|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
106
   |
Posted - 2013.09.30 22:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why start again with the screwed up skill requirements, making a pure science skill a requisite for a combat module, after you just untangled the skilltree? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
106
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 03:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iome Ambraelle wrote:The paladin with a L Corpus-X, 2xEANM II, DCU II, and ANP II comes in at these numbers:
Bastion Active
EM: 82.54% - 2434.36 EHP/S - 83,605 EHP
TH: 77.30% - 1872.42 EHP/S - 75,599 EHP
KN: 77.13% - 1858.5 EHP/S - 82,088 EHP
EX: 79.05% - 2028.83 EHP/S - 93,077 EHP
The Vargur with XL Gist-X, 2xInvul II, DCU II, and SBA II comes in at:
Bastion Active
EM: 76.20% - 2935.24 EHP/S - 98,914 EHP
TH: 78.20% - 3204.52 EHP/S - 80,068 EHP
KN: 81.00% - 3676.77 EHP/S - 78,595 EHP
EX: 84.20% - 4421.43 EHP/S - 82,327 EHP
With a XL Pith-X those repair numbers go up to:
EM: 3630.00 EHP/S
TH: 3963.03 EHP/S
KN: 4547.05 EHP/S
EX: 5467.97 EHP/S
There's simply a world of difference between armor and shield capabilities here. The Gist almost doubles repair output for a mere 5.9 cap/s increase over the Corpus-X repper. The Paladin could easily be destroyed by a couple of equally matched ships. Depending on cap warfare usage, the Vargur could stand up to 3-4 equally matched ships and stand a fighting chance.
You just compared a 4-Slot + 1 Rig Armor Tank with a 5-Slot Shield Tank.
You compared a 1x LAR armor tank to a Booster+SBA shield setup.
You compared a Deadspace Line that increases ressource consumption with a deadspace line that decreases ressource consumption.
You also found close to a decade old differences between shield and armor.
Nothing about those numbers should come as a surprise to you. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
124
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 18:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'd like to revoice my plea to not make the combat module 'Bastion Module' dependent on the science skill 'High Energy Physics'. You have just started to untangle the skilltree so beautifully.
I realize there is historic precedent with Graviton Physics I for Warp Disrupt Probes that got expanded into levels IV and V for the HIC module. But, this requirement is mostly RP-based on the name of the skill; and was created in the weird skill requirement times. When modules were created that depend on T2 ship skills in a totally different progression (Triage module, I am looking at you) and the (back then titan-exclusive) Wormhole Generation required scan probing skills - again, solely based on the RP-fluff of the skill name.
I do not think that is a tradition that must, or even should be honored and upheld. High Energy Physics as a skill is for:
- gaining HEP datacores
- tech 2 invention of blueprints requiring HEP datacores
- manufacturing advanced construction components
- manufacturing capital advanced construction components
All of this is so far outside the skill progression path that should lead you to a Marauder; honestly, it is not even funny.
Marauders already require Advanced Weapon Upgrades 5, so adding a new skill "Tactical Hull Reconfiguration" or "Tactical Defensive Reconfiguration" right along the existing "Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration" and "Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration" skills would be so incredibly easy and wonderfully consistent, I am at a loss for words at the prospect of this opportunity being squandered away.
[Edit]
Clarification: the Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration is only listed for the sake of the naming consistency. Please do not go down the bonkers requirements road of it, putting the bastion skill on top of the Covert Ops skill. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
126
|
Posted - 2013.10.09 19:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Mioelnir wrote:I do not think that is a tradition that must, or even should be honored and upheld. High Energy Physics as a skill is for:
- gaining HEP datacores
- tech 2 invention of blueprints requiring HEP datacores
- manufacturing advanced construction components
- manufacturing capital advanced construction components
Science skills are useful for passive RP generation, and as such more datacores get dropped onto the market or used for invention
I know. That is why I listed it in the post you quoted. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
130
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 02:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:They (CCP) don't want PVE only battleships. If they are at all still useful in PVE by the end of this (which I will admit it still has some use I suppose), then I gueass we should consider that luck.
And yet the main attribute that was put on them intentionally upon release to explicitly make them PVE battleships - the low sensor strength - is kept.
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
131
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 14:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Can't find it in this thread, was there already an explanation given why the optimal and falloff bonus is the same and not double falloff similar to tacking comps and enhancers? Are we back in 2008 where falloff is somehow supposed to be as strong as optimal? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
134
|
Posted - 2013.10.13 23:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:On that note, I tried MWD+MJD on the Vargur, and although it worked well, I'm using 2 mids to achieve actually escape, on a shield ship.
You are not supposed to make a fighting retreat. Leaving the extreme ewar vulnerability outside bastion makes that pretty clear. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
140
|
Posted - 2013.10.16 14:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Why keeping the damage projection in Bastion stacking penalized?
- We want to keep the projection in check. A Paladin with Scorch can already reach insane ranges (to the point where Beams are quite redundant on it), so we are not willing to remove the stacking penalty for now. Or at least not until we are seeing some hard use numbers on TQ first.
Why does bastion mode so clearly favor optimal range weapon systems, ie. Rails, Beams, Pulse and (Artillery)?
At 25% optimal range (TC+script 15%, TE 10%), it is guaranteed a top spot in the stacking penalty chain, giving an actual benefit. But since the falloff bonus is also 25% and not the usual optimal-to-falloff progression of TCs and TEs, the bastion bonus to falloff loses against TC+script (30%), putting it in a low stacking penalty position.
You are worried about the pulse paladin, therefor you limit the modules effect on Blasters and Autocannons. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
142
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 00:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:AC vargur in bastion does get around 50km of effective damage with good projection
If that is an improvement for you, you are fitting your Vargur wrong. Just saying. |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
142
|
Posted - 2013.10.17 00:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Anize Oramara wrote:I used to have 0-1 mid slots (2 on the easiest missions) that I could fit tracking comps in. Now I have 2-3 and this allows me to adapt to the mission and continuously keep my damage application maximised. I also don't have to fit a DCU so another gyro fit as well.
Personally, I use 2 TE+2TC+3Gyro for practically everything except Smash the Supplier. Activating bastion gives < 5 percentage points more falloff, if I remember correctly. But that does not necessarily free up any slots, since I can't switch the bastion bonus to tracking like I can with the comps.
The bastion bonus to optimal range is 5 pct points above a scripted cormack meta 14 tc, yet the falloff bonus is 5 pct points below a scripted t2 tc. And the devs are worried about a pulse/scorch-paladin. Oh my, where does that come from, let's try to spot the problem!
Serge SC wrote:LOL...thank you. But I'll take my arty vargur any day over those filthy short range ACs. My remark was in the context of ACs. Nothing wrong with an Arty fit if one prefers it. |
|
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
163
|
Posted - 2013.10.29 01:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Any update on the Bastion Module no longer needing an invention skill? Pretty please Fozzie and Rise? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises
Easily Offended
174
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 22:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Mer88 wrote:the problem is with the bastion bonus applying equal amount of optimal and falloff range. Optimal should always be less then falloff. it would be better if its 20% optimal and 40% falloff. i would support this. as optimal and falloff are not eq.
Was brought up some 170 pages ago or so.
CCP is concerned with overpowered pulse laser fits, that's why the optimal bonus is above a meta 14 officer TC, yet falloff is below tech 2. |
|
|
| |
|