| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spaced Skunk
Yesodic Nomads Corp
   |
Posted - 2006.11.19 21:39:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Spaced Skunk
even if you can hit it, I find even when it has maybe 3 slots of sensor boosters and tracking comps, its tank is very hard to break.
Why?
Resistance bonus, lots of shield, fitting a few PDUs allows for a cap injector, 25% resist rigs that increase just sig radius. Yup.
|
TZeer
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 21:46:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Spaced Skunk
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Spaced Skunk
even if you can hit it, I find even when it has maybe 3 slots of sensor boosters and tracking comps, its tank is very hard to break.
Why?
Resistance bonus, lots of shield, fitting a few PDUs allows for a cap injector, 25% resist rigs that increase just sig radius. Yup.
How many of the snipers deal EM damage? Not the mega and not the tempy.
If I uderstand you correctly you are thinking of a cap injector for a sheildbooster? You can barely, if at all fit 8 T2 rails now without using a pdu or rcu.
And regarding rigs. You can only use one that affects the same stuff. Dunno if that means different damage or sheild hardeners overall...
|
Zaethiel
Murder-Death-Kill
Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 23:28:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Dagis
About your main subject i think you do have a point, but at the same time the ship is designed for sniping so it should out snipe the other ships.
Also the second thing about caldari been easy mode and just been pure sucky that they are so good is utter crap.
The description for caldari is what made majority of people go Caldari, i know when i first was picking my character i read though all the different descriptions and made a desicion upon what was described to me, as i am sure what happened with a lot of other caldari pilots.
I definatly didn't pick caldari because i thought it was "easy mode" i didn't even know that much about the game to have made that choice..
So please could people stop saying that people who pick caldari are only wanting to play the game on easy mode because i am sure for the most part this isn't the case..
But playing a caldari charecter and flying caldari ships is different. My charecter is mimataar but bc i was created back when amarr where king i fly amarr, which is at a disadvantage in game atm. My alt is training caldari bc Caldari is the best race atm and unless Tux gets hit on the head by a piano it doesn't seem like that is going to change.
_________________________________________
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.19 23:36:00 -
[34]
Even without a resistance bonus the ship would be ridiculously hard to kill.
The biggest projectiles are going to be deep into fall off at the range that the rokh can shoot. If the rokh had the same range as the other battleships this would be equivelent to a 62.5% resistance bonus at BS 5[including the 25% it has already].[to projectiles, 90%+ to the others]
This of course is extended by the fact that in fleet battles, tanking is more important than damage.
|
Murukan
Minmatar
The Priory
Shroud Of Darkness
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 04:08:00 -
[35]
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Spaced Skunk
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Spaced Skunk
even if you can hit it, I find even when it has maybe 3 slots of sensor boosters and tracking comps, its tank is very hard to break.
Why?
Resistance bonus, lots of shield, fitting a few PDUs allows for a cap injector, 25% resist rigs that increase just sig radius. Yup.
How many of the snipers deal EM damage? Not the mega and not the tempy.
If I uderstand you correctly you are thinking of a cap injector for a sheildbooster? You can barely, if at all fit 8 T2 rails now without using a pdu or rcu.
And regarding rigs. You can only use one that affects the same stuff. Dunno if that means different damage or sheild hardeners overall...
It doesn't matter what dmg type the enemy does. If your rokh fleet is sitting at 200-220 the enemy will not be able to hit. That is the standard fleet engagement range atm. People will migrate to the rokh when the advantage of not being hit becomes aparent. Then you'll see rokh fleets and nothing else and that is stupid imo
Manlove by Zaphod Jones
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 04:36:00 -
[36]
Edited by: murder one on 20/11/2006 04:36:18
Here is why the Rokh is going to be so effective:
Range with T1 guns- using T1 guns/ammo it can reach to the same range or beyond that of all other BS using T2 guns/ammo. If you can't hit it, it doesn't matter how much damage you can do. All the other BS's damage output drops to zero.
Training time- it takes 60+ days to get to T2 large guns regardless of type, and that's if you have your learning skills done. T1 fitted Rokhs will be easy to obtain skill-wise and they *will* be effective when used in numbers, especially against an enemy that can't hit back due to being outranged.
Tracking- Tracking at 200km+ is a non issue when engaging anything larger than a frigate. Sure it's going to be hard to shoot down interceptors and fast moving dictors and the occasional stabber, but any cruiser with MWD is going to die due to sig increase, and any cruiser with an AB isn't fast enough to make a difference. Tracking simply doesn't matter at ultra long range when you're firing at large targets. For anything closer you have your support ships.
Fitting the Rokh- the Rokh has plenty of slots. It has enough low slots to fit 3x magstab IIs and two left over for fitting mods. Put 3x sensor boosters and 3x tracking comps in the mids and you have very quick lock time, plenty of extra tracking and plenty of damage/range. Drop a sensor booster to add an MWD if you like when you fit 1-2 RCU IIs. The shield amount and the natural resists will be quite enough to allow a Rokh to survive 1-2 volleys and warp out if it's properly aligned during a fleet fight.
It will take a LOT of firepower to bring down a Rokh compared to other sniping fitted BS due to the simple fact that *all* of the slots are generally consumed with range/tracking/sensor booster/damage mods, not tanking mods. Once people are able to fly T2 fitted Rokhs, the need for range will be even less of a requirement and they can remove some of the range mods and replace them with extenders or hardeners or both. Needing a PDU or RCU to fit the guns and MWD isn't a drawback if it doesn't take away the ability to mount the requisite 3x magstab IIs. Once you have the basics fitted to the ship to get the job done, everything else is just gravy. Every other BS in the game when fitted for sniping doesn't have this luxury. They all end up with every slot filled just to compete in range and damage.
The Rokh encourages the use of massed numbers of ships at maximum range. Exactly what we are trying to get away from.
Because I said so...
|
Dopefish
Amarr
Quad and Fish
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 05:17:00 -
[37]
If ccp introduced some typ of "rig" or something that could increase your range maybe that would balance the ammo nerf?
|
murder one
Gallente
CRICE Corporation
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 05:33:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Dopefish
If ccp introduced some typ of "rig" or something that could increase your range maybe that would balance the ammo nerf?
LOL? They do indeed have optimal/falloff rigs. The main issue is that the penalties for using them are not worth it/too severe (+10% grid per rig per gun) and since they stack with your other range mods already installed they provide almost no increase in range/falloff over and above the existing mods.
so unless you have a huge amount of extra grid (probably not) and don't have regular range/tracking mods already fitted (again, you probably do) then they're of no use. Furthermore, while regular mods provide an increase to range and tracking in one mod, the rigs only provide bonuses to one or the other, not both. And the boost per rig is much smaller than a corresponding module's increase per unit.
Because I said so...
|
Crellion
Art of War
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 06:36:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Goumindong
Even without a resistance bonus the ship would be ridiculously hard to kill.
The biggest projectiles are going to be deep into fall off at the range that the rokh can shoot. If the rokh had the same range as the other battleships this would be equivelent to a 62.5% resistance bonus at BS 5[including the 25% it has already].[to projectiles, 90%+ to the others]
This of course is extended by the fact that in fleet battles, tanking is more important than damage.
Thnx to the forums those of us who dont have the relevant experience can learn from reading people's post. Smashing!
Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim. |
TZeer
Eve Defence Force
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 07:13:00 -
[40]
Originally by: murder one
Originally by: Dopefish
If ccp introduced some typ of "rig" or something that could increase your range maybe that would balance the ammo nerf?
LOL? They do indeed have optimal/falloff rigs. The main issue is that the penalties for using them are not worth it/too severe (+10% grid per rig per gun) and since they stack with your other range mods already installed they provide almost no increase in range/falloff over and above the existing mods.
so unless you have a huge amount of extra grid (probably not) and don't have regular range/tracking mods already fitted (again, you probably do) then they're of no use. Furthermore, while regular mods provide an increase to range and tracking in one mod, the rigs only provide bonuses to one or the other, not both. And the boost per rig is much smaller than a corresponding module's increase per unit.
That penalty can be reduced by a skill.
I think it was 10% per skill lvl, not sure.
But yeah, will still be hard to fit thoose guns.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 07:19:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Goumindong
Even without a resistance bonus the ship would be ridiculously hard to kill.
The biggest projectiles are going to be deep into fall off at the range that the rokh can shoot. If the rokh had the same range as the other battleships this would be equivelent to a 62.5% resistance bonus at BS 5[including the 25% it has already].[to projectiles, 90%+ to the others]
This of course is extended by the fact that in fleet battles, tanking is more important than damage.
Thnx to the forums those of us who dont have the relevant experience can learn from reading people's post. Smashing!
Im sorry is there something wrong with stating that damage reduction gets you more bang for you buck than an increase in damage?
|
Tribunal
FIRMA
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 08:03:00 -
[42]
Quote:
However with t2 ammo being nerfed the rokh will still be able to hit at that range rather easily. However the window of difference now between other bship and the rokh moves from 220-250 to 180-250. That's a huge change and it's going to end up making whoever fields a fleet of rokhs the winner, simply because other bships will not be able to touch a rokh if it's at 220km where the rokh will be able to shoot back no problem
The Rokh is one of the all time largest mistakes that could be introduced into EvE with its current bonuses.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Goumindong
Even without a resistance bonus the ship would be ridiculously hard to kill.
The biggest projectiles are going to be deep into fall off at the range that the rokh can shoot. If the rokh had the same range as the other battleships this would be equivelent to a 62.5% resistance bonus at BS 5[including the 25% it has already].[to projectiles, 90%+ to the others]
This of course is extended by the fact that in fleet battles, tanking is more important than damage.
Thnx to the forums those of us who dont have the relevant experience can learn from reading people's post. Smashing!
Im sorry is there something wrong with stating that damage reduction gets you more bang for you buck than an increase in damage?
Damage reduction does not get you more bang for your buck then increased damage with fleet battles. As long as focus fire stays as it is tanking fleet battleships will be an idea for people's wild fantasies.
"We can't all be heroes, because somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by." - Will Rogers |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 08:34:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/11/2006 08:37:13
Originally by: Tribunal
Damage reduction does not get you more bang for your buck then increased damage with fleet battles. As long as focus fire stays as it is tanking fleet battleships will be an idea for people's wild fantasies.
If tanking is irrelevent, then damage is irrelevent.
However to make a point. 3 damage mods will produce about a 50-60% damage increase, 3 tanking mods will produce about a 50% reduction in damage taken.
Now lets examine two different ships, Ship A which fits 3 DR mods and Shib B which fits 3 damage mods.
Ship A does 1 dps and takes 1/2 damage
Shib B does 1.6 dps and takes full damage.
Ship A shoots at ship B, ship B shoots at ship A. Ship A takes .8 Damage, ship B takes 1 damage.
Ship A outdamages ship by by 25% in real damage.
Exand this to a fleet situation.
10 ships are shooting at each other. It takes 10 ships worth of full volleys to kill one ship.
The DPS fitted fleet kills ships in 1.25 volleys. The tank fitted fleet kills ships in 1 volley.
After the initial attack, Fleet A has 10 ships with one ship almost dead, Fleet B has 9 ships. After the next volley Fleet A has 9 ships and B has 9 ships, the next A has 9 and B has 8. Then A has 8, B has 7. Then A has 8, B has 6.
It keeps getting worse for fleet B from there.
Lets examine this on a larger level.
Fleet consist of 100 ships, it takes 10 volleys to kill a ship.
Fleet A and B shoot at each other. 10 of fleet B's ships are destroyed, 8 of Fleet A's ships are destroyed. They fire again. 9.2 of fleet B's ships are destroyed, 6.4 of fleet A's ships are destroyed.
After two volleys the count stands at Fleet A with 84.6 ships left and fleet B with 80.8 ships left.
A third volley B looses 8.5 ships, A looses 6.5 ships. Count is A 78.1 ships and B with 72.3.
A fourth. A looses 5.9 ships, B looses 7.9 ships. 72.2 ships on side A, 64.4 on Side B.
Do i need to go on?
Keep in mind that alphastikes and rof normalize the larger the fleet and the longer the engagement.
But the fact of the matter is that a big ol passive tank will keep your side alive longer to do more damage than trying to do more damage in a fleet situation will.
You will be able to save more ships due to warping out as well.
Edit: balanced setups ought to outperform hard stacked setups from any perspective, but i havent really examined which produces the best damage/tank ratio, and it also depends a lot on which ship you are sticking the mods.
|
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 11:29:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/11/2006 08:37:13
Originally by: Tribunal
Damage reduction does not get you more bang for your buck then increased damage with fleet battles. As long as focus fire stays as it is tanking fleet battleships will be an idea for people's wild fantasies.
If tanking is irrelevent, then damage is irrelevent.
[sic]
A fourth. A looses 5.9 ships, B looses 7.9 ships. 72.2 ships on side A, 64.4 on Side B.
Do i need to go on?
Keep in mind that alphastikes and rof normalize the larger the fleet and the longer the engagement.
But the fact of the matter is that a big ol passive tank will keep your side alive longer to do more damage than trying to do more damage in a fleet situation will.
You will be able to save more ships due to warping out as well.
Edit: balanced setups ought to outperform hard stacked setups from any perspective, but i havent really examined which produces the best damage/tank ratio, and it also depends a lot on which ship you are sticking the mods.
What about range? If I am within your optimal and you cannot hit me - this detailed assessment is irrelevant. The Rohk can hit and do damage (albeit reduced) where no other ship can. Given the tactical ability to control range plus its natural tank - 10 Rohk's will PWN 10 of every other class of ship - provided range is a controlling factor.
The new I Win fleet button- "warp to me at 100km" - blat away at 220km while the other ships have ONE tactical option - warp out as they cannot fire back and do any damage.
|
Tribunal
FIRMA
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 16:12:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/11/2006 08:37:13
Originally by: Tribunal
Damage reduction does not get you more bang for your buck then increased damage with fleet battles. As long as focus fire stays as it is tanking fleet battleships will be an idea for people's wild fantasies.
If tanking is irrelevent, then damage is irrelevent.
However to make a point. 3 damage mods will produce about a 50-60% damage increase, 3 tanking mods will produce about a 50% reduction in damage taken.
Now lets examine two different ships, Ship A which fits 3 DR mods and Shib B which fits 3 damage mods.
Ship A does 1 dps and takes 1/2 damage
Shib B does 1.6 dps and takes full damage.
Ship A shoots at ship B, ship B shoots at ship A. Ship A takes .8 Damage, ship B takes 1 damage.
Ship A outdamages ship by by 25% in real damage.
Exand this to a fleet situation.
10 ships are shooting at each other. It takes 10 ships worth of full volleys to kill one ship.
The DPS fitted fleet kills ships in 1.25 volleys. The tank fitted fleet kills ships in 1 volley.
After the initial attack, Fleet A has 10 ships with one ship almost dead, Fleet B has 9 ships. After the next volley Fleet A has 9 ships and B has 9 ships, the next A has 9 and B has 8. Then A has 8, B has 7. Then A has 8, B has 6.
It keeps getting worse for fleet B from there.
Lets examine this on a larger level.
Fleet consist of 100 ships, it takes 10 volleys to kill a ship.
Fleet A and B shoot at each other. 10 of fleet B's ships are destroyed, 8 of Fleet A's ships are destroyed. They fire again. 9.2 of fleet B's ships are destroyed, 6.4 of fleet A's ships are destroyed.
After two volleys the count stands at Fleet A with 84.6 ships left and fleet B with 80.8 ships left.
A third volley B looses 8.5 ships, A looses 6.5 ships. Count is A 78.1 ships and B with 72.3.
A fourth. A looses 5.9 ships, B looses 7.9 ships. 72.2 ships on side A, 64.4 on Side B.
Do i need to go on?
Keep in mind that alphastikes and rof normalize the larger the fleet and the longer the engagement.
But the fact of the matter is that a big ol passive tank will keep your side alive longer to do more damage than trying to do more damage in a fleet situation will.
You will be able to save more ships due to warping out as well.
Edit: balanced setups ought to outperform hard stacked setups from any perspective, but i havent really examined which produces the best damage/tank ratio, and it also depends a lot on which ship you are sticking the mods.
Focus fire has a nasty thing called damage over flow. The gank BS will take same amount of time to kill as the tanked BS (in a fleet battle) as the total damage each takes in 2-3 seconds is enough to kill either.
"We can't all be heroes, because somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by." - Will Rogers |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
|
Posted - 2006.11.20 21:31:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Tribunal
Focus fire has a nasty thing called damage over flow. The gank BS will take same amount of time to kill as the tanked BS (in a fleet battle) as the total damage each takes in 2-3 seconds is enough to kill either.
Correct. However, the time it takes to kill each BS is irrelevent.
What is relevent is how many ships are nessesary to kill another ship in that time frame.
What happens in big fleet battles is "over activation". That is, more ships than are nessesary to kill a ship, try and kill the ship.
Their guns dont actualy activate and do damage because the ship is dead by then, so they immediatly swticth to the secondary target.
The quicker you get to secondary targets, the quicker you start locking new targets and the quicker you can kill ships.
The damage based fleet will have more ships required to kill a single ship compared to a tank based fleet, and its the number of activations against a ship that make the difference.
The difference is subtle when comparing the time it takes to kill a single BS[1.25x2 is 2.5 a whole half a second longer living in the above example], but very important when comparing the time it takes to destroy a fleet.
Simply put, those .5 seconds add up, and in a 30 second fleet battle the difference between a 2 second kill and a 2.5 second kill is 3 battleships worth[assuming 0 lock time and no force losses on either side, force losses magnify the issue in favor of the tanked setup]
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 00:26:00 -
[47]
In Kali, only the rokh can sit outside ECM range and still do damage, if it's not a major advantage I don't know what it is.
NB.
In Rust We Trust |
Nifel
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 01:06:00 -
[48]
I wonder where you get your ranges from tbh. The highest range a tempest can get reliably is about 170km with the current T2 ammo. Meaning everyone warps in at roughly 160km unless you as a FC want to screw up your firepower.
Same thing with T1 ammo before the stupidity that is T2 ammo was introduced. 80-100km if you wanted to hit anything. I even remember FA trying to warp in at 130km on us. The damage they put out was a tickle.
"When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car."
RKK Ranking: (MIN14) Sama |
nexvis
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 01:19:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Goumindong
Even without a resistance bonus the ship would be ridiculously hard to kill.
The biggest projectiles are going to be deep into fall off at the range that the rokh can shoot. If the rokh had the same range as the other battleships this would be equivelent to a 62.5% resistance bonus at BS 5[including the 25% it has already].[to projectiles, 90%+ to the others]
This of course is extended by the fact that in fleet battles, tanking is more important than damage.
Thnx to the forums those of us who dont have the relevant experience can learn from reading people's post. Smashing!
Im sorry is there something wrong with stating that damage reduction gets you more bang for you buck than an increase in damage?
Aside from being, what's it called.... oh ya, wrong; no there's nothing wrong with it all.
For example, a good fleet fit megathron:
7 425 rails
3 sensor boosters, ECCM or AB
3 mag field II
3 tracking enhancer II
damage control
hit hard, get out. Put a fleet of gank snipers together, and no amount of tanking is going to save your ass. period. Put a fleet of tanked BS's together, and you wont kill anything. period. We arent talking about mid range skirmishes here, this thread is about long range sniperfests. Tanks have no place in ranged engagements. At most you'll see 1-2 plates on a sniper, and often a full rack of plates on scorps. plates dont really do a whole lot to save you when you're primary, other than buy you time to warp out in the lag. And a repper wont even cycle once before it's too late to do you any good.
Of course if you cant fly a rokh, it just doesnt matter anymore, you'll be in the fight just long enough to align before you realize you're just cannon fodder and cant shoot back. Tank or not, you're going to be useless against a pack of rokhs.
|
ElweSingollo
Starlancers
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 01:28:00 -
[50]
Thing I find interesting is that with Large Energy Spec 4 and Aurora and Amarr b/ship 4 I can hit iirc wiht the knew change to a maximum of 180k with a snipe setup and only 7 Tach 2's... On the rohk I could fit 8 425's (t1 admitidly as I can't use t2) I have Caldari B/ship 3 Large Rails at lvl 1 and my optimal was 210k with iron add abot another 10-15k on top of that with falloff.
The damage may be lower on the Rohk than on my Apoc however if I can't bloody well hit the Rohk how exactly am I going to have any hope of wining a fight against it....?
|
Beringe
Caldari
Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 02:23:00 -
[51]
I'd actually be quite happy with the mega's 5% damage bonus on the Rokh...
-------------------------------------------
"Sarcasm and irony are not to be used by the uninitiated."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Murukan
Minmatar
The Priory
Shroud Of Darkness
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 07:25:00 -
[52]
well a damage bonus would make the mega obsolete. TBH what i think needs to be done is just to not nerf t2 long range ammo's range. That way other bships can still hit pretty far out but at the same time the rokh can still shoot further, just not drastically further to the point that it's super easy to stay at that range and never let the enemy hit you.
Manlove by Zaphod Jones
|
Imhotep Khem
Total Mayhem.
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 08:05:00 -
[53]
I never saw a fleet of Typhoons when it had its optimal bonus.
____
"If your not dyin' your not tryin'."
"Are you prepared to go all the way, Alexi?" DuGalle |
Gragnor
Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2006.11.21 11:36:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Imhotep Khem
I never saw a fleet of Typhoons when it had its optimal bonus.
LOL
Someone has a wicked sense of humour here!!!!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |