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) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
556
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:33:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Capqu wrote:
that's quite the stretch you must admit
edit: looks like you were either right or fozzie saw what you said and decided it fit the bill 66% sized topes etc
You think I secretly went back in time and made GMP apply to Citadel Missiles back in Retribution just to make you look bad? :tinfoil hat: |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
508
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:36:00 -
[62] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Capqu wrote:
that's quite the stretch you must admit
edit: looks like you were either right or fozzie saw what you said and decided it fit the bill 66% sized topes etc
You think I secretly went back in time and made GMP apply to Citadel Missiles back in Retribution just to make you look bad?
no i was talking about the pos size increases being redundant if the torpedos indeed hit 2k signature immobile targets (and the poster said maybe it was so guided missile precision skill 1 pilots could have fun in a capital)
nvm tho, please look @ warp speed rig thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
168
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:38:00 -
[63] - Quote
Hey fozzie, ran some EFT tests with the new numbers, and they still aren't very rosy.
After patch, a all LV5 character will have torps at 2250 explosion radius, 52.5 explosion velocity.
Against linked carriers moving at full speed, the new torps are still only able to apply 60% of their nominal damage, while certainly better than the 50% now, it's still pretty pathetic. The explosion radius change means against linked armor carriers (using an archon for example) it's not possible to even hit a carrier standing still for full damage, because the sig of the carrier is now below the sig for the torps.
So the situation arises that you can't hit a triage carrier for full damage because you can't paint them to boost their sig. An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
vote Angry Mustache for CSM9-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326509&find=unread |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
508
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:40:00 -
[64] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Hey fozzie, ran some EFT tests with the new numbers, and they still aren't very rosy.
After patch, a all LV5 character will have torps at 2250 explosion radius, 52.5 explosion velocity.
Against linked carriers moving at full speed, the new torps are still only able to apply 60% of their nominal damage, while certainly better than the 50% now, it's still pretty pathetic. The explosion radius change means against linked armor carriers (using an archon for example) it's not possible to even hit a carrier standing still for full damage, because the sig of the carrier is now below the sig for the torps. so the situation arises that you can't hit a triage carrier for full damage because you can't paint them to boost their sig.
wow look at that i was right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
186
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote: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.
First off, by Nerfing the Explosion radius, you me your increasing the value (larger radius)? Stat || Current (No Skills) || Post (no skills) Nova torpFlight : 15s || 7.5s Velocity: 1750m/s || 3500ms Radius: 2000m || 3000m Ex. Vel.: 20m/s || 35m/s Nova CruiseFlight : 20s || 15s Velocity: 4250m/s || ~5700m/s Radius: 1750m || 2000m Ex. Vel.: 29m/s || 40m/s
OK, so at first i was worried that the Explosion radius was a bit much. After seeing that GMP does hit capital missiles, that would be up to a 25% reduction in sig.
After reviewing my old post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4079522#post4079522
Here is some math:
TheMercenaryKing wrote: 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
Since the citadel torp drf=5.5, the damage is dependent on explosion velocity and target velocity since all capitals have a sig larger than 2000 (the explosion radius of a citadel torp). So if the explosion velocity is 30 and the target velocity in a moving archon is up to 70 (base):
Base damage * [ (2920 / 2000) * (30 / 70) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (1.46) * (0.43) ] Base damage * (0.62)
old real math (30m was the velocity i made up without nerfing the radius) Base damage * [ (2920 / 2000) * (20 / 70) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (1.46) * (0.281.) ] Base damage * (0.40)
New Torp: Base damage * [ (2920 / 3000) * (35 / 70) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (0.97) * (0.5) ] Base damage * (0.48) |
Klarion Sythis
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
281
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:44:00 -
[66] - Quote
Did testing reveal that webs, paints, and rigors make the Phoenix a blap factory without an exp radius increase?
What about 2500 instead of 3000 to squeeze armor caps back into the full damage side of things? |
Ptrum
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension
13
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
Not even sure if its in game or not, but how about letting us know what the towers resist are at when it has hardeners online via the info display?
Instead of guessing, or making some tower profile with a 3rd party program. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
531
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
It's gonna be difficult to balance the explosion radius, unfortunately. A MWDing, shield fit maelstrom has a signature radius of about 2100 or so with the MWD on. (The reference values I am using are a little dated, so bonuses may drive the signature radius a little lower than what I am seeing, but certainly not below 2000.) Armor BS, on the other hand, have about half that. Granted, a battleship with its MWD on should be moving much faster than a citadel torp's explosion velocity, but **** happens during combat, and pilots can sort by target velocity just as easily as they can sort by angular velocity.
Getting a decrease in explosion velocity for citadel torps is probably going to have to be coupled with a decrease in the signature radius of shield battleships. I'm not saying this needs to happen for Kronos, but it's probably gonna have to happen before we can drop the explosion radius of citadel torps below 2000. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:45:00 -
[69] - Quote
I don't feel that the explosion radius nerf is necessary really. As others have mentioned, sieged dreads with signature links won't get hit for full damage; analogies related to the broad side of a barn come to mind.
You say that you're worried about it becoming a sub-cap blap monster, but I would disagree. A triple webbed / painted armor tanked Tengu (yes, armor tanked Tengus are normal where I live) will have a signature radius of about 330m, and velocity of 146 m/s with AB on. With a T2 rigor rig equipped, it's going to take only ~15% damage from citadel torpedoes, which is pretty pathetic when compared to what a Moros or Naglfar can apply.
I'm fine with the phoenix being able to apply 100% damage only to other capitals (though that better be a true 100%), with gun dreads having an advantage when it comes to sub-capital killing, but being unable to apply even half damage a webbed / painted Bhaalgorn is a problem in my book.
Even if the explosion radius were to be buffed, it still wouldn't pose a significant threat to painted battleships, much less cruisers, while ensuring full dps application to other dreads. |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
187
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:55:00 -
[70] - Quote
TheMercenaryKing wrote:TheMercenaryKing wrote: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.
First off, by Nerfing the Explosion radius, you me your increasing the value (larger radius)? Stat || Current (No Skills) || Post (no skills) Nova torpFlight : 15s || 7.5s Velocity: 1750m/s || 3500ms Radius: 2000m || 3000m Ex. Vel.: 20m/s || 35m/s Nova CruiseFlight : 20s || 15s Velocity: 4250m/s || ~5700m/s Radius: 1750m || 2000m Ex. Vel.: 29m/s || 40m/s OK, so at first i was worried that the Explosion radius was a bit much. After seeing that GMP does hit capital missiles, that would be up to a 25% reduction in sig. After reviewing my old post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4079522#post4079522Here is some math: TheMercenaryKing wrote: 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
Since the citadel torp drf=5.5, the damage is dependent on explosion velocity and target velocity since all capitals have a sig larger than 2000 (the explosion radius of a citadel torp). So if the explosion velocity is 30 and the target velocity in a moving archon is up to 70 (base):
Base damage * [ (2920 / 2000) * (30 / 70) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (1.46) * (0.43) ] Base damage * (0.62)
old real math (30m was the velocity i made up without nerfing the radius) Base damage * [ (2920 / 2000) * (20 / 70) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (1.46) * (0.28) ] Base damage * (0.40) New Torp: Base damage * [ (2920 / 3000) * (35 / 70) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (0.97) * (0.5) ] Base damage * (0.48) While the ROF does give better DPS, I would rather have a less hard nerf onto the Radius in place of the ROF boost of the modules.
New Torp (all 5s): Base damage * [ (2920 / 2250 (GMP)) * (52.5 (TNP) / 87.5 (hostile navigation 5)) ] ^ 1 Base damage * [ (1.30) * (0.6) ] Base damage * (0.78)
|
|
Mr Hyde113
Origin. Black Legion.
141
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:58:00 -
[71] - Quote
Good stuff.
Now lets see this treatment applied to the Revelation |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
948
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:59:00 -
[72] - Quote
Any chance of looking at the missile HP levels as well so we can see some of the missile actually hit during the smartbomb-tastic capital battles? :P Lieutenant Turelus Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
I post on my main... shocking I know! |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
336
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:01:00 -
[73] - Quote
cool now fix the rev and all dreads will be squared away for the next 10 years |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
389
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Why exactly is it a problem if the Phoenix can damage stationary subcaps? Every other dread can, and won't suffer the radius penalties that the phoenix will. |
Alex Tutuola
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:06:00 -
[75] - Quote
I, too, ran some numbers, and came up with mixed results.
For the purposes of the exercise, I assumed maximum skills from the Phoenix pilot, and a Loki booster for the armor carrier. Armor carriers are hanging around just under 3km sig radius, which with loki boosts, goes down just below 2km. I found that, with the damage increase factored in, that you do ~18% greater damage to stationary armor carriers with explosive, thermal, and EM torpedoes. Kinetic torpedoes now deal ~5% less.
I'm uncertain if ship scanners work on capitals in triage/siege, but if so, this turns out to be a significant buff as the phoenixes can alter damage profile.
Cruise missiles deal full damage with even poor missile skills to these targets, so this is a straight buff in capital to capital engagements. Even after the explosion radius nerf, the base radius goes to 1950m. GMP 1 should bring you below Loki boosted radii.
TL;DR: Kinetic torps got worse in some situations, other damages got better. You need good missile skills to apply it all. What are you doing in a torpedo capital if your missile skills suck?
Thoughts? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
531
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:09:00 -
[76] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:Why exactly is it a problem if the Phoenix can damage stationary subcaps? Every other dread can, and won't suffer the radius penalties that the phoenix will. It might not be a problem, but I felt it was worth mentioning to help color the discussion. Certainly, if you are flying an armor BS, you care a lot less about it than you would if you are flying a shield BS. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
332
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
not bad. |
Alexander McKeon
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:15:00 -
[78] - Quote
Querns wrote:It might not be a problem, but I felt it was worth mentioning to help color the discussion. Certainly, if you are flying an armor BS, you care a lot less about it than you would if you are flying a shield BS. The standard for sub-cap blapping, which the Moros & Nag can manage with proper support, is to hit armor-tanked cruisers, not battleships. The phoenix isn't in danger of coming even close to managing that.
Being able to shoot into the EM hole on a shield-tanked Moros will be nice though. :D |
ZecsMarquis
Destroyer's Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:16:00 -
[79] - Quote
I agree with the suggestion of a few other posters. Make triage/siege and even bastion give a sig radius penalty increase. It makes sense with other mechanics in the game such as the added mass or shield extenders giving a sig penalty. A Dread should always be able to apply full damage to another dread in siege. It just does not make sense not to. Making siege/traige give a sig penalty also makes it not able to blap subs and if you are going crazy with a marauder you should be killable by a missile dread. The Moros is great for these things already. I think a sig penalty for siege modules of all types would damn near fix all the issues short of smarties for capital missiles. Other posters have done the fancy maths. Looks solid. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
144
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:29:00 -
[80] - Quote
Erm... how about MJD (Mircro Jump Drive) capable Capital Missiles.
Isn't the real issue, which has always been the issue, is that Capital Missile time to target is simply incompatible with Cap Fleet fight dynamics?
Simply introduce a special 'warping' Capital missile and while not the same Insta-damage as Cap Turrets, it at least addresses the fundamental reason why they are not used in Cap Fleets (Besides also being shield tankers; Oh and the fact that everyone is so heavily invested in Armor tanking capitals both SP and ISK wise)
Otherwise, idk - as Phoenix pilot I don't see this change as making a large enough dent to change the Capital doctrines of Null Sec Bloc's and Alliances... might want to go one step beyond the F&ID thread and actually reach out to these Alliances and Cap FC's and ask them point blank 'why aren't you fielding Phoenix's?'
... Phoenix is a tank monster - but again this change isn't 'tectonic' enough to change the 'Cap Fleet Culture'.
Good effort but sorry, isn't going to change much imo, sadly. |
|
Arronicus
Ravens' Nest Outlaw Horizon.
947
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:35:00 -
[81] - Quote
Nice efforts in the right direction, but in your concern for not bringing the phoenix anywhere near the blapping capabilities of the moros and others, which are able to effectively hit cruisers, let alone battleships, you have made the explosion radius on citadel torps too large, to the point where the ship cannot even perform its intended role properly, to kill other capitals. The base explosion radius nerf wasn't needed, but if you are going to, go for 2400 or 2500, not 3k, that way they can at least hit all capitals for full damage, not the silliness that will ensue with 3k base. |
Catherine Laartii
Knights of Xibalba
167
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:47:00 -
[82] - Quote
Womyn Power wrote:I dont normally log in to post but this is by far the worst change I've seen in the past few blunders you've put out.
It's too much to expect a phoenix can 1 shot bc's with torps with webs and 3 rigs entirely devoted to bringing down radius?
Really?
50% radius increase is a ******* joke, velocity means jack anyway when dealing with these numbers - why nerf one of the already most niche dreads?
ps thanks lord servant for making fozzie/rise aware of what can be done with the game cus they apparently had no idea XD Is this a joke or do you seriously not understand how explosion radius works? Unline turrets, the relative radius of a missile in relation to its target works AGAINST its maximum dps. The BS your spouting is in fact, BS because it means that the nerf to sig radius makes it HARDER to hit subcapital targets.
For instance: A few months ago, I was sitting outside the Asakai station in my Pilgrim with two of my friends after cynoing in their phoenixes. We were talking about how capital missiles are balanced, and jokingly I challenged them to shoot off some unsieged citadel torpedos.
They barely did any damage to my shields, and I was armor tanked.
Any of your worry about instablapping bcs and battleships is only applicable if they have their mwd going and a bunch of webs on them, so they're almost standing still with a mountain-sized sig radius bloom from the mwd. Or they're sitting still and have a buttload of target painters on them. |
Catherine Laartii
Knights of Xibalba
167
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:49:00 -
[83] - Quote
Anyway, these phoenix changes are excellent. I'll be training into my first capital ship in about two weeks, and I'll be ecstatic about flying the phoenix after this; not only will it be extremely powerful against whatever structure or capital it tries to hit, it will be INCREDIBLY tough with that resist bonus. |
Bernie Nator
4U Services Inc. Upholders
1043
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:52:00 -
[84] - Quote
So you mean to say the Phoenix does more than scan?
Stop. My election can only get so large. |
Twistator
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 18:55:00 -
[85] - Quote
Will these changes apply to complex structures shooting citadel missiles/torpedos? |
Miss Everest
Elysium Accord
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:09:00 -
[86] - Quote
I like the new Phoenix changes! It has needed them for a very long time!
Also happy CCP is now looking at caps and working on them!
Any thought on fixing the Thanatos and Niddhoger as well? Would only require a pretty small change to bring them in line with the others. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
131
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:33:00 -
[87] - Quote
After all the suggestions about how to improve the Phoenix and its XL missiles that have passed through these forums, you've come up with quite an elegant solution!I like these changes; we'll have to wait for feedback but looks very good. Applause! +1 |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
668
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:47:00 -
[88] - Quote
The Moros still does way more dps than a torp Phoenix at most torpedo ranges. Citadel cruise missiles still do just as much dps as torpedoes do to unwebbed/painted carrier/dreads and smaller ships. Paper dps with torps will be about 6.7% more than before. Cruise will stay the same. But that is with any damage type, which is great. No more kinetic-only crap.
However, now with the nerf to Explosion Radius, you will actually do less dps to smaller targets than before when using torps, even to a webbed carrier or dread if it is also skirmish linked. I think this oddity is also why some POS structures were given a larger signature radius. This tells me that the increases to explosion radius were far in excess of what was needed.
The original base ExpRad was 2000, and could be improved to 1500 with perfect skills. Now it is 3000 and can be improved to 2250, more than 250 greater than a linked carrier or dread. So even if that Archon is at a dead stop, it will still get a damage reduction of about 10%, which is 10% more than it was getting before.
All of this is can be mitigated by using Standard (or better) Crash Booster, a single unbonused target painter, or a single Rigor Rig. Anything that gets you a 15% expRad reduction or a 10% target signature radius increase will do it.
However, it is not helpful to introduce nerfs when you're trying to buff something.
Subcaps are also going to take slightly less damage than before, again because of the over-nerfing of explosion radius.
I would like to see the explosion radius nerfs dialed back just a bit. Torpedo base ExpRad of 2750 and cruise at 1750 would preserve roughly the same applied dps as pre-nerf to subcaps, and slightly improve applied dps to dreads and carriers. Applied dps to supers and titans would remain unchanged. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
495
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:53:00 -
[89] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:The Moros still does way more dps than a torp Phoenix at most torpedo ranges. Citadel cruise missiles still do just as much dps as torpedoes do to unwebbed/painted carrier/dreads and smaller ships. Paper dps with torps will be about 6.7% more than before.
This is more to do with the Moros' ridiculously overpowered range than anything inherently wrong with the other dreads. When you can do 8k dps at 70km with antimatter, there's really no reason to use anything else.
The DPS on the moros is fine where it is with balance, but it completely negates the advantages of other dreads in terms of range.
Why use a Rev when you can use a Moros to get better DPS at better ranges?
The best thing CCP could do to boost the never-not moros problem, is nerf XL blaster range into oblivion where it should be. I get it that they want you to hit pos's with AM for full damage, but that arbitrary point means pushing the ranges to absurd and silly levels.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
668
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 19:54:00 -
[90] - Quote
Querns wrote:Okay, time to eat some humble pie. I can't remember, for the life of me -- did Guided Missile Precision get changed to affect torpedoes, HAMs, and rockets? Checking chruker.dk leads me to believe this is the case, since all missiles have the "aimedLaunch" property at 1, but I can't find any indication from Google that this was changed.
If Guided Missile Precision affects capital torps, then the 50% increase in explosion radius isn't quite as bad as it looks.
Yes, GNP now applies to Citadel torps. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
|
|
|
|
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 |