| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aramendel
Amarr
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
   |
Posted - 2007.07.30 11:57:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: James Lyrus
And at the same time, so were damps - ok, so you needed 2 to lockdown a ship, but ... you _ONLY_ needed 2, where 2 ECMs would just annoy it.
2 on a specced ship. 2 racial ECM on a specced ship will jam your average BS 80% of the time, I wouldn't class this as "annoyance".
And "lockdown" means here dampening a 72k base lockrange ship to 12.5k. This is ok for most cases, but is still limiting you. If you want to web it (without minnie recon) you have to get into targeting range for example.
And this is for BS sized targets. For smaller targets ECM gets more effective and damps get more ineffective.
Quote:
But I don't think ECMs on ECM ships were ever a problem.
A scorp could disable 2-4 targets while having about the same tank of a gankfitted BS. It should be rather obvious why that wasn't balanced.
|
Vardec
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:41:00 -
[62]
Where does this supposed tank come from? 2-4 targets suggests 6 EMC modules, and you're going to need a Sensor Booster, so you're not talking about a 1 slot shield tank.
Your precious lows are going to fit at least 2 SDAs, so are you talking about a 3 slot armor tank? The scorp has horrible weapon systems and no room for tank in its current configuration. If the scorp were an ECM pwnmobile it would make sense, but you will jam for a cycle and then get popped when the fleet primaries you. If the scorp fit a decent tank so it could get out, this would make sense, because you can jam for a cycle, get out, then try again. Or if the ship could actually throw a punch in a fight, this would make sense, because you're trading your tank for some ECM in addition to helping knock out the primary.
But it does none of these. It sits there impotently trying to jam a handful of targets and sacrifices any other functionality for this limited role.
|
R3dSh1ft
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:28:00 -
[63]
2 slot actually the scorp has 4 lows
DKOD - an awesome synchronised killing machine |
Aramendel
Amarr
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 18:58:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Vardec
Where does this supposed tank come from? 2-4 targets suggests 6 EMC modules, and you're going to need a Sensor Booster, so you're not talking about a 1 slot shield tank.
We are talking about the scorpions tank pre-nerf.
Quote:
If the scorp were an ECM pwnmobile it would make sense, but you will jam for a cycle and then get popped when the fleet primaries you.
And why does the fleet primary it? Because it is the most dangerous ship in the enemy fleet. Kill an enemy DPS BS and you push the dps relation 1 ships worth in your favour. Kill a scorp and push the dps relation 2-4 ships worth in your favour.
Now the scorp has to decide between fitting a tank in its low slots (and as result having a better HP buffer than ANY dps fleet ship) and only being able to jam 1-2 BS on average (which is about similar performance what other dps BS do in a fleet) or using 3 slots for SDAs and jamming 2-4 on average (which is a higher performance than what a fleet BS can achieve and is balanced for the scorp by a weaker tank).
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 11:31:00 -
[65]
Ok, so let's recap a few of the (IMHO) better ideas out there so far.
The problem is not so much with Caldari ships which are more or less fine as a general rule... with the exception HUGE, unjustified mass. You can leave their top speed the way it is, but dammit, decrease that mass (and inadvertedly also agility) to "second best" after Minmatar.
The fact this mass reduction won't come with a speed increase will NOT make Caldari ships "overpowered", and it's a rebalance issue since the good ole' days of double-MWDs.
The problem seems to be instead with missiles in general.
More precisely, the fact that in short-range combat torpedoes don't pack enough of a punch (and the "chosing damage type" argument is not even remotely enough to compensate in typical PvP situations) to justify all the other drawbacks, while at the same time having an EXCESSIVE range for a short-range weapon system.
Also, for long-range combat, cruise missiles and their "damage delay" make them an unfeasable weapon platform.
Basically, you're stuck with T2 cruise missile launchers in PvP because you can just pack an extra damage mod (which would be way too hard to fit with T2 siege), and the fact they can alternate between FoF, regular and high-damage T2 cruise to fill most of the roles a torpedo boat could fill.
The most interesting proposition I've seen so far was to completely revamp missile ammo in ways more akin to gun ammo.
Namely, create several variations of missiles that have similar trade-offs between reach and damage as diferent gun ammo have, and also revamp T2 missiles with other, less crippling penalities.
Also, another intriguing idea was to revamp missiles so that they have a damage type selection also somewhat akin to gun ammo... for instance, HALF of current damage fixed on kinetic, then the other half variable depending on damage type, probably even boosted for certain damage types but with other drawbacks like increased explosion radius or decreases explosion velocity.
You could probably mix and match these two proposals above to create a whole new series of missile ordinances.
_
Complaint vs whine | Char creation guide | Stacknerfs explained |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari
Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.08.01 14:25:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Akita T
Ok, so let's recap a few of the (IMHO) better ideas out there so far.
The problem is not so much with Caldari ships which are more or less fine as a general rule... with the exception HUGE, unjustified mass. You can leave their top speed the way it is, but dammit, decrease that mass (and inadvertedly also agility) to "second best" after Minmatar.
The fact this mass reduction won't come with a speed increase will NOT make Caldari ships "overpowered", and it's a rebalance issue since the good ole' days of double-MWDs.
The problem seems to be instead with missiles in general.
More precisely, the fact that in short-range combat torpedoes don't pack enough of a punch (and the "chosing damage type" argument is not even remotely enough to compensate in typical PvP situations) to justify all the other drawbacks, while at the same time having an EXCESSIVE range for a short-range weapon system.
Also, for long-range combat, cruise missiles and their "damage delay" make them an unfeasable weapon platform.
Basically, you're stuck with T2 cruise missile launchers in PvP because you can just pack an extra damage mod (which would be way too hard to fit with T2 siege), and the fact they can alternate between FoF, regular and high-damage T2 cruise to fill most of the roles a torpedo boat could fill.
The most interesting proposition I've seen so far was to completely revamp missile ammo in ways more akin to gun ammo.
Namely, create several variations of missiles that have similar trade-offs between reach and damage as diferent gun ammo have, and also revamp T2 missiles with other, less crippling penalities.
Also, another intriguing idea was to revamp missiles so that they have a damage type selection also somewhat akin to gun ammo... for instance, HALF of current damage fixed on kinetic, then the other half variable depending on damage type, probably even boosted for certain damage types but with other drawbacks like increased explosion radius or decreases explosion velocity.
You could probably mix and match these two proposals above to create a whole new series of missile ordinances.
I think Devs solved the PvP side of things with Khanid MKII. I just need to train Amarr frig and cruiser to 5. So armor tanking became second nature for Caldari. Hybrid users train for Gallente, Missile users train for Amarr. Both train armor tank.
Originally by: JP Beauregard
The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls.... 
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 17:04:00 -
[67]
Yeah, it LOOKS like a necro, but it's not.
Have you SEEN the recent SiSi changes ?
Now, it's almost identical (but much worse, at the moment) to the things discussed in here.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 17:13:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Akita T
Yeah, it LOOKS like a necro, but it's not.
Have you SEEN the recent SiSi changes ?
Now, it's almost identical (but much worse, at the moment) to the things discussed in here.
Yes, except for the whole "reduce fitting and dont buff DPS to blaster levels" its exactly like you proposed!
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 17:19:00 -
[69]
Well, it's "about" the change, not the exact change.
Luckily, they have confirmed the stats we see on SiSi are NOT final.
Guess we just have to poke and prod them a bit in the "right" direction. 
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 17:37:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Akita T
Well, it's "about" the change, not the exact change.
Luckily, they have confirmed the stats we see on SiSi are NOT final.
Guess we just have to poke and prod them a bit in the "right" direction.
Yours isnt.
The only problem with torps is their fitting.
|
Beowulf Scheafer
Gallente
M34t p0p s1ckle Manufacturing
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 18:37:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 26/07/2007 08:57:58
The problem is that torpedoes don't fit the profile of the other "short range" missile systems (read the linked thread).
The problem is that even if Caldari have (theoretically) a range advantage in PvP, they can't make good use of it due to crappy maneouvrability.
The problem is that everybody and its fairy godmother uses a torpedo Raven spewing T1 (or faction) torps to farm missions.
The problem is they're (generally) a bit too good for PvE and generally underperform in PvP (with some minor exceptions, and even then only in small-to-mid sized gangs... solo or fleet, only the Rokh is acceptable... and that only because it's a TURRET ship).
who cares?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 18:40:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Beowulf Scheafer
who cares?
Apparently, the devs. Sort of. Have you seen the stats on SiSi ?
_
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:40:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 14:46:13
I'd just like to give [SARCASM] "a big thank you" [/SARCASM] to whatever dev or devs were responsable for the torpedo changes we see now.
If it was only a coincidence... meh. I hope it was.
But if any of you took ANY of my suggestions as a base for your current SiSi stats, shame on you.
Yeah, you got one thing right... T1 (and faction) torpedoes were overpowered.
But T2 ammo was just fine.
Going in and KILLING torpedo range altogether, T2 included, stupid.
Oh, and the fiting stats on launchers ? Pfft.
Plus, ships were not changed one tiny little bit.
And that slight DPS increase ? With the nerf in "everything else" ? Ridiculous.
Oh, and I think you designed the Golem before the torpedo "balance".
Might go back to the drawing board on it, now that you KILLED torpedoes for PvE, instead of just making it harder.
_
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 14:52:00 -
[74]
Edited by: d026 on 25/10/2007 14:54:07
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 25/10/2007 14:45:32
I'd just like to give [SARCASM] "a big thank you" [/SARCASM] to whatever dev or devs were responsable for the torpedo changes we see now.
If any of you took ANY of my suggestions as a base for your current SiSi stats, shame on you.
Yeah, you got one thing right... T1 (and faction) torpedoes were overpowered.
But T2 ammo was just fine.
Going in and KILLING torpedo range altogether, T2 included, stupid.
Oh, and the fiting stats on launchers ? Pfft.
Plus, ships were not changed one tiny little bit.
And that slight DPS increase ? With the nerf in "everything else" ? Ridiculous.
Oh, and I think you designed the Golem before the torpedo "balance".
Might go back to the drawing board on it, now that you KILLED torpedoes for PvE, instead of just making it harder.
I LIKE THE TORP BUFF! I just don't get why the Golem supposed to use them for PVE if he doesn't get the range bonus to effectively use such weaponery in a pve environment. Anyway I rather have a useless Golem (at least it fills the nice role of a excellent looter/salvager) than a tweak/rollback of the current SIS torps. Im not sure if you have extensively tested the new torps on sis but i did and i find them highly appealing. Not to strong, not to weak, with exactly the range you need on a slow fat ass ship like the raven.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 15:25:00 -
[75]
Except that in PvP, Raven is not *quite* that slow, as it can fit a MWD.
In missions, however, no dice.
Come to think of it, is there STILL any good reason to keep disalowing MWDs in "deadspaces" ?
If you would remove that, you'd make all ships decent PvE-ers, not only the Raven.
_
1|2|3 |
Futureface01
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.25 19:33:00 -
[76]
Originally by: d026
I LIKE THE TORP BUFF! I just don't get why the Golem supposed to use them for PVE if he doesn't get the range bonus to effectively use such weaponery in a pve environment. Anyway I rather have a useless Golem (at least it fills the nice role of a excellent looter/salvager) than a tweak/rollback of the current SIS torps.
In missions its a Torp Removal. They cant be done, not even with max skills and rigs. Some NPCs want to fight outside of T2 Jav Torp range. No MWD, nothing you can do to force yourself into range of some of the "longer range" NPCs.
And no I dont want a billion isk salvage ship... Geeesh.
State of the Golem Oct 25, 2007 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |