgroth on 23/09/2005 20:09:51 Has been introduced on SiSi.
My brutix is 20,750,000kg with an 800mm. Max speed with mwd.. 683m/s (skills a bit suck).
Probably a post about this somewhere else, but meh.
Actual Plate Weights (ty Keepiru): 1600mm : 25M 800mm : 7.5M 400mm : 1.5M
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 19:55:00 -
[2]
That would mean 800mms add about 7.5mill kg.
Logic tells me 1600mm will be 15mill, more then doubling the BCs mass. HACs and Cruisers will just totally suck with this on.
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:00:00 -
[3]
\o/
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:01:00 -
[4]
25m kg for 1600 plates. ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:06:00 -
[5]
7.5m for 800s 1.5m for 400s ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:08:00 -
[6]
\o/ yay nerf the rax even more
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat |
sokken
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:10:00 -
[7]
Originally by: FalloutBoy \o/ yay nerf the rax even more
*giggle* -
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:11:00 -
[8]
750k kg for 200s 150k kg for 100s 75k kp for 50s, lol
that should be all of them.
any official word on this? ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:13:00 -
[9]
Originally by: FalloutBoy \o/ yay nerf the rax even more
It not a mass penalty to the rax but to plates you see, its for all cruisers not your win button.
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:13:00 -
[10]
the problem is this nerfs all the cruisers that need speed to do thier job (Rax mainly) and leaves ship like a maller who sit at medium range anyway not nearly as effected. I agree the 1600 plate was too uber, but tbh it wasn't going to be much of a problem anymore since the rax couldn't use it effectively anymore. I say let the mk2 changes happen and see what happens
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat |
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: FalloutBoy the problem is this nerfs all the cruisers that need speed to do thier job (Rax mainly) and leaves ship like a maller who sit at medium range anyway not nearly as effected. I agree the 1600 plate was too uber, but tbh it wasn't going to be much of a problem anymore since the rax couldn't use it effectively anymore. I say let the mk2 changes happen and see what happens
Too many people screaming about double-1600 mallers?
dunno. Not sure this is totally needed, or that nthis is the right way to go. But its an idea.
Did they change this with a server hotfix? cause i sparred cruisers and BCs all last night, with plates and all, and i cant say i noticed any major penalty. ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:16:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Dimitri Forgroth on 23/09/2005 20:16:53 There was a downtime earlier today (around 2:30 EVE time), was put in then i'm guessing.
Have updated original post with the weights at present.
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:18:00 -
[13]
1.5 mil on 400 mm plate... when Crow weights 1 mil total :/
ouch ouch ouch ;.;
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:20:00 -
[14]
well, my 1600-plate maller now goes 345 with an AB II, getting roughly 75% speed boost.
I guess, now plate size has more factors than just what the biggest plate you can whack on.
small plate = less hp, neglibible effect on speed medium plate = med hp, appreciable effect on speed oversize plate = loads of hp, nearly impossible to dictate range (1600 on cruisers)
That is, ofc, if they removed the set % penalties. But then nanofibers wouldnt have a reason to exist.
------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
siim
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:20:00 -
[15]
no 800mm plate on my deimos anymore
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:21:00 -
[16]
Have they removed the -10% speed penalty now that they've done this? Would make sense, I think.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:22:00 -
[17]
I think perhaps 800 and 1600 weights are a little high. But its the very 1st values we see, no telling if this will go through to tq at all.
More testing i guess. ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:23:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Have they removed the -10% speed penalty now that they've done this? Would make sense, I think.
Not right now. Atm all plates of a size have the same mass.
Imo plates with less hp should apply all mass, but i guess as a 1st change its good enough for now.
Now if we could get a dev to say a word about it... ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: keepiru
That is, ofc, if they removed the set % penalties. But then nanofibers wouldnt have a reason to exist.
How about if nanofibers added a bit less mass? That would give a reason to use them.
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:26:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: keepiru
That is, ofc, if they removed the set % penalties. But then nanofibers wouldnt have a reason to exist.
How about if nanofibers added a bit less mass? That would give a reason to use them.
At the moment they add the same amount, but that would make a lot of sense for using them. Maybe 1/4 mass decrease. I think 1/2 reduction would make them a bit too overpowered.
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:26:00 -
[21]
Originally by: keepiru
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Now if we could get a dev to say a word about it...
they anounced thed stealth bomber unnerfing first to soften us up
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:26:00 -
[22]
Very early phases i think.
I award this plate mass project "alpha" status.
Less mass related to hp, and no set % penalties would make sense. ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:28:00 -
[23]
hows about they move them each up one notch. would make 1600s still hard to fit on a cruiser and still dictate range but would make 800s useable still and would give crusiers some surviablity?
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:28:00 -
[24]
Edited by: keepiru on 23/09/2005 20:29:15
Originally by: FalloutBoy
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Now if we could get a dev to say a word about it...
they anounced thed stealth bomber unnerfing first to soften us up
Dastardly! They give with one hand and take away with the other ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
throbbinnoggin
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:31:00 -
[25]
Damn Dmitri, you beat me to it. Yup the specs you have listed are correct. I checked them on sisi by equiping my prophecy with them, then checked mass in info. So now if this goes through, there will be a speed 'and' mass penalty to using plates. Shades of oversize ab nerf, making them virtually useless.
Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. 'Abraham Lincoln'
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:33:00 -
[26]
Did the plates lose the velocity reduction in turn?
The Auctoritan Syndicate Defenders of the Empire - Curatores Veritatis Alliance |
Sangxianc
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:34:00 -
[27]
Am I the only one who thought that oversized plates were a good thing? I mean, yeah the new-ish plate hp boost made it a bit silly in places, but it made cruisers much more usable. Not even being able to fit an 800mm plate without screwing yourself over completely is a bit like, wtf mate?
- Do not deny yourself experience of that which lies beyond, behind the sun, in the world they call unpeopled. |
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:36:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Forsch Did the plates lose the velocity reduction in turn?
The speed reduction from the plate at the moment is still there.
Have clarified the first post.
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
Angelus X
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:37:00 -
[29]
NoooooooOOOOOoOOoOooOOOOOOoOOOO!!!!
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:45:00 -
[30]
***. ________________________________________________________
|
|
Moridan
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 20:48:00 -
[31]
My plate claw will handle like an industrial! ouch. "Speak quietly and carry a big torpedo."
|
Redwolf
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 21:05:00 -
[32]
\o/
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 21:30:00 -
[33]
Halving these numbers would ensure some folks still fit plates every so often. Seems a touch one extreme to the other if they are basically unusable.
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 21:39:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Caeden Nicomachean Halving these numbers would ensure some folks still fit plates every so often. Seems a touch one extreme to the other if they are basically unusable.
agreed looking at the numbers I think shifting all the stats would make it a bit less of a overnerf (1600 plate getting listed 800 mass 800 getting 400 mass and so on)
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat |
Flavius Renatus
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 21:41:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Flavius Renatus on 23/09/2005 21:41:07 Yaaaay,
Cruisers were usable again for like what? 2 months. So how long do I have to wait until they are usable again.
hmmm..lets see the duel AB nerf was about 1 yr ago or so...hmmm...
All I have to say is that CCP should have the Nerf Bat shoved where the sun don't shine.
This game is really starting to get stupid.
Flavius Renatus (Ancient Roman Military Historian)
Real Power Is Something You Take!!! |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 21:47:00 -
[36]
once again there is a reason to use shield extenders
--
This Zig. For great justice! |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:05:00 -
[37]
well i guess instead of just balancing shield extenders and armor plating ccp has made it so neither are usable...
no fitting room for extenders and huge mass nerf for plates, woop. ------
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:09:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Jim Raynor well i guess instead of just balancing shield extenders and armor plating ccp has made it so neither are usable...
no fitting room for extenders and huge mass nerf for plates, woop.
well, that too
--
This Zig. For great justice! |
noonehere
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:15:00 -
[39]
I see a problem here.... Wouldn it weigh less to plate a small ship with xxx mm armour than to plate a BIG ship with xxx mm armour.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:17:00 -
[40]
Originally by: noonehere I see a problem here.... Wouldn it weigh less to plate a small ship with xxx mm armour than to plate a BIG ship with xxx mm armour.
it would but its a video game.. ------
|
|
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:19:00 -
[41]
The plate mass thing makes sence, but they should lose the old speed penalties. Duble penalties make plates hard to user. 800mm and 1600mm mass increase seems a little too big tho. I mena, they double the weight of a battlkecruiser, wich is a rather big ship and should be able to use atlest the 800mm plate.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:19:00 -
[42]
Originally by: noonehere I see a problem here.... Wouldn it weigh less to plate a small ship with xxx mm armour than to plate a BIG ship with xxx mm armour.
Hrm... interesting point.
Perhaps some mass x m of signature formula?
or some straight % of original mass penalty? ------------- Axe the Thorax's drone bay.
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:20:00 -
[43]
Originally by: keepiru
Originally by: noonehere I see a problem here.... Wouldn it weigh less to plate a small ship with xxx mm armour than to plate a BIG ship with xxx mm armour.
Hrm... interesting point.
Perhaps some mass x m of signature formula?
or some straight % of original mass penalty?
% of mass increase wouldn't work. 1600 would decrease the agility of a battleship the same as on a cruiser.
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:22:00 -
[44]
Edited by: LUKEC on 23/09/2005 22:22:44 Moa with Large shield extender II anyone?
Or omg, vagabond with 2 :(
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:25:00 -
[45]
Originally by: LUKEC Edited by: LUKEC on 23/09/2005 22:22:44 Moa with Large shield extender II anyone?
Or omg, vagabond with 2 :(
Exactly, drunkenone runs around with a vagbond with like 4k shields. No speed or agility penalty.
Yeah, it's real balanced now ________________________________________________________
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:29:00 -
[46]
We had a guy... who had more like 6k :)... then he decided that he is ganking anyway and didn't tank vaga much, but that's another story.
I'm not saying that extenders are overpowered or anything, but... If you nerf the plates, do something to shield extenders too.
|
Julien Derida
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:30:00 -
[47]
Plates need a nerf, but this is way too much. Nobody will use plates if this goes through .
With these changes, the plate that doubles your armour for each class will also halve your effective speed. That is not a good trade off at all. I think the mass values should be moved up one slot i.e. 1600mm=7.5M, 800mm=1.5M etc. That would leave 1600mm and 400mm setups with a severe penalty, but still allow for 200mm and 800mm setups without wrecking your ship.
----------------------------------------
Chief Inspector of the Style Police - FRICK |
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:35:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Altai Saker on 23/09/2005 22:37:56 Plates should only add to mass if they are oversized... for instance 400 makes ceptor weigh 1mil more, but cruiser nothing more... 800mm(is this bs or cruiser mod)... 1600 m makes cruiser double weight, but adds nothing to a bs.
and remove the velocity bonus.
basically I agree... nerfing them this bad makes htem unusable for HACS... and hacs go down SO FAST when they arent plated... 800 should still be viable for cruisers :/
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:42:00 -
[49]
I think i'd have to agree that the weights are just 1 off, shift em all down a notch (put 50mm to 25k or something) and it'd probably be about right.
Originally by: DrunkenOne Ahhh yes the ECM Apoc, very deadly.
Oh wait... wtf...
DPS Sheet |
Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:46:00 -
[50]
im pretty sure the values will change because if there are that bad. it is the TEST server after all.
And to whomever said nerf shield extenders --> have you ever even used one? --------------------------------------------- "Where the air is crisp."
|
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:51:00 -
[51]
Never actually thought an idea I helped and supported would make it live...in any workable fashion.
~Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Biomass fears me. |
Rexthor Hammerfists
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 22:52:00 -
[52]
i love it ;)
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 23:18:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Altai Saker Edited by: Altai Saker on 23/09/2005 22:37:56 Plates should only add to mass if they are oversized... for instance 400 makes ceptor weigh 1mil more, but cruiser nothing more... 800mm(is this bs or cruiser mod)... 1600 m makes cruiser double weight, but adds nothing to a bs.
and remove the velocity bonus.
basically I agree... nerfing them this bad makes htem unusable for HACS... and hacs go down SO FAST when they arent plated... 800 should still be viable for cruisers :/
The point about fixed-size penalties is that they should mean only minor relative penalties when fitted to the intended class
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:05:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: LUKEC Edited by: LUKEC on 23/09/2005 22:22:44 Moa with Large shield extender II anyone?
Or omg, vagabond with 2 :(
Exactly, drunkenone runs around with a vagbond with like 4k shields. No speed or agility penalty. Yeah, it's real balanced now
Well i'd rather use a web than a large shield extender II (5k shield) but this is really crap for my muninn...
This plate mass will **** most of the 'good' ships.... less survivability, better economy i guess
|
Balazs Simon
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:14:00 -
[55]
cool ganking for the win.. tme to chage back every low slot of dmg mods... so much about the longer combat.... - New sig coming soon.. |
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:14:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
The point about fixed-size penalties is that they should mean only minor relative penalties when fitted to the intended class
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.
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more informat |
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:28:00 -
[57]
Originally by: FalloutBoy
Originally by: Joerd Toastius
The point about fixed-size penalties is that they should mean only minor relative penalties when fitted to the intended class
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.
Signed.
|
sableye
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:44:00 -
[58]
what you going to do about oversized shield extenders perhaps a cap nerf for these maybe that will make all you nerfers happy.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:46:00 -
[59]
*claps*
You've made plates basically useless with this, you realise? Even a 200mm plate nerfs the HELL out of ceptor speed, so you can forget any setup which is even marginally surviveable.
And cruisers? Oops.
Well, guess shield extenders just got "balanced". It's NOT needed. Period.
It rolls back everything in the last 6 months of balance. Why?
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Montero
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 00:51:00 -
[60]
so a 200mm plate, the smallest truely usable sized plate now near doubles the mass of my inty. **** bugger **** **** ****! ****! ****cakes.
|
|
Changrey
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:19:00 -
[61]
Wouldn't a dev rsponse be absolutely briliant right about now? Before it gets out of blown out of proportion and becomes the sole reasoning for 3453498 'I quit' posts?
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:33:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Gierling on 24/09/2005 01:33:22 I agree with this in principle, however it is overboard.
The problem is that you can't nerf plates of the proper size at the same time. Doing this AND the speed penalty is just a kick in the gooch too.
They need to add mass, but not nearly so much. You basically want a 1600mm plate to take 10% of a battleships speed away more or less. And likewise on down the line.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Weirda
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:49:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Changrey Wouldn't a dev rsponse be absolutely briliant right about now? Before it gets out of blown out of proportion and becomes the sole reasoning for 3453498 'I quit' posts?
tuxford prolly been working on a post all day...
(poor tuxford) -- Thread Killer (attempting to train verbosity from 4 back down to 1) <END TRANSMISSION> |
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:51:00 -
[64]
The thing is, we want battles to last longer. We just don't want everyone wearing the same setup.
Another thing is that slow movement is about boring. It makes the entire game feel sluggish, and its why folks hate hauling.
The game would be all the better if every darned ship out there moved faster and lasted longer. I have no great love for plates themselves, I just hold those two ideals as pretty important to the game.
So I can't help muse about other solutions than weighting down the ships. You could blow up the sig radius of the ship they are on instead, with the logic bending behind it that when they are fitted the propulsion system is jacked to match by an electronic membrane, yadda.
Sig radius is more important an issue to smaller ships than to big ones - and thats where the problem with plates is at anyhow.
Slugtacularing ships is something I wish we could avoid all the way around on battleships down.
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 02:38:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: keepiru
That is, ofc, if they removed the set % penalties. But then nanofibers wouldnt have a reason to exist.
How about if nanofibers added a bit less mass? That would give a reason to use them.
Nanofibers add mass? Wtf are you on? ---------------
VIP member of the [23] |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 02:48:00 -
[66]
"Nanofibers add mass? Wtf are you on?"
Likely means the nanofiber plates, the named ones that have smaller speed penalty than others ^^;;
|
Mr Floppyknickers
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:00:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Gierling The problem is that you can't nerf plates of the proper size at the same time. Doing this AND the speed penalty is just a kick in the gooch too.
Sorry but the whole gooch bit has me *****ing up right now.
Now that the giggles have subsided, I can only wonder what this will do to many tanked DOMI set up.
Currently in the lows I run:
1 named large rep 2 1600 tungstens Therm, Kinetic, and explosive hardners cap relay 1
Now sometimes i swap out the relay for a 3rd Crystal plate when I help tank level 4's with a freind. But even with the AB i pack on my domi it looks likely I'll be putting around at 100m/s with it running.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:14:00 -
[68]
great, stupid 1600mm plated HACs will now move half the speed, allowing BS to hit them more easilly
TBH we all used the overpowered plated rax or maller at one point and we all know its over powered
this had to happen to just balance things
and its nor too server as with skills a 400mm plate adds 1k HP, 800mm plate does 2k HP using 800 on a cruseir increases HP by >150% so should not fit on crusiers
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:22:00 -
[69]
Nothing is final, it can't be. It's too far overboard.
Was a change needed? Yes. But this is a lot.
Half the mass changes, and keep the speed effect I think.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:38:00 -
[70]
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)
|
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:38:00 -
[71]
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.
/signed becuase its a damn good idea.
Nyxus
PS- "Slugtacularing" (new word coined by Caeden N.) is a perfect description of what we don't want to have happen.
|
Netto
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 04:16:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Caeden Nicomachean The thing is, we want battles to last longer. We just don't want everyone wearing the same setup.
Another thing is that slow movement is about boring. It makes the entire game feel sluggish, and its why folks hate hauling.
The game would be all the better if every darned ship out there moved faster and lasted longer. I have no great love for plates themselves, I just hold those two ideals as pretty important to the game.
Wow, well put. Amen.
Slow movement is boring. Longer fighting = good!
Netto
|
Zungen
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 05:31:00 -
[73]
so how bad would be for those people who use 6 plates on their bs's now? lol :P
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 05:36:00 -
[74]
plates really do need nerfing to be honest, i mean think about, a lot of fights come down to whose got an oversized plate on and who doesnt, it's such a hugely stupid advantage to have a 1600mm plate on a cruiser or a 400mm plate on a frigate or whatever.. ------
|
Kyoko Sakoda
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 05:52:00 -
[75]
They really don't need anything more than an adjustment of the HP bonus. Dunno why they're changing the masses.
|
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 06:18:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nyxus
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.
/signed becuase its a damn good idea.
Nyxus
PS- "Slugtacularing" (new word coined by Caeden N.) is a perfect description of what we don't want to have happen.
This I also agree with!
|
P'ercev'hal
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 06:49:00 -
[77]
Edited by: P''ercev''hal on 24/09/2005 06:49:53 Errmm... It's nice to see that they're finally doing something about oversized plates. But what I don't quite undestand is why they havn't changed the plates to a percentage increase.
EX) 1600mm Plate | Heavy - 18% Boost to armor HP (requiring more pg/cpu) 1600mm Plate | Light - 10% Boost to armor HP (requiring less pg/cpu)
And perhaps a light stacking penalty and an increase on pg/cpu requirements.
|
Elaine Threepwood
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 07:31:00 -
[78]
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.
I've wanted a plate mass increase for a looooong time, and am happy it's here, but I still agree with this post, plus remove the flat speed penalties. Mass on plates is good, this much mass is too much.
|
H0ot
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:00:00 -
[79]
To put it bluntly, this sucks. Yet another unnesessary nerf that nobody was asking for. My plated Crusader is all I fly these days, if this goes live its back to the Scorpion (yawn)
The good news is, Pirates of the Burning Sea beta starts soon... stuff like this makes me want to /cancel all the more.
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:01:00 -
[80]
Originally by: H0ot To put it bluntly, this sucks. Yet another unnesessary nerf that nobody was asking for.
You blind then?
|
|
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:05:00 -
[81]
* was perfectly struck by TOmB's nerfbat..wrecking for OMGTHATF***INGHURT damage
You guys realize that this will REALLY hose the use of plates now, right? Just up the grid on 1600mms to like 800 or 1000 instead of 500. I mean, I've seen battleships with 4 of these things on. That's a bit silly.
Nerfing the 800mm like this will make HACs, especially the armor tanking ones, into hangar trophies...."Ahh...remember when I could actually take you out and hunt down other ships?"
Then let's talk about the smaller frig sized plates...no..let's just don't.
The issue is allowing cruisers to fit 1600mm plates. They shouldn't be able to...so just crank it's grid upwards. Problem solved. LEAVE ALL OTHER PLATES ALONE.
|
H0ot
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:10:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Malacore
Originally by: H0ot To put it bluntly, this sucks. Yet another unnesessary nerf that nobody was asking for.
You blind then?
What I meant was, I've never heard anyone say "AMAGHAAD NURF ARMOR PLATES" ingame. Which is usually a better indicater than what you read on the forums, since some of the posting public cry nerf at everything.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:40:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ticondrius
You guys realize that this will REALLY hose the use of plates now, right? Just up the grid on 1600mms to like 800 or 1000 instead of 500. I mean, I've seen battleships with 4 of these things on. That's a bit silly.
Nerfing the 800mm like this will make HACs, especially the armor tanking ones, into hangar trophies...."Ahh...remember when I could actually take you out and hunt down other ships?"
Then let's talk about the smaller frig sized plates...no..let's just don't.
The issue is allowing cruisers to fit 1600mm plates. They shouldn't be able to...so just crank it's grid upwards. Problem solved. LEAVE ALL OTHER PLATES ALONE.
i dunno i pvp in my cerberus and it does okay without an armor plate or a shield extender (not that you can actually fit a decent one LOLOLOL) ------
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:40:00 -
[84]
adding pg need to 1600 & 400mm plate would solve the problem okish.
800pg on 1600 & 40pg on 400. If you like to fit that... gl.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:52:00 -
[85]
Originally by: LUKEC adding pg need to 1600 & 400mm plate would solve the problem okish.
800pg on 1600 & 40pg on 400. If you like to fit that... gl.
thats nice and all but that still doesnt solve the huge imbalance between shield extenders and armor plating, which i think this 'nerf' is trying to do
800mm II is 1,682 extra armor for only 28 cpu and 230 grid <-this is easy to fit on a cruiser and gives a huge boost
the medium shield extender is 86 cpu and 83 grid <-this is hard to fit on a cruiser and gives 1/2 the HP
the small medium shield extender II gives 210 shields, geewhiz that sucks, and it still uses an ungodly amount of CPU for a "small" module, 58 cpu 6grid? wtf
needless to say, the biggest problem with armor plating i have is that quite frankly armor plated shields have a huge advantage in EVE over non plated
a 1600mm plate boosts a cruiser considerably, the 800mm does too quite frankly, in cruiser combat these modules more or less make or break your setup, as a caldari guy myself this has bugged me since caldari ships have rather subpar armor, and few lot slots, and as far as fitting shield extenders, well i cant, i generally don't have a slot to sacrifice for it, nor do i have the CPU for it, and even if i do gimp myself a bit to fit it ------ its 1/2 the HP of an armor plate or worse, so why bother?
so now we have plates that bring your ship to a crawl and shield extenders ya still cant realistically use for any viable pvp setup ------
|
Fred0
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:58:00 -
[86]
Plates were overpowered, you know this when every cruiser fitted for pvp has one.
This adresses that but maybe takes it too far. I still think we'll see oversize plated cruisers. They just won't be as free-roaming as before.
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:29:00 -
[87]
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.
~Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Biomass fears me. |
MOS DEF
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:31:00 -
[88]
Originally by: FalloutBoy \o/ yay nerf the rax even more
Gankrax with HAC DPS 4tw!
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:36:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Ithildin on 24/09/2005 09:37:33 I prefere this idea with this specific implementation
Summed up: EDIT: Forgot to write that this idea is modeled after the current 800mm plate (which with this implementation will become the 400mm plate) There's a strong and a weak plate for each category. The strong plate adds 125% armour to the strongest Amarr ship of the class but also takes 25% of the powergrid. The weak plate adds and takes half as much. A shield extender appropriate for it's class (read their descriptions) add 100% shield to the strongest Caldari ship of the class and takes 25% of the total powergrid of said ship (before the skill which potentially reduces PG req. with 25%)
Battleship modules: 800mm Plate, 1600mm Plate, Large Shield Extender. Cruiser modules: 200mm Plate, 400mm Plate, Medium Shield Extender. Frigate modules: 50mm Plate, 100mm Plate, Micro Shield Extender, Small Shield Extender.
12.5% of an Apocs powergrid (amounts to approx 1500 PG) is not something a cruiser can spare. Maybe a battlecruiser can, but...
Examples (note that due to scaling of CPU, CPU is left alone more or less): 800mm Plate - 1500 powergrid and 3750 armour. Large Shield Extender I - 2800 powergrid (2100 at level 5) and 6000 shield. --
I'm in to murder, arson, and pillaging. I differe from a soldier in nothing but name and allegience. |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:48:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 24/09/2005 09:50:55
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.
if they're a pain in the ass to fit and give little benefit, then what is the point?
who is going to give up a precious midslot for a medium shield extender?
ive tried to use one on my cerberus but it's not worth it
my base shields on my cerby right now is 1870 the extender boosts it to 2972, unfortunately i lose the ability to fit a large shield booster and afterburner, two modules i more or less need to survive in pvp, it also takes up a valuable slot for electronic warfare (mostly tracking disruptors), which again, i need.. also a cerberus must have a photon scattering fitted or my shields are toasted in 1 volley by a zealot or whatever.. ugh?
no setup with extenders has ever worked out for me, i either sacrifice a lot of DPS (on a ship that can barely ***** a 'decent' tank with 4 bcu) or i give up my ability to defend myself (electronic warfare, tactical shield modules, ect).
bleh :|
and before anyone calls me on hijacking i think extenders and plate both need reviewing =] ------
|
|
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.
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:48:00 -
[121]
"why dont you have test access?"
The latest mirror was taken when my account was inactive for few days, so am pretty much out for few months before new one is done ^^;;
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:48:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi Extenders are fine, pain in the ass to fit...as they should be.
If we are talking about cruisers and frigs, extenders are for fools. The very few seconds extra longevity they give are negligible, there's much better things to do with the already scarce midslots.
I guess both plates and extenders are balanced now, they won't fit in anything but some rare specialized setups.
We will have to wait for CCP to release some HP global boost as they originaly planed. Maybe the damage controls are part of the solution. Nobody knows yet. But plates had to be nerfed, there's something wrong when shield tankers fit plates...
Kill mails |
Hanns
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 15:49:00 -
[123]
Originally by: j0sephine "why dont you have test access?"
The latest mirror was taken when my account was inactive for few days, so am pretty much out for few months before new one is done ^^;;
login to the game for a minute, i sent u an eve mail
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 15:56:00 -
[124]
Hanns, my next ship bigger than interceptor is gonna be named after you \o/
(i say bigger than inty, because inty without plate just ain't gonna live long enough to make it worth -.^
|
Linavin
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:11:00 -
[125]
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.
I fail to see the problem of 800s on cruisers and 200s on frigs, those can be delt with.
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:24:00 -
[126]
My claw with MWD II and a 400mm plate goes 2.1km/s Now that's fun to fly.. My muninn loses about 100m/s with ab II + 800mm plate..
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:24:00 -
[127]
My claw with MWD II and a 400mm plate goes 2.1km/s Now that's fun to fly.. My muninn loses about 100m/s with ab II + 800mm plate..
|
Hanns
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:34:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Linavin
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.
I fail to see the problem of 800s on cruisers and 200s on frigs, those can be delt with.
There isnt a problem, the problem lies with 1600's on cruisers and 400's on frigs, but CCP have swung the nerf bat across the board rather then fix the problem modules, they shoulda made 1600's and 400's almsot impossible to fit on frigs and cruisers and made shield extenders better to keep jim quiet.
and TY j0 but i think the name will bring you bad luck, haha
Originally by: Oveur
I'll get right to the point!
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile
|
Gronslick
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:41:00 -
[129]
bad idea - leave em as they are, they cost enuff in PG and CPU so more tank and less fire power. Besides its just bad, mmkay!
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:56:00 -
[130]
I wouldn't have a problem fitting a 200 on my frig i've actually been considering it for some time...
|
|
Rawne Karrde
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:57:00 -
[131]
agreed stupid nerf. no problem as they are now geez ccp enough with the nerfs already. These mods already use up enough in their cpu and pg use. Leave them alone already.
*so much for combat lasting longer.
|
Lilan Kahn
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 17:15:00 -
[132]
Originally by: j0sephine 1.5 mil on 400 mm plate... when Crow weights 1 mil total :/
ouch ouch ouch ;.;
see jos the devs stole my idea
i hold this tread for ransom of 10 boxs of cookies and a crate of quafe
Originally by: Eris Discordia
We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 17:21:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Farjung on 24/09/2005 17:25:32
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 :/
100MN AB adds 50 mill, not 5 mill ;). (Or am I losing it?)
Like I said with my other post, 10MN mwd + 800mm = hitting 90% of max velocity in about 26 seconds w/ my skills, but 100MN AB + 800mm = hitting 90% of max velocity after over 80 seconds. So there really is a big difference between the two still, in terms of agility.
Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 17:33:00 -
[134]
"100MN AB adds 50 mill, not 5 mill ;). (Or am I losing it?)"
d'oh! certainly not losing, i messed it up while checking numbers (having them all modules packed in one piece of excel sheet is going to get me killed one day ;.;
Oh, and the 26 seconds vs 80 seconds difference, is that how it goes with the 'new' plates? Couldn't guess, and thought maybe you mean the tq values o.O;
|
Farjung
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 17:34:00 -
[135]
Ah, sorry, that was the result of testing on sisi.
Someone really needs to keep me away from the Taranis |
Mr Floppyknickers
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 19:23:00 -
[136]
Quote: 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.
Yes, then again armor doesn't auto regen to my knowledge either. That's one of the trade offs when comparing the two. I've yet to see anyone passive armor tank.
On the mass bit it would be nice if they dropped the power req, though not likely to happen and I don't overplate. What I think should happen is a variable put in place that recognizes the class type so when a plate is put on an inapproriate size ship THEN the mass comes into play. Afterall a ship should have no problem fitting an appropriate plate and dealing with the mass.
Or perhaps to balance the change/nerf as is, they should increase the engine power and speed of all ships so that when they are fitted with an appropriate plate they return to a normal status, and when overplate suffer from the mss consequence. After all, a BS would likely be designed to carry heavy equipment without noticable effect. Just like when you strip something down it moves faster, handles better, uses less fuel and so on. So would a cruiser, but slap something on the ship wasn't designed to handle and you get strain on systems, manuvering thrusters and engines unable to cope and the ships handling, pwg, etc... suffer side effects.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 19:33:00 -
[137]
Quote: Yes, then again armor doesn't auto regen to my knowledge either. That's one of the trade offs when comparing the two. I've yet to see anyone passive armor tank.
shield regeneration will never, ever, make a difference, damage in EVE comes way too fast and furious for that crappy shield regen to EVER factor.
please people stop saying shield regen is useful, an armor tanker has regenerating shields as well, its quite moot, it doesnt help in pvp. ------
|
Gunstar Zero
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 19:37:00 -
[138]
<awaits Pottsey's appearance>
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 19:39:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Gunstar Zero <awaits Pottsey's appearance>
lol.. plz no.. if i hear one more argument that passive shielding does not completely suck, my head will asplode. ------
|
Mr Floppyknickers
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 20:39:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Quote: Yes, then again armor doesn't auto regen to my knowledge either. That's one of the trade offs when comparing the two. I've yet to see anyone passive armor tank.
shield regeneration will never, ever, make a difference, damage in EVE comes way too fast and furious for that crappy shield regen to EVER factor.
please people stop saying shield regen is useful, an armor tanker has regenerating shields as well, its quite moot, it doesnt help in pvp.
I did not say that that native regen alone is viable which I'm sure you realized before you popped a cork. You can passive shield tank effectively. You cannot passive armor tank at all. This is likely why when compared side by side armor reps and shield boosters have a gap in effectiveness because if the WERE equal, then passive tankingcombines with a booster suppliment would be very over powered. Once again it all comes down to how you chose to fit your ship. So ditch the armor tanking attack, and maybe think about what was said.
SO, to recap. Sheilds can be tanked, armor can be tanked, one can be set for increased regen rate (that does keep up with damage to varied degrees) the other cannot. Just like a cap can have it's regen ramped up so can shields, armor cannot. If you'd like more info there is an excellent passive shield regen thread that covers the pros, cons, and setups.
Besides if shields are so gimped and underpowered then why is nearly every close range gate camp I've encountered a raven or a scorp tanking sentires for and excess of 3 minutes without breaking a sweat? Now I'm not calling for a shield nerf, tossing that out there before someone hops on that attack point, I was just trying to explain a possible reason in the difference of effectivness. As anyone who sees my posts can tell you I'm never pro nerf. I'm of the opinion that if someone or something killed you or is tough to kill you are wanting and need to better yourself and your set up, not run to the boards and cry "so and so beat me so he must have cheated or this or that is unbalanced, I demand a nerf!" That's not me.
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 21:09:00 -
[141]
Edited by: j0sephine on 24/09/2005 21:10:17
"Besides if shields are so gimped and underpowered then why is nearly every close range gate camp I've encountered a raven or a scorp tanking sentires for and excess of 3 minutes without breaking a sweat?"
One thing to keep on mind with these arguments, there's more ships in Eve than just battleships :/
Shield tanking is doable on large ships with lot of mid slots. And passive shield regen does start to have some practical impact at high end level -- on ships which can stack multiple large shield extendenders and still perform regular functions reasonably well.
Where shield tanking is completely outclassed in comparison to armour tanking, is the low end of Eve ship range -- frigates, destroyers, cruisers etc. Here, ships don't have enough mid slots to fit a reasonable shield tank and still do what they're expected to do... and the smaller shield extenders just don't add anything near practical benefit, as long as we're talking of reasonable setups rather than "all mid and low slots devoted to shield tank"
But this goes largely ignored because like you say, if a Raven or Scorpion can shield tank and doesn't die in less than minute while doing it then hey, everything must be fine as far as shields go, right..? >.<;;
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 21:09:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 24/09/2005 21:11:51
Quote: I did not say that that native regen alone is viable which I'm sure you realized before you popped a cork. You can passive shield tank effectively. You cannot passive armor tank at all. This is likely why when compared side by side armor reps and shield boosters have a gap in effectiveness because if the WERE equal, then passive tankingcombines with a booster suppliment would be very over powered. Once again it all comes down to how you chose to fit your ship. So ditch the armor tanking attack, and maybe think about what was said.
Okay so like, when for example a Zealot gets 7 low slots and can fit a thermal hardener to cover up its lone resist 'hole' fit a medium armor rep II, and 5 heatsinks, fit a full rack of heavy pulse II or drop a heatsink for a 1600mm plate and use focused pulse and achieve like over 400 DPS, a huge HP advantage, strong resists, and a modest tank, and can still use its midslots for the PvP essentials (AB/SCRAM/WEB).
While let's say an Eagle or Cerberus has only 5 midslots, has a huge EM hole (which 1 hardener never really covers..), so theres one slot down, next you need a shield booster, two down, then you need a warp scrambler, thats three, web? four, afterburner? 5.
Okay now you have to deal with the fact you're using a ship that doesn't do nearly as much damage as a Zealot, you have no CPU for a large extender, the medium adds very little and is STILL hard to fit as well due to CPU restraints. You more or less need four damage mods on the Eagle or Cerberus to be competetive and you still aren't at all.
To be honest to compete with a Caldari HAC, you have to load up on electronic warfare anyways, so scratch everything I just said about shield tanking, its not worth it.
Quote: SO, to recap. Sheilds can be tanked, armor can be tanked, one can be set for increased regen rate (that does keep up with damage to varied degrees) the other cannot. Just like a cap can have it's regen ramped up so can shields, armor cannot. If you'd like more info there is an excellent passive shield regen thread that covers the pros, cons, and setups.
None of those setups are viable for PvP because they use up all the slots you need for modules that are de facto standard for PvP. You need webifiers, you need warp scramblers, you need microwarp or afterburners, once you put those on your ship your passive tank is worthless and to PvP without those modules is worthless as well.
Quote: Besides if shields are so gimped and underpowered then why is nearly every close range gate camp I've encountered a raven or a scorp tanking sentires for and excess of 3 minutes without breaking a sweat? Now I'm not calling for a shield nerf, tossing that out there before someone hops on that attack point, I was just trying to explain a possible reason in the difference of effectivness. As anyone who sees my posts can tell you I'm never pro nerf. I'm of the opinion that if someone or something killed you or is tough to kill you are wanting and need to better yourself and your set up, not run to the boards and cry "so and so beat me so he must have cheated or this or that is unbalanced, I demand a nerf!" That's not me.
It's not so much that shield tanking as in the modules per se suck (well invul fields DO suck compared to energized adaptive nano membranes), its the fact ships that are supposed to shield tank just don't seem to get enough midslots to really shield tank well without sacrificing pvp essential modules, this is why many people forgo shield tanking in favor or armor plating, you lose 1 low slot and get a 1600mm or 800mm plate on there and double, if not triple your HP, theres nothing in the shield world to compete with that, a plated cruiser has a HUGE advantage over a non plated, all the shield regen mumbo jumbo doesn't change that, armor plates are > shield extenders and dominate cruiser pvp, and frigate pvp as well. ------
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 21:39:00 -
[143]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 24/09/2005 21:47:07 dp
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 21:42:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Jim Raynor plates really do need nerfing to be honest, i mean think about, a lot of fights come down to whose got an oversized plate on and who doesnt, it's such a hugely stupid advantage to have a 1600mm plate on a cruiser or a 400mm plate on a frigate or whatever..
The 400mm plate claw? DEAD MEAT to a Rail Tarranis (I know, I've done it, and had done to me. Yes, there are OTHER things the rail tarranis can't do the Claw can...that's BALANCE). And plenty of OTHER setups I can name.
1600mm plate cruisers? Killed a pair with a friend before... 2 interceptors > 2 plated cruisers. Several times, actually.
They're by NO MEANS an "I win" button.
And if you start screwing with it, then you need to rebalance a LOT of ships. I don't see those changes in.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 21:44:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Fred0 Plates were overpowered, you know this when every cruiser fitted for pvp has one.
No, this is a comment on how tracking works. Frigates have a chance, unplated, against cruisers. Cruisers have NO chance, unplated, against Battleships.
Don't try and confuse the symptom with the CAUSE.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Hippey
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 02:52:00 -
[146]
YES!
Dear god I hope they go in like this as is, with only nanofibers actually weighing a little less, not just smaller speed penalty.
Hahahaha.. this'll make EVE fun again.
All you who flamed my post about adding mass to plates, KISS MAH AHSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!
hahahahaha ------------------------------------------- If you do nothing to stop slavery, you do everything to support it!
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 03:21:00 -
[147]
"Hahahaha.. this'll make EVE fun again."
Well, everyone will be back to gank setups instead. You complained plates were making things boring and predictable, how's this any different..? ^^;;
|
Hippey
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 04:35:00 -
[148]
No people will stil use them, they will now however be APPROPRIATELLY penalized.. a 10% penalty to speed on a 50mm plate just like on a 1600mm plate? yeah okay :s
bye bye 3200mm maller you sick freak of nature ------------------------------------------- If you do nothing to stop slavery, you do everything to support it!
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 04:40:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Quote: Yes, then again armor doesn't auto regen to my knowledge either. That's one of the trade offs when comparing the two. I've yet to see anyone passive armor tank.
shield regeneration will never, ever, make a difference, damage in EVE comes way too fast and furious for that crappy shield regen to EVER factor.
please people stop saying shield regen is useful, an armor tanker has regenerating shields as well, its quite moot, it doesnt help in pvp.
I passive tanked a Muninn in a Rupture. more than doubled how long it took him to kill me.
~Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Biomass fears me. |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 04:52:00 -
[150]
"No people will stil use them, they will now however be APPROPRIATELLY penalized.."
Who is going to use them? 200mm plate i.e. more than reasonable frigate module drops the speed of interceptor with MWD by ~1.3 km/sec... and makes the ship nearly two times more sluggish. And for cruiser, 800mm plate means ~500 m/sec less speed out of mwd.
There's no point to extra armour if it decreases your speed to the point where you're hit significantly more often with it than without.
But maybe your idea of "appropriate penalty" is "they'll be shot like fish in a barrel" ... in which case yeah, seems about right o.O;
|
|
Mr Floppyknickers
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 05:07:00 -
[151]
Quote: Okay so like, when for example a Zealot gets 7 low slots and can fit a thermal hardener to cover up its lone resist 'hole' fit a medium armor rep II, and 5 heatsinks, fit a full rack of heavy pulse II or drop a heatsink for a 1600mm plate and use focused pulse and achieve like over 400 DPS, a huge HP advantage, strong resists, and a modest tank, and can still use its midslots for the PvP essentials (AB/SCRAM/WEBX.
While let's say an Eagle or Cerberus has only 5 midslots, has a huge EM hole (which 1 hardener never really covers..), so theres one slot down, next you need a shield booster, two down, then you need a warp scrambler, thats three, web? four, afterburner 5.
Okay now you have to deal with the fact you're using a ship that doesn't do nearly as much damage as a Zealot, you have no CPU for a large extender, the medium adds very little and is STILL hard to fit as well due to CPU restraints. You more or less need four damage mods on the Eagle or Cerberus to be competetive and you still aren't at all.
To be honest to compete with a Caldari HAC, you have to load up on electronic warfare anyways, so scratch everything I just said about shield tanking, its not worth it.
Oh i'm Sorry. I operate under the assumption of playing to a ships strengths. Apparently, you don't. If a ship cannot effectively shield tank, passive or otherwise, don't do it. That is not the problem of the passive system, that's a problem of someone applying a square peg to a round hole.
Quote: None of those setups are viable for PvP because they use up all the slots you need for modules that are de facto standard for PvP. You need webifiers, you need warp scramblers, you need microwarp or afterburners, once you put those on your ship your passive tank is worthless and to PvP without those modules is worthless as well.
So don't shield tank a ship when you solo. In a group setting you're tackler will have the webbing and scraming covered.
Quote: It's not so much that shield tanking as in the modules per se suck (well invul fields DO suck compared to energized adaptive nano membranes), its the fact ships that are supposed to shield tank just don't seem to get enough midslots to really shield tank well without sacrificing pvp essential modules, this is why many people forgo shield tanking in favor or armor plating, you lose 1 low slot and get a 1600mm or 800mm plate on there and double, if not triple your HP, theres nothing in the shield world to compete with that, a plated cruiser has a HUGE advantage over a non plated, all the shield regen mumbo jumbo doesn't change that, armor plates are > shield extenders and dominate cruiser pvp,...
Look up. Square peg, round hole.
I admit plates are popular, i armor tank myself. However I also do not overplate. My rax runs a 400mm plate and I fit med weapons. I use 200's on my incursus.
Now back to the original point since this is not a thread on the pro's and cons of armor versus passive shield tanking.
Plates adding mass should be fine IF the have no penalties for using the correct size plates and bonuses to manuevering and handling if you underplate or don't plate at all. These ships should be considered to have been designed to function under a certain set of conditions eg: guns, plates, added weight etc. So when you overplate that taxes the system and cause a drop in handling and speed. But if you use the correct plates, you should recieve no ill effects. And if you use a lesser plate or none at all, it's the equivalent of striping down the ship to make it handle better.
Point being, ships using the correct size plate for the class should not be gimped because they want to stop or penalize overplating. Put in some kind of indicator so the system knows where to apply the penalty or not.
|
Mr Floppyknickers
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 05:11:00 -
[152]
Quote: One thing to keep on mind with these arguments, there's more ships in Eve than just battleships :/
I haven't, I just realize that the system only works on certain ship types. That's it.
Quote: But this goes largely ignored because like you say, if a Raven or Scorpion can shield tank and doesn't die in less than minute while doing it then hey, everything must be fine as far as shields go, right..? >.<;;
Yes, fine when it's applied correctly on a ship that can manage it. That's all.
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 05:13:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: Jim Raynor shield regeneration will never, ever, make a difference, damage in EVE comes way too fast and furious for that crappy shield regen to EVER factor.
I passive tanked a Muninn in a Rupture. more than doubled how long it took him to kill me.
Jim is right. If you extend your shied hitpoints, you extend the fight duration. Nobody says otherwise.
What, on the other hand, has been written on the forums and is completly false, is that the passive regeneration gain from an extender isn't worth 1 copper.
For example, since this whole debate sprung because of cruisers mostly, a medium shield extender yields +840 hitpoints. For a cruiser like the Moa (should be best at shield tanking since it has a bonus to it), you get a 1000 sec base regeneration. With top skills, it's 750.
So, a medium extender will regenerate 1.12 hitpoints per second, with a peak at 2.8 points per second. Let's round everything up for 2 points per second, which is more than generous, and you'll see what it's worth.
Exactly, nothing. On the other hand, plates give their much bigger boost beforehand and don't use a midslot...
Kill mails |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 05:15:00 -
[154]
"I haven't, I just realize that the system only works on certain ship types. That's it."
OK, seems we both recognize then shield tanking is second-grade citizen at best when it comes to ships smaller then battlecruisers.
|
Tomias Itaraou
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 05:31:00 -
[155]
I'm one of those people who beleived oversized plates needed fixing, but I do believe that CCP has gone seriously overboard/
25%-40% of the current penalties will make it possible for cruisers to use 1 1600mm plate in combat and do well, without the severe unbalancing effect of dual plate mallers or other such problems.
I believe that 800mm plates need a boost, and that 1600 plates need requirements doubled and effect doubled. Cruisers need some way of taking damage in combat - as right now it is very easy for a cruiser to die in one volley of a BS.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 06:05:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Tomias Itaraou I'm one of those people who beleived oversized plates needed fixing, but I do believe that CCP has gone seriously overboard/
25%-40% of the current penalties will make it possible for cruisers to use 1 1600mm plate in combat and do well, without the severe unbalancing effect of dual plate mallers or other such problems.
I believe that 800mm plates need a boost, and that 1600 plates need requirements doubled and effect doubled. Cruisers need some way of taking damage in combat - as right now it is very easy for a cruiser to die in one volley of a BS.
i think battleships still hit cruisers way too easily tbh
cruisers have a hard time against frigates using cruiser sized weapons, but a battleship really has no problem hitting a cruiser under most circumstances ------
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 09:28:00 -
[157]
now, i've wanted this for a while, but i think this has gone a little overboard
i'd use:
1600mm: 7.5mil 800mm : 3mil 400mm : 750k 200mm : 250k 100mm : 75k 50mm : 25k
make the nanos weigh less (obviously)
--
This Zig. For great justice! |
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 09:46:00 -
[158]
I think I will just use 7 dmg mods on my zealot with all heavy pulse :/ and only fly myt expensive **** in groups of 5 +
|
Talos Darkhart
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 10:09:00 -
[159]
I think it looks fine now everyone who uses plates can pretend ther in a caldari ship
|
Moominer
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 10:41:00 -
[160]
Originally by: j0sephine "Hahahaha.. this'll make EVE fun again."
Well, everyone will be back to gank setups instead. You complained plates were making things boring and predictable, how's this any different..? ^^;;
I would *much* rather have plates in the game in their current state than everyone back in gank setups, at least combat lasts a little longer now and gives some ships (notably cruisers) a chance of not being killed in one volley
|
|
Balazs Simon
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 11:48:00 -
[161]
it is overnerfed.. period. - New sig coming soon.. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 12:34:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 25/09/2005 12:38:34
Originally by: Mr Floppyknickers I admit plates are popular, i armor tank myself. However I also do not overplate. My rax runs a 400mm plate and I fit med weapons. I use 200's on my incursus.
Then you haven't done the math. There are more effective modules you can mount which will give you more EFFECTIVE hp on that Rax than a 400mm.
And Jim? Yea, the ability of BS to hit cruisers easily is the ROOT of the problem with 1600mm plates. There are viable plated AND unplated Inty and AF setups. There are very few viable cruiser setups without a plate.
Fix the problem, please, CCP - NOT THE SYMPTOM. (Becuase this nerf also rolls back a good part of your balance work, ffs)
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 18:16:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:22:21
Originally by: Moominer I would *much* rather have plates in the game in their current state than everyone back in gank setups, at least combat lasts a little longer now and gives some ships (notably cruisers) a chance of not being killed in one volley
Word. This ôfixö solves a problem but creates another one, which is even worse.
IÆll show some numbers, based on stuffs I wrote here. In that part I compare how hp/pg efficiency is finally decreased after being boosted. In this part, how the armor hp is lowered after being boosted (and only allowing a slight dps boost).
IÆll start with some setups to explain my point. - t1 ships are fitted with t1 stuffs, relevant skills for t1 stuffs to 5 - t2 ships are fitted with t2 stuffs or best named, relevant skills for t2 stuffs to 5. As there were no t2 plate pre-boost, best named plates are fitted on t2 ships. - for each class, there is one ship with a ôlow end plateö and another with a ôhigh end plateö. It doesnÆt matter if they are ôoversizedö or not, the only thing that matters is if it can fit in a capable setup or not. - setups are obviously close range setups, since there isnÆt much point (or possibility) in plating a long range ship. - I didnÆt fit many cap mods in the following setups. I usually find that cap hold good enough without them and that there are more interesting mods to fit. Let me know where one is needed and IÆll try to change what has to be changed.
Pre-boost values t1 frig 1: 200mm incursus Setup (t1 stuffs): 3 ion, mwd, web, scram, mapc & 200mm steel plate. Dps: (3*2.8125*12*1.25*1.15*1.25)/(3*0.9*0.8) + 2 light drones = 84.2 + drones ~ 90 dps. Armor hp: 544 hp Factoring hardening: 544/(1-0.3) = 777 hp.
t1 frig 2: 400mm rifter Setup (t1 stuffs): 3 150mm, rocket, mwd, web/scram, mapc & 400mm steel plate. Dps: (3*1.65*11*1.25*1.15*1.25)/(2.25*0.9*0.8) + RL = 60.4 + RL ~ 70 dps Armor hp: 781 hp Factoring hardening: 781/(1-0.3) = 1115 hp.
interceptor 1: 200mm crusader Setup (t2 stuffs): 4 gatling pulse, mwd, web/scram (named), mapc & 200mm rolled & hs & small rep. Dps: 1.229*(4*1.8*12*1.25*1.15*1.25*1.1)/(2.1*0.9*0.8) = 138.8 dps. Armor hp: 881 hp Factoring hardening: 881/(1-0.3) = 1258 hp.
interceptor 2: 400mm claw Setup (t2 stuffs): 3 150mm, RL, mwd, web/scram, mapc & 400mm rolled & cap relay & small rep. Dps: (3*1.98*11*1.5*1.15*1.25*1.1)/(1.6875*0.9*0.8) + RL = 127.5 dps. Armor hp: 1044 hp Factoring hardening: 781/(1-0.3) = 1451 hp.
---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 18:16:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:18:57 Post-boost values t1 frig 1: 200mm incursus Armor hp: 669 hp Factoring hardening: 669 /(1-0.3) = 956 hp.
t1 frig 2: 400mm rifter Armor hp: 1031 hp Factoring hardening: 1031/(1-0.3) = 1472 hp.
interceptor 1: 200mm crusader Armor hp: 1056 hp Factoring hardening: 1056/(1-0.3) = 1508 hp.
interceptor 2: 400mm claw Armor hp: 1393 hp Factoring hardening: 1393/(1-0.3) = 1990 hp.
cruiser 1: 800mm stabber Armor hp: 2500 hp Factoring hardening: 2500/(1-0.45) = 4545 hp.
cruiser 2: 1600mm maller Armor hp: 4500 hp Factoring hardening: 4500/(1-0.7) = 15000 hp.
cruiser 3: 1600mm thorax <First Setup> Armor hp: 4312 hp Factoring hardening: 4312/(1-0.6) = 10780 hp. <Second Setup> Armor hp: 2812 hp Factoring hardening: 2812/(1-0.5) = 5624 hp.
HAC 1: 800mm deimos Armor hp: 3912 hp Factoring hardening: 3912 /(1-0.7) = 13040 hp.
HAC 2: 1600mm zealot Armor hp: 6200 hp Factoring hardening: 6200/(1-0.7) = 20666 hp.
---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 18:16:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:23:47 cruiser 1: 800mm stabber Setup (t1 stuffs): 4 dual 180mm, 2 assault, ab, web, scram, 800mm steel plate & energized nano & med rep. Dps: (4*1.375*22*1.25*1.15)/(2.4*0.9*0.8*0.75) + 2 AL + 2 light drones = 134.7 dps + 2 AL + 2 LD ~ 160 dps . Armor hp: 2000 hp Factoring hardening: 2000/(1-0.45) = 3636 hp.
cruiser 2: 1600mm maller Setup (t1 stuffs): 5 medium beams t2, nos, ab, web, scram, 1600mm steel plate & 3 hardeners & med rep & cpr. T2 small guns instead of t1 medium gun, IÆll not account specialisation. Dps: (5*3.6*12*1.25*1.15)/(4*0.9*0.8) = 107.8 dps. (118.6 with spec). Armor hp: 3500 hp Factoring hardening: 3500/(1-0.7) = 11667 hp.
cruiser 3: 1600mm thorax <First Setup> Setup (t1 stuffs): 5 medium beams t2, ab, web, scram, 1600mm steel plate & 3 hardeners & med rep. T2 small guns instead of t1 medium gun, IÆll not account specialisation. Dps: (5*3.6*12*1.25*1.15)/(4*0.9*0.8) + 8 heavy drones t1 = 107.8 + 175 dps ~ 282.8 dps . Dps: (5*3.6*12*1.25*1.15)/(4*0.9*0.8) + 10 med drones t1 = 107.8 + 90 dps ~ 197.8 dps . Armor hp: 3312 hp Factoring hardening: 3312 /(1-0.6) = 8280 hp. <Second setup> Setup (t1 stuffs): 5 heavy electrons, mwd, web, scram, 800mm steel plate & 2 energized nano & grid mod & med rep. Dps: (5*1.75*24*1.25*1.25*1.15)/(3*0.9*0.8) + 8 heavy drones t1 = 174.7 + 175 dps ~ 350 dps. Dps: (5*1.75*24*1.25*1.25*1.15)/(3*0.9*0.8) + 10 med drones t1 = 174.7 + 90 dps ~ 265 dps. Armor hp: 2312 hp Factoring hardening: 2312 /(1-0.5) = 4624 hp.
HAC 1: 800mm deimos Setup (t2 stuffs): 5 medium electrons, mwd, web, scram, 800mm rolled tungsten plate & 1 hardener & med rep & 3 mfs. Okay, the setup sucks, especially pre-patch, but afaik nobody ever used 800mm t1 steel plate on hacÆs pre-patch. No t2 plate either. For the sake of the argument, IÆll pretend that there were rolled tungsten 800mm plates. Dps: 1.6*(5*1.75*24*1.25*1.25*1.25*1.15*1.10)/(4*0.9*0.8) + 10 med drones t1 = 288.3 + 90 dps ~ 378.3 dps . Armor hp: 2812.5 hp Factoring hardening: 2812.5 /(1-0.7) = 9375 hp. Ok, thatÆs pathetic as compared to a thorax, so I guess everybody had it right when not flying a plated deimos. IÆm not even sure I could have found a hac to setup with the 800mm plate. Plated Munnin/vagabond with a pre-patch 800mm plate are a joke, ishtar was probably better with a named 1600 plate, same for amarr hac. Caldari hac dps is so low that they could not afford a plate in the low either. Not that they even would post-boostà
HAC 2: 1600mm zealot Setup (t2 stuffs): 4 medium focused pulse, med nos, ab, web, disruptor, 1600mm rolled tungsten plate & 1 hardener & med rep & 3 hs & rcu. I have no idea if itÆs a good pre-boost zealot setup. Feel free to correct me on this. Dps: 1.6*(4*2.4*24*1.25*1.25*1.15*1.10)/(4.05*0.9*0.8*0.75) = 333.3 dps [/b]. Armor hp: 4800 hp Factoring hardening: 4800/(1-0.7) = 16000 hp. Maller-like hp with 3 times the damage, thatÆs already much better. But who fitted a plate on his zealot pre-patch anyway ?
---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 18:17:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:20:46 Conclusion Well, I think this speaks by itself. General damage increase, damage is now even above the damage did by tanked setup existing pre-boost. General tanking decrease too, even though I tried to tank everything as much as possible. Welcome back in the gank area. Active repairing isn't going to be better than it was before the plate boost.
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.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 18:17:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:19:30 Post-plate change values (accounting mk2 changes too) t1 frig 1: 100mm incursus Setup (t1 stuffs): 3 ion, mwd, web, scram, energized nano & 100mm steel plate. Dps: (3*2.8125*12*1.25*1.15*1.25)/(3*0.9*0.8) + 2 light drones = 84.2 + drones ~ 90 dps. Armor hp: 481.3 hp Factoring hardening: 481.3 /(1-0.45) = 874 hp. Comparison to pre-boost incursus: same dps and ~12.5% more hp (accounting resistances) Comparison to post-boost incursus: same dps and ~9% less hp (idem).
t1 frig 2: 100mm rifter Setup (t1 stuffs): 3 200mm, rocket, mwd, web/scram, 100mm steel plate & energized nano & small rep. (assuming we get this slot) Dps: (3*1.925*11*1.25*1.15*1.25)/(2.5*0.9*0.8) + RL = 63.4 + RL ~ 73 dps Armor hp: 544 hp Factoring hardening: 544/(1-0.45) = 989 hp. Comparison to pre-boost rifter: ~4% more dps and ~22% less hp. Comparison to post-boost rifter: ~4% more dps and ~33% less hp. But: new ability to use an armor rep (even though it wonÆt run because cap with mwd blows)
interceptor 1: 100mm crusader <First setup> Setup (t2 stuffs): 4 gatling pulse, mwd, web/scram, mapc & 100mm t2 & energized nano & small rep. Slightly annoying, itÆd have been nice to get rid of the mapc or to fit dual light pulse, but guess whatà it doesnÆt fit. Dps: (4*1.8*12*1.25*1.15*1.25*1.1)/(2.1*0.9*0.8) = 112.9 dps. (-22.9% dps because of the loss of a damage mod). Armor hp: 793.8 hp Factoring hardening: 793.8/(1-0.5) = 1586 hp. Comparison to pre-boost crusader: ~22.9% less dps and ~21% more hp. Comparison to post-boost crusader: ~22.9% less dps and ~5% more hp. But, IÆd like to compare hp with similar dps so here we go: <second setup> Setup (t2 stuffs): 4 gatling pulse, mwd, web/scram, mapc & 100mm t2 & hs & small rep. Dps: 1.229*(4*1.8*12*1.25*1.15*1.25*1.1)/(2.1*0.9*0.8) = 138.8 dps. Armor hp: 793.8 hp Factoring hardening: 793.8/(1-0.3) = 1134 hp. Comparison to pre-boost crusader: same dps and ~10% less hp. Comparison to post-boost crusader: same dps and ~25% less hp.
interceptor 2: 100mm claw Setup (t2 stuffs): 3 200mm, RL, mwd, web/scram, energized nano &100mm t2 & cap relay & small rep. Dps: (3*1.98*11*1.5*1.15*1.25*1.1)/(1.6875*0.9*0.8) + RL = 127.5 dps. Armor hp: 606.5 hp Factoring hardening: 606.5/(1-0.5) = 1212 hp. Comparison to pre-boost claw: same dps and ~16.5% less hp. Comparison to post-boost claw: same dps and ~40% less hp.
cruiser 1: 400mm stabber Setup (t1 stuffs): 4 220mm, 2 heavy, ab, web, scram, 400mm steel plate & energized nano & med rep. Dps: (4*1.65*22*1.25*1.15)/(2.7*0.9*0.8*0.75) + 2 HL + 2 light drones = 143.2 dps + 2 HL + 2 LD ~ 185 dps . Armor hp: 1750 hp Factoring hardening: 1750/(1-0.45) = 3181 hp. Comparison to pre-boost stabber: 15.5% more dps and ~13% less hp. Comparison to post-boost stabber: 15.5% more dps and ~30% less hp.
---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.09.25 18:17:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:24:28 Edited by: Naughty Boy on 25/09/2005 18:20:04 cruiser 2: 400mm maller <first setup> The duramaller without ab will still work. For pvp, unless you donÆt need a ab (ermà why not after allà => no dual 1600mm plate). Frig guns & 400mm plate, thatÆs a harsh decrease in hp for the same damage: Armor hp: 2250 hp Factoring hardening: 2250/(1-0.7) = 7500 hp. Comparison to pre-boost maller: same dps and ~36% less hp. Comparison to post-boost maller: same dps and ~50% less hp. <second setup> With cruiser guns: Setup (t1 stuffs): 5 heavy pulse, ab, web, scram, 400mm steel plate & 3 hardeners & med rep & cpr. Dps: (5*3*24*1.25*1.15)/(5.25*0.9*0.8) = 136.9 dps. Armor hp: 2250 hp Factoring hardening: 2250/(1-0.7) = 7500 hp. Comparison to pre-boost maller: ~27% more dps and ~36% less hp. Comparison to post-boost maller: ~27% more dps and ~50% less hp.
cruiser 3: 400mm thorax (and axed drone bay) Comparison to the med blaster setup. LetÆs forget the frig gun setup, even though itÆs not bound to disappear. The following setup is without the grid increase. <First Setup> Setup (t1 stuffs): 5 heavy electrons, mwd, web, scram, 400mm steel plate & 3 hardeners & med rep. Dps: (5*1.75*24*1.25*1.25*1.15)/(3*0.9*0.8) + 10 med drones t1 = 174.7 + 90 dps ~ 265 dps. Armor hp: 2062 hp Factoring hardening: 2062 /(1-0.6) = 3437 hp. Comparison to pre-boost thorax: ~24% less dps and ~26% less hp. Comparison to post-boost thorax: ~24% less dps and ~39% less hp. The drone bay loss account for the whole dps loss. <Second Setup> (with the grid boost, fit with advanced weapon upgrades and named stuffs) Setup (t1 stuffs): 5 heavy ions, mwd, web, scram, 400mm steel plate & 3 hardeners & med rep. Dps: (5*2.8125*24*1.25*1.25*1.15)/(4.5*0.9*0.8) + 10 med drones t1 = 187.2 + 90 dps ~ 277 dps. Armor hp: 2062 hp Factoring hardening: 2062 /(1-0.6) = 3437 hp. Comparison to pre-boost thorax: ~21% less dps and ~26% less hp. Comparison to post-boost thorax: ~21% less dps and ~39% less hp.
HAC 1: 400mm deimos Setup (t2 stuffs): 5 medium ions, small nos, mwd, web, scram, 400mm t2 plate & 1 hardener & med rep & 2 mfs & cap relay. Dps: 1.415*(5*3.375*24*1.25*1.25*1.25*1.15*1.10)/(4.5*0.9*0.8) + 10 med drones t1 = 437 + 90 dps ~ 527 dps . Armor hp: 2862 hp Factoring hardening: 2862 /(1-0.7) = 9540 hp. Comparison to pre-boost deimos: ~40% more dps and ~2% less hp. Comparison to post-boost deimos: ~40% more dps and ~27% less hp. But, eh, guess whatà thatÆs because the so-called pre-boost deimos setup (involving a 800mm rolled tungsten) was utterly crap.
HAC 2: 400mm zealot Setup (t2 stuffs): 4 heavy pulse, med nos, ab, web, disruptor, 400mm plate & 1 hardener & med rep & 3 hs & cpr. Dps: 1.6*(4*3.6*24*1.25*1.25*1.15*1.10)/(5.250*0.9*0.8*0.75) = 385.5 dps [/b]. Armor hp: 3050 hp Factoring hardening: 3050/(1-0.7) = 10166 hp. Comparison to pre-boost deimos: ~15.6% more dps and ~36.5% less hp. Comparison to post-boost deimos: ~15.6% more dps and ~51% less hp.
---
Originally by: theRaptor Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs.
|
The GoldenRatio
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 05:47:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
It rolls back everything in the last 6 months of balance. Why?
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Huh? Why is that a reason?
The GoldenRatio > All. |
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 06:07:00 -
[170]
Originally by: The GoldenRatio
Originally by: Maya Rkell
It rolls back everything in the last 6 months of balance. Why?
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Huh? Why is that a reason?
because its just now that tech 1 cruisers have become popular again, since they have some level of suvivablity (even with a 800mm plate) if this change goes thru it will be back to BS and tech 2 frigs dominating the battlefield
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more info |
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 06:33:00 -
[171]
"lol.. plz no.. if i hear one more argument that passive shielding does not completely suck, my head will asplode" Dont worry I am not going make post afer post saying your all wrong and passive shield tanking works. Instread I am going to challange eveyone who thinks passive shield tanking sucks to a freindly 1v1 battle or if you perfew combat testing. By freindly I mean no blowing up ships so we can have more then 1 match and on the test server. Hopefully you will change your mind after combat.
A lot of the battles so far have had the plate ships not even being able to break the passive shield tanks, shields. Thats why I dont agree plates are better and passive shield suck. Both methods work very well in combat. Though plates are better on a lot of smaller ships. But when extenders work they work great. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 07:28:00 -
[172]
I totally made a thread suggesting plate mass a month or so ago and I got flamed to bits. Karma damnit, karma.
-Electrofreak Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Drutort
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 08:43:00 -
[173]
so will they remove the % or make it small %? what is the point of having the % it only nerfs the top speed
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 08:55:00 -
[174]
Seems CCP didn't learn from the Propulsion nerf fiasco.
Another case of catering to the whiney brats of Ships & Modules forums, who can't be arsed to even contemplate an alternative countering loadout.
But what can you expect when you are presented with such flawless argumentation:
Quote: Plates were overpowered, you know this when every cruiser fitted for pvp has one.
Penalising mass has only 1 effect:
Yet another penalty for close range ships, and yet another reason to practise the magnificent art of standing still in a long range gank setup probably sporting a plate as well since they won't be moving to suffer any penalty, oh right i forgot... they do have to align.
Making EVE dumber 1 nerf at a time.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 09:03:00 -
[175]
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK I totally made a thread suggesting plate mass a month or so ago and I got flamed to bits. Karma damnit, karma.
Hehe, yep.
~Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Biomass fears me. |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2005.10.04 09:41:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 04/10/2005 09:42:18 The greatest dump PvP ever took was right after the Propulsion nerf.
Cruisers that had started to become useful again, kinda like now, were once more sent back to the stoneage.
Solo / Smaller groups lost mobility and in that way some of their security and turned into blobs.
Unlrelated on it's own but tied to the changes made to propulsion indirectly : During that time Gank Focus Fire tacctics were becoming very common pushing for more blobage and gankage.
I can go on and on, about how the propulsion nerf had one of the most negative impacts on PvP in EVE's lifetime.
Mobility hurts the blob, nerfing it promotes the blob.
But i don't expect you to understand. Not when you post such sillyness such as this:
Quote: That nerf they did because interceptors were running around with cruiser afterburners making almost any sort of defence against them obsolete?
Honestly, if you don't have a clue don't post. Any MWD inty could easily face off and spank an AB inty.
Nosferatus, Neutralisers, Webs and Sbombs from battleships had exactly the same effect on both of them.
Oh and btw, i never fitted an ab on my inties, oversized or not, i flew a MWD / Oversized AB thorax once in my eve career, i don't have the skill to fly ravens in any of my characters and i have never flown a plated tech I cruiser or inty.
Yet i still think such kneejerk nerfs are useless and only push the game back.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |