Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 21 post(s) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4975
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 03:02:00 -
[271] - Quote
Also since you are messing with drones. Would you be a true hero and just remove all electronic warfare drones from the game. Thanks.
No seriously, remove them. Every single one of them is complete trash except ECM which due to the mechanics of ECM, turns every ship with a drone bay into a diet Falcon. It breaks the game on so many levels it is not even remotely fun. . |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 03:07:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP, please address this:
Now that Drones are finally getting a full set of Faction mods, when will you add in Implants? Drones are the only weapon system for which there are no implants for. Additionally, there are not a full set of Rig for drones either. For example there is a rig for Sentry drone damage, but none for Light/Medium/Heavy/All of the above.
It would be nice to see these added, ideally at the same time as the faction mods.
Secondly, I noticed one missing faction from the list of Drone mods. Sister of Eve. Now that they are an entity with drone damage based ships, they too should probably be included in the list of stores for faction drone mods.
All in all I like the changes. Some of them are a long time coming :) Should make for an interesting summer to say the least. |
Gargep Farrow
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 03:08:00 -
[273] - Quote
After the refining nerf/crap blog I was scared to even look at these changes.
Outside of fighters/bombers, which I dont use and wont comment on, the drone changes at least make sense. I wont give you a thumbs up, but I will say that since Ammar drones wont be worth reprocessing, at least they will have a use in the game. |
XBruin
Black Horse Corporation B4D W0LF INDUSTRIES
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 03:15:00 -
[274] - Quote
This is very clearly a nerf to Armor Supercaps's tank, while Shield ones remain untouched.
CCP Fozzie you were called out on this earlier in the thread and you have so far avoided addressing this particular point.
Can we have some transparency and talk us through this decision please. |
Varun Arthie
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 03:26:00 -
[275] - Quote
This change will likely make shield super more popular as you can stack damage and Cap mods in the lows and shield tank in the meds now. Mind you, the Hel is still terrible so prehaps will get balanced by CCP sometime in the next decade. The changes to fighters and fighter bombers means they now have a higher alpha, should be more interesting.
Once again everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and crying nerf! but as half of you likely haven't read the dev blog in detail you still likely haven't realised that the whole point of it is to make the skill less confusing, although trying to figure out what drones are covered by the racial drone skill is a task in itself.
|
XBruin
Black Horse Corporation B4D W0LF INDUSTRIES
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 03:52:00 -
[276] - Quote
Varun Arthie wrote:This change will likely make shield super more popular as you can stack damage and Cap mods in the lows and shield tank in the meds now. Mind you, the Hel is still terrible so prehaps will get balanced by CCP sometime in the next decade. The changes to fighters and fighter bombers means they now have a higher alpha, should be more interesting.
Once again everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and crying nerf! but as half of you likely haven't read the dev blog in detail you still likely haven't realised that the whole point of it is to make the skill less confusing, although trying to figure out what drones are covered by the racial drone skill is a task in itself.
I have read it all twice. As far as supercarriers go, ultimately this boils down to 3 points:
- Armor Supers lose 2 low slots to retain the same Fighter Bomber damage rate. Today these low slots are utilised almost entirely by tank modules. Therefore the balance has just been heavily tipped in favour of Shield supers, i.e. Wyvern. Was this a conscious decision? If yes, why?
- Aeons now completely eclipse the Nyx in terms of usefulness. Was this a conscious decision? If yes, why? If not, then maybe he needs to reconsider. Perhaps he's trying to make the Nyx as useless in the Armor category to make up for the Hel's uselessness in the Shield category.
- There's 2 types of rebalancing: Ensuring attributes are fair for ships classes/modules/drones/etc, and then there's discouraging bias for mass-adoption of a single race / damage platform, as the assumption is that the reason the majority of players adopt ship type X with weapons platform Y is because X and Y are OP.
It's given that Armor supercarriers are by far the most popular today. So now, by making shield supers MUCH better than Armor, there is still imbalance as far as attributes go, it is simply flipped on its head rather than "fixed" to address the lack of shield super adoption. There is now a huge incentive for existing players to make a switch to shield. After 2 years, will the attributes finally be evened out?
In my opinion, trying to modify player behaviour, as opposed to balancing attributes across races, is ultimately CCP game intervention, which they do not want to admit to doing. CCP Fozzie, your thoughts? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 04:13:00 -
[277] - Quote
While this is a buff for Shield Carriers/Supers, one must remember, that Caps only exist in fleets. To make them successful, you need a fleet of them to cross rep each other and keep each other up. The problem is, no one uses Shield Caps. I mean they are out there, but in small numbers.
The only way to make Shields viable in this area would be to make them OP, so that alliances would train up for and build shield cap fleets, then they could rebalance them back to being in line with Armour and both fleets would exist finally.
Until then, or some alliance really decided to make the commitment, shield caps/supers will remain an oddity on the battle field. Regardless of how much more DPS they might be able to field with this change, if there isn't enough of them to provide the reps to keep them alive, then it's moot. Who cares if a Chimera does 20% more DPS than a Thanny, then it dies twice as fast. |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
44
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 04:14:00 -
[278] - Quote
Nice changes,
I had a thought recently on sentry drones and the major differences between gardes and wardens which led to a theory of short and long range sentry drones. As all the weapon platforms have a short and long range variant for each type (blasters / rails, pulse / beams, and autocannons / artillery) It would be plausible to have a short and long range drone of each damage type allowing for more options. This would of course require doubling the number of sentry drones in the game and a major rebalance of all current sentry drones.
So what does the *activation proximity* stat on drones do, is this the threshold that must be crossed for a drone to shoot its target? Standard values for this tend to be lower than the drones maximum potential optimal range / falloff. For example a Templar fighter has an optimal range of 4500 base, but its activation proximity is 4000. does this mean that the templar could potentially have a ~10000 optimal from skills and omni's but it wont engage a target until its within 4000?
Fighters have long been very lackluster. while the skill changes are a nice improvment it would be nice to see some further stat changes for the fighters. Also same theory for fighters as sentrys, short and long range variants for each race would be interesting.
Small thought, there is no *drone tracking skill* not saying that i want one, just pointing out that there isn't one and if it were to be a thing this would be the time. |
iskflakes
902
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 04:47:00 -
[279] - Quote
I've run the numbers on Nyx vs Aeon after the changes, specifically looking at their role in fleet fights and capital ganks. As far as I can see the Aeon now wins every time.
With the changes to drone damage amps the aeon can have the DPS the Nyx used to have, and also have a better tank at the same time. Unless you want to do some kind of comedy "max dps" fit there will be little reason to ever choose a Nyx over an Aeon.
Details:
An aeon with two drone damage amps fit will get around 29.7m EHP (implants, no boosts). With two drone damage amps it will do ~43% above base damage. A nyx with full tank fit gets around 28.7 million EHP, and does 25% above base damage (hull bonus).
What if we want to put a DDA on the nyx? Now it tanks 23.4 million. That's equivalent to an aeon with 3 DDAs. The aeon is now doing 56% above base damage. The Nyx is doing 48% above base damage. Again, the aeon wins on tank and damage.
If we add a second DDA to the nyx, it now edges out ahead in DPS of an aeon with 4 DDAs, though the aeon still wins in tank.
The aeon tanks better, it has higher resists and it does more DPS in 90% of situations. It also has the extremely valuable remote cap transfer range bonus and the option to refit to a huge tank. The nyx has an additional 5 spare fighters (or 2 bombers), an extra midslot, and the comparatively useless shield transfer range bonus. It can't match the aeon's tank in any situation.
The spare midslot on the nyx could be used for damage application, though there is no midslot module that will significantly affect fighter bomber damage. The midslot can be used for cap rechargers, but the aeon can use cap power relays which are substantially better (while still maintaining equal DPS and superior tank).
After these changes we may see a decrease in ship diversity as people switch to Aeons. - |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5565
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 04:52:00 -
[280] - Quote
Personally I'm unswayed by a lot of the min/max fiddly little objections to the drone changes because, as a general rule, I tend to pick drones that offer me an alternative damage type compared to my main weapons. This has always served me well, particularly when flying Amarr vessels, and will be an even stronger strategy in the future.
I think there is probably some truth in the supposition that some of the changes encourage the use of shield over armor, and I really don't have a problem with that either. With some of the new modules coming out as well, it should shake up a lot of current fitting and fleet composition doctrines. Should be interesting to see how it shakes out... it likely won't end up the way everyone is currently thinking. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
217
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 05:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
Good changes
Any chance for you guys to look at ewar drones?!? |
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
185
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 05:45:00 -
[282] - Quote
So what about mining drones and salvage drones, what happens to their speed and other stats ? Because currently you get 20% yield for mining drones from drone interfacing and you are still going leave the adv. drone interfacing as it is ? Even if nobody and I mean nobody except "all to V or bust" crowd and some most desperate carrier ratters even think about ever raising that skill over 3. Frankly the most useless skill in all of EVE that only effect one ship type and one module that hardly sees any use beyond maybe 3 max. unless those ships also appear in conjunction with a fail mail. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2289
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 05:53:00 -
[283] - Quote
After some thought regarding the changes. As a blanket effect they are good over all, but when broken down some of them are less appealing.
Like was stated earlier in the thread, the go to drones will still be Gallente drones and Minmatar drones, Amarr and Caldari drones will still see little use, Amarr drones admittedly will see more use than before. To truly solve that issue, you would need drones to all deal the same DPS and give differences to other areas, much the way Fighter Drones are handled.
Heavy Drones, the increased MWD velocity is nice, but the reality of it is; it wont help that much. Close range battleship engagements tend to be in the 20~30km range with an optimal range of 1km they need to travel 15~25km before engaging their target and with the buff that will still take 10 or more seconds.
The skill split for medium and light drones hurts new players harder than you may realize, with so many of Gallente's drone ships using mixed sized drones. A possible solution to this is making drone control a ship based feature similar to how turret and launcher hard points are rather than a skill based feature. Then ships like the Algos and Vexor could use "proper" sized drones and get some extra drones to compensate for no longer using larger than normal drones. EX: Algos Drone Control 6, Bandwidth 30, Dronebay 60. Or Myrmidon Drone Control 8, Bandwidth 80, Drone Bay 200. -á --á |
Iomi Alabosa
Dead Star Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:00:00 -
[284] - Quote
Love improvements. Overall these sound fine. Just one thing:
In all the excitement over rebalancing, please don't lose sight of the fact that currently "Drone interface" is an oxymoron. It would be really nice to see a proper HUD or at least a new drone UI that is more than a Windows Explorer window. It should be far easier to exert finer control over individual drones and to attack/recall/repair them than it is currently.
Please? |
Gremmel
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:16:00 -
[285] - Quote
As someone who barely uses them this looks fine to me, although how lucky am I that I JUST started an alt that is going to be focused on Gallente frig/cruiser combat. The much needed UI overhaul however is sadly lacking from this blog, there's a lot of different ideas on how to redo the current boring spreadsheet into something exciting that functions just the same but takes less space. |
Narcil
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:16:00 -
[286] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:I've run the numbers on Nyx vs Aeon after the changes, specifically looking at their role in fleet fights and capital ganks. As far as I can see the Aeon now wins every time.
With the changes to drone damage amps the aeon can have the DPS the Nyx used to have, and also have a better tank at the same time. Unless you want to do some kind of comedy "max dps" fit there will be little reason to ever choose a Nyx over an Aeon.
Details:
An aeon with two drone damage amps fit will get around 29.7m EHP (implants, no boosts). With two drone damage amps it will do ~43% above base damage. A nyx with full tank fit gets around 28.7 million EHP, and does 25% above base damage (hull bonus).
What if we want to put a DDA on the nyx? Now it tanks 23.4 million. That's equivalent to an aeon with 3 DDAs. The aeon is now doing 56% above base damage. The Nyx is doing 48% above base damage. Again, the aeon wins on tank and damage.
If we add a second DDA to the nyx, it now edges out ahead in DPS of an aeon with 4 DDAs, though the aeon still wins in tank.
The aeon tanks better, it has higher resists and it does more DPS in 90% of situations. It also has the extremely valuable remote cap transfer range bonus and the option to refit to a huge tank. The nyx has an additional 5 spare fighters (or 2 bombers), an extra midslot, and the comparatively useless shield transfer range bonus. It can't match the aeon's tank in any situation.
The spare midslot on the nyx could be used for damage application, though there is no midslot module that will significantly affect fighter bomber damage. The midslot can be used for cap rechargers, but the aeon can use cap power relays which are substantially better (while still maintaining equal DPS and superior tank).
After these changes we may see a decrease in ship diversity as people switch to Aeons. What if you fit 2 DCUs to the supers. i think the nyx with no dda would outdps the aeon with one dda (with 2 DCUs each), but the difference is pretty small. Although they really need bigger drone bay and fleet hangar if they want to make DCUs viable. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
2166
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:20:00 -
[287] - Quote
What worries me is that the complete pig's ear CCP have made with drone 'balancing' over the past 18 months or so, seems to suggest that they are simply incapable of thinking through any of the latest 'whizz bang - super exciting' ideas any of their staff seem to draw up at random on the back of a very small postcard.
CCP need to recognize that Eve players are very good at coming up with the best way to utilize any ship and weapon configuration to get the most from them.
Simply and constantly nerfing the flavour of the month into the ground, is indicative of a failure on the part of CCP to understand their own game.
As the Japanese taught us in my job, (pharmaceuticals) think twice, cut once.
This is not a signature. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2527
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:28:00 -
[288] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:Tippia wrote: It's like this:
Before: Garde I GÇö 50 damage +ù1.60 modifier +ù1.8 (Drone Interfacing IV) +ù1.05 (Sentry Interfacing I) = 151.2 damage at minimum skills. Garde I GÇö 50 damage +ù1.60 modifier +ù2 (DI V) +ù1.25 (SI V) = 200 damage at max skills. Garde II GÇö 50 damage +ù1.92 modifier +ù2 (DI V) +ù1.25 (SI V) = 240 damage at max skills.
After: Garde I GÇö 64 damage +ù1.7 modifier +ù1.4 (DI IV) +ù1.05 (SI I) = 159.9 damage at minimum skills. Garde I GÇö 64 damage +ù1.7 modifier +ù1.5 (DI V) +ù1.25 (SI V) = 204 damage at max skills. Garde II GÇö 64 damage +ù1.7 modifier +ù1.5 (DI V) +ù1.25 (SI V) +ù1.1 (Gal. Drone Spec V) = 224.4 damage at max skills.
T1 becomes 2% better at maxed skills (6% better at minimum skills); T2 becomes 6.5% worse at max skills (and max skills requires more SP).
So my exploration Ishtar is going to do 748 DPS instead of its current 800 DPS, assuming I train for 19 days to get Gallente spec up to 5. That blows. Starting to look like its gonna take 19 days and 400mil in faction DDAs to make my Garde IIs perform the same as they do now. And I still won't be able to control them via F1-F5 like any other weapon in game. Or move around while using them. Arg.
Bingo. Another huge nerf to drone users , and this is weeks after the destruction in use of the Omni. But remember, this is the same guy that brought us the AI change that drove us from heavies to sentries in the first place. Plus, I would just love to hear what some gun jockey would say if he had to train a 19 day skill for each ammo type. Guess it is time for an autocannnon pilot to learn seven 19 days skills to use every ammo type.
One last thing, what is the over/under on when the Domi / Ishtar get their drone bonuses nerfed to hell? You KNOW that is coming with this dev's hatred of drones. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2527
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:34:00 -
[289] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The skill split for medium and light drones hurts new players harder than you may realize, with so many of Gallente's drone ships using mixed sized drones.
LOL...just look at this dev's track record when it comes to the New Player Experience. Also, look at his track record of modifying changes once he announces them.
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Methonash Qorranto
Caduceus Council Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
10
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 06:45:00 -
[290] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote: As the Japanese taught us in my job, (pharmaceuticals) think twice, act once.
Agreed!
So on that note...am I the only one in this thread who thinks it's a little ridiculous that, in the new drone scheme, Garde2's will have 18 km of falloff, while Curator2's will only possess 12 km of falloff?
Since when have blasters had 50%(!!!) more falloff than lasers? And since when, for that matter, have blasters ever had 150% of their optimal range in terms of falloff? This high-percentage-of-optimal-as-falloff sounds like an artillery platform, but we've already got bouncers for that.
It just doesn't make very much sense - if we are to faithfully follow the convention of "greater DPS, lower range/falloff", then Garde2's should have the lowest falloff, in addition to the lowest optimal range--which they did previously, but now they're suddenly receiving an unexplained mega-falloff-buff.
Gardes aren't railgun platforms--we know they're blasters, because they shoot little blaster mini-bolts! The wardens are the railgun platforms, and their visual FX reflect that.
:-/ |
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
11
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:09:00 -
[291] - Quote
Methonash Qorranto wrote:Josef Djugashvilis wrote: As the Japanese taught us in my job, (pharmaceuticals) think twice, act once.
Agreed! So on that note...am I the only one in this thread who thinks it's a little ridiculous that, in the new drone scheme, Garde2's will have 18 km of falloff, while Curator2's will only possess 12 km of falloff? Since when have blasters had 50%(!!!) more falloff than lasers? And since when, for that matter, have blasters ever had 150% of their optimal range in terms of falloff? This high-percentage-of-optimal-as-falloff sounds like an artillery platform, but we've already got bouncers for that. It just doesn't make very much sense - if we are to faithfully follow the convention of "greater DPS, lower range/falloff", then Garde2's should have the lowest falloff, in addition to the lowest optimal range--which they did previously, but now they're suddenly receiving an unexplained mega-falloff-buff. Gardes aren't railgun platforms--we know they're blasters, because they shoot little blaster mini-bolts! The wardens are the railgun platforms, and their visual FX reflect that. :-/
You didn't bother to check any actual numbers, did you?
|
Nonoyesyes
Evolution Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:11:00 -
[292] - Quote
I'm still hoping the super-capital changes are an April fools joke
I can appreciate and support reducing in the number of fighter-bombers. It will help with server lag, and will give switched on pilots to repair the damage if your bombers are taking random damage, but any concerted effort will still kill them off far to quickly (see: Alpha-strike or multiple bombing runs in quick succession)
Give super-carriers the ability to hold several waves of replacement bombers please
Reduce the buff for shield super-carriers by standardising the damage for aeons / nyx with no damage mods fit. Why should a shield based super-carrier be able to fit full tank as well as gank?
(Although I can appreciate the shield super-carriers have been the poorer cousin of their armour counterparts for a while. But is that an intentional buff or unintended feature?)
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2331
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:12:00 -
[293] - Quote
Players: Man your sov system sucks and is super boring you should fix it
CCP: Sure guys we're working on it!
*Nerfs the tool used to make that job less lifesucking*
Swear to god, this company would throw a drowning man a sack of bricks. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Frank Pannon
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:13:00 -
[294] - Quote
Maybe there is not enough information available yet to anwser this, but I am curious.
Will this mean a shift from armor carriers towards their shield variant? More Chimeras and Wyverns? Maybe I just cerry-pick one thing from the blog and there are other aspects to consider.
Can someone with hands-on experience with capital fleets reflect on this? |
Narcil
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:27:00 -
[295] - Quote
Frank Pannon wrote:Maybe there is not enough information available yet to anwser this, but I am curious.
Will this mean a shift from armor carriers towards their shield variant? More Chimeras and Wyverns? Maybe I just cerry-pick one thing from the blog and there are other aspects to consider.
Can someone with hands-on experience with capital fleets reflect on this? i think it's unlikely to change anything. no matter how good they make shield supers the quantity of armor titans already in game will assure that substantial capital fleets stay armor. |
Ron Mexxico
Broski North
70
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:37:00 -
[296] - Quote
will the racial drone spec skills affect fighters / bombers? |
Narcil
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:39:00 -
[297] - Quote
Ron Mexxico wrote:will the racial drone spec skills affect fighters / bombers? it was answered earlier somewhere. no it doesn't since F/FBs are T1. |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 07:54:00 -
[298] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote: 1. sentry can be destroyed. 2. sentry does not move. 3. you know nothing.
1. You have 375 dronebay and another 2 sets in cargohold. Trying to eat through 10+ drones is a waste of time unless have spare bomberwings. 2. so? That makes their tracking better and if someone made it to a place where he can apply dps and you do not you can just abandon and relaunch. 3. If I know nothing then what is the less than nothing you know called?
Unezka Turigahl wrote: 4. sentries require a lot of clicking and dragging using radial menus to use efficiently. 5. sentries must be recalled when taking damage from NPCs, resulting in a loss of DPS in competitive situations like hisec exploration sites, that turret using ships do not have to deal with. 6. sentries are locked into 1 damage type. Another set of sentries must be carried to switch damage type. Not practical to carry all damage types like turret and missile users can with ammo. 7. sentries do not have implants that boost DPS and other traits like guns and missiles do.
In summary, drones and guns/missiles can not be directly compared.
4. Droneinterface is bad, yes. Welcome to eve. But in exchange you get a weapon that fires when you go afk or are jammed. 5. People have been running sleepersite with drones for ages. You just need to learn how to control AI aggression for PvE. Doesn-¦t matter in PvP at all. 6. All that explosive damage from lasers is really a problem. 7. true, I guess that is on the list for fixing. Like we are getting faction DDAs now.
Maybe you can not compare them 1-1, but overall drones have massive advantages over turrets esp and very little drawbacks.
The no fittingrequirements is just so strong. Turretships need to downgrade their guns often enough to fit a decent tank while droneboats can fit 3 tankmodules or fill the highslots up on neuts etc. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20413
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 08:02:00 -
[299] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Bingo. Another huge nerf to drone users , and this is weeks after the destruction in use of the Omni. It's not a huge nerf by any stretch of the imagination, and it comes on the heels of numerous drone buffs that made them silly effective against everything. This change simply puts them back in a more sane place, both in terms of damage output and damage application.
Quote:But remember, this is the same guy that brought us the AI change that drove us from heavies to sentries in the first place. No, it's not. Heavies were always awful and sentries were always better GÇö the introduction of rat AI did not change this. If you were using heavies before Level1 AI, you were doing it wrong.
Quote:Plus, I would just love to hear what some gun jockey would say if he had to train a 19 day skill for each ammo type. Oh, they have to train a whole lot more than that to get each racial variation of their size category. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Isbariya
Thundercats The Initiative.
81
|
Posted - 2014.04.02 08:06:00 -
[300] - Quote
Narcil wrote:iskflakes wrote:I've run the numbers on Nyx vs Aeon after the changes, specifically looking at their role in fleet fights and capital ganks. As far as I can see the Aeon now wins every time.
With the changes to drone damage amps the aeon can have the DPS the Nyx used to have, and also have a better tank at the same time. Unless you want to do some kind of comedy "max dps" fit there will be little reason to ever choose a Nyx over an Aeon.
Details:
An aeon with two drone damage amps fit will get around 29.7m EHP (implants, no boosts). With two drone damage amps it will do ~43% above base damage. A nyx with full tank fit gets around 28.7 million EHP, and does 25% above base damage (hull bonus).
What if we want to put a DDA on the nyx? Now it tanks 23.4 million. That's equivalent to an aeon with 3 DDAs. The aeon is now doing 56% above base damage. The Nyx is doing 48% above base damage. Again, the aeon wins on tank and damage.
If we add a second DDA to the nyx, it now edges out ahead in DPS of an aeon with 4 DDAs, though the aeon still wins in tank.
The aeon tanks better, it has higher resists and it does more DPS in 90% of situations. It also has the extremely valuable remote cap transfer range bonus and the option to refit to a huge tank. The nyx has an additional 5 spare fighters (or 2 bombers), an extra midslot, and the comparatively useless shield transfer range bonus. It can't match the aeon's tank in any situation.
The spare midslot on the nyx could be used for damage application, though there is no midslot module that will significantly affect fighter bomber damage. The midslot can be used for cap rechargers, but the aeon can use cap power relays which are substantially better (while still maintaining equal DPS and superior tank).
After these changes we may see a decrease in ship diversity as people switch to Aeons. What if you fit 2 DCUs to the supers. i think the nyx with no dda would outdps the aeon with one dda (with 2 DCUs each), but the difference is pretty small. Although they really need bigger drone bay and fleet hangar if they want to make DCUs viable.
you know that the Wyvern will just outdps bot of them, it only loses three. CN PDA maybe a DCU if you want to fit four damage mods. Therefore you will still have a massive tank, an insane dmg and a passive shield reggen. I can't wait for these changes :-P |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |