Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 14:29:00 -
[271] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:
....
Depends, really. A WH Phoenix would normally use SMCs like a Nag for anticapital work. You'll probably see some Rigour fits but it's just so much easier to do the blap thing with Nags and Moroses at 30-40 km with webbing support that the main reason for doing so would be "lol surprise", just as present.
Its so much harder to do the blap thing at 50km with moros and naglfar compared to this rather nice Pheonix.
What is it with people who want their ship to do everyting. I have noted already, the guns are the problem, way off whack from their non capital variants. There is virtually no distinction from Blaster/Auto, and little from Pulse.
The full damage Pheonix fit will tank like a boss, have consistent damage output with choice, and have superb range. No 'miss' or 'critical'. Stop bleating about blapping BS targets. My Capital guns get 'barely scratched' on a static pos in optimal, as well as some whomping shots.. Missiles NEVER bloody miss. |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us Advanced Amateurs
74
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 14:35:00 -
[272] - Quote
Quote: The full damage Pheonix fit will tank like a boss, have consistent damage output with choice, and have superb range. No 'miss' or 'critical'. Stop bleating about blapping BS targets. My Capital guns get 'barely scratched' on a static pos in optimal, as well as some whomping shots.. Missiles NEVER bloody miss
.
Yeah and missiles never get wrecking hits. Thats a really really pointless argument. Also nags and moros have no problems blapping at 50km. Just switch out your tc scripts. Actually it might even be easier in some cases. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 14:42:00 -
[273] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone.
I can honestly say that I am not overly worried that carriers being able to reduce a portion of citadel missile damage through the use of gang links and/or halo implants will break the balance involved with these ships. The Phoenix is going to be doing a lot more damage in virtually all realistic situations compared to today and it will be doing it while also benefitting from the resist bonus and omni damage.
That being said, I think there is an opportunity here to both reduce the impact of skirmish links on Phoenixes while also differentiating dreads and carriers a bit. The fact that dreads and carriers have almost identical signature radius has never made much sense, and it is entirely appropriate for stationary dreads to have a much harder time mitigating missile damage.
So we're going to go ahead and increase the sig radius of all four dreads alongside this change:
Revelation: Signature Radius: 4100 (+1125)
Naglfar: Signature Radius: 4000 (+1140)
Moros: Signature Radius: 4300 (+1255)
Phoenix: Signature Radius: 4200 (+1100) there would be no need to do this if you just didnt change the explosion radius. My math i posted earlier showed a minor, minor change if you didn't. It was like 50% more damage vs a moving battleship but that meant 12% base damage vs 8% base damage. And against a moving archon it was 40% post radius nerf, 48 pre-radius (new explosion velocity.) Now you are thinking of only increasing dread sig? Carriers, rorquals, freights and jf. its easier to just not increase explosion radius.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're buffing the explosion velocity of Citadel Cruises by 38%, and nerfing their explosion radius by 14%. We're buffing the explosion velocity of Citadel Torps by 75%, and nerfing their explosion radius by 50%.
One side effect of such significant changes is that the Torps would start doing reduced damage to starbase modules and to small towers themselves. So we're increasing the sig radius of all starbase structures that sit outside the shields from 2000 to 3000, small towers from 2000 to 4000 and medium towers from 4000 to 5000.
Let me know what you think.
Stat || Current (No Skills) || Post (no skills) Nova C. torp DRF: 5.5 (1 after the math is done) Radius: 2000m || 3000m Ex. Vel.: 20m/s || 35m/s B. Dmg: 2000
Nova c. Cruise DRF: 4.5 (0.88 after the math is done) Radius: 1750m || 2000m Ex. Vel.: 29m/s || 40m/s B. Dmg: 1500
Stat || Current (Level V) || Post (Level V) Nova C. torp DRF: 5.5 (1 after the math is done) Radius: 1500m || 2250m (-25%) Ex. Vel.: 30m/s || 52.5m/s (+50%) B. Dmg: 2750
Nova C. Cruise DRF: 4.5 (0.88 after the math is done) Radius: 1312.5m || 1500m (-25%) Ex. Vel.: 45m/s || 60m/s (+50%) B. Dmg: 2063
Megathron (no fitting) Sig: 380 Velocity: 153 (All level 5)
Archon (no fitting) Sig : 2920 Velocity: 87.5 (all level 5)
Broken down, the math becomes the following, Missile Damage = the lowest of:
Base Damage * 1 not allowing more than base damage Base Damage * (Target signature / explosion radius) If the target is sitting still, aka "0 missile transversal" Base Damage * [ (Target signature / explosion radius) * (explosion velocity / Target Velocity) ] ^ [ ln(drf) / ln(5.5)] If the target is moving
Lets compare:
Vs Archon, moving: Old Cruise: BD * [(2920/1312.5)*(45/87.5)]^.88 bd * [(2.22)*(.51)]^.88 BD * 1.11 = BD * 1
New Cruise BD * [(2920/1500)*(60/87.5)]^.88 BD * [(1.94)*(.68)]^0.88 BD * 1.27 = BD * 1 No change
Old Torp: BD * [(2920/1500)*(30/87.5)] bd * [(1.94)*(.34)] BD * 0.66
New Torp BD * [(2920/2250)*(52.5/87.5)] BD * [(1.30)*(.6)] BD * 0.78 +12% increase in damage vs a moving Archon
Vs Megathon, moving: Old Cruise: BD * [(380/1312.5)*(45/153)]^.88 bd * [(0.29)*(0.29)]^.88 BD * 0.11
New Cruise BD * [(380/1500)*(60/153)]^.88 BD * [(.25)*(.39)]^0.88 BD * .13 +20% damage vs Moving BS
Old Torp: BD * [(380/1500)*(30/153)] bd * [(.25)*(.95)] BD * 0.049
New Torp BD * [(380/2250)*(52.5/153)] BD * [(.17)*(.34)] BD * 0.058 +20 Damage vs moving BS
Vs Megathon, moving: New Cruise, old radius: BD * [(380/1312.5)*(60/153)]^.88 BD * [(0.29)*(.39)]^0.88 BD * 0.147 +33% damage vs moving BS
New Torp, old radius: BD * [(380/1500)*(52.5/153)] BD * [(0.25)*(.34)] BD * 0.085 +73% damage vs moving BS
While the +73% damage sounds over powered: 2750 * 0.085 = 233.75 damage THEN add resists of the hostile. 50% is the default explosive resist on shields, so that would reduce it to under 150 damage per missile.
|
Rab See
Fool Mental Junket
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 15:21:00 -
[274] - Quote
Linkxsc162534 wrote:Quote: The full damage Pheonix fit will tank like a boss, have consistent damage output with choice, and have superb range. No 'miss' or 'critical'. Stop bleating about blapping BS targets. My Capital guns get 'barely scratched' on a static pos in optimal, as well as some whomping shots.. Missiles NEVER bloody miss
. Yeah and missiles never get wrecking hits. Thats a really really pointless argument. Also nags and moros have no problems blapping at 50km. Just switch out your tc scripts. Actually it might even be easier in some cases.
The pointless argument is the one where missiles should do what guns do. They are not the same. They have benefits and drawbacks. The phoenix has new, considerable benefits. |
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
120
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 18:24:00 -
[275] - Quote
I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.
Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.
+selectable damage +DPS buff +tank buff +still biggest volley damage
I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare. -Bl+¦d
http://bloodytravels.blogspot.com/ -á-- My travels through space. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
200
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 18:41:00 -
[276] - Quote
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.
Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.
+selectable damage +DPS buff +tank buff +still biggest volley damage
I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare.
The thing is a phoenix cannot blap a sub-cap.
New Torps: 5.8% of base damage, 160 damage, is dealt to a megathron without resists. New Torps without the explosion radius nerf: 233.75 damage.
The new cruise do 13% of base damage, 268 damage per missile, against battleships. Add a t2 siege and that becomes 2500 damage per missile, times 3 missiles is 7500 damage, assuming 0% resist. If they did not modify the explosion radius it would be 14.7% base damage, 2820 damage per missile in siege, or 8460 for 3 then add the resists.
There is no need for the radius nerf, you would only blap webbed and painted subcaps, which other dreads can already do. |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
83
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 19:15:00 -
[277] - Quote
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.
Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.
+selectable damage +DPS buff +tank buff +still biggest volley damage
I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare. That'd be great if only it worked like that in practice. As numerous people in the thread have pointed out, the Phoenix unfortunately isn't able to apply properly to other capitals either. It still can't apply all of its damage without rigors to eg. a triaged Archon, and wouldn't be able to apply to sieged Dreads either if their signature radius wasn't increased a lot along with these changes.
These changes make the Phoenix better at hitting stuff that's mitigating some of its damage through speed. This was never an issue on capitals on the old Phoenix, really, although moving slowcats could in theory mitigate some damage through moving at their maximum velocity if the Phoenix had no Rigors fit or no one was painting the slowcat. In other words, these changes actually make the Phoenix better at hitting subcaps and worse at hitting stuff it's supposed to hit, eg. stationary capital ships.
I've posted quite a bit in this thread about this, but since they're long intimidating posts I doubt many people have read them. In short, the changes make the Phoenix 50% worse at applying damage to stationary targets, and 25% better at applying damage to moving targets. Stationary and moving in this context mean whether or not the target is mitigating damage through speed. You can figure out the minimum speed the target has to move to be considered moving from the equation targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.
This means that unless the sigradius of triaged Carriers is significantly increased, the new Phoenix will only apply about 86% of its total damage to an Archon with links that is doing absolutely nothing, and that is assuming the Phoenix pilot has Guided Missile Precision V. At GMP IV, that Archon would only take 81.5% damage from the Phoenix. The same would've applied to POS modules and dreads, but their signatures were significantly increased just so that these changes wouldn't completely ruin the Phoenix against them.
However, it also means that the Phoenix becomes a bit better at hitting stuff it's not supposed to hit. In my post on the previous page I included some examples of practical effects of these changes. In short, Phoenix becomes better at blapping cruisers and worse at blapping battleships. |
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
231
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 21:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:It's disappointing to see the extent of personal attacks against CCP employees in this thread, but at the same time the actual criticism of the proposed changes is largely correct.
These changes are inelegant and fail to accomplish the goals you have stated for them. Please, shelf this idea and find a better way (probably by balancing missiles across the board before you even touch the Phoenix).
The reason people get mad is because its a slight buff that comes with a nerf Then instead of directly just fixing it, they start changing other mechanics of the game.
Yet they still mostly ignore the problem and then they barely give responses to what really needs to be done. The phoenix has sucked for years and capital missiles as well. So when after years of people being angry of it being so bad, and then they half arse the fixes.
Wouldnt you be mad too? |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
129
|
Posted - 2014.05.13 22:13:00 -
[279] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:It's disappointing to see the extent of personal attacks against CCP employees in this thread, but at the same time the actual criticism of the proposed changes is largely correct.
These changes are inelegant and fail to accomplish the goals you have stated for them. Please, shelf this idea and find a better way (probably by balancing missiles across the board before you even touch the Phoenix). The reason people get mad is because its a slight buff that comes with a nerf Then instead of directly just fixing it, they start changing other mechanics of the game. Yet they still mostly ignore the problem and then they barely give responses to players who know needs to be done. The phoenix has sucked for years and capital missiles as well. So when after years of people being angry of it being so bad, and then they half arse the fixes. Wouldnt you be mad too?
Nope. I definitely wouldn't be mad enough to call the developers idiots or other such insults that I've seen slung around in this thread, as I really don't see the point in that. I would, as I just did, point out in a simple and direct manner that I think this change should be shelved, and what my reasons for thinking that are. |
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
232
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 00:40:00 -
[280] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:Hagika wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:It's disappointing to see the extent of personal attacks against CCP employees in this thread, but at the same time the actual criticism of the proposed changes is largely correct.
These changes are inelegant and fail to accomplish the goals you have stated for them. Please, shelf this idea and find a better way (probably by balancing missiles across the board before you even touch the Phoenix). The reason people get mad is because its a slight buff that comes with a nerf Then instead of directly just fixing it, they start changing other mechanics of the game. Yet they still mostly ignore the problem and then they barely give responses to players who know needs to be done. The phoenix has sucked for years and capital missiles as well. So when after years of people being angry of it being so bad, and then they half arse the fixes. Wouldnt you be mad too? Nope. I definitely wouldn't be mad enough to call the developers idiots or other such insults that I've seen slung around in this thread, as I really don't see the point in that. I would, as I just did, point out in a simple and direct manner that I think this change should be shelved, and what my reasons for thinking that are.
So as often the devs ignore posts and what the far more learned player base knows and spends their waking hours on this game and more so than the devs, then they push through a ridiculous change that everyone knows is wrong and the devs basically say they do not care, and you dont expect people to be frustrated or mad because they were blown off ?
Surely that wouldnt cause people to respond harshly at all would it?
Think of it in terms of you being a coccain addict and your dealer is charging you the same price for the drugs but they are cutting it with baking powder. Make sense yet?
|
|
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
53
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 00:41:00 -
[281] - Quote
Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
201
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 00:53:00 -
[282] - Quote
Drew Li wrote:Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers.
these would actually work out well, and it would be rapid cruise missile launchers.
I know you may be butt hurt that your precious overpowered pre-rubicon RLMLs were nerfed, but please learn to use the new ones since your complaining isn't going to help at all. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Mordus Angels
894
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 00:57:00 -
[283] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Drew Li wrote:Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers. these would actually work out well, and it would be rapid cruise missile launchers. I know you may be butt hurt that your precious overpowered pre-rubicon RLMLs were nerfed, but please learn to use the new ones since your complaining isn't going to help at all.
The new ones are **** and the old ones were fine, the issue was never the LRML, its that HML and HAMs are trash. |
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
233
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 01:06:00 -
[284] - Quote
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.
Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.
+selectable damage +DPS buff +tank buff +still biggest volley damage
I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare.
The problem is, they wont be. In terms of DPS, they are behind 2 other dreads. That also means they will be behind in structure killing and capital ship killing still, oh and they barely touch sub caps while all the others have no issue blapping them.
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Cult of Mooby
183
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 01:21:00 -
[285] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:I don't understand why people feel the need that the Phoenix should be able to blap subcapitals.
Look, with this change its engagement profile has shot up significantly.
+selectable damage +DPS buff +tank buff +still biggest volley damage
I will gladly trade the ability to blap subcaps for being the best in anti-capital warfare. The problem is, they wont be. In terms of DPS, they are behind 2 other dreads. That also means they will be behind in structure killing and capital ship killing still, oh and they barely touch sub caps while all the others have no issue blapping them. But missiles are supposed to lose to turrets, because Eve. It's the same reason we have instantaneous damage from artillery shells at 150+km but battleship size missiles take over 10seconds to travel that distance. It's a feature and, as much as I would like, it's never going to change. |
unidenify
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 01:26:00 -
[286] - Quote
if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k? |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 01:34:00 -
[287] - Quote
unidenify wrote:if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k?
because they are nerfing the explosion velocity needlessly. |
Linkxsc162534
Traps 'R' Us Advanced Amateurs
76
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 01:44:00 -
[288] - Quote
Onictus wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:Drew Li wrote:Rapid Torpedo/Cruise Launchers. these would actually work out well, and it would be rapid cruise missile launchers. I know you may be butt hurt that your precious overpowered pre-rubicon RLMLs were nerfed, but please learn to use the new ones since your complaining isn't going to help at all. The new ones are **** and the old ones were fine, the issue was never the LRML, its that HML and HAMs are trash.
Make the rapid cruise launcher. Give it lower fitting requs than cit torps or cruises. Set it in a manner they can get about 4mins of fire in a ballpark of 2500 dps out of siege. And when they siege it goes to around 9000 but ofcourse they blast through ammo in a min or 2. Perhaps give it a 3min reload out of siege, and 1min while sieged. There you dont have to worry about it blapping bses. Itll just dps them down like a boss, and still have its torps for taking down POSes
|
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
130
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 06:01:00 -
[289] - Quote
Hagika wrote:So as often the devs ignore posts and what the far more learned player base knows and spends their waking hours on this game and more so than the devs, then they push through a ridiculous change that everyone knows is wrong and the devs basically say they do not care, and you dont expect people to be frustrated or mad because they were blown off ?
Surely that wouldnt cause people to respond harshly at all would it?
Think of it in terms of you being a coccain addict and your dealer is charging you the same price for the drugs but they are cutting it with baking powder. Make sense yet?
If you cut all the posts that consist primarily of unsupported opining or reactionary anger from every thread in this forum, you'd be left with a mostly seamless and intelligent discussion, with the side benefit of it being a lot easier to see what the informed members of the community are saying.
So basically, if you actually want game devs to listen to you, make a real argument and stop wasting their time by being dicks to them. |
ZecsMarquis
Destroyer's Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 08:54:00 -
[290] - Quote
I still feel increasing sig with siege modules and triage modules is the best choice. Rather than increasing the base signature of dreads, just leave them as is. This is a fair compromise no? Maybe you do not do 100% citadel damage to a carrier/dread out of siege but you most certainly can do full damage to one in siege/triage. This is way better than increasing the base signature radius.
Does anyone disagree with this? Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise. That way you have to make yourself both vulnerable to do full damage and to do the triage reppin. Seems like a better way to balance this issue.
Thoughts? |
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1220
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 10:41:00 -
[291] - Quote
There's a problem there with torp damage application to slowcat-type fleets, but it's pretty easy to solve it with a painter.
Not so with triage. The motivation for increasing torp explosion radius is to hinder the blap thing, which is fine by me, it's little more than a gimmick anyway. But doing so at the cost of effectiveness against a triaged carrier is just perverse.
You could replicate this effect by a lesser nerf to torp explosion radius, retaining full damage against a stationary linked triage carrier, along with an increase to DRF, making damage fall off more quickly against fast targets such as subcaps.
Or just increase carrier sig to a minimum of 3600 m, to maintain equality between turret and missile dreads even with a Ragnorak's sig bonus (3600 x 0.625 = 2250 m). Haloes and X-Instinct can then reduce torp damage, but are counterable via Crash. |
Hagika
Hipsters In Space
233
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 10:48:00 -
[292] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:Hagika wrote:So as often the devs ignore posts and what the far more learned player base knows and spends their waking hours on this game and more so than the devs, then they push through a ridiculous change that everyone knows is wrong and the devs basically say they do not care, and you dont expect people to be frustrated or mad because they were blown off ?
Surely that wouldnt cause people to respond harshly at all would it?
Think of it in terms of you being a coccain addict and your dealer is charging you the same price for the drugs but they are cutting it with baking powder. Make sense yet?
If you cut all the posts that consist primarily of unsupported opining or reactionary anger from every thread in this forum, you'd be left with a mostly seamless and intelligent discussion, with the side benefit of it being a lot easier to see what the informed members of the community are saying. So basically, if you actually want game devs to listen to you, make a real argument and stop wasting their time by being dicks to them.
Unsupported opinion....So people who play the game and speak of how the mechanics are bad for missiles and for ships are unsupported opinion? The math has been proven 100 times over. How many ,more times does it need to be proven?
The others are players who are angry because their posts are largely ignored and changes that are not for the better are pushed through instead of devs responding to them and listening to more experienced player base.
While you are at it, please stop your unsupported opinions on how devs are treated. The only person making a big stink about it is you. Everyone has had years of dealing with this and are tired of being ignored and having bad changes pushed through. Have respect for their right to be angry and stop kissing butt. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1220
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 10:49:00 -
[293] - Quote
Hagika, stop ranting and make a real argument. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1352
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 12:58:00 -
[294] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:unidenify wrote:if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k? because they are nerfing the explosion velocity needlessly.
that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Roguehellhound
Sea Hamster Legionnaires The Unthinkables
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 13:41:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote:unidenify wrote:if Phoenix was meaning to be anti-capital, then why left Carrier's Sig radius alone at 2900 when increase Dread to 4k? because they are nerfing the explosion velocity needlessly. that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MIS S so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.
But thats the THING, they don't even vs other caps. Not to mention before the update to the buff, it wouldn't even fully hit a dread until Fozz came by and updated on them increasing sig of Dreads.
Whats apparent is that the missile formula in its current iteration has a lot of problems and they are simply adding patches to a leaking dam.
Its not as if they other caps can't alpha subcaps either but the way they buff/nerfed it does not make sense. |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
84
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 14:34:00 -
[296] - Quote
ZecsMarquis wrote:Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise.
Kagura Nikon wrote:that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target.
I would like to take this moment to remind you gentlemen about the practicalities of these changes. Since this is like the fifth time I post a very similar reply in this thread, excuse my resorting to bullet points.
- The nerfed Explosion Radius means that the Phoenix will become flat out 50% worse at hitting anything that's either stationary or webbed enough to effectively be considered stationary by the equation. The minimum speed for "webbed enough" is targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.
- The buffed Explosion Velocity means that the Phoenix will become about 25% better at hitting anything that is moving above the minimum speed you got from the equation above, assuming they aren't several times larger in Signature Radius than the new Explosion Velocity of the Phoenix is (because small Explosion Radius makes up for small Explosion Velocity, see point 2 here). In practice this means that the Phoenix becomes a little better at hitting everything as small or smaller than a Carrier that is moving at its top speed while not being webbed/painted. However, since triaged Carriers and Dreads aren't moving and can't be target painted, the Phoenix applies worse to them.
- The above means that the Phoenix becomes universally better at blapping (moving) cruisers, and better at hitting not-quad webbed battleships. However, if you have enough webs on a battleship to reduce its speed below the minimum tanking speed, the Phoenix becomes worse at applying to it.
- Also, because Stasis Webifiers are more effective than Target Painters, the more Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers you apply on a target, the closer to 0% the "25% buff" becomes, turning into the negatives (becoming a nerf) if you have "enough" (again, see the equation) webs.
Here's a post with two practical examples against armor+afterburner subcaps. As you can see, the Phoenix applies comparably better to the Proteus than the Abaddon, but overall the difference in subcap application isn't very significant. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
202
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 15:09:00 -
[297] - Quote
Burneddi wrote:ZecsMarquis wrote:Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise. Kagura Nikon wrote:that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target. I would like to take this moment to remind you gentlemen about the practicalities of these changes. Since this is like the fifth time I post a very similar reply in this thread, excuse my resorting to bullet points.
- The nerfed Explosion Radius means that the Phoenix will become flat out 50% worse at hitting anything that's either stationary or webbed enough to effectively be considered stationary by the equation. The minimum speed for "webbed enough" is targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.
- The buffed Explosion Velocity means that the Phoenix will become about 25% better at hitting anything that is moving above the minimum speed you got from the equation above, assuming they aren't several times larger in Signature Radius than the new Explosion Velocity of the Phoenix is (because small Explosion Radius makes up for small Explosion Velocity, see point 2 here). In practice this means that the Phoenix becomes a little better at hitting everything as small or smaller than a Carrier that is moving at its top speed while not being webbed/painted. However, since triaged Carriers and Dreads aren't moving and can't be target painted, the Phoenix applies worse to them.
- The above means that the Phoenix becomes universally better at blapping (moving) cruisers, and better at hitting not-quad webbed battleships. However, if you have enough webs on a battleship to reduce its speed below the minimum tanking speed, the Phoenix becomes worse at applying to it.
- Also, because Stasis Webifiers are more effective than Target Painters, the more Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers you apply on a target, the closer to 0% the "25% buff" becomes, turning into the negatives (becoming a nerf) if you have "enough" (again, see the equation) webs.
Here's a post with two practical examples against armor+afterburner subcaps. As you can see, the Phoenix applies comparably better to the Proteus than the Abaddon, but overall the difference in subcap application isn't very significant.
Using the tats you give:
Abaddon: Signature: 1122m Velocity: 35m/s
Proteus: 598m 53m/s
New Torp vs Abaddon you made. BD * [(1122/2250)*(52.5/35)] BD * [(.50)*(1.5)] BD * 0.75
New Torp vs archon BD * [(2920/2250)*(52.5/87.5)] BD * [(1.30)*(.6)] BD * 0.78
Almost like hitting a carrier at full speed
New Torp vs Proteus: BD * [(598/2250)*(52.5/53)] BD * [(.26)*(1)] BD * 0.26
I would say there is a significant difference, by a 50% reduction in base damage before resists.
New Torp, old radius, Abaddon: BD * [(1122/1500)*(52.5/35)] BD * [(0.75)*(1.5)] BD * 1.12 = 1
New Torp, old radius, Archon BD * [(2920/1500)*(52.5/87.5)] BD * [(1.94)*(.6)] BD * 1.16=1
New Torp, old radius, Proteus: BD * [(598/1500)*(52.5/53)] BD * [(0.40)*(.1)] BD * 0.40
So the question is, Does a battleship with 4 ship bonus-ed painters and 4 webs on it deserved to be blapped, I say yes. |
Roguehellhound
Sea Hamster Legionnaires The Unthinkables
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 15:12:00 -
[298] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:Burneddi wrote:ZecsMarquis wrote:Obviously they are worried about the citadel missiles being too strong and want some sort of compromise. Kagura Nikon wrote:that is to ensure that battleships even painted will not be blapped easily. Remember missiles do not MISS so they can NEVER do full damage to a lower sized target. I would like to take this moment to remind you gentlemen about the practicalities of these changes. Since this is like the fifth time I post a very similar reply in this thread, excuse my resorting to bullet points.
- The nerfed Explosion Radius means that the Phoenix will become flat out 50% worse at hitting anything that's either stationary or webbed enough to effectively be considered stationary by the equation. The minimum speed for "webbed enough" is targetSigRadius / missileExplosionRadius * missileExplosionVelocity.
- The buffed Explosion Velocity means that the Phoenix will become about 25% better at hitting anything that is moving above the minimum speed you got from the equation above, assuming they aren't several times larger in Signature Radius than the new Explosion Velocity of the Phoenix is (because small Explosion Radius makes up for small Explosion Velocity, see point 2 here). In practice this means that the Phoenix becomes a little better at hitting everything as small or smaller than a Carrier that is moving at its top speed while not being webbed/painted. However, since triaged Carriers and Dreads aren't moving and can't be target painted, the Phoenix applies worse to them.
- The above means that the Phoenix becomes universally better at blapping (moving) cruisers, and better at hitting not-quad webbed battleships. However, if you have enough webs on a battleship to reduce its speed below the minimum tanking speed, the Phoenix becomes worse at applying to it.
- Also, because Stasis Webifiers are more effective than Target Painters, the more Target Painters and Stasis Webifiers you apply on a target, the closer to 0% the "25% buff" becomes, turning into the negatives (becoming a nerf) if you have "enough" (again, see the equation) webs.
Here's a post with two practical examples against armor+afterburner subcaps. As you can see, the Phoenix applies comparably better to the Proteus than the Abaddon, but overall the difference in subcap application isn't very significant. Using the tats you give: Abaddon: Signature: 1122m Velocity: 35m/s Proteus: 598m 53m/s New Torp vs Abaddon you made. BD * [(1122/2250)*(52.5/35)] BD * [(.50)*(1.5)] BD * 0.75 New Torp vs archon BD * [(2920/2250)*(52.5/87.5)] BD * [(1.30)*(.6)] BD * 0.78 Almost like hitting a carrier at full speed New Torp vs Proteus: BD * [(598/2250)*(52.5/53)] BD * [(.26)*(1)] BD * 0.26 I would say there is a significant difference, by a 50% reduction in base damage before resists. New Torp, old radius, Abaddon: BD * [(1122/1500)*(52.5/35)] BD * [(0.75)*(1.5)] BD * 1.12 = 1 New Torp, old radius, Archon BD * [(2920/1500)*(52.5/87.5)] BD * [(1.94)*(.6)] BD * 1.16=1 New Torp, old radius, Proteus: BD * [(598/1500)*(52.5/53)] BD * [(0.40)*(.1)] BD * 0.40 So the question is, Does a battleship with 4 ship bonus-ed painters and 4 webs on it deserved to be blapped, I say yes.
every single ship in the game deserves to be blapped |
Burneddi
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
87
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 15:22:00 -
[299] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:New Torp, old radius, Abaddon: BD * [(1122/1500)*(52.5/35)] BD * [(0.75)*(1.5)] BD * 1.12 = 1
New Torp, old radius, Proteus: BD * [(598/1500)*(52.5/53)] BD * [(0.40)*(.1)] BD * 0.40 These actually become 0.748 damage modifier for the Abaddon and 0.395 damage modifier (as opposed to your ~0.399) for the Proteus. The reason for this being, if stationary damage would be lower than moving damage, the formula uses the stationary damage.
TheMercenaryKing wrote:So the question is, Does a battleship with 4 ship bonus-ed painters and 4 webs on it deserved to be blapped, I say yes. Probably yeah. The difference is that these changes make the Phoenix comparably worse at blapping that battleship than the old Phoenix, and comparably better at blapping a Proteus. I really don't see why it should be so. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
781
|
Posted - 2014.05.14 15:48:00 -
[300] - Quote
Any thoughts on if we will see a Rapid Cruise Missile launcher for use on the phoenix? Given rgat we have rapid lighta for cruiser.size, rapid heavies for BS size, a Rapid Cruise would fit, no clue,on balancing though. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |