| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dust Angel
   |
Posted - 2006.04.29 16:23:00 -
[1]
A kessie has a mass of over 1700000
a coercer, the AMARR DESTROYER, a size up and made with massive armor, has much less.
WHY DO CALDARI, WHO RELY ON SHIELDS NOT THICK ARMOR, HAVE THE HIGHEST MASS?
_____________________________________
Stressed out with empire politics?
Sansha's Nation helps clear your mind.
|
Thoris Levithar
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 16:25:00 -
[2]
All those shield generators...
|
CardboardSword42
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 16:39:00 -
[3]
There was already a thread on this, I'll try and find it later
 Originally by: Thoris Levithar
All those shield generators...
Would have nowhere near as much mass as armor plating
From a fluff perspective mass should be
Minmatar < Caldari < Gallente < Amarr
From a balance perspective it should be
Minmatar < Gallente < Caldari < Amarr
I'm Ex-Biomass, that makes me cool
This sig is yellow - Ductoris |
wierchas noobhunter
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 16:54:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Dust Angel
Please Reduce Caldari Mass
do eat so much hamburgers and u wil be fine 
nice mode ON/off
Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 16:56:00 -
[5]
please god yes
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 16:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CardboardSword42
There was already a thread on this, I'll try and find it later
Originally by: Thoris Levithar
All those shield generators...
Would have nowhere near as much mass as armor plating
From a fluff perspective mass should be
Minmatar < Caldari < Gallente < Amarr
From a balance perspective it should be
Minmatar < Gallente < Caldari < Amarr
Actually, Gallente are more close ranged than Minmatar, while Caldari are more long ranged (baring Battleship sized missiles!) than all the others, and the "balance" point of view should be:
Gallente < Minmatar < Amarr < Caldari
* It's simple, the more close ranged, the faster and more agile you have to be.
Also, when it comes to "fluff" (which is backstory), you'd get something like:
Minmatar < Caldari < Gallente/Amarr
* Should be noted, however, that there's just tons of other stuff that's not right between fluff and game, so they're out of luck when designing after fluff now.
New sig coming soonÖ
Drone musing (MC-boards) |
Triscuit
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 17:31:00 -
[7]
Fluff: Missiles are really heavy. (I dunno.)
Reality: Caldari doesn't need mass reduction. Suck it up.
|
Michael Nester
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 17:34:00 -
[8]
Quit eating so many long limb roes
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 17:37:00 -
[9]
I thought the increased in mass was due to pre-missile narfing to make them less pwnmobile? Guessed too many things had been narfed that they might take sometime to be un-narfed. Probably wrong coz not around when it all happened.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran |
Idara
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 17:38:00 -
[10]
Nah, leave it alone, Caldari don't need to be any better.
|
Xori Ruscuv
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 18:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: wierchas noobhunter
Originally by: Dust Angel
Please Reduce Caldari Mass
do eat so much hamburgers and u wil be fine
Wierchas, I think you just made my day...
Gotcha! I bet that got ya all hot under the collar, didn't it?  |
Dust Angel
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:43:00 -
[12]
Im not asking on a BS level, im saying take a look at it, especially frigate and cruiser level.
_____________________________________
Stressed out with empire politics?
Sansha's Nation helps clear your mind.
|
Phish1
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:46:00 -
[13]
look, its a balance issue, live with it.
|
Malka Badi'a
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:48:00 -
[14]
Mass != Weight
Armor with a gravitational pull will weigh more than electronic components, but use less room. Cramming a ship with electronics is going to use more room than just heavy armor plating. Compare the thick bulk of the raven to the thinner, but longer, apoc.
--------------
|
Niques Leutre
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:48:00 -
[15]
Don't forget battleships. Caldari battleship are roughly half the volume of Amarr ships... and when you factor in the fact Amarr battleships are made up of thick slabs of armour plates while Caldari are mostly electronics...
The equal or greater mass of Caldari ships versus the other races' doesn't seem to make sense.
___________________________________
The fiercer the foe, the sweeter the salvage.
The fatter the wallet, the bigger the smile. |
Jenton
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Mass != Weight
Armor with a gravitational pull will weigh more than electronic components, but use less room. Cramming a ship with electronics is going to use more room than just heavy armor plating. Compare the thick bulk of the raven to the thinner, but longer, apoc.
hrn/abwa???
Weight = gravitational constant*mass
unless you're talking about caldari ships weighing more near black holes than amarr ships in intersystem void, that makes no sense. armor is denser than electronics, therefore, more volume*higher density should mean that amarr ships have more mass than caldari ships.
Those who see grey in the world do not see clearly, for the world is ever cast in black and white. |
Niques Leutre
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:56:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Niques Leutre on 29/04/2006 23:00:49
Edited by: Niques Leutre on 29/04/2006 22:56:05
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Mass != Weight
Armor with a gravitational pull will weigh more than electronic components, but use less room. Cramming a ship with electronics is going to use more room than just heavy armor plating. Compare the thick bulk of the raven to the thinner, but longer, apoc.
Surely the electronics systems won't be packed *that* densely (dense enough to be equal or greater to the mass of thick slabs of armour plates). Don't forget that electronic systems must also be placed far enough apart to prevent heat buildup (or allow cooling systems to fit), not to mention they need to be spaced enough to be accessible for repair and maintenance.
Look at the Scorpion compared to say the Apocalypse. If you've ever seen the two overlap or side by side, you'd see the Scorpion's volume is relatively tiny. Yet despite this, the Scorpion has greater mass than the Apocalypse.
After a few millenia of space flight, you'd think the people of Eve would have developed lighter and smaller electronics... I seriously doubt after all this time we'd be using equipment that has a mass equal to (and density greater) than that of steel plates.
___________________________________
The fiercer the foe, the sweeter the salvage.
The fatter the wallet, the bigger the smile. |
Nikolai Nuvolari
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 22:59:00 -
[18]
You're absolutely right, Dusty, but there's already a 5-page thread on this, on Page 1 of General Discussion (Yes, I know, opening GD is scary and painful, but it's a good thing to do now and then)
--------
Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk
[04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw
[07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.04.29 23:51:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Mass != Weight
Armor with a gravitational pull will weigh more than electronic components, but use less room. Cramming a ship with electronics is going to use more room than just heavy armor plating. Compare the thick bulk of the raven to the thinner, but longer, apoc.
I tested this! I took my computer and put it on a scale, it weighed 25 lbs. Then i took out half of the electronics, pulled off the flimsy case, and bolted 3cm of steel plating together to form a smaller enclosure (about half the volume). It weighed 67 pounds when armored.
Since gravity in my region of Iowa didn't fluctuate by a couple hundred percent (that I'm aware of), I must assume that I increased the mass of my computer.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Dust Angel
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 00:04:00 -
[20]
Hmm, kessie has more mass than a destroyer... thats scary and sad at the same time, considering its like, 1/5th the size of a dessy.
_____________________________________
Stressed out with empire politics?
Sansha's Nation helps clear your mind.
|
Kye Kenshin
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 00:45:00 -
[21]
Why do you need light weight ships anyway??
Its not like you need agility and speed for close range fighting thanks to missiles and your 10% optimal bonuses.
Its not even a good arguement for your frigs as the kessie does just fine and the crow is one of the best interceptors around.
Plus RP arguements have nothing to do with game balance.
Live with it.
|
Nikolai Nuvolari
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 00:50:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Cade Morrigan
I tested this! I took my computer and put it on a scale, it weighed 25 lbs. Then i took out half of the electronics, pulled off the flimsy case, and bolted 3cm of steel plating together to form a smaller enclosure (about half the volume). It weighed 67 pounds when armored.
Since gravity in my region of Iowa didn't fluctuate by a couple hundred percent (that I'm aware of), I must assume that I increased the mass of my computer.
As Dusty loves to say, PICS OR STFU!
No seriously, if you ACTUALLY did all that, it would be unspeakably hilarious...
--------
Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk
[04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw
[07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
|
CardboardSword42
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 00:59:00 -
[23]
I'd like to sort one thing out that people don't seem to be understanding, it is mass that some people think should be changed not velocity.
I'm Ex-Biomass, that makes me cool
This sig is yellow - Ductoris |
Moonlife
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 01:27:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Cade Morrigan
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Mass != Weight
Armor with a gravitational pull will weigh more than electronic components, but use less room. Cramming a ship with electronics is going to use more room than just heavy armor plating. Compare the thick bulk of the raven to the thinner, but longer, apoc.
I tested this! I took my computer and put it on a scale, it weighed 25 lbs. Then i took out half of the electronics, pulled off the flimsy case, and bolted 3cm of steel plating together to form a smaller enclosure (about half the volume). It weighed 67 pounds when armored.
Since gravity in my region of Iowa didn't fluctuate by a couple hundred percent (that I'm aware of), I must assume that I increased the mass of my computer.
If you actually did that, and posted pictures, I pay for all of your expenses for it.
|
Idara
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 02:28:00 -
[25]
Okay, reduce the mass of Caldari ships, and make Amarr the most massive.
But...make a new "Attribute" for ships like "maneuverability" that reflects the power and number of thrusters on the ship. Caldari don't need to be very agile because they just lock and fire, but Gallente and Minnie ships need to be quite maneuverable.
Mass would be: Amarr > Gallente > Caldari > Minmatar
Maneuverability: Minnie > Gallente > Amarr > Caldari
Or whatever. Caldari still shouldn't be able to be faster than a Minnie or Gallente ship simply because they don't need to be for thier weapons to work.
|
Valea Silpha
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 03:17:00 -
[26]
You assume that armor is just solid armor plating. With nano engineering and hyperadvanced materials... why does armor have to have all that much mass ?
Caldari ships are just more roomy, no specific reason. Thats just the way they build them out there.
<Hammerhead> TomB is doing the nerfing
<Hammerhead> I just stand behind him, look at his monitor and shake my head |
Litus Arowar
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 03:45:00 -
[27]
this can't be a serious discussion... the reason caldari ships weigh more is cause of game balance... if they weighed less but had lower speed/agility, then MWDs and ABs would solve all problems
by giving them decent speed, but high weight, ABs and MWDs have less of an effect
why?
balance
why specifically?
who cares, it works
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 04:18:00 -
[28]
Some caldari ships could stand to lose some mass, not all of them but a few are a bit out there.
------
FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD |
Degale
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 04:55:00 -
[29]
You have to account for the mass of the caldari pilots thick head.
|
Arkanor
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 05:17:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Arkanor on 30/04/2006 05:16:55
Originally by: Degale
You have to account for the mass of the caldari pilots thick head.
Obviously they decreased that a bit so to make them moveable in the first place...
________________________________________________
Originally by: Kadrush
I want a Death Star to mine Veldspar
Yes I made the pic before I saw this |
Nikolai Nuvolari
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 05:27:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Litus Arowar
by giving them decent speed, but high weight, ABs and MWDs have less of an effect
Um, no.
We have crap speed AND crap weight.
--------
Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk
[04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw
[07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
|
Niques Leutre
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 05:32:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Valea Silpha
You assume that armor is just solid armor plating. With nano engineering and hyperadvanced materials... why does armor have to have all that much mass ?
Caldari ships are just more roomy, no specific reason. Thats just the way they build them out there.
Well, judging by the names of modules ('Steel Plates', 'Rolled Tungsten Plates', 'Reinforced Nanofiber Plates') I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume it's based on old-fashioned armour plates.
And if Caldari ships are more roomy, how is it a the Caldari battleships are tiny (roughly 50%-75% the volume) of Amarr Battleships? To have the same mass but be that much smaller means their ships must have absolutely incredible density and little room at all.
When you compare the size (volume) and mass, it seems Caldari have some kind of 'denser than steel' eletronic systems... which seem very implausable is all I'm saying. Caldari ships should have a more realisitc mass.
___________________________________
The fiercer the foe, the sweeter the salvage.
The fatter the wallet, the bigger the smile. |
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 11:51:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Litus Arowar
this can't be a serious discussion... the reason caldari ships weigh more is cause of game balance... if they weighed less but had lower speed/agility, then MWDs and ABs would solve all problems
The problem with that argument is that their current mass is balanced to pre mwd/ab nerf when you could run multiple mwds/abs. Back then ships like the blackbird and scorpion had the best potential to go fast because they had the largest number of midslots.
So Caldari got a mass increase to counter this, then the mwds where nerfed but caldari never got their lower mass back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 14:38:00 -
[34]
Caldari ships are supposed to be slow because they are long range.
|
Merin Ryskin
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 21:28:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 30/04/2006 21:29:55
Originally by: Selim
Caldari ships are supposed to be slow because they are long range.
Err, how does that work? If you're focusing on long-range combat and sacrificing close-range firepower and tanking to do it, your worst nightmare is getting pinned down at close range. So right after long-range weapons on your priority list is "enough speed to keep that range".
The only plausible reason for it is game balance, and that's vastly over-estimated. Long-range sniping is far less unbalanced than the whiners claim. I mean, it even comes pre-nerfed by the fact that without a support ship tackling for you, you will score zero kills. Since you're so far out of warp scrambler range, the moment your target's tank begins to fail, they're warping out. And then there's the inevitable death if you get caught at close range, close-range tracking issues, etc.
=================================================
As for the real point of the thread, some of these arguments are completely insane. There is absolutely no way Caldari ships can have those masses and obey the laws of physics. Like the example in the first post, there is absolutely no way a lightly armored frigate has more mass than a much larger and heavily armored destroyer.
There's no roleplaying reason for it, and there isn't a game balance reason anymore, so it's time to get rid of this obsolete nerfing. The mass/agility order, as it should be:
1) Minmatar: speed/agility are a racial focus, so of course they should be best at it.
2) Caldari: smallest battleships, and all ship classes have the weakest armor. No armor = no mass = higher agility.
3) Gallente: armor, but not the most. So they get the middle spot, enough armor to add mass, but not so much that they lose all agility.
3) Amarr: heaviest armor = very high mass = lowest agility.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2006.04.30 21:40:00 -
[36]
Yeah lets boost the Kestrel, it really needs it
_
__
|
Merin Ryskin
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 02:40:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Meridius
Yeah lets boost the Kestrel, it really needs it
Yeah, because you know, giving it better turn rate and fixing the completely absurd and unrealistic mass would really make it more powerful than it is. Or fixing the pathetic warp range which does nothing but annoy the pilot.
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 02:54:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Meridius
Yeah lets boost the Kestrel, it really needs it
Yes, the Kestrel is a prime example of a ship that really could benefit from mass reduction without imbalancing it. The Scorpion would be a lot more bearable to fly if it didn't handle like a pair of Feroxes bolted together, and it wouldn't become "uber" with a mass reduction.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 04:41:00 -
[39]
Drunk pigs move faster than a ferox.
A timecode will get you video proof!
|
nahtoh
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 05:13:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Phish1
look, its a balance issue, live with it.
Get through that thick skull, for issues that have been fixed in other ways...a mass decrease for rail platforms at least for chirst sake, you know the ones that do have actual range constrants and are affected the most by this collection of balance changes...there are cuisers that are faster on the helm than the harpy...
And if its the shiled systems that are supposed to cause this then screw with the kahind ship sin the same fecking way...
inquisitor
mass
1500000 kg
volume
28700 m3 (2500 m3 packaged)
max velocity
270 m/sec
kestrel
mass
1700000 kg
volume
19700 m3 (2500 m3 packaged)
max velocity
260 m/sec
Expain the differnce smart ass...less volume, more mass and slower...and apart from the damage type same bonuses...
And for your reading plesure a small out take from the ammar description...
"The Inquisitor is a fairly standard Amarr ship in most respects, having good defenses and lacking mobility."
=========
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 06:51:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Idara
Okay, reduce the mass of Caldari ships, and make Amarr the most massive.
But...make a new "Attribute" for ships like "maneuverability" that reflects the power and number of thrusters on the ship. Caldari don't need to be very agile because they just lock and fire, but Gallente and Minnie ships need to be quite maneuverable.
Mass would be: Amarr > Gallente > Caldari > Minmatar
Maneuverability: Minnie > Gallente > Amarr > Caldari
Or whatever. Caldari still shouldn't be able to be faster than a Minnie or Gallente ship simply because they don't need to be for thier weapons to work.
that "maneuverability" attribute already exists, it's called agility, but it remains unchanged in the same class(frig, cruiser...) ussually(there are a couple ships that have a different agility mod to others in same class). Why it isn't changed ever, don't know, I just know it isn't.
-
phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Hon Kovell
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 08:10:00 -
[42]
Stop using shield generators containing small black holes and your mass will drop greatly. You'll have paper thin defences for a few decades until you work the kinks out of the technology, of course.
|
James Lyrus
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 08:21:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Niques Leutre
Don't forget battleships. Caldari battleship are roughly half the volume of Amarr ships... and when you factor in the fact Amarr battleships are made up of thick slabs of armour plates while Caldari are mostly electronics...
The equal or greater mass of Caldari ships versus the other races' doesn't seem to make sense.
Mass, well is a bit silly, having 'really heavy and slow'. Thing that always bugs me though, is that in terms of mass and volume, the Scorpion is right near the top of the list. And yet when you compare one with say, a Megathron, it looks about a quarter the size.
Big and scary ships, should at least look big and scary :)
--
We are recruiting
We sell carriers. |
Nikolai Rex
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 09:18:00 -
[44]
Perhaps the Caldari have crappy materials engineers and don't have the line on strong yet light materials that the Amarr do?
Remember, material strength, while often related to density, is not exclusively attached to it. Google up spider goats if you want some more ideas about materials that are very strong relative to their mass.
|
Jon Xylur
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 10:16:00 -
[45]
Caldari are allready overpowered enough. Lets not make them even better, K?
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, and not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty - Cortes |
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 10:24:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 30/04/2006 21:29:55
Originally by: Selim
Caldari ships are supposed to be slow because they are long range.
Err, how does that work? If you're focusing on long-range combat and sacrificing close-range firepower and tanking to do it, your worst nightmare is getting pinned down at close range. So right after long-range weapons on your priority list is "enough speed to keep that range".
You've already answered yourself there, the dev's reasoning given at the time caldari were made heavier was that the longest range ships should be the slowest, so they couldn't just constantly outrange everything else in the game with no chance of being caught up to by the shorter ranged oponents.
.
-----
Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Drommy
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 11:18:00 -
[47]
no
IF YOU AINT BLUE... YOUR GOO
DARKSIDE INC |
Retar Jore
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 11:49:00 -
[48]
](combat) Your 12,900,000 kg Space Ship lands perfectly on I-Win Button, mashing for 866.6 damage..
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 13:00:00 -
[49]
Caldari ships suffer from the (justified) hatred of the Raven (as it was pre-Cold War). The mass "balancing can not be justified in frig and cruiser classes and perhaps they should be addressed. The Raven is oc fine as it is.
The "RL" and "logic" arguments dont apply to eve. If there was no actual balancing issues and it was all about looking good I d say increase the volume of Caldari ships to 120% of Ammar ones and there you have it... appearances and mass reconciled... but nobody really cares about that, or do you?
|
DoctorColossal Pervius
|
Posted - 2006.05.01 13:16:00 -
[50]
They have too much mass because Caldari thought they stole our technology but really we left some blueprints in easy reach for you to find with some serious design flaws built in.
Relax. You've had some of the most overpowered no-brainer ships out there since well before I began my EVE career and they are still great.
What do you want to do take any form of variation and culture away from each race? Get on and play!
|
Dust Angel
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 00:23:00 -
[51]
There is no logical reason that our electronics weigh more than the asston Amarr :(
_____________________________________
Stressed out with empire politics?
Sansha's Nation helps clear your mind.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 08:34:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Crellion
Caldari ships suffer from the (justified) hatred of the Raven (as it was pre-Cold War). The mass "balancing can not be justified in frig and cruiser classes and perhaps they should be addressed. The Raven is oc fine as it is.
The "RL" and "logic" arguments dont apply to eve. If there was no actual balancing issues and it was all about looking good I d say increase the volume of Caldari ships to 120% of Ammar ones and there you have it... appearances and mass reconciled... but nobody really cares about that, or do you?
The caldari mass nerf had nothing to do with the Raven. When it happened the raven was irrelevant as ship, cause nobody was mission running  .
It happened cause you could fly about 5km/s with a blackbird easily. Back then Blackbird handeled like a frigate nowadays. The Scorp was superior cause it was soo agil and fast, together with the increadible tanks it was a super ship (there was a video where a scorp tanked a whole fleet for 10mins till reinforcement came).
Also you could fit cruise missles on kestrels, making every other frigate pointless
Summertime - Campingtime!
|
Spartan239
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 08:38:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Crellion
Caldari ships suffer from the (justified) hatred of the Raven (as it was pre-Cold War). The mass "balancing can not be justified in frig and cruiser classes and perhaps they should be addressed. The Raven is oc fine as it is.
The "RL" and "logic" arguments dont apply to eve. If there was no actual balancing issues and it was all about looking good I d say increase the volume of Caldari ships to 120% of Ammar ones and there you have it... appearances and mass reconciled... but nobody really cares about that, or do you?
Also you could fit cruise missles on kestrels, making every other frigate pointless
ehm rifter?
Originally by: Tamora
its not the skills that make the eve
player... its the smack that back him up
|
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 08:42:00 -
[54]
Superconductors are heavy.
Sov 2.1
T2 BS |
Talmssar
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 09:31:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Hoshi
Originally by: Litus Arowar
this can't be a serious discussion... the reason caldari ships weigh more is cause of game balance... if they weighed less but had lower speed/agility, then MWDs and ABs would solve all problems
The problem with that argument is that their current mass is balanced to pre mwd/ab nerf when you could run multiple mwds/abs. Back then ships like the blackbird and scorpion had the best potential to go fast because they had the largest number of midslots.
So Caldari got a mass increase to counter this, then the mwds where nerfed but caldari never got their lower mass back.
This has been done to prevent double ab / mwd. Afaik it was done to all ships, right? I dont say that there isnt something wrong about ie kessie beeing more mass than dessies...
I just prefer that all have good time here. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 10:26:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Spartan239
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: Crellion
Caldari ships suffer from the (justified) hatred of the Raven (as it was pre-Cold War). The mass "balancing can not be justified in frig and cruiser classes and perhaps they should be addressed. The Raven is oc fine as it is.
The "RL" and "logic" arguments dont apply to eve. If there was no actual balancing issues and it was all about looking good I d say increase the volume of Caldari ships to 120% of Ammar ones and there you have it... appearances and mass reconciled... but nobody really cares about that, or do you?
Also you could fit cruise missles on kestrels, making every other frigate pointless
ehm rifter?
not enough missle bays :p
most prefered kestrels
Summertime - Campingtime!
|
K Shara
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 11:24:00 -
[57]
Yes Caldari need fixing mass wise.
Its not right that my caldari hac can only do 700 m/s with an MWD on.
lets look at the cruisres.
Amarr
Arbit 12.5 mKG (120 kM^3) 104 kg/m^3
Aur 12.25 mKG (115 kM^3) 103.8 kg/m^3
Maller 12.75 mKG (118 kM^3) 108 kg/m^3
omen 11.95 mKG (118 kM^3) 101.3 kg/m^3
Caldari
Blackbird 14 mKG (96 kM^3) 145.8 kg/m^3
Caracel 13.75 mKG (92 kM^3) 149.5 kg/m^3
Moa 13 mKG (101 kM^3) 128.7 kg/m^3
Osprey 13 mKG (107 kM^3) 105.6 kg/m^3
Gallente
Celestis 125 mKG (116 kM^3) 107.8 kg/m^3
Exeq 12.25 (113 kM^3) 108.4 kg/m^3
Thorax 12 mKG (112 kM^3) 107.1 kg/m^3
Vexor 11.25 (115 kM^3) 96.7 kg/m^3
Minmatar
Bell 10.75 mKG (80 kM^3) 1.34 kg/m^3
Rupture 11.5 mKG (96 kM^3) 119.8 kg/m^3
Scythe 10.25 (89 kM^3) 115.2 kg/m^3
Stabber 10 mKG (80 kM^3) 125 kg/m^3
Perfectly balanced...
NOT!!!!
<><><><><><><><><>
Contraband
<><><><><><><><><> |
Tachy
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 11:34:00 -
[58]
I just tried to imagine a few of the Caldari pilots I know with less CHIN.
Btw. the shields are huge electromagnetic fields. The certainly mass is used to reflect the effect of those in the natural electromagneti fields all over the systems without adding jsut another variable into the database.
--*=*=*--
Megadon
CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray |
Jacinto Naysmith
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 11:59:00 -
[59]
Double/Triple the size of caldari ship models. Then it makes sense from a fluff aspect without changing game mechanics. 
|
Dust Angel
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 21:42:00 -
[60]
Originally by: K Shara
Yes Caldari need fixing mass wise.
Its not right that my caldari hac can only do 700 m/s with an MWD on.
lets look at the cruisres.
Amarr
Arbit 12.5 mKG (120 kM^3) 104 kg/m^3
Aur 12.25 mKG (115 kM^3) 103.8 kg/m^3
Maller 12.75 mKG (118 kM^3) 108 kg/m^3
omen 11.95 mKG (118 kM^3) 101.3 kg/m^3
Caldari
Blackbird 14 mKG (96 kM^3) 145.8 kg/m^3
Caracel 13.75 mKG (92 kM^3) 149.5 kg/m^3
Moa 13 mKG (101 kM^3) 128.7 kg/m^3
Osprey 13 mKG (107 kM^3) 105.6 kg/m^3
Gallente
Celestis 125 mKG (116 kM^3) 107.8 kg/m^3
Exeq 12.25 (113 kM^3) 108.4 kg/m^3
Thorax 12 mKG (112 kM^3) 107.1 kg/m^3
Vexor 11.25 (115 kM^3) 96.7 kg/m^3
Minmatar
Bell 10.75 mKG (80 kM^3) 1.34 kg/m^3
Rupture 11.5 mKG (96 kM^3) 119.8 kg/m^3
Scythe 10.25 (89 kM^3) 115.2 kg/m^3
Stabber 10 mKG (80 kM^3) 125 kg/m^3
Perfectly balanced...
NOT!!!!
qft
_____________________________________
Stressed out with empire politics?
Sansha's Nation helps clear your mind.
|
Merin Ryskin
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 23:49:00 -
[61]
How about instead of searching for absurd ways to rationalize the high masses, we ask why they need that high mass.
It's not for roleplaying reasons. It makes no sense to have smaller, under-armored ships be the same mass as flying armor blocks.
It's not for game balance reasons anymore. The issue that forced the changes has been fixed, and the high masses are just an obsolete leftover. But what game balance effects would lowering the masses produce?
* Better turn rate. This is hardly relevant when Caldari ships are as a whole long-range snipers. You don't want to be caught at a range where high turn rate is essential, so having that high turn rate is about as important as having +5% better damage to civilian railguns per level. The only thing it would do is make the ships less frustrating to fly.
* Better warp range. I fail to see how having a Caldari ship require 3 warps to cross a system actually accomplishes anything but annoying its pilot.
* More benefit from MWD/AB. Of course they start with a lower base speed, so the end result isn't going to be faster than other races.
So there's no reason to keep the high masses, and some very good ones to lower them (player frustration is a bad thing). So the obvious answer is to cut the masses to where they belong, the second lightest in their class.
|
Kelgen Thann
|
Posted - 2006.05.03 23:54:00 -
[62]
Caldari used to have lower mass, scan resolution etc. a long time ago.
Missles were seen as too powerful and the scorpion too powerful an EW ship. To balance this about a year or so before the missle changes, the stats on caldari ships were changed.
When the missle changes and EW changes went into effect, the ship stats were not altered.
|
Jinx Barker
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 00:03:00 -
[63]
All I have to say is Thank God, more people are actually seing the imballance.... as Nikolai pointed out... another thread of over 6 pages now exists in GD, where we have exaustedly pointed out the fact that Caldari ships are gimped. We need Devs to take a look at the ships and do a review, at least let us be as agile as Amarr!
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=324151
|
Dust Angel
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 00:56:00 -
[64]
Hopefully tux isant a hater and will look into this, as well as blasters.
_____________________________________
Stressed out with empire politics?
Sansha's Nation helps clear your mind.
|
Cade Morrigan
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 02:53:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
How about instead of searching for absurd ways to rationalize the high masses, we ask why they need that high mass.
It's not for roleplaying reasons. It makes no sense to have smaller, under-armored ships be the same mass as flying armor blocks.
It's not for game balance reasons anymore. The issue that forced the changes has been fixed, and the high masses are just an obsolete leftover. But what game balance effects would lowering the masses produce?
* Better turn rate. This is hardly relevant when Caldari ships are as a whole long-range snipers. You don't want to be caught at a range where high turn rate is essential, so having that high turn rate is about as important as having +5% better damage to civilian railguns per level. The only thing it would do is make the ships less frustrating to fly.
* Better warp range. I fail to see how having a Caldari ship require 3 warps to cross a system actually accomplishes anything but annoying its pilot.
* More benefit from MWD/AB. Of course they start with a lower base speed, so the end result isn't going to be faster than other races.
So there's no reason to keep the high masses, and some very good ones to lower them (player frustration is a bad thing). So the obvious answer is to cut the masses to where they belong, the second lightest in their class.
Exquisite post! I would now ask that you send a frozen sample of your DNA over here so my wife can give birth to your child.
-= Save the Gila! Fix its grid and cpu! =-
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 03:57:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kelgen Thann
Caldari used to have lower mass, scan resolution etc. a long time ago.
Missles were seen as too powerful and the scorpion too powerful an EW ship. To balance this about a year or so before the missle changes, the stats on caldari ships were changed.
When the missle changes and EW changes went into effect, the ship stats were not altered.
caldari always had the highest lock times i believe caldari battleships were highest at 9 seconds, minmatar fastest at 6, its just with sensor boosters any ship could be made to lock in 1-2 seconds.
------
FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD |
Alistaire Mirabel
|
Posted - 2006.05.04 13:45:00 -
[67]
We need Tux to look at both threads... someone say something to Sir Tuxford and point him here. I dont think we are asking too much, just to be as competetive as other races, my ships are as agile as briks, I dont want to drive Amarr, everyone is driving Amarr ships nowdays, like they used to drive Ravens before, I presume.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |