| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2591
   |
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:02:54 -
[1] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:Just flip off the pvp switch already, stop pretending you care.
Masao Kurata wrote:I quit EVE.
Just quit already, stop showing you still care about the game and give em your stuff if possible. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2592
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 21:20:30 -
[2] - Quote
Jin Kugu wrote:So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.
Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again?
It's more like 15 pages but if you feel like starting all over, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2616
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 17:57:13 -
[3] - Quote
Vulfen wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Links are not going away and you'd be insane to drop a DCU, outside of edge cases.
Let me repeat it again even if a DCU offered 0% hull resist it would remain mandatory for any real fleet. Not in the case of a T3 Fleet. Certain full tank T3 ships especially lowsec pimp fits will greatly benefit from not having to fit a DCU, and instead putting on another adaptive or energised adaptive. This is mainly because their buffer is so high compared to the structure.
This is pretty important. The actual strenght of a DCU really change a lot depending on how much of your raw HP are in structure. Once you add extenders and plates to a ship, the ratio tend to get very biased toward the usual racial tanking buffer layer and away from structure. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2624
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 14:11:45 -
[4] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Shova'k wrote:
the freighter/orca/bowhead wrecks being 15,000 hp now means it will take alot more for anti-gankers to blap the wrecks in order to deny loot very unlikely even a tornado could do it in 1 shot unless u get a very lucky critical volley lol.
You do realize that the obelisk is getting 157,000 more ehp out of this right? Gifting freighters more than 10x the tank that was given to wrecks and JF significantly more to compensate for the nerfing of a mod they cant even use is not exactly an even trade. Equally this change isn't going to do what it is aimed to do. The DCU is still going to be pretty mandatory on most fits.
I always though the DCU should of been a "oh ****" button and not a mod you perma-run at next to 0 cost. It's too good and has no counter. Even before making is passive, the cap cost and cycle time meant it anyone had snowball's chance in hell of turning it off. and it didn't even take a second for any ship to regen the cap needed to restart it between neuts cycles. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2636
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 17:46:34 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I would like to point out that I went over every ship Lucas has flown this year and not just the imperium doctrines. All of them were worse off without the DCU. His favourite ship this month will be worse off to the tune of having 1/3 less ehp. The reason why Lucas won't post any fits to back himself up is simple, he can't.
What that mean to me is that ships have too much structure HP when a single mod can be that valuable... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2652
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 18:34:19 -
[6] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Seth Kanan wrote:They lowered the need to fit a dcu. Saying that every former fit with a dcu will keep it, is just wrong. I'm pretty sure people are working over their fits as we speak. Oh look, someone else who doesn't understand how they work. They are exactly as essential as they were 24 hours ago. What we have, is a nerf to tight fitting, a massive freighter buff and no incentive to NOT fit a DCU in anything remotely serious. Swing and a miss given the stated "intent".
The module is just flat out too good still when no other options really end up being better in pretty much any scenario... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2654
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 19:32:53 -
[7] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Even in the scenario where I want my ship to go faster but have at least 30% hull resists and have only one remaining lowslot?
Can you post a fit to demonstrate this use case?
EDIT : Also, can you explain where your hull resist fit idea comes from since your hull resist is highly irrelevant in most case as long as you end up with more total buffer. It's not like hull is a tanking layer where we aim for anything but raw EHP since we can't count on efficient logi/local reps to make good use of those resist. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2658
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 20:49:45 -
[8] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:
I might just want it.
Why do you want 30% hull resist? What does 30% hull resist give you to trigger the need to get it? Achieving a fit with an arbitrary requirement that is no better at anything than another fit is what we mean by no fit that used a DC will not still use a DC.
People will of course EFT warrior fits to death because people are use to thriving for more efficient fits. If you can't provide a reason why you would want 30% resist on a particular fit, there is no reason to get it.
I want to shoot laser out of my megatron sure is a good way to "rationalize" a megatron with laser fitted but that's still a stupid fit no matter how much of my own requirement were met.
So again, why the arbitrary 30% hull resist? What is the real goal of such ship? Why does it only has 1 low remaining to get the additional speed you want it to get?
EDIT : Quoting was hard... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2660
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 13:54:11 -
[9] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:People will of course EFT warrior fits to death because people are use to thriving for more efficient fits. Efficient for them. I might drink a coke and you come along and go "mate, drinking water would hydrate you more efficiently" and I'd just be like "I'll stick to my coke thanks". It's not about ticking some box that one person using EFT decides to try to tick, it's about player choice which may not mate your choices.
This is a good example to build from. Drinking Coke instead of water indeed is a "lesser" choice to hydrate yourself but there are other reason to drink Coke which water just flat out can't compete with. Water does not taste like Coke for example so if you want to drink a Coke because you enjoy what a Coke taste like or even feels like, water just flat out can't compete. Someone could say you can go with Pepsi but that miss the point that they both don't taste and feel the same when drank, at least to someone who drink a lot of it. You have a reason to drink Coke over water and over Pepsi too because Coke is better at "something" over either of those in way that can't really be replicated with another product. The end specification are finality. The taste of Coke is unique so wanting that flavor is a valid reason to drink it. Wanting Coke because it has sugar in it for example is not really unless you are willing to accept you are using the wrong product to fulfill that requirment of getting sugar via a drink because you could get it in a more efficient way.
The DCU falls in the sugar portion of the problem. Getting 30% resist in hull is a step to 2 possible goal. You either want more raw EHP and use resist on hull because ship have a lot of hull HP OR you somehow plan to use those resist to amplify the effectiveness of remote or local reps on this taking band. That is all that resist in hull will ever give you just like sugar in Coke will only ever work has a way to increase your blood sugar level. These goals are technically viable goal to want but they are not done effectively by those choice.
Using screws in the place of nails to build something is a stupid choice in 99% of the case because it's inneficient to work with and also cost more quite often BUT if you only effectively have access to screws where you are building, they become quite a good choice. Any ship that used nails (DCU) before the patch, the use of nails (DCU) will still be optimal unless you only have screws available. Anything else will be sub-optimal. Can you still do it? You bet you can but that does not make such choice a good one.
The only real point for a laser Mega is comedy fit since it's effectively like the taste of Coke but balance does not care about comedy fit so a stupid choice being "optimal" for that is irrelevant. Any non comedy fit for a Mega will not include lasers. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2663
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:24:38 -
[10] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:The only real point for a laser Mega is comedy fit since it's effectively like the taste of Coke but balance does not care about comedy fit so a stupid choice being "optimal" for that is irrelevant. Any non comedy fit for a Mega will not include lasers. Or because you simply like lasers. Or because you have that hull available and need to come up with a fit to keep constant DPS while inactive for several hours to drop an unused POS. Effectively if we're going to eliminate player choice for being stupid simply because it's not what we would pick then there should just be a set list of fits and nothing else should be available. All the time the fitting system allows people to pick and choose combinations of whatever they want though I'm not going to simply invalidate fits because I'd do it differently.
I don't want to eliminate the choice, I want people like you to understand that all those fits are sub-par because there are better way to do the job unless hard restriction are taken into account like other hulls being un-available. You can fit your POS bashing mega if that's all there is available to you just like I can build a house by hammering screws in if there are no nails around but I'm willing to admit I'm doing something silly and it's my own damn fault that something more efficient is not available while you just say nah it's ok to use a hybrid boat to shoot lasers and anyone saying this is sub-optimal is apparently wrong because you choose to fit that. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2664
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 16:11:55 -
[11] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: How can you expect to be taken seriously if you make such ridiculous claims?
Says the guy who's not willing to agree a laser mega is a stupid fit. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2664
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 20:24:26 -
[12] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Wait, you think ship balancing is about anything else other than PvP? Of course. Balance passes affect everyone. It's funny to see that your only response is to attack and ridicule. You know why that is? Because your arguments are weak.
Your argument is literally "I can decide to make sub-optimal fit that will no longer need the DCU so the DCU is not a better options in the vast majority of the cases".
Ishtars were not really good ships because if I used them with no drones and a full rack of civilian guns, I would not have won that many fights even before all the nerfs... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
2677
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 16:33:47 -
[13] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
While not a loss of firepower, there are alternatives that are viable.
Ive been tinkering with dropping the DCU on certain ships in place of a RAH. DCU/RAH both stack against each other. RAH gives the same 15% bonus to armor as a DCU does. However, It has the obvious benefit of shifting resists where its needed. It also uses slightly less CPU than a T2 DCU (about 6 CPU less).
The CPU difference is fairly handy for CPU intensive fits. Take for example a torpedo typhoon.
Setting the RAH resist shift to cover your biggest holes (30% split) and EHP numbers are very similar to that of a DCU fit. The difference in total EHP is minimal, DCU ahead by 1-2k EHP IIRC. However looking at a fight against a laser ship (as an example), the RAH will create a much stronger armor tank than what a DCU could acheive. It also allows the explosive hole to be filled after dual EANM+DCU standard. Same principle applies to other damage locked ships (hybrids, kinetic lock missiles etc).
On most armor buffer fits, by the time your armor tank is gone, there is a good chance youre dead anyway, so id rather maximize armor resist/tank than hull. This is especially true of kite fits that use nanos. Since on things like BS and BC, a nano is a significant chunk of hull. So instead of DCU+EANM+LAAR fit, it might be slightly better to go RAH+EANM+LAAR.
In terms of cap use, on a BS especially, its a non issue. Cap boosted kiting BCs and some cruisers would also be a non-issue. So yea, replacing a DCU with a RAH on a confessor probably isnt the best idea, but there is some merit to using a RAH over a DCU on larger more stable ships.
The question with this is why did nobody do this before? This is the riddle nobody in favour of this change an answer. Fitting a DCU yields the exact same end results as before, if we didn't fit the RAH before then why would we now?
Cycle time and cap consumption maybe? Faster cycles are easier to shut down via neuts since they have more chance of getting a re-cycle when your cap is dry. |
| |
|