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)
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 158	Posted - 2015.04.06 15:51:25 - [1] - Quote Good day, The idea that has been with me for some time - Creating a Rapid Light/Heavy Missile launcher equivalent to help BC and Battleships survive in the Frig/Cruiser meta. These weapons already exist, only the Signature resolution needs to be reduced. Their current use is also practically non-existent: Battleship-sized: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_250mm_Railgun_II https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_Heavy_Beam_Laser_II Cruiser-sized: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_150mm_Railgun_II https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Quad_Light_Beam_Laser_II Proposed solution: reduce Signature Resolution down to 167 m for BS-sized turrets and to 70 m for the cruiser variants. Tracking is already gud. Minmatar currently don't have a third tier of Arties, so the above concept could also be applied to the lowest tier of Blasters/Pulses/ACs. Thoughts? ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Saelyth Nex quod Principatus 7	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:00:29 - [2] - Quote I've always wondered about these weapons before, myself, and I can certainly understand the sentiment now that we have actual downstepped launchers. I'm with you there on the notion of expanding that same sort of tactic towards turrets, there's not really a reason not to. I'm sure there will have to be some tinkering with the rate of fire or damage multipliers so they don't end up overpowering against ships of the same size class, else there'd be no reason to use size-appropriate weapon systems. I don't know what exactly it'll take, but since we've already got similar with launchers, it seems logical to have them for our turret-favoring players in some manner, too.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 159	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:09:45 - [3] - Quote Saelyth wrote: I'm sure there will have to be some tinkering with the rate of fire or damage multipliers so they don't end up overpowering against ships of the same size class, else there'd be no reason to use size-appropriate weapon systems. Indeed, that would be needed if this solution is applied to lowest tier of short range weapons systems. I'll EFT-verify the DPS levels. As I've mentioned, Minmatar don't have their equivalent - Perhaps creating a Dual Light 250mm Artillery and Dual 650mm Artillery with lower Damage mod, high RoF and gud tracking is a better solution than tinkering with short-range weapons like Blasters/ACs/Pulses. Standby for DPS numbers on the turrets listed in the first poast. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Celthric Kanerian Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation 260	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:13:10 - [4] - Quote 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.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 164	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:22:03 - [5] - Quote 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. CCP said otherwise with Rapid L/HMLs. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4323	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:25:39 - [6] - Quote What about projectiles? Do we need a dual artillery cannon or something? I think we can also increase rate of fire and bestow the 35-second reload time to these as well (give lasers a cap penalty instead). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 165	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:29:49 - [7] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: What about projectiles? Do we need a dual artillery cannon or something? I think we can also increase rate of fire and bestow the 35-second reload time to these as well (give lasers a cap penalty instead). Yes. As I've mentioned, Minmatar don't have their equivalent - Perhaps creating a Dual Light 250mm Artillery and Dual 650mm Artillery with lower Damage mod, high RoF and gud tracking is a better solution than touching the close-range weapon systems. High RoF, medium Damage mod, 35 sec/or whatever reload time Artillery - Yes pls How will Amarr "reload" tho? Insane cap usage is one option, or increased crystal consumption per shot , but then you swap in a new set of crystals. vOv Perhaps, it could be balanced in a way as to not require 35 second reloads? I'm sure CCP can do this. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Saelyth Nex quod Principatus 9	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:30:52 - [8] - Quote 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.
Saelyth Nex quod Principatus 9	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:38:34 - [9] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: How will Amarr "reload" tho? Insane cap usage is one option, or increased crystal consumption per shot , but then you swap in a new set of crystals. vOv Perhaps, it could be balanced in a way as to not require 35 second reloads? I'm sure CCP can do this. I was wondering about this one, too, and can't really think of anything that makes sense right off the top of my head. Increased crystal damage is moot on non-faction, non-tech2 crystals and having that be the trade-off would just be overcome by using T1 ammo. A crazy requirement for cap seemed at first plausible, but that's pretty devastating to their ability to repair damage, too, on what are already typically cap hungry ships. However, if there were a new mechanic introduced, where say said pulse turret could fire X number of times before reaching a forced cooldown period (I don't want to say it "overheats," since heat is an actual thing, but I'm sure you get the idea), that would mimic the reloading times and other drawbacks seen on Rapid Heavy/Light launchers, then we might be able to go with that.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 167	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:39:52 - [10] - 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. Yes. And what I like about this solution is that it doesn't butcher the current meta, merely influences it - a balance towards more BC/BS use. What's more important, from CCP perspective I think, is that battleships remain the same for all PVE activities: Incursions and LVL4 especially. I am sad to admit that LVL4s in Hisec is the reason why Battleships won't ever be changed in any meaningful way. Saelyth wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: How will Amarr "reload" tho? Insane cap usage is one option, or increased crystal consumption per shot , but then you swap in a new set of crystals. vOv Perhaps, it could be balanced in a way as to not require 35 second reloads? I'm sure CCP can do this. I was wondering about this one, too, and can't really think of anything that makes sense right off the top of my head. Increased crystal damage is moot on non-faction, non-tech2 crystals and having that be the trade-off would just be overcome by using T1 ammo. A crazy requirement for cap seemed at first plausible, but that's pretty devastating to their ability to repair damage, too, on what are already typically cap hungry ships. However, if there were a new mechanic introduced, where say said pulse turret could fire X number of times before reaching a forced cooldown period (I don't want to say it "overheats," since heat is an actual thing, but I'm sure you get the idea), that would mimic the reloading times and other drawbacks seen on Rapid Heavy/Light launchers, then we might be able to go with that. There's no need for new complex stuff. What I envision is a balance by DPS/tracking alone. We're not looking to create 800 DPS RLML Orthruses here. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Saelyth Nex quod Principatus 9	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:46:29 - [11] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: There's no need for new complex stuff. What I envision is a balance by DPS/tracking alone. We're not looking to create 2.4k DPS RLML Orthruses here. Or on a similar note, Talos or Nagas using "rapid heavy" cruiser weapons and still doing the same damage they do presently? :P
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4323	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:48:38 - [12] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: How will Amarr "reload" tho? Insane cap usage is one option, or increased crystal consumption per shot , but then you swap in a new set of crystals. Perhaps, it could be balanced in a way as to not require 35 second reloads? High cap usage and increased crystal consumption. I think that's a fair tradeoff, since EM/thermal isn't particularly desirable anyway. I'm fine with a 30-second reload for projectiles (and missiles) and 20 seconds for hybrids. Saelyth wrote: Or on a similar note, Talos or Nagas using "rapid heavy" cruiser weapons and still doing the same damage they do presently? :P They're paper thin anyway. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 167	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:50:16 - [13] - Quote Saelyth wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: There's no need for new complex stuff. What I envision is a balance by DPS/tracking alone. We're not looking to create 2.4k DPS RLML Orthruses here. Or on a similar note, Talos or Nagas using "rapid heavy" cruiser weapons and still doing the same damage they do presently? :P See Abaddon/Hyperion numbers in post 3. These turrets would have to get their Damage mod and/or RoF reduced to cruiser levels. Tho, as an example a RHML Raven does 927 / 789 / 688 DPS with Fury/CN/Precisions - You can blap most cruisers quickly, whether that is what we need for turrets is uncertain. vOv Some RHML use in a Raven - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYpEgRPgdVM /hattip Beast ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4323	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:52:48 - [14] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: These turrets would have to get their Damage mod and/or RoF reduced to cruiser levels. Change the ammunition type from L to M as well. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 167	Posted - 2015.04.06 16:57:01 - [15] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: These turrets would have to get their Damage mod and/or RoF reduced to cruiser levels. Change the ammunition type from L to M as well. Well, then it would be easier to simply grant the current BS hulls a bonus to medium-sized turrets without changing much else. vOv ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4323	Posted - 2015.04.06 17:17:18 - [16] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Well, then it would be easier to simply grant the current BS hulls a bonus to medium-sized turrets without changing much else. These would still be large weapons in terms of fitting. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 167	Posted - 2015.04.06 17:23:37 - [17] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Well, then it would be easier to simply grant the current BS hulls a bonus to medium-sized turrets without changing much else. These would still be large weapons in terms of fitting. Fair enough. Whatever the case, I see these turrets having moderately more DPS than the top tier short range Blasters/ACs/Pulses. So Quad Light Beam Lasers with 70 m Sig resolution on a cruiser/BC > Small Focused Pulse lasers, on an Executioner/Coercer, for an example. Dual Beam Lasers with 167 m Sig resolution on a battleship > Heavy Pulse Lasers on an Omen. Dual 150mm Rails with 70 m SR on a cruiser/BC > Light Neutron Blaster setup on an Incursus/Catalyst. Dual 250mm Rails with 167 m SR on a BS > Heavy Neutron Blasters on a Thorax. All examples are arbitrary. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 169	Posted - 2015.04.06 18:24:51 - [18] - Quote Arthur Aihaken, just for you and every Matari patriot: TRIPLE Light 250mm Artillery Cannons (Cruiser-sized ofc) and, TRIPLE 650mm Artillery Cannons (BS-sized). Yes... ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2223	Posted - 2015.04.06 19:05:29 - [19] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Arthur Aihaken, just for you and every Matari patriot: TRIPLE Light 250mm Artillery Cannons (Cruiser-sized ofc) and, TRIPLE 650mm Artillery Cannons (BS-sized). Yes... I think this would be the perfect opportunity to use the 'flak cannon' name. Quad and dual respectively.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 173	Posted - 2015.04.06 19:09:41 - [20] - Quote Rowells wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Arthur Aihaken, just for you and every Matari patriot: TRIPLE Light 250mm Artillery Cannons (Cruiser-sized ofc) and, TRIPLE 650mm Artillery Cannons (BS-sized). Yes... I think this would be the perfect opportunity to use the 'flak cannon' name. Quad and dual respectively. Excellent. Yes. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2228	Posted - 2015.04.06 19:21:36 - [21] - Quote and based on the ammo, you wouldnt necessarily need to use medium or small ammos for the rapid turrets, since there no stats except damage to account for, whereas missiles need the velocity and explosion sig and such. Only thing that needs to be modified properly is the damage multiplier.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 494	Posted - 2015.04.06 23:43:51 - [22] - Quote I like this idea, but have some issues with some of the proposed implementations. I'd love to see the multiple guns in the name of some weapons reflected in their stats, but for longer range weapons, they would normally be fired in battery. My real hope is to get dedicated weapons for this, rather than rebalancing existing underused weapons, with a quad 650 flack cannon, dual 250 bofors, hex 125mm rails, and similar amusing, large battery, small bore weapons for battleships and battlecruisers to do fairly consistent damage to smaller targets at a cost to range and raw DPS. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 176	Posted - 2015.04.06 23:53:18 - [23] - Quote Agreed. The listed turrets could be completely converted into a new sub-class of weapons systems akin to Rapid Launchers, with a new addition of Projectiles. Details and specifics, however, I can not tell you - Some CCP input into the discussion would be great, as they have all the dateGäó and metrics to gauge where said system could fall, or the space it could potentially occupy on the meta plane. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Lienzo Amanuensis 77	Posted - 2015.04.07 01:56:38 - [24] - Quote I can't not support this idea, seeing as I've proposed it myself. +1 However, a 15% tracking advantage over weapons with a looser target sig isn't necessarily adequate for an anti-support role. Another downside to anti-support ships is that they can fit extra tank, which they really don't need for the role. I would prefer to see the fitting requirements increased, but boost the optimal range along with the tracking. Overall, despite the higher damage application, the overall damage should be significantly lower than you could otherwise achieve against same sized ships. In an environment that allows oversize ABs, it probably isn't adequate, whereas without them, it probably is. Ideally, the tracking of a quad light beam should be about a third to half of the way between the slowest frigate sized small laser, and heavy beam lasers. Any hull with a tracking bonus becomes a natural anti-support platform. In terms of making the smallest change possible, a 15% target sig reduction coupled with the 15% tracking bonus might be enough to differentiate ships, especially with an optimals/falloff buff and a damage multiplier reduction. The complement to anti-support fittings could be interesting as well. Giving the heaviest tier of weapons a 15% target sig increase along with their 15% tracking deficit could make them really interesting for gunning up. Whether or not they can ably surrender range really depends on the weapon system and the state of things like webs. A punisher might really enjoy shooting cruisers and destroyers with higher damage small focused pulses in a tight orbit. A range reduction might not be appropriate for a 280mm artillery though. Ideally, we just want to make weapons like the 280mm artillery the inferior option for shooting other frigates. The compensation is higher overall damage, at least against targets they can hit. One crude option we could consider for making target sig and sig more significant is by increasing target sigs across the board, but increasing the damage multiplier by the same quantity. The goal would be to increase the miss rate, but keep the overall damage the same. Ships with more turrets would enjoy a natural advantage in hit rates, but might not be competitive in all situations. It really depends on how the hit and damage formulae are linked. Some people treat them as simple multipliers, while other treat them as a logistic curves with a gating function. I suspect damage RNGs mainly compensate for the server tick rate, but can't think of a way to test that particular hypothesis. The purpose of this would be to create a natural disadvantage for larges fleets of turret users in a way that was more reflective of how missiles are segregated in target selection. The overall goal here is fleet stratification and fitting diversity. This should disincentivize the practice of calling primaries in a simplistic way, and emphasize filling out a lot of fleet roles in mixed fleets. It is simply a better experience in a large fleet to have subset of players on the field by your responsibility to deal with, rather than just going down the list in a race against logistics. There's a lot of weapon systems that get only marginal use, and giving them clear roles should bolster that usage. Role-based fitting is simply a lot more interesting than PG/CPU based fitting, and it gives us clearer goals in tweaking systems.
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 101	Posted - 2015.04.07 04:15:57 - [25] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: What about projectiles? Do we need a dual artillery cannon or something? I think we can also increase rate of fire and bestow the 35-second reload time to these as well (give lasers a cap penalty instead). Yes. As I've mentioned, Minmatar don't have their equivalent - Perhaps creating a Dual Light 250mm Artillery and Dual 650mm Artillery with lower Damage mod, high RoF and gud tracking is a better solution than touching the close-range weapon systems. High RoF, medium Damage mod, 35 sec/or whatever reload time Artillery - Yes pls How will Amarr "reload" tho? Insane cap usage is one option, or increased crystal consumption per shot , but then you swap in a new set of crystals. vOv Perhaps, it could be balanced in a way as to not require 35 second reloads? I'm sure CCP can do this. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dual_425mm_AutoCannon_II you have it already just make that thing works!
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 179	Posted - 2015.04.07 04:23:24 - [26] - Quote I had forgotten about this little gem - thanks. This turret doesn't see much use either - could be converted to a Flak Artillery cannon for the Glorious project. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Gimme Sake State War Academy Caldari State 163	Posted - 2015.04.08 09:38:59 - [27] - Quote I support this thread! "Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Ju0ZaS Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 78	Posted - 2015.04.08 13:55:43 - [28] - Quote Make the lazers run on 2 types of ammo at the same time, a crystal and a coolant that runs out after lets say 30 shots or so. Then enter a 35s reload for the coolant. Crystal swap would remain instant. I think this would make most sense for the lazer rapid like weapon equivalent. Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2084	Posted - 2015.04.08 14:08:27 - [29] - Quote In a world where cruiser hulls are the most common component of any fleet and battleships are rarely worth the time it takes to get them to a fight this kind of thing is horribly overdue.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 624	Posted - 2015.04.08 14:29:27 - [30] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: In a world where cruiser hulls are the most common component of any fleet and battleships are rarely worth the time it takes to get them to a fight this kind of thing is horribly overdue. Pweese, no more ancillery bollox! Those are neither fun gameplay, nor do they require any resembles of a tactic. May I remind you that the assault missile launchers were never really worth mentioning until you could fit 3x ballistic controls on a Caracal? Only after overnerfing my heavy missiles, people started looking at another useful long(er) range missile system and found one. Hurr durr, yolo ancillery everything - it needs to stop. The second you undock a battleship in highsec and make your way to lowsec, you will have been reported by scouts, alts of scouts, intel spy alts, alts of intel-spy alts and a yolo-swag kiting gang with 25 Guradians, 16 Falcons and 18237847272 soopers will be there to pop you - doesn't matter what you fit. The only thing this ancillery bollox is doing is encourage people to blobb to decrease the shortcommings of the reload time. You either blobb or you bail or outblobb the blobb. I don't think that blobb online is good for the meta - only good for CCP signature
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]

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.