Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.03 11:50:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Nikol Kidman raven navy issue with 8x t2 siege launcher, 8x med slots hrhrhrhrhr
way to overpowered
As I've stated at least three times in this thread, I do not support the idea of switching highs for mids or lows for mids or however you wish it done. I myself only wish to see a rig that allows us to overcome the severe limitations that split-setup ships have put upon them by enabling us to increase the number of either turret or missile hardpoints a ship has - NOT alter the slot configuration in any way.
I will however show you why a Navy Issue Raven with these rigs would not be overpowered. Like all faction ships, it only has 350 and not 400 calibration to play with - this means that after you've fitted the launcher rig you're left with only 150 calibration. Assume you are to fit a power grid rig to go along with it (which you would need should you want to fit a full rack of siege launchers) and you're left with 50 - not enough for a second power grid rig, and not enough for any missile rigs other than the Warhead Flare Catalyst (Explosion radius) or a shield rig, which any other than the operational solidifier could be squeezed in.
Let's assume one launcher +1 rig (200), one Ancillary current router (100) and one EM resistance rig (50) to fill that gaping hole. Once these rigs are fitted, we get the following figures:
Quote: Siege Missile Launcher II CPU: 69.3 Power: 1736.91
Quote: Raven Navy Issue CPU: 900 Power: 13062.5
In other words, to fit the eight launchers you'd be looking at 13985.28 power, which is more than the NIR has to offer in the first place: you'd need to be filling your lows with fitting mods just to make it work, and so you're better off going with currently available rigs and a few ballistic control systems instead!
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.03 11:52:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Mashie Saldana I think this has crossed the devs minds already.
Very, very interesting: not however what I propose. I do not want to convert highs to mids to lows and so on but rather simply "add" turret or launcher slots at the expense of calibration and fitting requirements for the turrets or launchers.
|
Mashie Saldana
Hooligans Of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.03 12:03:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Originally by: Mashie Saldana I think this has crossed the devs minds already.
Very, very interesting: not however what I propose. I do not want to convert highs to mids to lows and so on but rather simply "add" turret or launcher slots at the expense of calibration and fitting requirements for the turrets or launchers.
True, I would love a Sleipnir with 8 turrets according to your suggestion.
However a Sleipnir with 7 mids would be an evil ship to fly as well.
|
T'sa Verok
|
Posted - 2007.09.03 15:22:00 -
[34]
Honestly I think this is going to be the far future of rigging, when ALL ships have several thousand calibration and access to all 10 rig slots (or 9 for tech 2 ships) (there are alot of slots sitting there that no ship uses on the UI). Complete manipulation of the ships loadouts, damage and potential is something every pilot dreams of and I am sure that CCP does aswell.
Rigs I except:
- Turret Rigs in Expense for Missile slots
- Drone bay expands that penalty cargo bays
- Swaps bonuses, eg from Projectiles to Hybrids
- Turns a High Slot into a Med and Low (max 8)
- Turn a Low and Med slot into a High (max 8)
Of course there is a problem with these ideas, as ships will be able to do insane damage with no tank or to have absolutely invincible tanks with no damage. All things would have to have stacking penalties and limitations.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 02:30:00 -
[35]
Quote: Of course there is a problem with these ideas, as ships will be able to do insane damage with no tank or to have absolutely invincible tanks with no damage. All things would have to have stacking penalties and limitations.
The beauty of the rigs I propose is that this stacking penalty is built in to the penalty the rigs apply. Let's take a hypothetical turret that requires 1000 powergrid and 100 cpu (for ease of calculation) fitted by a character with their rigging skills maxed. If one were to fit two of the tech one turret augmentations, this would mean that the power and cpu requirements for turrets are increased by a factor of 1.05, then again by another 1.05. So:
(1000 * 1.05) * 1.05 = 1102.5 (100 * 1.05) * 1.05 = 110.25
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 04:00:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Quote: Of course there is a problem with these ideas, as ships will be able to do insane damage with no tank or to have absolutely invincible tanks with no damage. All things would have to have stacking penalties and limitations.
The beauty of the rigs I propose is that this stacking penalty is built in to the penalty the rigs apply. Let's take a hypothetical turret that requires 1000 powergrid and 100 cpu (for ease of calculation) fitted by a character with their rigging skills maxed. If one were to fit two of the tech one turret augmentations, this would mean that the power and cpu requirements for turrets are increased by a factor of 1.05, then again by another 1.05. So:
(1000 * 1.05) * 1.05 = 1102.5 (100 * 1.05) * 1.05 = 110.25
And this wont matter for the 8 gun Hurricanes/tempets, 6 gun ruptures/vagabonds, 7 gun Muninns? 6 gun Eagles?
It makes free high slots more valuable than they already are[I.E. secondary weapons] on sips where the double damage bonus is in place to reduce the number of turrets and allow utility options[missiles/nos/neut/smartbombs/gang mods] more easily.
The same goes for mid/low slot conversion rigs.
7/5/7, 7 turret Tempest anyone?
7/4/7 7 turret Hurricane?
Could an 8/4/6 Harb compare, even with 8 guns?[no], could a 7/4/8 Geddon compare?[no, an 8/3/8... no]
Its just plain ridiculous.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 05:09:00 -
[37]
Quote: And this wont matter for the 8 gun Hurricanes/tempets, 6 gun ruptures/vagabonds, 7 gun Muninns? 6 gun Eagles?
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. The "dual" penalty won't apply because they're only trying to fit one more weapon. I don't really see what you're trying to get across.
Quote: It makes free high slots more valuable than they already are[I.E. secondary weapons] on [ships] where the double damage bonus is in place to reduce the number of turrets and allow utility options [missiles/nos/neut/smartbombs/gang mods] more easily.
This is the trade off. If you want to max out your weapons on a command ship, it rules out the ability to fit a gang mod. Again, I'm struggling to see why you consider this a problem - it's a choice that an individual pilot would make.
Quote: The same goes for mid/low slot conversion rigs.
Again: I do not support the introduction of rigs that allow one to convert one slot type to another! I am proposing a rig that allows one to add additional turret or missile slots only.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 07:06:00 -
[38]
Because its a 33%-50% increase in primary DPS for a large amount of ships balanced around having less turrets than others.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 10:21:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Goumindong Because its a 33%-50% increase in primary DPS for a large amount of ships balanced around having less turrets than others.
Ah, now I understand: I do however disagree, if you'd allow me to demonstrate. I will exclude drones from these examples, as these rigs will not affect drones and as such are not relevant to this discussion. Each setup will be based on maximum possible skills with the ships and rigs, and I will exclude extraneous fittings for the sake of simplicity.
Rigged Hurricane (max damage currently):
6x 425mm Autocannon II (Hail M) 6x Gyrostabilizer II 1x Projectile Collision Accelerator 292.5/500 CPU used 879.18/1687.5 power used 683 Damage Per Second (before resists), 1517 "Alpha Strike"
Rigged Hurricane (proposed max damage):
8x 425mm Autocannon II (Hail M) 6x Gyrostabilizer II 1x +2 Turret rig 337.92/500 CPU used 1164.24/1687.5 power used 912 Damage per Second (before resists), 2024 "Alpha Strike"
As you can see, this is an increase of approximately 25%, not 33-50% as you suggest. It also severely reduces the fitting capabilities of the ship. Given that we've filled the lows with gyros, we'd have to fit some form of shield tank on - in this instance, something like a large shield booster and cap injector which would eat up pretty much all the remaining power and cpu from this ship.
In short, it wouldn't create imbalance with the Hurricane, as you would be sacrificing so much to do this - and once a ship is rigged, there's no going back.
I will move onto your other "imbalanced" ships in the following posts.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 10:33:00 -
[40]
I'll ignore the Rupture (feel free to run the numbers yourself) and move straight onto the Vagabond.
Vagabond (max damage current)
5x 425mm Autocannon II (Hail M) 5x Gyrostabilizer II 1x Projectile Collision Accelerator 243.75/493.75 CPU used 732.65/1068.75 power used 445 Damage Per Second (before resists), 992 "Alpha Strike"
Vagabond (max damage proposed)
6x 425mm Autocannon II (Hail M) 5x Gyrostabilizer II 1x +1 turret rig 1x Projectile Collision Accelerator 268.44/493.75 CPU used 1173/1068.75 power used 712 Damage Per Second (before resists), 1188 "Alpha Strike"
Now this is closer to your supposed 33% increase, but as you can plainly see we're already using too much power. Time to downgrade the guns...
Vagabond (max damage proposed)
6x 220mm Vulcan Autocannon II (Hail M) 5x Gyrostabilizer II 1x +1 turret rig 1x Projectile Collision Accelerator 253.95/493.75 CPU used 659.57/1068.75 power used 510 Damage Per Second (before resists), 954 "Alpha Strike"
As you can plainly see, this has increased the DPS by a marginal amount, but the Alpha Strike is down...
In short, I'm sure you can tell that such rigs would overpower nothing.
|
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 10:46:00 -
[41]
Again I'll skip one (Muninn) and move straight onto the Eagle. There's little point in touching on the Muninn, as what is true for the Vagabond will also hold true for the Muninn. I'll be setting the eagle up with blasters, as these give the best DPS of all hybrid weapons.
Eagle (current max damage) 4x Heavy Neutron Blaster II 4x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1x Hybrid Collision Accelerator I 1x Hybrid Burst Aerator I 225/547.5 CPU used 845.43/1093.75 power used 377 Damage Per Second, 1047 "Alpha Strike"
Eagle (proposed max damage) 6x Heavy Nuetron Blaster II 4x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1x +2 Turret Rig 285.69/547.5 CPU used 1148.8/1093.75 power used 552 Damage Per Second, 1554 "Alpha Strike"
As we can see, this no longer fits either. So let's downgrade the guns again...
Eagle (proposed max damage) 6x Heavy Ion Blaster II 4x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1x +2 Turret Rig 276.24/547.5 CPU used 899.86/1093.75 power used 522 Damage Per Second, 1248 "Alpha Strike"
So this setup would allow an increase of around 38% DPS - but with nowhere near enough power grid to fit the MWD required to get up close with those blasters and to have any kind of tank at all.
Again, no imbalance!
|
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 11:22:00 -
[42]
I like this idea. Maybe a drone bay rig expander could be awesome too. ________________________________________
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 13:57:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Goumindong on 04/09/2007 13:59:25
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos I'll ignore the ship that benefits most and move straight onto the ship that benefits least
Also, you are only using too much powergrid because you wont downgrade guns and have weapon damage rigs on the ship. For the vagabond this will be a 20% increase in primary weapon DPS.
For the Rupture, 50%, for the Muninn, 40%.
ed: With the Eagle, you ignore Electron Blasters[which means MWD,web,scram, invuln,LSE,DC, 3xmfs]
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 14:34:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Goumindong I'm a picky bugger who probably has been killed by Camilo at some point, and so is being deliberately obstinate.
There, fixed it for you
I've shown you with figures why I believe this wouldn't be overpowered. If you believe it would be, provide solid statistics that prove it so. Otherwise, move on troll.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 15:44:00 -
[45]
Let's look at a full damage setup for the Muninn then, if you believe it will be such an issue. Obviously one would armour tank this ship, but we'll setup for max damage at present for the sake of running these numbers
3x Gyrostabilizer II 2x Ballistic Control System II 1x 10MN Microwarpdrive 2x Cap Recharger 5x 425mm Autocannon II 2x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II 1x Projectile Burst Aerator 1x Warhead Calefaction Catalyst 415/443.75 CPU used 1126.45/1450 power used 653 DPS & 1212 AS
If this were allowed to fit two more turrets:
5x Gyrostabilizer II 1x 10mn Microwarpdrive II 2x Cap Recharger II 7x 425mm Autocannon II 1x +2 Turret rig 1x whatever you like for 100 calibration 360.68/443.75 CPU used 1190.71/1450 power used 791 DPS & 1764 AS
So a 21% - and not 40% - increase in DPS. If you disagree, show me why rather than simply stating it is so.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 15:57:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Goumindong on 04/09/2007 15:59:07 Those are utterly ridiculous fits.
Its an LSE on the Eagle, not an LSB.
You dont freaking put BCS on a Muninn[though the missile launchers are right]... You should at least expect a little tank.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 15:58:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Quote: You know this would end in 50 thousand people having 8 launcher Ravens to farm isk 25% faster?
I admit I've been up a long time and so I may no longer be able to count, but wouldn't it be 33.3% faster?
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 16:37:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 04/09/2007 16:40:34
Quote: Its an LSE on the Eagle, not an LSB.
Doesn't matter. Neither an LSE nor LSB changes the DPS in any way whatsoever and the LSB has higher fitting requirements than the LSE in terms of CPU, of which the Eagle has plenty.
Quote: You dont freaking put BCS on a Muninn[though the missile launchers are right]... You should at least expect a little tank.
Take off the BCS and you decrease the DPS. I stated we were talking about hypothetical max damage setups, and that's it for the Muninn currently: 3x Gyro, 2x BCS, 5x 425's 2x HAM. In either case, were you to sacrifice damage mods for tank you'd decrease the DPS by an equal proportion. The only different would be the type of weapon in question, not the damage potential. Run the numbers on a fully tanked Muninn yourself, and you'll see.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 08:56:00 -
[49]
Let's look at the max potential damage output of the current Rupture, and compare it to a rupture with +turret rigs.
Current max potential damage:
3x Gyrostabilizer II 2x Ballistic Control System II (mids unimportant) 4x 425mm AutoCannon II (Hail M) 2x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II (Rage Assault) Projectile Burst Aerator I Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I 323.75/406.25 CPU uesd 813.92/1075 power used 546 DPS, 969 AS
As I pointed out before with the Muninn, simply filling with Gyrostabilizers beyond three is simply not worth it. For pure damage (and the setup is unrealistic, but provides maximum possible damage) 3x gyro 2x bcs is the best one can get, with 1x projectile damage rig and 1x missile damage rig.
New potential max damage setup:
6x 425mm Autocannon II (mids unimportant) 5x Gyrostabilizer II +2 turret rig (no more damage rigs possible due to lack of calibration) 268.44 CPU used 878.18/1075 power used 534 DPS / 1188 AS
Kindly point out to me where this 50% extra DPS comes from...
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 09:01:00 -
[50]
Raven, Tempest :) Tempest would become the only choice for fleet warfare :)
|
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 09:35:00 -
[51]
I'm going to guess by fleet you do not mean close range max damage, but rather sniping? If so, here are the numbers on the Tempest setup for pure damage at range. Obviously you wouldn't spam quite so many Gyro's, but I'm sure you understand that in this instance it both makes my life easier, and demonstrates more effectively why these rigs would overpower nothing.
Current: 4x Gyrostabilizer II 2x Ballistic Control System II (mids unimportant) 6x 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 2x Cruise Missile Launcher II 2x Ancillary Current Router I 1x Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I 515.45/687.5 CPU used 21674.4/23443.75 power used 499 DPS & 3573 AS
Again this is max damage. You'll lose *one* damage per second if you use a projectile weapon rig instead, but of course that damage would be instantaneous and probably preferable. Either way, you're within the fitting constraints.
Proposed max:
8x 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II (mids unimportant) 4x Gyrostabilizer II 2x Reactor Control Unit II 1x Ancillary Current Router I 1x +2 turret rig 446.52/687.5 CPU used 27031/28185.78 power used 504 DPS & 4768 AS
Which as I'm sure you can see is a marginal DPS incresae. The Alpha strike however is impressive, but even this is currently attainable with the Maelstrom. Given that a +2 turret rig should be a T2 rig, I see no problem here.
As for the Raven, I have run the numbers on the Navy Issue Raven, and what holds true there will hold true for the regular Raven.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 10:01:00 -
[52]
Yes I mean sniping. And Your operates on completely unrealistic setups.
On sniper ranges, cruise missles are suplement, if ever used. They will rarely hit before target is dead or gone. People fit assault launchers, cloaks, drone range augmentors, salvagers, whatever - just because suplementing firepower with those 2 cruises is disputable, often just waste of grid (that You can use for something nice like a 1600mm plate :)
Putting 2 BCU is a pure waste of low slots. And You need them for tracking, gyro and tank. Projectile damage rig is stacked with gyro and utterly useless.
So You end with 33% damage increase on a ship that has both damage and ROF bonuses and becomes a totan overkill :)
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 10:23:00 -
[53]
I would like to remind you all that these rigs would be highly desirable, and as such prohibitively expensive. +1 rigs would be T1, +2 rigs T2 - meaning they would START at over 100 million isk. Quite probably these would cost far, far more than this much as many of the currently available T2 rigs do.
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon Yes I mean sniping. And Your operates on completely unrealistic setups.
As stated, these are hypothetical max damage setups. They are not intended to be realistic, but rather demonstrate the damage potential of currently available ships.
Quote: On sniper ranges, cruise missles are suplement, if ever used. They will rarely hit before target is dead or gone. People fit assault launchers, cloaks, drone range augmentors, salvagers, whatever - just because suplementing firepower with those 2 cruises is disputable, often just waste of grid (that You can use for something nice like a 1600mm plate :)
Understood, and again this is here to show max damage. I will momentarily run the numbers for you on a pure gun tempest, but the fact remains that cruise missile, despite their undesirability, supplement your DPS nicely and reach as far as your guns in this theoretical example. The nature of combat in eve and the undesirability of missiles is a serious issue, but not one that impacts upon the discussion herein.
Quote: Putting 2 BCU is a pure waste of low slots. And You need them for tracking, gyro and tank. Projectile damage rig is stacked with gyro and utterly useless.
Again, not when you're fitting for maximum damage. You cannot compare a tanked setup to a damage setup - and given that a + turrets or + missiles rig is effectively a + damage rig, the only "fair" comparison is to a setup with max potential damage.
Anyway, pure gunboat Tempest. I will exclude all extraneous fittings, and yes the weapon upgrades are stacknerfed so you would use something else. In this instance though, we are only interested in the DPS, as it is this that would make the ship overpowered rather than it's tanking capabilities. Given the penalty to turret/launcher power and CPU use, any ship with these rigs would have limited capabilities beyond damage output.
Current: 6x Gyrostabilizer II (mids unimportant) 6x 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II (no rigs, as full gyro would make them extraneous) 391.5/687.5 CPU used 19311/19375 power used 0/400 Calibration used 388 DPS & 3622 AS
Proposed: 4x Gyrostabilizer II 2x Reactor Control Unit II (mids unimportant) 8x 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 1x Ancillary Current Router 1x +2 Turret Rig 446.52/687.5 CPU used 27031/28185.78 CPU used 400/400 Calibration used 504 DPS & 4768 AS
As you can see, that's just short of a 30% increase in damage potential, at a cost of well beyond 100,000,000 ISK in rigs. Again, I see no problem.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 10:47:00 -
[54]
The problem lies not in comparing old and new tempest, its ok to have a very high damage BS, its in comparing new tempest with any other BS.
I smell the risk of unifying fleet battles to one ship because all others are like 20% weaker. But I may be wrong.
One solution would be having hardpoint rigs cost 250 calibration, making people unable to fit 2xT1 versions and creating some problems with fitting 2 more rigs on top of that one.
For pricing - T1 rigs will not be extremely expensive because they are built from regular and massive drops from ratting and missions. Even if for example RA and their friends decides to consume all Angel ratting salvagables from their controlled lands, mission runners in empire will smell it over time and start running angel missions because they will be doing 40 million from salvage per one lvl 4. Then our parts price will drop slowly until market is satisfied and whole rig family comes back to prices about 20-30 million.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 11:26:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 05/09/2007 11:30:39
Quote: The problem lies not in comparing old and new tempest, its ok to have a very high damage BS, its in comparing new tempest with any other BS.
Ah, I see what you mean. There's only one other tier 2 sniperboat that would benefit from these rigs, and to be honest I suspect it would benefit more than the Tempest: The Megathron.
Current max damage:
7x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II (mids unimportant) 7x 425mm Railgun II
383 DPS & 1926 AS
Proposed max damage: 7x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II (mids unimportant) 8x 425mm Railgun II 1x Ancillary Current Router 1x +1 Turret
440 DPS & 2200 AS
As you can see, the only other tier 2 sniper lacking turret points would be ~60 DPS short of what a fully rigged out Tempest could put out, but unlike the tempest this could use the +1 rig (which would be much cheaper than the +2). If you fitted a +1 turret rig on a tempest, you're looking at 455 DPS & 4228 AS - perfectly acceptable.
Quote: For pricing - T1 rigs will not be extremely expensive because they are built from regular and massive drops from ratting and missions.
I expect they will rise to around the same price that the cargo expander rigs go for, because if you could would you not add an extra hardpoint to your ships? Right now, I believe that would place them at the 30-40m mark, which is still quite expensive for a rig. T2 would certainly be greater than 100m, if not 200m.
Quote: One solution would be having hardpoint rigs cost 250 calibration, making people unable to fit 2xT1 versions and creating some problems with fitting 2 more rigs on top of that one.
Yes, this would work quite well. The alternative I thought of was to increase the penalty from 10% (reduced to 5% with max skills) to 20% increase in power and CPU consumption for turrets/missiles. Increasing the calibration required for these rigs to 250 and 350 respectively would probably be a better solution, but either would perform the necessary task.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 11:38:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 05/09/2007 11:39:05 The only other full-blown eight turret rigged sniperboat would be the Armageddon:
Current: 1x Power Diagnostic System I 7x Heatsink II (mids unimportant) 7x Tachyon Beam Laser II 2x Ancillary Current Router 511 DPS & 2521 AS
Proposed: 2x Reactor Control Unit II 6x Heatsink II (mids unimportant) 8x Tachyon Beam Laser II 2x Ancillary Current Router I 1x +1 Turret 584 DPS & 2880 AS
So the rigged Armageddon equals the damage potential of the Tempest, but obviously your cap isn't going to last very long running eight Tachyons. Again, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable figure. These rigs wouldn't actually create any problems that do not already exist: The Armageddon and Tempest are already considered two of the best sniping battleships, these rigs would merely allow them to excel further in that role - and allow lesser ships to equal what these behemoths can currently achieve.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 11:41:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 05/09/2007 11:42:10 Ok, we can guess 30-40 million pricing if its based on minmatar salvage parts. There's a tweak with cargo expanders price - most people run missions for Caldari so most minmatar salvagables probably come from 0.0. And most angel regions are under influence of one player faction (RA+Goon+TCF+friends). Thats why they cost so much (I mean - alloyed tritanium bar) :)
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:01:00 -
[58]
It is of course impossible without also deciding what salvage components would be required to make these rigs to get an approximate cost. As I do not manufacture rigs myself, I would appreciate if someone else who likes this idea was willing to come up with a few proposals so as to set the value of these rigs.
Following on from the suggestions above, here are the two modified rig suggestions to combat the high damage full turret/missile boats that people seem to fear:
Originally by: "Increased Calibration" Supplemental Turret Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use Calibration Cost: 250 Bonus: +1 turret slot Drawback: -10%
Supplemental Turret Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use. Calibration Cost: 350 Bonus: +2 turret slots Drawback: -10%
Supplemental Launcher Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use. Calibration Cost: 250 Bonus: +1 launcher slot Drawback: -10%
Supplemental Launcher Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use. Calibration Cost: 350 Bonus: +2 launcher slots Drawback: -10%
Originally by: "Increased Power & CPU Penalty" Supplemental Turret Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 turret slot Drawback: -20%
Supplemental Turret Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's turret fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 turret slots Drawback: -20%
Supplemental Launcher Housing I This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use. Calibration Cost: 200 Bonus: +1 launcher slot Drawback: -20%
Supplemental Launcher Housing II This ship modification is designed to increase a ship's launcher fitting capabilities at the expense of power/CPU use. Calibration Cost: 300 Bonus: +2 launcher slots Drawback: -20%
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 16:27:00 -
[59]
Do these numbers take into account the 10% reduction from the skill that requires them? I've been looking over the max-damage setups and I'm curious how these sort of changes would effect NPCer's such as the Raven? Would free up those two high slots which are usually salvager+tractor beam for two more launchers to do the mission faster (if they can still fit their tanks with your proposed rigs).
Have you considered these rigs on dreadnaughts or carriers? Or even the rorqual =P ---
Put in space whales!
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH Black Sun Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 17:18:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 05/09/2007 17:24:07 Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 05/09/2007 17:19:42
Originally by: Lisento Slaven Do these numbers take into account the 10% reduction from the skill that requires them?
Yes, each setup was based on having the relevant rigging skilled trained up to 5.
Quote: I've been looking over the max-damage setups and I'm curious how these sort of changes would effect NPCer's such as the Raven? Would free up those two high slots which are usually salvager+tractor beam for two more launchers to do the mission faster (if they can still fit their tanks with your proposed rigs).
It's certainly possible, but it adds it's own problems. Currently something like this would be applicable for mission running. I've calculated these using T1 torps, as surely using T2 ammo for PVE is utter madness. Should you disagree, feel free to run the numbers accordingly:
2x Co Processor II 3x Ballistic Control System II 1x XL Shield Booster II 1x Shield Boost Amplifier II 3x Shield Hardener (rat specific) 1x Cap Recharger II 6x Siege Missile Launcher II 1x Tractor Beam 1x Salvager 1x Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I 1x Bay Loading Accelerator I 1024.84/1058.75 CPU used 10493.2/11875 power used 655 DPS / 4825 AS
It's been a long time since I ran any missions (or for that matter even flew a raven), so it might be way off the mark. So, moving swiftly on to the +2 launcher rigged Raven. The tank would not change, but the lows would to make it all work:
3x Coprocessor II 1x Reactor Control Unit II 1x Ballistic Control System II 1x XL Shield Booster II 1x Shield Boost Amplifier II 3x Shield Hardener (rat specific) 1x Cap Recharger II 8x Siege Missile Launcher II 1x +2 launcher rig 1x Ancillary Current Router I 1102.65/1164.63 CPU used 14454.28/15021.88 power used 616 DPS & 5448
So as we can see the raven would actually perform better with six launchers than eight, using currently available missile rigs and BCS rather than using up practically all your lows + rigs to make the extra two launchers fit. If you're fitting cruise however, things do work a bit better:
2x Coprocessor II 3x Ballistic Control System II 1x XL Shield Booster II 1x Shield Boost Amplifier II 3x Shield Hardener (rat specific) 1x Cap Recharger 8x Cruise Missile Launcher II 1x +2 launcher rig (another rig or two within 100 calibration, probably shields) 1006.89/1058.75 CPU used 10013.6/11875 power used 600 DPS & 4168 AS
Now, a similar setup with 6 cruise (using missile rigs + 3 BCS) puts out 474 DPS & 3216 AS, so this rig provides an increase of just short of 27% damage with cruise missiles. With torpedoes, it's negligible.
I'm not running the numbers on *another* raven, but I'm sure that the best results could be achieved by using the +1 launcher rig and torpedoes, allowing room for more rigs and retaining the utility slot.
Quote: Have you considered these rigs on dreadnaughts or carriers? Or even the rorqual =P
Should've kept quiet on that one, eh?
Personally, I'd quite like to have a Dread that could outdamage a battleship without siege mode. I think it would make a useful and interesting addition to fleet warfare. That said, there are already rigs that have no effect on capital ships: These rigs could easily be made one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |