EVE Search - Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept [Quad Beams&Dual 250 R...

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept [Quad Beams&Dual 250 R...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 25	Posted - 2015.04.08 21:27:27 - [31] - Quote I didnt see it somewhere, so i will just say it. They duals should shot medium and small charges like the missiles counterparts. So you sould recalculate again Also the Ammar guns should "overheat" after around 30 shots and they need to "cool off" for 35secs.
God's Apples Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 591	Posted - 2015.04.12 17:20:17 - [32] - Quote Being able to fly turret BS once more will be fun. "Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 243	Posted - 2015.04.12 17:28:56 - [33] - Quote I learned gud transversal while doing Level 4s many moons ago. CCPlease, post your input on the idea. RHMLs are here to stay, so I'm not sure what to think. vOv // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Iris Bravemount Golden Grinding Gears 363	Posted - 2015.04.14 08:45:42 - [34] - Quote I like this idea. As to the 35sec reload thing, I don't think it would be very appropriate, because reloading time (or lack thereof) is a distinguishing feature between turret types. So just tweak the dps (downwards) so that appropriate sized guns remain superior against same sized ships. "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1058	Posted - 2015.04.14 09:19:06 - [35] - Quote I still maintain ABCs will be a big a problem if you change battleship weapons this way. Even today, a talos will put out 759 DPS (with warriors) before heat (878 with heat) using dual 250mm rails. If you start improving application to the proposed degrees cruisers are going to utterly melt. Which would be fine, except the agility and speed of the ABCs breaks the deal.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 270	Posted - 2015.04.14 10:09:46 - [36] - Quote Iris Bravemount wrote: I like this idea. As to the 35sec reload thing, I don't think it would be very appropriate, because reloading time (or lack thereof) is a distinguishing feature between turret types. So just tweak the dps (downwards) so that appropriate sized guns remain superior against same sized ships. Yep. Reasonable sustained DPS is the concept that I subscribe to in this case. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 270	Posted - 2015.04.14 10:13:26 - [37] - Quote afkalt wrote: I still maintain ABCs will be a big a problem if you change battleship weapons this way. Even today, a talos will put out 759 DPS (with warriors) before heat (878 with heat) using dual 250mm rails. If you start improving application to the proposed degrees cruisers are going to utterly melt. That's good. However, as mentioned, I think BS-sized setups having moderately more dps than, say, a Heavy Neutron Blaster fit Thorax is reasonable in the case of dual 250mms. Excellent application, good projection, decent sustained DPS. Get close to tackle big spaceship casually. Get raep. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 92	Posted - 2015.04.14 12:54:57 - [38] - Quote We don't need even more ways to make frigates obsolete. There's already drones and webifiers. At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1058	Posted - 2015.04.14 13:03:36 - [39] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: We don't need even more ways to make frigates obsolete. There's already T3Ds. Fixed that for you.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 271	Posted - 2015.04.14 13:17:14 - [40] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: We don't need even more ways to make frigates obsolete. There's already drones and webifiers. I agree that frigates would fall out of use even more with such a proposal, as being the only platform disadvantaged here. Although, depending on the final signature resolution metrics, destroyers of all flavours could become the ultimate prey for cruiser-sized weapon systems. Delete RLML/RHMLs from the game, tbh. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 221	Posted - 2015.04.14 13:26:56 - [41] - Quote Saelyth wrote: Celthric Kanerian wrote: battleships surviving cruiser fights... Isn't this what tracking computer is for? Surviving frigates... Isn't that what drones are for? I don't see the point of this. Rapid Heavy/Light Missile systems weren't designed to "survive" against smaller ship classes, they were implemented to allow them to prey upon them. A pointless distinction which is also not an argument AGAINST having turret equivalents
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 92	Posted - 2015.04.14 14:12:30 - [42] - Quote afkalt wrote: 13kr1d1 wrote: We don't need even more ways to make frigates obsolete. There's already T3Ds. Fixed that for you. I agree T3D are stupidly powerful, but CCP needs to keep coming up with new ships to skill up and buy to retain players' interest, instead of investing into story or fine tuning ships that already exist. It might hold the attention of older players just long enough to sub up a few more times, but it sacrifices overall playability. At 5 drones of T2, the Tristan is nearly as powerful as the Algos, with a cheaper price tag, better maneuverability and speed, and smaller sig radius to avoid the lazy carebearish T3 station blapping -10s who have no life. Pick tristan for FW.
Alexis Nightwish 151	Posted - 2015.04.16 16:41:25 - [43] - Quote This idea was brought up recently. If done right (as in doesn't remove any of the current weapon modules, just adds more) I'd love to see it. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 333	Posted - 2015.04.16 17:16:02 - [44] - Quote Yes I was late to the party. Something needs to be done! (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
unidenify Plundering Penguins 98	Posted - 2015.04.16 18:36:10 - [45] - Quote I can support it as long as: 1. set as new class of turret, not class as Heavy or Medium Turret. It is so ABC can't use them, and BC won't have bonus on them (you can look at Drake, Nighthawk, Cyclone, Claymore, and Damnation to noted that they only have bonus to Heavy/HAM) 2. as new class, they can't get benefit from ship hull except for damage, and Projectile for rapid small turret only. 3. their sustainable dps must be lowest of three (long range turret, short range turret and rapid turret)
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 529	Posted - 2015.05.11 16:46:20 - [46] - Quote I'd like to point out something that I think may have been missed. The reason, I believe, rapid launchers are effective as an effective step-down PD weapon system is because of how missile speed affects "tracking" faster targets. A big part of missile application has to do with how effective a missile's speed or flight time is compared to the ship it's chasing, and by extension sort of acts as a tertiary tracking modifier for them. Wouldn't it then be more sensible to have the PD turrets in this case be the close-range variants? The issue at hand anyway is tracking smaller targets, so having the higher-tracking weapons at close range makes much more sense to me. It would also help alleviate balance issues with ABCs and such due to damage projection range being reduced. Dual heavy pulse lasers, especially bonused on the apoc, would be killer tho. I'm assuming anyway that these are using medium ammo as it stands, and having basically double the damage of their listed caliber, same as the rapid launchers. Also, in regards to lasers: Why not just rework how the weapon system itself works? Have them be a continuous beam that does actual damage per second over time, and have the crystal for them burn out over a certain amount of time. You could have separate modifiers on the turrets as well as the ammo for determining when the burnout time is. T1 ammo would burn out a lot slower but would remain the lowest dps option. Sure we'd have to give up infinite laser ammo and alpha strikes, but you could balance it so the charge lasts about as long anyway, and a continuous beam would have HUGE advantages in pvp since it would be much easier to manage damage application.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 857	Posted - 2015.06.10 15:13:05 - [47] - Quote Is anyone else interested in actual voice chat about this? Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 308	Posted - 2015.06.10 17:57:07 - [48] - Quote i agree with this, one of the problems currently is the downstepped turrets do no see bonuses from the ship despite using the ammo for the ship what is it for rails on a battleship vs cruisers? duel 250 mm rails using large ammo sees 0 bonus. "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1884	Posted - 2015.06.10 18:10:47 - [49] - Quote Agondray wrote: i agree with this, one of the problems currently is the downstepped turrets do no see bonuses from the ship despite using the ammo for the ship what is it for rails on a battleship vs cruisers? duel 250 mm rails using large ammo sees 0 bonus. You want them compared from 250s on a cruiser to dual 250s on a BS or both from BS so 250s compared to 425s?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 861	Posted - 2015.06.10 18:32:35 - [50] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Agondray wrote: i agree with this, one of the problems currently is the downstepped turrets do no see bonuses from the ship despite using the ammo for the ship what is it for rails on a battleship vs cruisers? duel 250 mm rails using large ammo sees 0 bonus. You want them compared from 250s on a cruiser to dual 250s on a BS or both from BS so 250s compared to 425s? Most direct comparison is moa and rokh or thorax and mega, right? So, lets do t2 250s and 425s on those pairs, with faction Anti, and all skills 5. Thorax: 271DPS 18+15km .03523rad/s 91.32% grid consumed 38.18% CPU consumed +5.61gj/s cap budget Megathron: 429DPS 36+30km .01737rad/s 75.11% grid consumed 51.8% CPU consumed +0.894gj/s cap budget So, oddly enough, the cruiser ends up with a higher cap budget and CPU remaining, while the Battleship winds up with a larger PG budget. Predictably, the range and DPS is higher on the battleship, and the tracking is higher on the cruiser. Was not expecting the tracking on the cruiser to be double that of the battleship though, especially as both are tracking bonused. Moa: 271DPS 18+15km 0.02563 rad/s 88.09% grid consumed 33.16% CPU consumed +7.1gj/s cap budget Rokh: 368DPS 54+30km 0.01263 rad/s 88.7% grid consumed 45.54% CPU consumed +2.03gj/s cap budget Again, higher cap and CPU budget on the cruiser, while the battleship has lost the edge in PG remaining (percentage). The DPS edge is much slimmer, while tracking remains about twice as good. Range on the battleship is now about 3x cruiser range, but getting under the guns shouldn't be too hard. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.