EVE Search - Why go minmatar with the new tanking changes ?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why go minmatar with the new tanking changes ?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)

Oveur	Posted - 2005.10.14 09:51:00 - [31] It's good to see players here asking back up of statements with real numbers, because not only are they noticed more easily by me and my team (puuurdyy nuuumbeers) you actually show a real comparison of X vs Y clarifying what the point really is. It's also good to see that with the increased defenses, cap becomes Elvis. And Minmatar will have a lot of Elvis, because of their turrets after this change. _____________________________ "There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

Discorporation	Posted - 2005.10.14 09:57:00 - [32] Mm. didn't 1400's or other large cannons eat a tiny bit of cap? [23]
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 09:58:00 - [33] Originally by: Oveur It's good to see players here asking back up of statements with real numbers, because not only are they noticed more easily by me and my team (puuurdyy nuuumbeers) you actually show a real comparison of X vs Y clarifying what the point really is. It's also good to see that with the increased defenses, cap becomes Elvis. And Minmatar will have a lot of Elvis, because of their turrets after this change. But we have no Pelvis aka Tank Amarr have Elvis and his Pelvis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Discorporation	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:01:00 - [34] Originally by: Nafri But we have no Pelvis aka Tank Amarr have Elvis and his Pelvis dont forget his good looks! [23]
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:01:00 - [35] Originally by: Discorporation Mm. didn't 1400's or other large cannons eat a tiny bit of cap? dual 425ers eat cap for sure, exactly 3. So with skills you use about 0.75 * 3 = 2.25 cap per cycle. With 6 guns firing about every second its more or less 2.25 * 6 = 13.5 cap per second It doesnt eat your cap dry, but you notice that in combat, and your guns deactivate when your nossed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:05:00 - [36] Dual pulse lasers II use about 9.375 Cap per cycle. for 7 guns (Armageddon) thats 65.625 Cap with ROF of 3.42 seconds thats 19.19 cap per second Not really a big difference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:06:00 - [37] What really needs to be tested is under the new changes how long approximately equivalent ships will last with a reasonable combat configuration compared to another race's equivalent ship with an equivalent setup. And then run that for a bunch of ships and setups and see what you get. And then run that for what we have right now as a control baseline. Then CCP could make reasonably well educated guesses whether or not capacitors need to be rebalanced... -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:11:00 - [38] for megathron it is: 12 * 0.75 = 9 Cap per gun * 7 = 63 Cap for a ROF of 4.5 * 0.75 = 3.375 per second So is 18.66 cap per second After all when you check the total cap of the ships the megathron suffers most from cap usage, followed by geddon and then tempest But if you consider that megathron gets DPS/ Geddon gets DPS + Range its more or less balanced Sorry, but have to go brunching with a friend of mine, will pull out some more math later on -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:16:00 - [39] Edited by: Khaldorn Murino on 14/10/2005 10:16:19 Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Oveur It's good to see players here asking back up of statements with real numbers, because not only are they noticed more easily by me and my team (puuurdyy nuuumbeers) you actually show a real comparison of X vs Y clarifying what the point really is. It's also good to see that with the increased defenses, cap becomes Elvis. And Minmatar will have a lot of Elvis, because of their turrets after this change. But we have no Pelvis aka Tank Amarr have Elvis and his Pelvis haha, good point, well made :) Amarr have no style tho. Minmatar, we got style baby. We are the fonz of eve. - Just a simple warrior.

Oveur	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:29:00 - [40] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: Oveur It's good to see players here asking back up of statements with real numbers, because not only are they noticed more easily by me and my team (puuurdyy nuuumbeers) you actually show a real comparison of X vs Y clarifying what the point really is. It's also good to see that with the increased defenses, cap becomes Elvis. And Minmatar will have a lot of Elvis, because of their turrets after this change. But we have no Pelvis aka Tank Amarr have Elvis and his Pelvis Yes, but the point is, you can use the CAP for tanking - but that asks the question, is it enough for good tanking? That's where the knife is in the cow (old Icelandic saying) _____________________________ "There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:32:00 - [41] Edited by: Khaldorn Murino on 14/10/2005 10:32:46 Originally by: Oveur Yes, but the point is, you can use the CAP for tanking - but that asks the question, is it enough for good tanking? That's where the knife is in the cow (old Icelandic saying) Im gonna be really silly in the face of the Ovinator and post a opnion without numbers (ill grab them later when im not meant to be working) But our slot layout, HP layout, CAP size and Recharge rate doesnt lend itself as well as, say the relative Amarrian tanking does. As is evident nowadays. I think people are worried that if tanking becomes longer and battles become longer (which btw, i think we all really want) then were going to be left a bit of a larger gap behind. But we got to get some numbers to prove this is going to be the case, so tonight, i shall strive to provide them. - Just a simple warrior.

Oveur	Posted - 2005.10.14 10:52:00 - [42] Originally by: Khaldorn Murino Edited by: Khaldorn Murino on 14/10/2005 10:32:46 Originally by: Oveur Yes, but the point is, you can use the CAP for tanking - but that asks the question, is it enough for good tanking? That's where the knife is in the cow (old Icelandic saying) Im gonna be really silly in the face of the Ovinator and post a opnion without numbers (ill grab them later when im not meant to be working) But our slot layout, HP layout, CAP size and Recharge rate doesnt lend itself as well as, say the relative Amarrian tanking does. As is evident nowadays. I think people are worried that if tanking becomes longer and battles become longer (which btw, i think we all really want) then were going to be left a bit of a larger gap behind. But we got to get some numbers to prove this is going to be the case, so tonight, i shall strive to provide them. I don't consider it proving, it's simply a matter of showing how big the problem is - proportionately to something else and taking all the benefits and drawbacks into account - that's what really matters. _____________________________ "There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

dalman	Posted - 2005.10.14 11:04:00 - [43] NUMBERS for Oveur: Electron T2 vs Dual 425mm T2. Optimal range: E 4800 d4 3840 Falloff: E 6000 d4 16000 Tracking (with BS 5) E 0.0625 d4 0.054 Tracking * range at half optimal + half falloff (half optimal from using max ammo, you hit very good at half falloff) E: 337.5 d4: 535.68 Normalized damage mod (with BS 5) E: 0.466667 d4: 0.488889 Normalized damage mod x base ammo (with BS 5) E: 22.4 (kin and thermal) d4: 21.5 (EM, exp and small kin) Cap usage (with BS 5): E: 2.6667 d425: 0.8889 Powergrid fitting: E: 1575 d4: 1375 CPU fitting: E: 55 d4: 35 Ammo capacity: Both hold 200 rounds = no need for reload during fight. Tempest/mega fitting: They have same CPU and same grid. Tempest/mega cap (with cap skills 5): Mega: 5625/692.925 Tempest: 5312.5/692.925 All above numbers are without skills except for BS skill. Because the other skills affect both exactly the same and are irrelevant. Do YOU think this is balanced??? I DON'T. * Only thanks to the 48vs44 ammo do the electron do 4% more damage/second. * The autocannon has MUCH better tracking * range. * The blaster use 3x as much cap/second, yet the ships have almost same base cap. * The blaster use 57% more CPU and 15% more grid, yet the ships have exactly the same CPU/grid. FIX LARGE BLASTERS NOW! Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.10.14 11:06:00 - [44] Originally by: Oveur I don't consider it proving, it's simply a matter of showing how big the problem is - proportionately to something else and taking all the benefits and drawbacks into account - that's what really matters. Aye, prove was the wrong word to use, but all that is why balancing is such a tough job in EVE id imagine. There was a discussion in Tux's thread about Minmatar ships tanking (try to do both, do neither well) and mentions were made of looking at it. Anyway, im babbling. Oh, if you could cast an eye over this thread I may very well have your babies. - Just a simple warrior.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2005.10.14 12:10:00 - [45] Dalman now do all that vs laser, it'll be even worse, lasers are ment to use more cap cos they tank so well, but they dont. We're coming for you
Troezar	Posted - 2005.10.14 12:20:00 - [46] I've now decided to go Minmatar specialised so I hope this works out for us The simplest answer seems to be to increase ROF and or reload speed for Minmatar ships to counter the better tanks. It will also use more cap being ever so slightly self balancing. The only downside I can forsee is being balanced against npcs but maybe having a weaker tank would compensate.
dalman	Posted - 2005.10.14 12:31:00 - [47] Originally by: Sun Ra Dalman now do all that vs laser, it'll be even worse, lasers are ment to use more cap cos they tank so well, but they dont. Yes, I know. But cba to do it. Besides, it's not really fair to compare their dual pulse vs electrons or dual 425. But in general, lasers have too good tracking, too low cap usage and too low fitting reqs. Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 12:34:00 - [48] Well doing tanking math is kinda difficult, since I suck in capacitor recharge math, and I dont really want to get into it. But I could give you some basic numbers for a normal matari shield tank (Also knows ans shield booster and EM hardener) Tempest: I dont know what you consider as a good Tempest fitting, but based on CCP changes and so I think something like this should be a tempest midslot fitting XL Shieldbooster II: 230 CPU 550 PG EM Hardener (named): 32 CPU 1 PG Shield Boost Amplifier I (30% boost): 50 CPU 1 PG Power Diagnostic Unit II: 20 CPU 0 PG gives: 8.5% recharge 5% PG 5% Shield HP 5% Capacitor Heavy Cap Booster II: 40 CPU 1750 PG 1400 II: 47 CPU 3575 PG Now lets start fitting: 6x 1400 II will take 21450 PG without advanced weapon upgrades, with lvl4 skills it will be 19734 PG and 211.5 CPU The XL booster II will use 230 CPU and 550 PG So now you used: 20284 PG 441.5 CPU Hardener will use 23 CPU and 1 PG 20285 PG 464.5 CPU Now you fitted the main guns, and the basic shield tank. You lack PG, so you start fitting Power Diags (RC II wont be used cause you want to have a tank). With skills PD II will use 15 CPU and gives you 5% PG 19375 PG * 1,05 = 20343.75 PG Now used: 20285 PG 479.5 CPU Now you have 208 CPU and 58 PG left for the other 2 high-/3 mid-/4 low-slots. But honestly thats not a tank, lets tank for sure: What about Xl-Booster, Amp, 2 hardeners and a cap injector? You wont hit anything smaller then a battleship but ok... Thats 220 + 50 + 46 + 40 = 356 CPU and 550 + 1 + 2 + 1750 = 2303 PG With 6x guns thats in total: 356 + 211.5 = 567.5 CPU and 19734 + 2303 = 22037 PG for that you will need: 19375 * 1.05 = 20343 * 1.05 = 21360 * 1.05 = 22428 PG so thats makes 3x PD II thy will use 45 CPU So now we used: 607.5 CPU and 22037 PG and have 2 high/0 mid/2 lowslot unused now we fit 2 damage mods: 60 CPU that makes: 667.5 CPU and 2 highs left to fit for sure you cant fit anything in the highs now... 20 CPU... nope, you cant fit anything worth there -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
dalman	Posted - 2005.10.14 12:54:00 - [49] Nafri, good post, but I don't think it's very relevant. If you fit 1400mm You expect to be outside 20 km range someone else must scramble you are part of a fleet. And no matter how much they boost tanking and nerf ganking I'm pretty sure that as a part of a fleet you will always be better off using those meds for EW instead of tanking. As such a 1400 shield tank is pretty much for NPCing only :/ Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
Ankanos	Posted - 2005.10.14 12:56:00 - [50] well. if the HP and other changes make it in and indeed you start hearing of 2-5min battles instead 10-30sec (in 1v1 and say 2v2 sort of scenarios,) i just might start doing pvp for a change... up to this point, pvp is way to short for me to call it fun.. is it really so horrible that you might get drawn into a battle that lasts longer than 30-45sec? (esp since i take f'in forever to fit a ship, once i run out of pre-fitted ones) -ank (ps...fwiw, the burst damage from projectile cannons is insanely fun, who cares about dot?) ;p ---
Kael D'mende	Posted - 2005.10.14 14:23:00 - [51] i sure hope someone with math skills can prove we are doomed lol :O) Oveur: My heart is more at easy now that i have seem that u have looked at this post, so im counting on u to fix artys if there indeed will be a ballance problem ;O) if all else fails, use the enemys ships 4tw .. /Kael

Oveur	Posted - 2005.10.14 14:31:00 - [52] Originally by: dalman NUMBERS for Oveur: Electron T2 vs Dual 425mm T2. Optimal range: E 4800 d4 3840 Falloff: E 6000 d4 16000 Tracking (with BS 5) E 0.0625 d4 0.054 Tracking * range at half optimal + half falloff (half optimal from using max ammo, you hit very good at half falloff) E: 337.5 d4: 535.68 Normalized damage mod (with BS 5) E: 0.466667 d4: 0.488889 Normalized damage mod x base ammo (with BS 5) E: 22.4 (kin and thermal) d4: 21.5 (EM, exp and small kin) Cap usage (with BS 5): E: 2.6667 d425: 0.8889 Powergrid fitting: E: 1575 d4: 1375 CPU fitting: E: 55 d4: 35 Ammo capacity: Both hold 200 rounds = no need for reload during fight. Tempest/mega fitting: They have same CPU and same grid. Tempest/mega cap (with cap skills 5): Mega: 5625/692.925 Tempest: 5312.5/692.925 All above numbers are without skills except for BS skill. Because the other skills affect both exactly the same and are irrelevant. Do YOU think this is balanced??? I DON'T. * Only thanks to the 48vs44 ammo do the electron do 4% more damage/second. * The autocannon has MUCH better tracking * range. * The blaster use 3x as much cap/second, yet the ships have almost same base cap. * The blaster use 57% more CPU and 15% more grid, yet the ships have exactly the same CPU/grid. FIX LARGE BLASTERS NOW! First, DALMAN, could you PLEASE stop using CAPS, IT DOES nothing except convey that you are SCREAMING, not that you are SAYING SOMETHING SENSIBLE As I pointed out earlier, it's not about proving, it's about showing how big the difference taking everything into account. I'd appreciate you do the same comparison, taking the tanking ability of the ships that use them and their native bonuses into consideration. See, bold is so much nicer than CAPS _____________________________ "There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?"

dalman	Posted - 2005.10.14 14:42:00 - [53] Hehe, fair point about bold. I'll make a more setup based post later (~2 hours) about tanking and damage output. Although that's a bit out of date, as the new tanking changes on SiSi will change how we set up the tanking. But it should be clear from my above post that the Tempest can run a much better tank and put out pretty much the same damage. Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.10.14 15:32:00 - [54] Seems to me that Oveur is hinting that, with the new skills and modules, passive tanking is the way to go for certain ships? I wonder if you can do a passive shield tanking setup with a decent shield recharge rate? I bet Pottsey is looking into it already.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 15:56:00 - [55] Originally by: dalman Nafri, good post, but I don't think it's very relevant. If you fit 1400mm You expect to be outside 20 km range someone else must scramble you are part of a fleet. And no matter how much they boost tanking and nerf ganking I'm pretty sure that as a part of a fleet you will always be better off using those meds for EW instead of tanking. As such a 1400 shield tank is pretty much for NPCing only :/ Oveur asked for tanked setups, and when you go ranged with a tempest you go with 1400er cause 1200er are soo extremly sucky that it hurts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.14 15:57:00 - [56] Originally by: Deka Kador Seems to me that Oveur is hinting that, with the new skills and modules, passive tanking is the way to go for certain ships? I wonder if you can do a passive shield tanking setup with a decent shield recharge rate? I bet Pottsey is looking into it already. Only some ships can, like dominix -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.10.14 16:11:00 - [57] Originally by: dalman Ammo capacity: Both hold 200 rounds = no need for reload during fight. ...I may be wrong, but in the case of the dual 425 (I wub that AC), you can only fit 200 rounds if you using depleted uranium. you can only fit 100 rounds of EMP on them. ..again I might be wrong... ------------------- Celestial Horizon: we go zerg on you
dalman	Posted - 2005.10.15 09:41:00 - [58] As this thread really isn't about blasters, and not even in the proper forum for it, I'll just point at this thread. Drink up, shoot in. Let the beating begin. Distributor of pain. Your loss becomes my gain...
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.15 10:11:00 - [59] Edited by: Lifewire on 15/10/2005 10:15:11 Minmatar, Caldary...who cares. The reason why the tanking patch will have negative effects on EVE is: -> more hitpoints/resistances need more firepower to break those -> this will make people have larger gangs, bigger blobs -> it causes more concentrated fire ordered by fleetcommander. Easy stupid combat. -> in the end it deosn¦t improve PVP at all - even if a lot of players dream of longer combats with more tactic. The only solution i can find is to not boost tanks, but nerf several players shooting at one target. This means if 1 gun hit a target this gun does 100% damage. If 100 guns hit 1 target, gun no. 100 will do 0% damage. This would improve tactics and be an indirect "tanking patch". It makes combat better, longer, more tactical and nerfes blobbers. Perfect! Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.15 10:39:00 - [60] Hm, the problem is that players with small PVP experiance have their weird opinions that they post here - and also the DEVs do not enough PVP to know what they do. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.