| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1199
   |
Posted - 2013.09.10 17:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Roseline Penshar wrote:just lower the torp sig radius that will make torp a very good, but it will buff SB and many bomber will be seen ganking everywhere
Bombers already push stupid amounts of dps with torps at ridiculous ranges, ad a single TP (most have mids to) and you have no trouble hitting hard not matter the ship size, specially under MWD
Torps are ok what is not ok is TPs, those need some tweaks to increase dmg application just like you do it with TE's, as different as they seem both have same utility: increase dmg application
TP's are not ok yet, torps yes they are.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1201
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Roseline Penshar wrote:just lower the torp sig radius that will make torp a very good, but it will buff SB and many bomber will be seen ganking everywhere Bombers already push stupid amounts of dps with torps at ridiculous ranges, ad a single TP (most have mids to) and you have no trouble hitting hard not matter the ship size, specially under MWD Torps are ok what is not ok is TPs, those need some tweaks to increase dmg application just like you do it with TE's, as different as they seem both have same utility: increase dmg application TP's are not ok yet, torps yes they are. ......so TPs are going to make torps useful on battleships? Or are you basing your assesment on bombers alone
Torps benefit from support skills, so yes not only their explosion radius is lowered but if you give yourself the pain to fit a single TP you WILL apply full dmg on a 375m rad battleship size.
We can all agree on ROF issue and amount of ammo leaded, it's not rocket science it brings issues to Torps management.
Even a non missile rigged torp battleship with 2 TP and RAGE torps hits 375m rad explosion, so no it's not a problem, however I still think the Tp optimal bonus effect is a bit low and should get some love for about 12%, just an opinion of course to help shield battleships with fewer med slots to fit one TP and not force them to use 2
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1201
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Fia Magrath wrote:how about they nerf cruise missiles instead? ^_^ How would this make torps better? Torps aren't competing against cruise missiles. They're competing against blasters, ACs and Pulse lasers.
Indeed, and their major problem aside the ammo amount and rof is mostly dmg application.
Decrease a bit base ammo explo radius is an option, imho a good one but carefully because as always: bombers
Any change done to ammo it self, launchers or skill tree will exponentially benefit to Bombers that are already way too good.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1201
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 11:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Any change done to ammo it self, launchers or skill tree will exponentially benefit to Bombers that are already way too good. And it's close to impossible to correct SB's bonuses. :sarcasm:
Indeed it's an option but not mandatory, it's the easiest road to take it's pretty obvious.
What is less obvious is the overall impact when you touch more than one ship with different roles because of a simple issue that can perfectly be easily solved by improving a simple EWAR module, and by the same time a hole race EWAR dedicated ships like Minmatar that are pretty well known for the useless side of their EWAR.
Amirite or Amiwrong it's not the point, it's an opinion.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1201
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 11:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hello
A lot of good points in here. I don't think we're ready to make a big change to torps or cruise right now, but I agree that we need to think about it. The point that cruise are so good for pve that torps are difficult to justify makes sense, but as Malc says, we can't necessarily just make a change based on that situation when both torps and cruise are trying to compete in the pvp environment and for now are still beat out by turrets in most situations.
One of the ideas that I agree most with is that the rof feels very long which can make torps harder to manage, and the ammo capacity is very low so it feels like you have to reload too much.
I'll make sure we talk about this in the near future and see if any adjustments are necessary. That's all well and good, but I hope you also recognise that you need to make Torps viable in Lvl 4s. So if you are not prepared to change the Torps themselves, then could you reconsider the Torp bonuses assigned to the Golem to give it more range? It's ridiculous that an SB can fire Torps further than a Marauder. Please address. With sugar and cherries on top.
Torps are in line with Blasters/Autocanons/Pulse as short range weapon system; more range means rigs efforts and it's a fair trade off.
30km range for a short range battleship weapon system is balanced with the other SR systems and ships, comparing Golem to Sbs is silly however, not only for ship size but most important because of their totally different role.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1203
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 11:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
30km range for a short range battleship weapon system is balanced with the other SR systems and ships, comparing Golem to Sbs is silly however, not only for ship size but most important because of their totally different role.
Pulse lasers and to a lesser extent 800mm arties would like a word with that.
Pulse lasers with SCORCH svp mkay? -it's well known scorch is out of whack, doesn't make the weapon system OP at all
800mm Arties I don't know about, but I know 800mm Auto Canons and again, I have to repeat my self each time this becomes boring you guys can't think or only when it suits your arguments, you're just putting on the spot light SOME ship with double range bonus with full TE and TC script range or whatever the heck module to prove your point.
FALSE ! -fit hydraulic thruster rigs on your ship and tell me how far you can shoot with your Torps? -don't waste your time, I already know how much, me too haz Pyfa/EFT on top of fitted ships in my hangars.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1203
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 12:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Darling Hassasin wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Any change done to ammo it self, launchers or skill tree will exponentially benefit to Bombers that are already way too good. And it's close to impossible to correct SB's bonuses. :sarcasm: Indeed it's an option but not mandatory, it's the easiest road to take it's pretty obvious. What is less obvious is the overall impact when you touch more than one ship with different roles because of a simple issue that can perfectly be easily solved by improving a simple EWAR module, and by the same time a hole race EWAR dedicated ships like Minmatar that are pretty well known for the useless side of their EWAR. Amirite or Amiwrong it's not the point, it's an opinion. I agree (and even liked) but you have to tread a bit carefully with the effects this will have on ceptors etc... On the other hand if you are in a ceptor and see a hostile Rapier on the overview you are most probably dead meat anyway...
Thx
About effects on Ceptors I'd like indeed to add a new comment.
The specific case of ceptors is indeed something to consider but unlike SBs tweaks I'm all for giving Ceptors 100% bonus to sign radius but increase their base sign radius a bit, those are interceptors they should be fast as f_ck, strong capacitors to deal with neuts, huge agility bonus and little sign radius even when mwd on.
Lets admit base full fit and mwd on ceptor is gimp to 75 armor and 85 shield ones but get a 100% mwd sign radius bonus, doesn't change anything to ceptor pilots because they already turn their mwd off and run AB once in range.
Then for dmg application a +12% bonus on one TP wouldn't make that ceptor any bigger than it is already now with mwd bonus, however this TP change would help a lot for BSs to hit ships from cruiser to BS sized targets.
So indeed your point about ceptors is indeed a good point to consider, specially since the affecting bonus (mwd) is a simple number to change on top of another simple number (sign radius) to change without major effects on the ship it self and environment.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1211
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 12:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Pulse lasers with SCORCH svp mkay? -it's well known scorch is out of whack, doesn't make the weapon system OP at all
Multifreq and Conflag can reach 18km optimal without a hull bonus easily. That's the practical range of standard torps off an unbonused BS, and optimal + 1/2 falloff is still ~85% DPS, and that's ~24 km. Quote:
FALSE ! -fit hydraulic thruster rigs on your ship and tell me how far you can shoot with your Torps? -don't waste your time, I already know how much, me too haz Pyfa/EFT on top of fitted ships in my hangars.
And you can toss extra range rigs on your gun boats too. Yes, DR will kick in, but you've got more range to start with, because the TEs/TCs will be fitted for the tracking bonuses as well - you aren't fitting them just for range.
Well we obviously have an issue with definition of "SHORT RANGE" weapon system.
What can be considered normal tbh, 34km Torps or 90km 800mm AC or 80km Scorch Pulse?
Now lets have a talk about short range large blasters vs torps and we might actually be talking about the ONLY two true short range weapon systems, which means by all means Pulse/ACs are way out of whack and have to be brought in line with torps/blasters, not the other way around and believe me I'd like to hit with my blasters at 80km without much effort.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1212
|
Posted - 2013.09.15 12:56:00 -
[9] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Markku Laaksonen wrote:Just a little tidbit to drop in here. Take from it what you will.
My Drake Navy Issue is fitted with T2 HAMs and 3 BCS IIs. With perfect skills and CN missiles, EFT says I get some certain DPS. (Don't recall off the top of my head and cant' access EFT now to check. I'll edit later.)
A Ferox fit with T2 250mm Rails and 2 Mag Stab IIs, CN antimatter, and my skills (i.e. not Vs), out DPS the nDrake by about 200.
Does that seem off to anyone else? Yes, it does sound off, and the reason for this is that it's not true. It's not even close to being true.  Triple-BCS HAM Navy Drake - 475 CN DPS and 557 Rage DPS. Dual-MFS Ferox - 481 DPS (antimatter). Drones excluded in both cases. Yeah, I saw what I did wrong when I got home and looked at EFT, and edited my post to say so. I had m4 HAMs rather than T2s. Still, you can see that the Antimatter Rail Ferox is out DPS'ing the faction missile HAM nDrake. How is it that a long range weapon system out DPSes a short ranged weapon system?
Dude sry to tell you stuff like this but the real issue isn't the drake any more, new crap has been added and will get nerf at some point: med rails are a bit out of whack, HMs are way too nerf and need buffs, untill then all we can do is deal with and change ship/weapon system until they actually see something in their logs.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1212
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 11:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Just a little tidbit to drop in here. Take from it what you will.
My Drake Navy Issue is fitted with T2 HAMs and 3 BCS IIs. With perfect skills and CN missiles, EFT says I get some certain DPS. (Don't recall off the top of my head and cant' access EFT now to check. I'll edit later.)
A Ferox fit with T2 250mm Rails and 2 Mag Stab IIs, CN antimatter, and my skills (i.e. not Vs), out DPS the nDrake by about 200.
Does that seem off to anyone else?
Yep, I derped left when I should hav ederped right. Disregard this post. I had T2 rails on my Ferox and m4 HAMs on my nDrake.
Navy Drake is not really meant to dish tons of dps but actually have a huge nasty tank and clean the field of small ships, its bonus are not intended to make it a dps glass tank. You'll get better dps numbers out of the regular Drake is you really want to see how much dps you get out of your Drake vs Ferox.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1212
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 12:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:Unless my CM fit RNI has gained 400 DPS since I logged last night then you're talking out of your arse.
If this is not a buff, please tell me what is a buff.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1222
|
Posted - 2013.09.18 19:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
Onictus wrote:stoicfaux wrote:
Compare the DPS between Fury cruse missiles and Rage, CN, and Javelin torps. Then realize that Rage torps aren't practical except against the very largest and slowest of ships and structures. Don't forget to include reload time in your DPS numbers.
At 16 rounds a clip you waist a LOT of time reloading.
16 rounds AND the v-e-r-y l-o-n-g r-e-l-o-a-d t-i-m-e-r.
In this point I totally agree but not to give them more range because :bomber:, and we might like it or hate it it's the argument to consider first before touching Torps any further.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1223
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Onictus wrote:stoicfaux wrote:
Compare the DPS between Fury cruse missiles and Rage, CN, and Javelin torps. Then realize that Rage torps aren't practical except against the very largest and slowest of ships and structures. Don't forget to include reload time in your DPS numbers.
At 16 rounds a clip you waist a LOT of time reloading. 16 rounds AND the v-e-r-y l-o-n-g r-e-l-o-a-d t-i-m-e-r. In this point I totally agree but not to give them more range because :bomber:, and we might like it or hate it it's the argument to consider first before touching Torps any further. Wouldn't it make more sense to recalculate the bomber's bonuses after we've made the torp work for every other ship?
That indeed is the obvious route however bombers are actually quite amazing and I'm afraid they could get a "meh" effect after getting NumbersGäó revamp, you know the 7.5 and 10 they like so much 
On the other side why not just adapt current ships with Torp bonus to make them a bit more useful?
-aka HM Drakes/Tengus- those became useless/under used because of a tiny 2% difference before med turrets revamp, now it's more about 8 to10% buff they need to make hulls able to use them a viable choice again, yeah another thread.
In fact Bombers imho are close to stepping on the red line but they're not there yet, thus very good ships fun to fly and any number you change might affect them harder than we can expect, entire wings and tactics are build around bombers, I'm afraid in fact they become null or totally op ruining the game either one way or the other.
I can agree some hulls full skills 28km is rather very very short but this is not really the ammo fault, it's ship bonus that must be changed, yes it's a bit more work to do but imho the best thing to do, if on top TP's get a boost to help them apply their dps, ammo clip/rof increased, how could this go wrong without touching bombers?
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1223
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
marVLs wrote:Malcanis wrote:
This would effectively be a substantial Bomber buff.
It is revealing that it takes huge bonuses like those on Stealth Bombers to make torps viable.
Of course bomber bonus should be changed, why should every other ship and torps suffer just because bombers
I think you see the problem from the bad perspective. It's not because of bombers Torps suffer but because other ships using them, as modules supposed to help them work better, are not adapted correctly or modules don't have the efficiency they should/could have.
How many Tp bonus ships do we see in fleets or gangs and using TP's? -christ I think in all my eve career I must have seen one.
How many Torp or ships using torps threads do you see where everyone tells to use 2 TPs? -Stoicfaux is imho someone very advised about missiles, their mechanics and fits, I often read his posts about this weapon system with attention and interest because this guy knows what he talks about.
We might have a different opinion on "how to" but in the end I think both don't see bombers as the true issue but the revealing element what is wrong with torps: ships bonus first then TPs (Tp is always mentioned several times in the same post sort to say how important this module is but also how much of "weak" the benefit per module is).
Torps are an extremely powerful weapon system if all factors are positive so lets not take this lightly and take the easy road to see them get nerf a couple months later, the yoyo effect is not really what I like in this game.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1228
|
Posted - 2013.09.19 18:29:00 -
[15] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:20 torps. 27 cruise missiles. Not 16.
/inner_ocd
Actually 18 in Arbalest torp launchers, sry just took the quoted nbr.
Edt: yeah pg6 already ;)
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
| |
|