|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 100 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 42 post(s) |
 craptacular    |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:11:00 -
[1441]
Auto-lock + Empire = Concordokken. |
 craptacular Gallente Aliastra |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:11:00 -
[1442]
Auto-lock + Empire = Concordokken. |
 Red Angelus |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:12:00 -
[1443] This nerf (come on tux baby, admit it) is like asking Genghis Khan to get rid of 2/3 of his Mongol horde because the quartermaster can't feed all the troops, and make the remaining troops wear extra leather armor instead and use 2 swords instead of one. Somehow a raging Mongol horde of 5 is less psychologically overwhelming than 15, yes? If this happened then I doubt Khan would have managed to reach the gates of Rome. Sorry guys...this was the best analogy i can come up with.  |
 Red Angelus The Scope |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:12:00 -
[1444] This nerf (come on tux baby, admit it) is like asking Genghis Khan to get rid of 2/3 of his Mongol horde because the quartermaster can't feed all the troops, and make the remaining troops wear extra leather armor instead and use 2 swords instead of one. Somehow a raging Mongol horde of 5 is less psychologically overwhelming than 15, yes? If this happened then I doubt Khan would have managed to reach the gates of Rome. Sorry guys...this was the best analogy i can come up with. |
 Kaell Meynn |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:16:00 -
[1445] Example of point 3... Say you field 2 EW drones and 3 Damage drones. A non-drone carrier ship who maxed their drone skills (not typical) has given up 4 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones. A non-drone carrier ship with drone interfacing 2 (more typical) has given up 2.8 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). A non-drone carrier ship without drone interfacing (while not typical to have drones 5, we'll assume it for this example) has given up 2 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). A drone carrier ship with 'typical' drone skills (Drones-5, DroneInterfacing-4, BS-4) has given up 5.04 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). A drone carrier ship with maxed drone skills (semi-typical of specialized drone carrier flyers) has given up 6 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). I don't know how better to clearly demonstrate the issue. I hope this is clear enough. Kaell |
 Kaell Meynn Divergence |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:16:00 -
[1446] Example of point 3... Say you field 2 EW drones and 3 Damage drones. A non-drone carrier ship who maxed their drone skills (not typical) has given up 4 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones. A non-drone carrier ship with drone interfacing 2 (more typical) has given up 2.8 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). A non-drone carrier ship without drone interfacing (while not typical to have drones 5, we'll assume it for this example) has given up 2 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). A drone carrier ship with 'typical' drone skills (Drones-5, DroneInterfacing-4, BS-4) has given up 5.04 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). A drone carrier ship with maxed drone skills (semi-typical of specialized drone carrier flyers) has given up 6 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones (the same drones as in case 1). I don't know how better to clearly demonstrate the issue. I hope this is clear enough. Kaell |
 j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:21:00 -
[1447] "Auto-lock + Empire = Concordokken." Auto-lock + Empire + Stupidity = Concordokken. |
Kaell Meynn Divergence |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:23:00 -
[1448]
While you have a point, your conclusion is also a fallacy, in that you are assuming that all ships can lock 15 targets plus whatever actual targets they want to lock, or that the pilot is perfect at managing when a new target needs to be locked and when a target is going to be destroyed. While I'll grant that 3 times targeting time wouldn't be necessary to make it effectively the same as it is now, clearly a longer lock time would be needed, unless you assume that all eve pilots are 100% perfect at mangaging targets at all times, and never run into issues of too many targets locked, resulting in lost time shooting at drones while waiting for a lock. Feel free to test this on Sisi, in a combat situation (typically not 1v1) where you don't know exactly what you'll be facing from the start (not staged combat), and you decide to take out the drones with guns, I think you'll find you occasionally end up waiting for a lock, especially if the drone carrier is at close range and pulls the drones in when they start popping (a common drone carrier tactic when drones start to pop used to waste the attackers time picking new targets or wasting gun cycles on the BS itself to keep the drones alive longer), thus making you have to re-lock them when they are released again. |
 j0sephine |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:27:00 -
[1449] "Say you field 2 EW drones and 3 Damage drones. A non-drone carrier ship who maxed their drone skills (not typical) has given up 4 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones." A regular non-drone carrier will only be able to field 3 drones total. Meaning they limit the number of their combat drones to 1 (or 2 old drones with maxed skills) and their drone firepower is reduced by 66% The max-skills drone carrier which gives up on the same 2 drones retain the firepower of 9 'old' drones -- it gives up 40% of their drone firepower. Dunno, the drone carrier does seem better off with the whole deal... |
Kaell Meynn |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:27:00 -
[1450]Yes, the drone carrier, as the damage from drones from a non-drone carrier was never their primary source of damage. Your example is in percent of drone damage, not in percent of total damage from ship, thus not relavent. Unless you are suggesting that a typical Dominix without drones does as much damage as an Armageddon without drones (which is clearly wrong). |
Kaell Meynn Divergence |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:27:00 -
[1451]Yes, the drone carrier, as the damage from drones from a non-drone carrier was never their primary source of damage. Your example is in percent of drone damage, not in percent of total damage from ship, thus not relavent. Unless you are suggesting that a typical Dominix without drones does as much damage as an Armageddon without drones (which is clearly wrong). |
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:27:00 -
[1452] "Say you field 2 EW drones and 3 Damage drones. A non-drone carrier ship who maxed their drone skills (not typical) has given up 4 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get these 2 new EW drones." A regular non-drone carrier will only be able to field 3 drones total. Meaning they limit the number of their combat drones to 1 (or 2 old drones with maxed skills) and their drone firepower is reduced by 66% The max-skills drone carrier which gives up on the same 2 drones retain the firepower of 9 'old' drones -- it gives up 40% of their drone firepower. Dunno, the drone carrier does seem better off with the whole deal... |
Kaell Meynn |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:33:00 -
[1453]
A 'regular' non-drone carrier? I'm not sure what that is. Some can field 3, some can field 5, both are regular as far as I know. Still the 'regular' non-drone carrier one only gives up 1 to 2 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get the EW drone, ans still the drone carrier gives up 5 to 6 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of drone damage to get the same EW drone. Again, percent of damage from drones is MEANINGLESS (sorry to shout). Unless you are still asserting that a typical Dominix without drones does the same amount of damage as an Armageddon without drones, which is STILL clearly wrong. (again, sorry for the shout, but you just can't reasonably assume that Armageddons and Dominix's do the same total damage without drones). |
Kaell Meynn Divergence |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:33:00 -
[1454] Edited by: Kaell Meynn on 02/11/2005 02:51:52
A 'regular' non-drone carrier? I'm not sure what that is. Some can field 3, some can field 5, both are regular as far as I know. Still the 'regular' non-drone carrier one only gives up 2 to 4 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of damage to get the EW drone, ans still the drone carrier gives up 5 to 6 <effective pre-patch damage drones> of drone damage to get the same EW drone. Again, percent of damage from drones is MEANINGLESS (sorry to shout). Unless you are still asserting that a typical Dominix without drones does the same amount of damage as an Armageddon without drones, which is STILL clearly wrong. (again, sorry for the shout, but you just can't reasonably assume that Armageddons and Dominix's do the same total damage without drones). EDIT: fixed a 1 to a 2, and a 2 to a 4 for the 'regular' non-drone carrier (oops) |
 j0sephine |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:35:00 -
[1455] "While I'll grant that 3 times targeting time wouldn't be necessary to make it effectively the same as it is now, clearly a longer lock time would be needed, unless you assume that all eve pilots are 100% perfect at mangaging targets at all times, and never run into issues of too many targets locked, resulting in lost time shooting at drones while waiting for a lock." I don't assume all pilots are 100% perfect. I simply don't want to be artificially penalized because some people can't efficiently manage their overview, locking and weapons. "Feel free to test this on Sisi, in a combat situation (..)" My comments were result of both SiSi tests and practical experience ^^ |
j0sephine Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:35:00 -
[1456] "While I'll grant that 3 times targeting time wouldn't be necessary to make it effectively the same as it is now, clearly a longer lock time would be needed, unless you assume that all eve pilots are 100% perfect at mangaging targets at all times, and never run into issues of too many targets locked, resulting in lost time shooting at drones while waiting for a lock." I don't assume all pilots are 100% perfect. I simply don't want to be artificially penalized because some people can't efficiently manage their overview, locking and weapons. "Feel free to test this on Sisi, in a combat situation (..)" My comments were result of both SiSi tests and practical experience ^^ |
 Kaell Meynn |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:41:00 -
[1457] Edited by: Kaell Meynn on 02/11/2005 02:43:15 Sure, it's probably unfair to artifically penalize those that can manage targeting drones currently, as it is unfair to artificially penalize drone carriers by assuming everyone can 100% of the time, and that no drone carriers know how to pull in drones at tactical times to make people have to re-lock them, especially good vs targets using guns with long cycletimes. The 3 times locking time I proposed I agree is also unreasonable, but 1 times locking time is as well. Re: the 40% vs 66% thing... If you want to use this percentage you keep using, you need to estimate what percent of total damage comes from drones and what comes from guns on each ship. Lets make up some numbers and show why your percent system is wrong. Say Dominix drone damage is 80% of its total damage (again, made up number), and say an Armageddon drone damage is 20% of its total damage (made up again). Now, if a Dominix gives up 40% of it's drone damage, it has given up 40%*80%=32% of the ships total damage. If an Amageddon gives up 66% of it's drone damage, it has give up 66%*20%=13.2% of it's total damage. So yes, 66% is a bigger number than 40%, but it's less total damage (EDIT: which equates to less total combat effectiveness) that it has given up in the exchange. |
Kaell Meynn Divergence |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:41:00 -
[1458] Edited by: Kaell Meynn on 02/11/2005 02:43:15 Sure, it's probably unfair to artifically penalize those that can manage targeting drones currently, as it is unfair to artificially penalize drone carriers by assuming everyone can 100% of the time, and that no drone carriers know how to pull in drones at tactical times to make people have to re-lock them, especially good vs targets using guns with long cycletimes. The 3 times locking time I proposed I agree is also unreasonable, but 1 times locking time is as well. Re: the 40% vs 66% thing... If you want to use this percentage you keep using, you need to estimate what percent of total damage comes from drones and what comes from guns on each ship. Lets make up some numbers and show why your percent system is wrong. Say Dominix drone damage is 80% of its total damage (again, made up number), and say an Armageddon drone damage is 20% of its total damage (made up again). Now, if a Dominix gives up 40% of it's drone damage, it has given up 40%*80%=32% of the ships total damage. If an Amageddon gives up 66% of it's drone damage, it has give up 66%*20%=13.2% of it's total damage. So yes, 66% is a bigger number than 40%, but it's less total damage (EDIT: which equates to less total combat effectiveness) that it has given up in the exchange. |
 Maya Rkell |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:45:00 -
[1459]
And? Consider it a sacrifice to the gods of lag. It could of been much, much worse. What I thought they were gonna do was worse. Ishtar might need a small fittings boost. Dom will be fine. Ishkur has got a whopping fat damage BONUS. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
 Maya Rkell Forsaken Empire The Forsaken Empire |
Posted - 2005.11.02 02:45:00 -
[1460]
And? Consider it a sacrifice to the gods of lag. It could of been much, much worse. What I thought they were gonna do was worse. Ishtar might need a small fittings boost. Dom will be fine. Ishkur has got a whopping fat damage BONUS. //Maya |
Kaell Meynn |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:02:00 -
[1461]And?? And I was trying to show how these changes adversely affected a Dominix, and I believe I demonstrated that. If a nerf of the Dominix was not intended, then these issues should be resolved to prevent it from an unintentional nerf as a side effect of the changes. I thought that point was clearly implied in my post, regardless, I hope I've clarified it for you now. |
Kaell Meynn Divergence |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:02:00 -
[1462]And?? And I was trying to show how these changes adversely affected a Dominix, and I believe I demonstrated that. If a nerf of the Dominix was not intended, then these issues should be resolved to prevent it from an unintentional nerf as a side effect of the changes. I thought that point was clearly implied in my post, regardless, I hope I've clarified it for you now. |
 HelterSkelter |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:04:00 -
[1463] Edited by: HelterSkelter on 02/11/2005 03:05:32
add drone dmg mods and new skill in and everything stated above changes, say the dmg mod gives 15-25% and the skill (at max) give 10-25% dmg then the domi gives up 15% or gains 10% drone dmg and gets free EW all the math done is this entire thread is worthless since no one acounts for the new mods and skills until the devs release these or tell us the % changes they give, there is no way to properly look at these changes on paper. |
 Slink Grinsdikild |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:04:00 -
[1464] To me this looks like a balance nightmare. Low midslot/High damage ships like the Armageddon win here. The losers are tackler frigates, everyone will have mobile webifiers now that can basically counter-tackle a frigate. As for re-sizing drones, it looks like nobody really loses out damage wise. The webifier drones need rethinking though. |
 Slink Grinsdikild Brotherhood of Wolves Astral Wolves |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:04:00 -
[1465] To me this looks like a balance nightmare. Low midslot/High damage ships like the Armageddon win here. The losers are tackler frigates, everyone will have mobile webifiers now that can basically counter-tackle a frigate. As for re-sizing drones, it looks like nobody really loses out damage wise. The webifier drones need rethinking though. __ Account cancelled |
 HelterSkelter |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:04:00 -
[1466] Edited by: HelterSkelter on 02/11/2005 03:05:32
add drone dmg mods and new skill in and everything stated above changes, say the dmg mod gives 15-25% and the skill (at max) give 10-25% dmg then the domi gives up 15% or gains 10% drone dmg and gets free EW all the math done is this entire thread is worthless since no one acounts for the new mods and skills until the devs release these or tell us the % changes they give, there is no way to properly look at these changes on paper. |
Kala Taki |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:15:00 -
[1467] I would also like to cast my vote/add that with the current 5% bonus that heavy drone op provides, does it really need to be a rank 5 skill? When compared to the rank 5 skill that is interfacing which provides 20%. Yes I realize that these stack, but the usefulness of it seems to of faded. If this has changed and I missed the change, then please, move along. |
 Kala Taki |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:15:00 -
[1468] I would also like to cast my vote/add that with the current 5% bonus that heavy drone op provides, does it really need to be a rank 5 skill? When compared to the rank 5 skill that is interfacing which provides 20%. Yes I realize that these stack, but the usefulness of it seems to of faded. If this has changed and I missed the change, then please, move along. |
Andrx |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:16:00 -
[1469] Not sure if this has been asked i didnt have the time to read all 25 pages, But what about the People who have trained drone interfacing to 5? |
 Andrx |
Posted - 2005.11.02 03:16:00 -
[1470] Not sure if this has been asked i didnt have the time to read all 25 pages, But what about the People who have trained drone interfacing to 5? |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 100 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Originally by: j0sephine| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,14s, ref 20250925/0951 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| 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. |