|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
39
   |
Posted - 2013.05.17 18:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Finally, some good nerf here.
But why dont you keep XL weapon stats proportional to their sub-capital counterparts? Why all of a sudden XL autocannons and blasters have almost the same optimal and falloff, while with large guns the difference is 2-fold? |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
39
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 05:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Makalu Zarya wrote:if you are gonna nerf the moros then nerf the moros, don't make a useless ship. I haven't done the math but seriously...everyone has a moros because it's the best dread...now everyone is gonna have to get rid of them with no buyers?...great
Refine them :troll:
Alas, you wouldnt be able to refine your motherships when it finally happens :trolololo:
If you wanted a serious answer, you could actually do the math and see that Moros is still the best dread. It sports the best DPS, and I was told that it's all that matters, right? Right? |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
39
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 05:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Fly caldari, then you wont have to worry about any nerfs, most of their ships already are the worst in game, so it can only get better.. Wait, nevermind.. They have been sucking for years.
Just dont train for Tengu. You have been warned! |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
39
|
Posted - 2013.05.18 07:05:00 -
[4] - Quote
Rroff wrote:It will also skew autocannon optimal v blaster optimal with XL unless XL autocannons are also getting knocked back to 16000 base optimal. Also wondering if the reason XL blasters were pushed up to 30000 optimal originally has been forgotten/fixed or there could be some further issues relating to this.
I wonder what was the story about rehashing XL optimals back then? Why dont they even closely resemble ranges for sub-capital guns? And after this change XL autocannons and blaster would have almost identical optimals and falloffs. That is the only concern that bothers me. I dont want 2 guns with identical specs, and if it's something that's really needed - I'd like to see reasoning behind it. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
40
|
Posted - 2013.05.19 11:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
I wonder, is there still a reason to make dread completely immobile when in siege? Sure, their engines are shut off, but why that over 9000% increase in mass? Let the support fleet to make them move, those new attack battleships would be great in the role of "tugboats". Because just why not? This is a sandbox, and scripting the dreads to sit still in place is bad and boring. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
40
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 04:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
kyrieee wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:I wonder, is there still a reason to make dread completely immobile when in siege? Sure, their engines are shut off, but why that over 9000% increase in mass? Let the support fleet to make them move, those new attack battleships would be great in the role of "tugboats". Because just why not? This is a sandbox, and scripting the dreads to sit still in place is bad and boring. The mass increase hasn't always been there, it was added three years ago. The reason it was added was because bumping dreads was way too easy, and since they have almost no tracking they need to be stationary to hit anything.
So it's a natural counter to blapping, right? And another role for subcap fleet in capital warfare. Sounds good!
Yeah, I know this mass feature was introduced some time ago. I also remember concerns about bumping under the POS field. I just want to put a question, if it showed itself well? Maybe it's worth reconsidering to make the game more interesting and immersive? And do you remember one of the advantages of missiles over turrets? Their damage doesnt depend on your velocity, only your target. This advantage cannot be realized with stationary dreads, one of the reason Phoenix sux even more.
So for me this +900% effect sound like redundant. Maybe I'm wrong. Just here to provide a fresh look. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
40
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 08:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread.
Do you mean to say that the dread is only designed to shoot POS?
Alright, lets reduce the tracking -90%, didnt need it anyway. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Hagika wrote:Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread. Do you mean to say that the dread is only designed to shoot POS? Alright, lets reduce the tracking -90%, didnt need it anyway. Im sorry I fail to see where I said dreads were only built to shoot pos's.... Oh wait, i didnt.
So what's your point then? |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Vincent Gaines wrote:I love when people plug ships into EFT and suddenly become an expert on a ship's effectiveness. Considering tha after hitting siege you do not touch much buttons or click in a dread, ... if there are ships were you can get a reasonable Idea of their performance in EFT .. those are the dreads :)
Apart from DPS there are other esoteric numbers, like tank and capacitor. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.20 11:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:Getting Dreads (and titans for that matter) back into their intended role of going after other capitals is a good direction. Leaving the option for "lol fits to fight a specific target" should still be viable, even at capital ship levels, but there should be some form of penalty in doing so which CCP is implementing. +1 CCP
As a cautionary statement, CCP has more or less done a good job in rebalancing subcaps but there has been a feeling of too much homogenizaton with every ship having the same number of slots, ehp, and utility. As others have mentioned, it sometimes feels like I pick a ship based on looks because they're all the same. I do hope that CCP makes the right changes to balance Dreads and all capitals so that they are useful against each other but still maintain their racial flavors and strengths/weaknesses.
In fact homogenization is all that bothers me. Now XL blasters and autocannons have almost the same tracking/optimal/falloff. I'm quite aware there are still a lot of other differences, but I think it's a step in the wrong direction. And so far - no reasoning whatsoever. |
|
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
45
|
Posted - 2013.05.22 18:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG
The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.
As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.
2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance? |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNGThe lower graph is for large guns, for reference. They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters. As you can see from those graphs: 1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring. 2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance? EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNGIn fact, lasers sux even more. Is that Odyssey TE or the current ones?
I used new rebalanced TEs. With 10%/20% bonus. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 06:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:where are the missiles?
oh wait nobody uses those ,especially after naglfar overboost
gj ccp
In my opinion, capital missiles should have splash damage. Otherwise, they'll remain useless. But just imagine - the whole fleet of slowcats is muted with only one Phoenix. Goons in panic! |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
46
|
Posted - 2013.05.23 11:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:And really I still think the Siege module could be changed to nonly disable warp and jump and allow sub light speed. Would at least make the combat more interestign and make the range balancing easier for the devs.
Letting them propel themselves may be too much, but at least bumping should be allowed. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
48
|
Posted - 2013.05.24 07:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
Was my feedback constructive enough? I think it was.
Yet no one from CCP obviously gives a ****.
Unsubscribed from the thread. |
|
|
| |
|