| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nyxus
   |
Posted - 2005.10.08 14:53:00 -
[61]
UGH!!!!
 The Sig Rad is too big for the benefit an extender gives.
The Mass addition is too big for the benefit a plate gives.
There needs to be an xlarge plate and shield extender. You should recieve no penalty (other than current penalties) on fitting a correctly sized plate/extender. The penalty should be on oversized - JUST LIKE AB's.
Anything else will put plates and extenders where they were before. In the hanger never being used.
Nyxus
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 15:59:00 -
[62]
Nafri summed it up...... shield extenders are getting nerfed when they already suck.. plates are getting nerfed in the 'oversizing' department but are otherwise looking pretty damn good in all this.
Shield tank for teh lose......... again.
------
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 16:03:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Does anyone actually have any evidence for this improvement in wrecking hits with increasing sig radius? I for one have never seen it and IÆm inclined to believe its nothing more than a myth.
All we know for sure is that for:
target sig radius = turret sig resolution, there is a 50% chance of a hit when the tracking of the turret matches the transverse velocity of the target. If the target sig radius is half the sig resolution of the turret its down to 25% and so on.
Testing on giant secure containers with 425mm railguns and target painters a while back seemed to yield no noticable difference in the distribution of hits between "lightly hits","well aimed", "excellent" either.
Back when TP II gave 50% and you had the skill + mwd bug. You wrecked a lot on other ships (Basicly I had a wrecking every 4th volley).
People abused the module to get stations very very fast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put your panties on your head! |
Sky Hunter
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 16:07:00 -
[64]
Kilrock, this is just wrong.
With 186m sig radius with Large Extender II on Vagabond youll be half-sig-radius from being at 1400 IIs full hit(wich is 400m). Means now you will have a no-go at almost any BS unless you are already very very close to him. Youll get blasted just like BC would get wich is about 3-4 volleys from 1400 II at most.
Grats for nerfing good things again. Just when shield tanking became almost in line of as good as armor tanking, you bring it down again.
-=-
|
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:05:00 -
[65]
Compared to armour plates, shield extenders are a joke.
Symptomatic of the whole shields situation, tbh.
|
Sky Hunter
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:09:00 -
[66]
Btw, are those changes already on test server and confirmed as included in next patch or still in project?
-=-
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:10:00 -
[67]
Edited by: KilROCK on 08/10/2005 17:11:08
Originally by: Sky Hunter
Kilrock, this is just wrong.
With 186m sig radius with Large Extender II on Vagabond youll be half-sig-radius from being at 1400 IIs full hit(wich is 400m). Means now you will have a no-go at almost any BS unless you are already very very close to him. Youll get blasted just like BC would get wich is about 3-4 volleys from 1400 II at most.
Grats for nerfing good things again. Just when shield tanking became almost in line of as good as armor tanking, you bring it down again.
That happens already at the moment. Speed is the key. Who cares? The only problem i have with this is the ammount of HP on the t2 large shield extender :\ 1500hp... i didn't train shield upgrade 4 to go back to t1 -.-
And oh, A tempest can't hit a vagabond going 2.8km/s that easily.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:13:00 -
[68]
Originally by: KilROCK
Edited by: KilROCK on 08/10/2005 17:11:08
Originally by: Sky Hunter
Kilrock, this is just wrong.
With 186m sig radius with Large Extender II on Vagabond youll be half-sig-radius from being at 1400 IIs full hit(wich is 400m). Means now you will have a no-go at almost any BS unless you are already very very close to him. Youll get blasted just like BC would get wich is about 3-4 volleys from 1400 II at most.
Grats for nerfing good things again. Just when shield tanking became almost in line of as good as armor tanking, you bring it down again.
That happens already at the moment. Speed is the key. Who cares? The only problem i have with this is the ammount of HP on the t2 large shield extender :\ 1500hp... i didn't train shield upgrade 4 to go back to t1 -.-
And oh, A tempest can't hit a vagabond going 2.8km/s that easily.
Pottsey posted tech1 numbers. And with your sig and the sig penalty of the shield-extender and maybe one TPII your a flying moon. Whenever you turn around you will face full volley damage, and that can hurt 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put your panties on your head! |
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:24:00 -
[69]
A yesh, you're right. Someone in corp chat mentioned they were nerfed in HP, so i guess its only a misunderstanding... I'm not concerned about the sig radius.
|
Sky Hunter
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:35:00 -
[70]
I also wonder how youd run MWD II and Large Shield Booster II together if youll have chance to fit em?
-=-
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 17:55:00 -
[71]
If i answer that, my vagabond will be called primary all the time ;)
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 18:12:00 -
[72]
Wrecking hits arent even part of the normal hit formula.
You should be talking about Well Aimed and Excellent hits.
~Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Biomass fears me. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 18:40:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Wrecking hits arent even part of the normal hit formula.
You should be talking about Well Aimed and Excellent hits.
CCP is pretending that, but I fear thats not really true. TP II abusage time showed some interesting aspecs of the tracking/hitting formulas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put your panties on your head! |
Sky Hunter
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 18:56:00 -
[74]
Originally by: KilROCK
If i answer that, my vagabond will be called primary all the time ;)
Well i bet not everyone pvp with faction/officer modules then 
-=-
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 19:36:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Sky Hunter
Btw, are those changes already on test server and confirmed as included in next patch or still in project?
They're not confirmed as anything, but everyone's assuming that they're final, just like everyone assumed the first set of plate changes were final.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 19:40:00 -
[76]
"They're not confirmed as anything, but everyone's assuming that they're final, just like everyone assumed the first set of plate changes were final."
Or simply giving feedback on the current iteration, so that hopefully it'll be re-considered and doesn't become the final version... -.o
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 19:48:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Wrayeth
imagine if four out of the six shots wrecked...
...excellent hit for 859 damage...
...hits you, inflicting 670 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2501 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2230 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2609 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2478 damage...
/wince
lol, yeah, i wish turrets worked that way.
(they don't)
________________________________________________________
|
Justice Bringer
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 19:59:00 -
[78]
Originally by: shakaZ XIV
personally, i dont see any problem with fitting oversized plates/extenders anyway. i blame all the thorax w***es for this nerf .
I agree completely. This is a direct result of all those people shouting "Nerf the Thorax" .
Well now that has been accomplished CCP not only have/will reduced the drone bay, they are also looking at armor plates too, if I'm not mistaken.
If this is also being done to shield extenders then I'm all for it if it makes people use the CORRECT size modules.
Thumbs up to CCP for acceeding to all the whiners and making all modules size specific with massive penalties for people fitting the incorrect item.
Now people will have be to creative with their setups, oh but hold on, that's exactly what you needed to do anyway. 
As far as I'm concerned it's status quo.
Once again thumbs up to CCP.
To all the whiners:
"Put a sock in it"
Justice 
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:20:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 08/10/2005 20:22:29
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: Wrayeth
imagine if four out of the six shots wrecked...
...excellent hit for 859 damage...
...hits you, inflicting 670 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2501 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2230 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2609 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2478 damage...
/wince
lol, yeah, i wish turrets worked that way.
(they don't)
/shrug
I get more wrecking hits vs. battleships than I do against frigs. It only stands to reason based on this information that there would be more wrecking hits against a raven whose sig radius was 740 than against one with a 460 sig radius.
As it is, I've gotten two wrecking hits on a battleship from one volley before, and that was on a dom (which has a lower sig than a raven, to start with).
EDIT: Oh, if it's the damage numbers you're disputing, ask Strad for a demonstration. Tech II 1400's are insane - they really do put up numbers like that. Hell, I've hit on structure with tech *1* 1400's for 816 on an excellent hit.
-Wrayeth
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:34:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Edited by: Wrayeth on 08/10/2005 20:22:29
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: Wrayeth
imagine if four out of the six shots wrecked...
...excellent hit for 859 damage...
...hits you, inflicting 670 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2501 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2230 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2609 damage...
...perfectly strikes you, wrecking for 2478 damage...
/wince
lol, yeah, i wish turrets worked that way.
(they don't)
/shrug
I get more wrecking hits vs. battleships than I do against frigs. It only stands to reason based on this information that there would be more wrecking hits against a raven whose sig radius was 740 than against one with a 460 sig radius.
As it is, I've gotten two wrecking hits on a battleship from one volley before, and that was on a dom (which has a lower sig than a raven, to start with).
EDIT: Oh, if it's the damage numbers you're disputing, ask Strad for a demonstration. Tech II 1400's are insane - they really do put up numbers like that. Hell, I've hit on structure with tech *1* 1400's for 816 on an excellent hit.
The chance of getting a wrecking hit is always the same as long as you can hit the target. If the sig radius of whatever you're shooting at is 50billion km you won't be landing a wrecking every hit. You'll still have a 1% chance of getting a wrecking IIRC.
________________________________________________________
|
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:34:00 -
[81]
ôIf this is also being done to shield extenders then I'm all for it if it makes people use the CORRECT size modules. ô
If the changeÆs are correct it wonÆt make people use the correct size module. It will stop almost everyone from using the modules all together. Even hard core extender fans like me will have second thoughts. I purely rely on shield extenders without any shield boosters and if people like me are having thoughts about not using the new modules. I donÆt see other people using it.
Thumbs up to CCP for acceeding to all the whiners and making all modules size specific with massive penalties for people fitting the incorrect item.
Now people will have be to creative with their setups, oh but hold on, that's exactly what you needed to do anyway.ö
I think you misunderstand the module penalties are not for oversized modules. Everyone fitting the correct size module is getting the penalties. At least thatÆs what it appears to be so far. If the penalties are just for oversized modules then its still bad but not as bad. But the devs made it sound like the penalties are for the useing the correct side module.
If the devs want people to use extender lower the CPU keep the current PG and boost the hitpoints a little. Then add a small sig increase. I just hope the numbers I posted are wrong and when the test server is updated we get something else.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
Kldraina
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 20:59:00 -
[82]
The one reason I can see for significantly reducing the PG requirements of shield extenders, is to make it easier to equip both shield extenders and armor plates (as they would require different resources). However, I doubt such a strategy would ever be effective in most situations (though I would love to see it become viable). |
Deka Kador
|
Posted - 2005.10.08 22:48:00 -
[83]
You may appear to get more wrecking hits against BS simply because you get more recorded hits against something with a large sig. radius.
The 1% chance of a wrecking hit is based on recorded hits not misses.
|
Andarias
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 01:49:00 -
[84]
Isn't the sig radius penalty only for oversized?
|
Wrayeth
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 02:54:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Kldraina
The one reason I can see for significantly reducing the PG requirements of shield extenders, is to make it easier to equip both shield extenders and armor plates (as they would require different resources). However, I doubt such a strategy would ever be effective in most situations (though I would love to see it become viable).
Actually, reducing the powergrid for shield extenders doesn't help much. It's CPU that's the issue.
-Wrayeth
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 03:24:00 -
[86]
Edited by: j0sephine on 09/10/2005 03:24:29
"Dominix:
Heavy + medium nos in highs
4x Large Shield Extenders
2x Large Armor Reps
2x 1600mm plates
(..)
Good luck killing that without >1 BS"
With Dominix' grid, even with the shield extender fitting requirement changes there is no room for more than two heavy nosferatu. So between this and the fact signature radius on that ship would be 2.75 km big... might be not that hard to kill as it seems at first glance, really -.o
(although i guess 23+ k hit points + 5 k of structure would take quite an effort to chew through :/
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 08:09:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Harry Voyager on 09/10/2005 08:09:11
Well, from the Playerguide calculator, a ship with a 920m sig radius (a Vagabond using MWD with a 60% sig increase), is going to get hit by Dual 650's nearly 20% of the time in a 10km orbit, even moving at 2km/s. At 20km we're looking at a 42% hit rate. With six of those, and the sort of set up a short range Tempest is going to have, we're looking at 70-140 dps.
At 3kps, you're a little better off, only taking 91.67 dps.
Heaven help you if you stop though. That scenario breaks the player guide's damage calculator: it stops at somewhere around 500 dps.
Harry Voyager
Now what's really funny, is those cav Ravens everyone was so worked up about get eaten alive if the fleet has a half-way decent range performance. 100dps at 100km, from a fairly low powered long range rig.
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 08:21:00 -
[88]
Solution to the Shield Extender sig radius dilemma: Give a fixed amount of sig radius, not a %.
3m on a micro
9m on a small
27m on a medium
81m on a large
-----------------
T2 Destroyers: a proposal |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 09:05:00 -
[89]
ôThe lower HP increase from extenders compared to plates is not compensated with the natural recharge, unless your fight lasts for durations that belong to fantasy when it comes to PvP.ö
1v1 those long battles do happen it is not fantasy. If the enemy doesnÆt take Damage mods then the passive shield tanks can tank all day while the plate dies over time. Surly that means the natural recharge is not useless and works? You donÆt have to worry about groups of cruisers or certain lone enemy battleships.
If the enemy does take max damage mods and full T2 weapons the passive shield tank still lasts 1min 45 seconds. ThatÆs the fastest anyone has every killed me when I was fighting back and they where in a full gank ship. Anything less then a full gank ship with T2 weapons and the battle takes over 2 minuets and 3 or 4+ minuet battles are common.
I will back this up by having friendly matches with anyone who wants to on the test server.
Now fleet battles or groups of battleships and natural recharge is useless but not all combat is like that. NPC combat on missions and complex and natural recharge is better then a plate setup. 1v1 tournaments and matchÆs and recharge works. Or even when you bump into 1 enemy or a small group of enemy player ships and natural recharge works. People do lvl 4 missions solo with natural recharge and I donÆt hear of plate setups being able to do that.
ôIf the proposed changes actually increase fight duration, calculations might be reviewed, but at the moment extenders are of very marginal use (few ships, few situations).ö
I much as I hate to agree thatÆs true. Few people like extenders.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.10.09 09:23:00 -
[90]
has anyone else noticed that in this defence BOOST, both plates and extenders get nerfed?
--
This Zig. For great justice!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |