| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1117
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:19:00 -
[31] - Quote
Asa Shahni wrote: we are not here to debate if other subs are balanced compared to this one but how could we balance this one to be on par with the others : loki need an assault optimisation or something similar
Debating if other subsystems are balanced compared to this one and debating how we could balance this one to be on par with the others are kind of the same thing, aren't they? At the very least, they both serve the same purpose.
Anyway, the whole problem with the subsystem is that it forces you to fit a Loki with both turrets and missiles. If you were able to fit a full rack of guns or a full rack of missiles (pilot's choice, naturally) then this subsystem would be completely fine.
|

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
379
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:50:00 -
[32] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:I can't agree, removing split weapon systems from Minmatar is a very bad idea, making Cyclone/Claymore/Typhoon into pure' missile ships was also a very bad idea, we need more complex flavour in the ships and less homogenization into strict guns or missiles setups.
I suggest something in the lines of:
...
In any case the bonuses need to be appropriate to reflect the needs to become useful rather than just display theoretical maximum damage output and then fail in any kind of practical application.
Minmatar needs more viable split weapon ships, not 'pure' missile ships. You should look up "Projectile Scooping Array" and "Turret Concurrence Registry" subsystems. What Loki currently lacks is a proper missile sub (or a split v2 weapon system offensive subsystem, like scythe fleet issue has). Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 16:57:00 -
[33] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:SOL Ranger wrote:I can't agree, removing split weapon systems from Minmatar is a very bad idea, making Cyclone/Claymore/Typhoon into pure' missile ships was also a very bad idea, we need more complex flavour in the ships and less homogenization into strict guns or missiles setups.
I suggest something in the lines of:
...
In any case the bonuses need to be appropriate to reflect the needs to become useful rather than just display theoretical maximum damage output and then fail in any kind of practical application.
Minmatar needs more viable split weapon ships, not 'pure' missile ships. You should look up "Projectile Scooping Array" and "Turret Concurrence Registry" subsystems. What Loki currently lacks is a proper missile sub (or a split v2 weapon system offensive subsystem, like scythe fleet issue has).
This whole thread I've been saying that "Split v2 like the Scythe Fleet" is exactly what the Hardpoint Efficiency Configuration subsystem needs to be. People seem to desperately want their Minmatar Tengus, though. That's pretty much what SOL Ranger is trying to aim at too, although I suspect he doesn't realize it since his version would be hilariously overpowered. |

hujciwdupe22
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:13:00 -
[34] - Quote
and dont forget to redesign teh capacitor rewgenaration matrix looks because its ******* digusting.... |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1118
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
hujciwdupe22 wrote:and dont forget to redesign teh capacitor rewgenaration matrix looks because its ******* digusting....
I would disagree somewhat. Although the Capacitor Regeneration Matrix subsystem is definitely an acquired taste, the Covert Reconfiguration subsystem for the Proteus needs a redesign first. I absolutely cannot design any sort of useful cloaky Proteus that does not make me look at it funny and say "What the hell..? Well, at least I can cloak the thing and not have to look at it." |

SOL Ranger
SOL.
121
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:30:00 -
[36] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: ... his version would be hilariously overpowered.
Please elaborate.
The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
|

Asa Shahni
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:50:00 -
[37] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Asa Shahni wrote: we are not here to debate if other subs are balanced compared to this one but how could we balance this one to be on par with the others : loki need an assault optimisation or something similar
Debating if other subsystems are balanced compared to this one and debating how we could balance this one to be on par with the others are kind of the same thing, aren't they? At the very least, they both serve the same purpose. Anyway, the whole problem with the subsystem is that it forces you to fit a Loki with both turrets and missiles. If you were able to fit a full rack of guns or a full rack of missiles (pilot's choice, naturally) then this subsystem would be completely fine.
we can already fit full rack of guns on 2 sub we dont need a third and no its not the same thing since the title is loki missile subsystem and not "subsystem rebalance" 
funny how you completely overlooked the post 22 to comme at me again on something trivial like this |

Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
380
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 17:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
Just a thought: current split weapon Loki sub might bring a lot of fun in prospect of changed mechanics for RLMs. Have 3 or 4 artis do their job and 4-3 rapids for burst damage every now and then. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |

XvXTeacherVxV
Agnito Industries Bask of Fail
48
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 18:20:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Just a thought: current split weapon Loki sub might bring a lot of fun in prospect of changed mechanics for RLMs. Have 3 or 4 artis do their job and 4-3 rapids for burst damage every now and then.
I had a similar thought. We'll have to see. Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE |

Stitch Kaneland
Soldiers of Farscape The East India Co.
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 19:56:00 -
[40] - Quote
This isn't the loki fleet issue subsystem. Stop comparing to scyFI. No other t3 has a split subsystem that I'm aware of. Give the loki a dedicated sub. 1 missile bonus sub is lame when every other subsystem gives 2 sometimes 3 bonuses to their weapon class. I like the rof and explosion velocity bonus. Simple and effective. |

Asa Shahni
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:This isn't the loki fleet issue subsystem. Stop comparing to scyFI. No other t3 has a split subsystem that I'm aware of. Give the loki a dedicated sub. 1 missile bonus sub is lame when every other subsystem gives 2 sometimes 3 bonuses to their weapon class. I like the rof and explosion velocity bonus. Simple and effective. i would prefer a velocity/flight time bonus to fit with the range of the webs you can (and probably will) put on the loki what do you think ? |

Stitch Kaneland
Soldiers of Farscape The East India Co.
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:32:00 -
[42] - Quote
Ah true. Good point. Used to flying missile boats using scram/web. I stand corrected. Velocity bonus is better. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1121
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:45:00 -
[43] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:This isn't the loki fleet issue subsystem. Stop comparing to scyFI. No other t3 has a split subsystem that I'm aware of. Give the loki a dedicated sub. 1 missile bonus sub is lame when every other subsystem gives 2 sometimes 3 bonuses to their weapon class. I like the rof and explosion velocity bonus. Simple and effective.
No other race uses split weapon bonuses on their other ships, either. Minmatar does. Your argument is invalid.
EDIT: Technically, the Legion's "Drone Synthesis Projector" counts as a split weapons system, giving a bonus to drones and a bonus to lasers. The Proteus also has a "Drone Synthesis Projector" that gives a damage bonus to hybrids and bonuses to drones. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts
1121
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 20:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote: ... his version would be hilariously overpowered.
Please elaborate.
Your version, while not bad at all, gives the subsystem two full sets of bonuses. Look at the other ships with Split v2 bonuses and you'll see that they don't get nearly the same amount of power as you're proposing to give them. |

Stitch Kaneland
Soldiers of Farscape The East India Co.
2
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 22:24:00 -
[45] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:This isn't the loki fleet issue subsystem. Stop comparing to scyFI. No other t3 has a split subsystem that I'm aware of. Give the loki a dedicated sub. 1 missile bonus sub is lame when every other subsystem gives 2 sometimes 3 bonuses to their weapon class. I like the rof and explosion velocity bonus. Simple and effective. No other race uses split weapon bonuses on their other ships, either. Minmatar does. Your argument is invalid. EDIT: Technically, the Legion's "Drone Synthesis Projector" counts as a split weapons system, giving a bonus to drones and a bonus to lasers. The Proteus also has a "Drone Synthesis Projector" that gives a damage bonus to hybrids and bonuses to drones.
Quite a way to make a point. Its always been therefore should never change.. gotcha. Its not like I'm asking for a minmatar tengu, but a useful missile sub.
Only recently has the split weapon systems been buffed to be effective, on FI variants. This is not an FI but a t3. Last I checked drone use doesn't use up all your high slots so.. as you put so elegantly, your arguement is invalid. |

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2890
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 22:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
Making that subsystem dedicated missile platform seems reasonable...
I would advise some patience, as t3 rebalancing will probably happen soon(tm) |

SOL Ranger
SOL.
121
|
Posted - 2013.11.18 22:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote: ... Your version, while not bad at all, gives the subsystem two full sets of bonuses. Look at the other ships with Split v2 bonuses and you'll see that they don't get nearly the same amount of power as you're proposing to give them.
Alright, well I'm following the train of thought that split weapon systems are technically a drawback more than a benefit in many situations, as such I'm allowing the subsystem to have the full range of bonuses for both weapon systems as focused weapon systems do.
This would not change the equilibrium because of the drawbacks: 1) Split weapons don't allow alpha in a highly practical useful sense. 2) Split weapons can hardly ever be focused well at one single target, bar face to face range and AC/HAM Loki orbiting battleships @<5km. 3) Split weapons require near double the weapon enhancing fittings and they never reach the potential usefulness of focused single weapon fits in terms of damage/projection/application, although HEC Loki being close in damage but is still critically lacking in both projection and application. 4) Split weapons don't allow you to very successfully compensate for a weapon drawback through piloting or otherwise due to half your weapons working differently, be it tracking problems or missile travel time, sometimes they actively combat each other. 5) Double bonuses are only as effective as they would be on a focused craft yet with essentially half the armaments; Without the secondary projection/application bonus the damage bonuses would need to be increased even more to give the HEC Loki any meaning over the AC version. So while seeing multiple bonuses we must remember that we are still only using around half the weapons for each type at any time, thus the result being equal. 6) HEC Loki with my proposed changes or with the current HEC subsystem can offer up to 7 weapon slots with full bonuses, AC subsystem offers 6 fully bonused guns, yet the AC version will outperform even the one I proposed in terms of general practicality due to the sheer inherent functional benefits of a uniform weapon system, also damage/projection and application respectively.(I had these calculations done multiple times in all kinds of tests/fits a few years ago, the AC version always won out in every relevant department by miles, I don't believe any changes have been made which alter the results except that HML are completely unusable now of course, although I did all high potential damage calculations based on HAM's)
What all this means is in a realistic scenario is that any on paper benefits(7 highs with weapons) are in actuality written off due to the way EVE works with modules/stacking/weapon focus/piloting/weapon drawbacks when taking into account the total result of practical use, you always need to think double.
Situations will arise where you're going to be only near half as effective with your split weapons while of course you will see situations where one system can compensate the downsides of the other, however this is the idea of the subsystem, to offer the occasional flexibility and versatility over the absolute uniformity and efficiency of the others, it just can't do that if the weapon systems are handicapped by default in terms of projection/application and there is no reason it should be.
My stance is that I find giving full bonuses for real split weapon system ships to be quite warranted, I prefer more complex bonuses over the simple damage bonuses, however anything viably preserving split weapon systems is still OK by me.
@Others On the note of some talking about using Artillery/RLML on the HEC subsystem, you might need something like the following to do that, otherwise it's not going to be pretty.
Ex. C. Medium range version(Artillery/RLML useful) - Hardpoint Efficiency Configuration 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage per level. 10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff per level. 10% bonus to Missile damage per level. 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level. - Projectiles have more or less the same DPS as with 7.5% ROF just allows alpha from artillery to be used. - Missiles have more or less the same DPS as with 7.5% ROF, just allows the use of RLML without reloading for 40s every time you blink. - Kept the falloff because an optimal bonus isn't as flexible.
The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.
|

Pobunjenik
Direwolf-Rayet skylian Verge
185
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:17:00 -
[48] - Quote
Does anyone have a date as to when will CCP come around to rework T3s? Neka mi se jave igra-ģi sa prostora Balkana koji nisu jebeni fa+ķisti. 1st Wormhole Alliance Tournament |

Seranova Farreach
612
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 07:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
Pobunjenik wrote:In light of CCP's recent changes, it would make sense to turn Hardpoint Efficiency Configuration into a dedicated missile subsystem.
Current effects: 7.5% bonus to medium projectile turret rate of fire per level 7.5% bonus to missile launcher rate of fire per level
Dedicated missile effects: (much like Tengu's Accelerated Ejection Bay) 5% bonus to Explosive Missile Damage per level 7.5% bonus to Heavy, Heavy Assault and Rapid Light missile launcher rate of fire per level 7.5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness
NOTE: Don't hate about the bonuses, support the idea of HAM Lokis and let CCP do their thing.
i love missiles but all i can say is shush. let ccp work their way to tech 3 ships as that was on the agenda for this years rebalance i believe. (removing rigs, buffing and balancing subs/hulls) _______________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |