|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.21 14:34:00 -
[1]
"Truth to be told then the shield boost bonus is actually better then the resistance bonus when considering regeneration of shield. Hardening bonus results in a 33.3% bonus to shield booster because you need to repair less and the shield boost bonus is 37.5% at level 5."
Uhmm except you can't really compare them like that, because hardening the shield reduces incoming damage, meaning the gain is dynamic and depends on what you get attacked by... while bonus to shield booster is static -- for given booster type it's always the same value? o.x
I.e. if the ship has fitted large tech.2 booster, the 37.5% boost means ~22 points extra re-generated every second. But if you have 25% bonus on shield resistance, then this will save you 25 hp when hit by 100 dps damage, but 50 hp when hit by 200 dps damage...
Don't get me wrong, shield boost bonus at 7.5% is extremely nice, especially on ship which can mount large booster... just different ^^;
(now, about that 6/5/3 Moa thingie... please please please..? >>;;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.21 17:48:00 -
[2]
"Out of sheer interest, why are you comparing the best med projectiles to the worst med blasters? Last time my alt flew a thorax i hadnt a problem fitting Med Ions + tank."
Think it's so the cap usage for Thorax is as low as possible, which sort of reinforces the point -- even with least cap use and mwd bonus it still falls behind the other ship.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.21 18:50:00 -
[3]
"Neutrons use same Cap/s like electrons"
Uhmm, no? ^^;;
electron: 4/3 = 1.33 cap/sec ion: 6.67/4.5 = 1.48 cap/sec (10% more than electron) neutron: 8.67/5.25 = 1.65 cap/sec (25% more than electron)
(that's without skills and stuff, just base usage)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.23 02:20:00 -
[4]
Edited by: j0sephine on 23/10/2005 02:21:03
"Just wanted to comment on the Caracal, as a lot of you think that I'm taking away it's fifth med slot. It was kicking arse at the EVE championship but that doesn't mean that it's overpowered just particularly well suited for this situation."
Just to clarify... does it mean Caracal gets to keep that 5th slot, or that it is going away like kieron said, just for some unspecified reasons that don't have anything to do with the fanfest performance? ^^;;;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.23 21:35:00 -
[5]
"thy arent, and hopefully thy will make it in, CCP choosed only dumb rules for their 1vs1 cruiser tournament"
The fifth med-slot was discussed quite a lot and we're considering boosting it in another way than giving it the fifth med slot, since it turned it into a missile / ewar platform which is not really what we wanted.
It's not overpowered as such in my opinion except in a pre-arranged duel format. The jury is out on it and we're just gonna wait and see how the upgraded MK2 testing pans out on Singularity.
Guess we will see :<
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.24 15:33:00 -
[6]
"Move all tanking to low slots. Shield boosters, extenders and hardeners all get moved to lows and Caldari and Minmatar ships get some of their mids switched for low slots.
Sound good? Of course not because then you'd only be able to use EW on ships designed for EW."
Was thinking of pretty much the same thing yesterday, actually.
The possible disadvantages would be, giving Caldari ships plenty of low slots would allow them to use these for damage mods instead of the tank, which is apparently a big no-no... and ships like Dominix (and to lesser extent Raven) with large number of mid and low slots lose on this deal, as they're no longer able to both shield-tank and do damage... as i doubt they'd be given say, 10+ low slots in exchange for some of the mids o.O;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.25 15:26:00 -
[7]
"Sure 6 heavy beams+launcher on prophecy do outdamage Cyclone with 5 720mm+3 heavy launchers but not by any signficant amount. Think my program said 158 hp/sec compared to 151hp/sec."
Did it take into account two more low slots on the Prophecy? Since dropping two tech.2 damage mods in these result in ~40% damage increase, after all...
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.25 15:42:00 -
[8]
"No did you take into account the two more med slots on the Cyclone?"
Aye; Prophecy has 3 mids, Cyclone has 2 more. These 2 extra mid slots are about enough to mount the rudimentary shield tank, as perhaps expected from ship with significant shield tanking bonus ^^
(can't check atm if it's possible to fill all low slots on shield tanked Cyclone with damage mods *and* fit full rack of weapons you mention, since both the MK2 ships and battlecruisers are gone from test hangars... from memory would guess it's rather too tight on resources for such fitting, though)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.25 16:12:00 -
[9]
Edited by: j0sephine on 25/10/2005 16:12:36
"I'll have someone spawn some battlecruisers, the new stats are supposed to be on the normal BC's on sisi now."
KK, meantime here's quick results of playing with the ship setup programs people wrote:
Prophecy:
6x heavy beam II, 1x standard launcher II warp disruptor, 10mn afb, cap recharger II 3x heat sink II, 1x rcu II, energized nano II, medium repairer II
6 cpu, 2 mw grid left (more grid left with mk2 prophecy which has 100 grid extra, although not enough to drop the RCU)
Cyclone:
unable to fit 5x 720mm artillery II + 3x Heavy Launcher II with anything else without 2x RCU II ... meaning, best she can fit is 2 damage mods, provided she doesn't run into cpu problems on top of grid shortage. Meaning, Prophecy can easily outdamage her by ~20% if not more, while retaining comparable tanking ability.
In addition, please note each damage module fitted on Prophecy affects pretty much all weapons she has, as opposed to one turret less on Cyclone, or just 3 launchers with ballistic controls. This has further impact on the dps difference.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.25 16:20:00 -
[10]
"and is there a freesoftware to make DPS math?"
From what i can see, QuickFit has "Ammos&Charges" tab which allows you to load different ammo in the ship you set up with this program, and it then calculates the damage output... should be a thread with the download link somewhere in this forum section ^^;;;
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.25 18:10:00 -
[11]
"Would you please stop to ignore resistance? Thank you."
It's rather hard to include these without making things very case-specific -- the resistances and shield:armour ratio change pretty much from ship to ship and from setup to setup. :/
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:21:00 -
[12]
"Cyclone Mk 2
4 damage mods fit easily, even tech 2 720s, with no problem. With tech 1 guns and adv. weapon upgrades 4 you have about 350 grid and a tad under 300 CPU left over, easily fitting three launchers and a pretty nice shield tank."
Mhmm, no not really.
with advanced upgrades 5, 5x 720 tech.1 turrets, 4x gyrostabilizer II, afb, warp disruptor, shield hardener, large shield booster and whatever as 5th mid... this leaves ~70 grid and 20-30 cpu left. Which is definitely not enough to fit three launchers, even standard ones.
It's possible to fit 3x assault launcher if large shield booster is dropped and replaced with medium ones, not sure if it can be called nice tank for a ship of this size, though.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:39:00 -
[13]
"You're numbers and Narfi's numbers both back this up very clearly. Especially when you look at your numbers for the Ferox here. Even though both only have 5 guns when you add damage mods to the Ferox it outdamages the Cyclone even though the Cyclone has a damage bonus and the Ferox does not."
Which is pretty odd, actually... 720mm artillery with RoF bonus does equal damage to 250mm without. Number of guns is equal. If you add damage mods to both ships, the damage from their guns remains equal... and Ferox has only 2 slots left for launchers, as opposed to Cyclone's 3, meaning there's no way she'd actually outdamage Cyclone, especially by the listed amounts.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:58:00 -
[14]
"Thing is:
It lookse like damage mods actually help Ferox more then the Cyclone, and 250 Rails are just superior to 720mm"
Well, i dunno:
720mm, no damage mods: 19.13 250mm, no damage mods: 19.60 (2% more)
720mm, 4x damage mod: 33.00 250mm, 4x damage mod: 34.47 (4% more)
with 5 turrets, this is ~7 raw dps difference with 4 damage mods fitted between these two ships ... really nowhere near listed differences.
(damage calculated for tech.1 turrets, max skills, reloading times included)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:10:00 -
[15]
"Well I used programs to do this, dunno why ferox came out so well :)"
Ohh... maybe it uses your skill levels, or something, and you have the skills varied enough to make the difference? ^^;;
just tried QuickFit with its damage calculation, and for 720mm on Cyclone vs 250mm on Ferox it'd be like, 160 vs 170 dps with 4 damage mods and tech.1 guns ... and i don't have battlecruiser 5 nor medium projectiles 5, so Cyclone wasn't getting full damage it'd be doing o.O;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:54:00 -
[16]
Edited by: j0sephine on 26/10/2005 15:54:25
"Nafri's program might be taking tracking into account."
With tracking on 250mm rails and 720mm artillery being pretty much equal (0.023 vs 0.022) doubt it'd be the case... (Ferox doesn't get tracking bonus or anything like that)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 16:14:00 -
[17]
"probably you didnt take into account that the EMP does 10% less damage then the AM"
Well, i used QuickFit to get these numbers so i'd expect it to take these things into account... same thing with manual calculations, there isn't anything hard in 'apply skills, apply mods, take base damage, multiply and divide by numbers from skills and mods stage'
Basically, am just not seeing how Ferox can outdamage Cyclone, nevermind by reported values. (unless maybe when calculating for long range damage with lighter ammo, and with projectile ammo adjusted to match Ferox' optimal... but it doesn't look like anyone was actually doing that)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 15:10:00 -
[18]
"Added a med slot to the Rifter it had one less slot than the other combat ships. Giving it a high slot increased it's damage output a bit to much so we decided on a med one."
Mhmm...
"the new, improved autoplate Rifter; now with the scrambler *and* web"
ouch ouch ouch
(nice change ^^
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 17:04:00 -
[19]
"What about giving the Punisher a 4th turret hardpoint? All t1 assault frigates except for the punisher can fit 4 weapons."
Incursus gets 3 turrets and nothing else as well; basically, the ships which can fit 4 weapons still do damage similar to that of ships with 3 turrets, being ~half of these weapons are missile launchers with their lower damage output.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.28 17:18:00 -
[20]
"Was looking at the mk2 "assault" frigates (t1). It lists Tristan for the Gallente (with 4 turret/missile slots)."
It lists both Incursus and Tristan as 'assault' frigates for Gallente ^^
Incursus gets 3 turrets, Tristan gets 2 turrets + 2 missile launchers, which is the equivalent of 3 turrets firepower-wise... i.e. pretty much what i said ^^;;
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.31 03:40:00 -
[21]
Edited by: j0sephine on 31/10/2005 03:40:58
"Rifter
- Added a low slot
- Added a med slot
"
... wait wait waaaaait. Either i misread the earlier comments, or it's very recent change... but was under impression Rifter is getting the extra mid slot *instead* of extra low... now it actually gets one mid *and* one low? as in, it'll be 4-3-3..? o.o;
...
i mean... sure, it makes sense i guess, it as like, 2 slots short than everyone else, and now all tier.3 frigates will be 10 slots total, but like... omfg.
...
seriously, omfg o.o;;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.31 14:38:00 -
[22]
Edited by: j0sephine on 31/10/2005 14:38:42
"Not that huge anymore, and it balances its lower HP."
Merlin has whole 50 hp (5%) more than Rifter with maxed out skills (906 vs 856) yet the speed difference between them is 112.5 m/sec (40%) before even weight difference and afb/mwd start enter into the picture.
Somehow i think if i asked for 90 m/sec more for Merlin in exchange for 40 hp, you'd find this unreasonably exaggerated demand...
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.03 02:57:00 -
[23]
"My take on it is that the Brutix should also have the one extra, at a maximum of 17 too. Why? I hear you all scream.
Ferox/Proph get resistance bonuses Brutix/Cyc get repair and boost bonuses
As far as tanking goes, resistances give them a much better head start anyway, especially since their slots are geared to their respective tanking style as well. They can fit les mods overall for their tank to be on a par with the Cyclone or Brutix - which have to fit more to even the game a little, or at least be useful."
Basically, you have Prophecy and Ferox come with pre-fitted impossible-to-remove passive resistances module, which 'steals' ship bonus to boot in order to reach its full effect. While Cyclone (and with the suggested change, Brutix) get a regular slot in which they can put whatever they wish, including --but not limited to-- aforementioned extra resistances module.
This sort of approach makes the Prophecy/Ferox quite a bit worse off, with such relatively limited setup flexibility...
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.03 03:00:00 -
[24]
Edited by: j0sephine on 03/11/2005 03:01:24
"So they are. "
Aye, the changes to drone bay sizes (from the latest blogs) are included in there, too.... like Thorax with 200m -> 100m -> 50m drone bay :s
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.03 03:37:00 -
[25]
"anyone wanting to use this ? "
I'd stick it on a ship in heartbeat, tbh
hull em damage resistance 60% hull explosive damage resistance 60% hull kinetic damage resistance 60% hull thermal damage resistance 60%
fear structure-tanking battleships... >>;;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.04 05:39:00 -
[26]
Edited by: j0sephine on 04/11/2005 05:42:08
"Has everybody given up on the Moa? Most discussions revolve around already used ships and, of course, pretty much nobody uses the Moa so very few are left to try to save the ship..."
Wasn't really able to test her while the ships on test were sporting the most recent stats, armour stacking wasn't broked and the invul fields were actually useful... and now that i *can* log in there again, it's rolled back to tq build :/
No idea how she'll perform against other ships with their new stats and reworked drones, really hoping test is bumped up to more recent build soon :<
(on sidenote, real moas *are* extinct ... 'tis pretty ironic the ship seems to follow their steps ;s
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.04 05:56:00 -
[27]
Edited by: j0sephine on 04/11/2005 05:57:13
"with the heavy launcher DOT increase, it might help the Moa out, slightly, also invul fields are being unnerfed, and extenders are easier to fit.. sooo... a Moa setup could look like this:
4x 250mm 2 heavy launchers 2x invul fields 1x extender 1x shield booster 4x mag stab"
With the tech.2 field and new bonus her shield resistances should be 47.5/79/68.5/58 ... so was thinking along the lines of 4x 200 mm, launchers, invul field, booster, afb, disruptor and the mag stabs in lows ... but this is pure guesswork, no idea if this will fit at all in the new grid/cpu, plus obviously she'd run out of cap very very fast with that... still, might be not *that* bad. But can't check :/
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.05 05:46:00 -
[28]
Edited by: j0sephine on 05/11/2005 05:46:32
"You're assuming it's only an art change. I doubt it is, i bet it's more to do with code. I know an artist has to decide where to place the extra turret but i can't imagine what else would be required since there is no real art required."
I'd hope it's written intelligent enough to just grab up to 8+ of turret attachment points from the model, and then simply use as many of them as the attributes of ship attached to the model dictate... :/
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.05 17:24:00 -
[29]
"I don't think it's written that way. That would mean an artist/whatever would have to place those 8 turret points on every ship in game. It would be a big waste of time to do it that way tbh"
Well, the ship models wouldn't have to have all attachment points ^^ just that code done this way would be flexible enough to simplify adding more hardpoints to just modifying the 3d model data... because it'd read as many attachment points as much the model happened to have ^^;;
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.11 12:40:00 -
[30]
"Are u serious? Shield resist bonus on the Eagle? Its a freakin HAC already. If the resists are low just boost them a bit. 5% per level is rediculous."
It is a HAC so the resists are high already, so the benefit from the bonus is actually quite small in the end. The whole bonus at lvl.5 amounts to one multi-spectral hardener...
|
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.11 13:00:00 -
[31]
"It's the same bonus that sacrilege gets and I don't think this makes Eagle overpowered."
Err, i was actually agreeing with that ^^;;; (that it doesn't make her overpowered)
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 17:03:00 -
[32]
"Are the MK2 ships on the test server yet?"
Yes, test server was bumped to RMR expansion build today, and the ships appear to have Mk2 stats... so can check them once the usual corp switching is done. ^^;;
|
|
|
|