Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:16:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Evenfall Phoenix Edited by: Evenfall Phoenix on 18/10/2007 09:13:27 Edited by: Evenfall Phoenix on 18/10/2007 09:13:01 Quick question. Is the velocity on torps still slow as all hell? The one thing that made torps, or hell even cruise useless in PvP is the velocity. While cruise can be worked on and be used somewhat effectivly, torps just moved way too slow as compared to rockets and HAMS.
You see torps comming to you, all you have to do is increase speed out of a warp scram and run, or increase speed and get reduced damage from the torp. Or just warp away because missile damage isn't instant.
That's the other thing, missiles need a slightly higher dps at whatever range because they actually travel. On top of which you have the Caldari philosophy of range over up close fighting.
I've always seen torps as the Sieging weapons. Hell the launchers are Siege Launcher. In my mind that says slow and from a range to minimize damage to the sieger. Torps just never seemed like they were meant to be in line with rockets and HAMs. They just seemed like a different type of weapon meant for a different task.
*Edit* On top of which I almost never see torps being used in PvP to begin with aside from a PoS takedown. Torps are no good in a fleet fight, no good solo. The rule for PvP battleships seems to be "fit guns or die" and I don't really see how reducing the range on torps will change anything in that matter.
So you want torps to be fast aswell? This buff not enough for you? Sure make em faster but add tracking to all turrets so large turrets can hit 100% while shooting at frigs and faster cruisers at any range. GG.
|
FinalFlash84
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 10:07:00 -
[62]
Well, i think that the fitting reqs are a bit too high (compared to other close range weapons).
For example:
6x Siege Missile Launcher II and ONE 100mn Mwd
CPU 471/875 PG 11300.2/11875
And this is with a maxed Character (-> and not many of the EVE-Players have their skills maxxed ;) )
|
BaronHarkonnen
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 10:30:00 -
[63]
Always the same crap arguments, give me no misses give me no tracking, give me ballz on the face.
Torps do no damage on small ships(1-5 dmg is no dmg), it takes a lot of time to travel and hit the target,it gets no extra luck bonus(we all love those wrecking hits in pvp). Another stuff, caldari pilots who pvp they have trained 5-6 mils in missles and then they begin to train for gunery , no luxury 12 mils in gunery but 6-6 . Beside Rokh(gunboat) no caldari BS are welcomed in fleets( maybe scorps but that depends of fleet)and it's gona stay that way :)
Because this change affects mission runners/ratters and then you actually might see from time to time a raven at close pvp .. big deal. What people actually complain about is, they choose another race because everyone even their dog or their mother has a caldari pilot and they wana be special.
Wait untill is used in game and then whine.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 10:39:00 -
[64]
So the goal is to have a short range missile PvP BS?
Why not just adjust Rage torps to this effect? Why change all torps?
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 10:44:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Qui Shon So the goal is to have a short range missile PvP BS?
Why not just adjust Rage torps to this effect? Why change all torps?
I would guess bcos of RoF bonus on launchers. With that bonus long range torps would be murder squared in any situation where you have tackler on target to hold him there long enough for torps to reach it.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 10:45:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Qui Shon So the goal is to have a short range missile PvP BS?
Why not just adjust Rage torps to this effect? Why change all torps?
Why should anyone be unable to use a missile battleship for close range pvp until you have the skills for T2 siege launchers ? ------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 10:57:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Carniflex
Originally by: Qui Shon So the goal is to have a short range missile PvP BS?
Why not just adjust Rage torps to this effect? Why change all torps?
I would guess bcos of RoF bonus on launchers. With that bonus long range torps would be murder squared in any situation where you have tackler on target to hold him there long enough for torps to reach it.
But the Rage torp adjustment would be instead of RoF bonus. Everything as before, except Rage torps get bigger dmg boost and max 20km range (before ship bonus)
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:04:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Aramendel on 18/10/2007 12:03:50
Originally by: Akita T So, you're telling me you WOULD care at all if rockets got a reduction from 10km (in web range already) to 5km on non-bonused ships, but for a double DPS compared to now ?
Out of which fantasy do you get double dps?
Rockets/HAMs are a 25% dps boost compared to long range. Torps are a 83% dps boost compared to long range.
Thats less than 50% more dps. 46% to be exact.
For THAT going from 20k range to 10k range from HAMs? That would be a really bad trade. The added flexibility and survivability of the higher range is worth far more than that.
The point what you seem to ignore or not to understand is that not every range has equal importance in the game. 0-30k is far FAR more important than 30-60k. Getting a reduction from 60k to 30k is not really that much of an issue. Getting one from 20 to 10k is a HUGE difference in gameplay.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:08:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 12:08:55
Originally by: Aramendel Out of which fantasy do you get double dps?
this
Quote: IF you give Siege Missile Launcher IIs a 14.4 RoF and T1 torps a 450 base damage with 20km reach, then give HAML-IIs a 9.6 RoF (instead of 6.4) and T1 HAMs 225 base damage (instead of 100) with 10km reach (instead of 20), and RL-IIs a 6.4 RoF (instead of 3.2) and T1 rockets 112/113 base damage (instead of 25) with 5km reach (instead of 10).
^^^ short version _
1|2|3 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:17:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Akita T IF you give Siege Missile Launcher IIs a 14.4 RoF and T1 torps a 450 base damage with 20km reach, then give HAML-IIs a 9.6 RoF (instead of 6.4) and T1 HAMs 225 base damage (instead of 100) with 10km reach (instead of 20), and RL-IIs a 6.4 RoF (instead of 3.2) and T1 rockets 112/113 base damage (instead of 25) with 5km reach (instead of 10).
Uh.. you fail at math?
Torps, are, as already said an 83% dps boost compared to cruise. HAMs are right now a 25% dps boost compared to heavies, with your stats it would be 87.5% and a 50% dps boost compared to the current HAMs. Rockets are right now also a 25% dps boost compared to lights and with your changes it would be a 180% and a 124% dps boost compared to the current rockets.
Your numbers make no sense at all.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:24:00 -
[71]
I was comparing "rockets now" vs "rockets after", same for HAMs.
25 damage / 3.2 RoF = 7.8125 DPS, 113 damage / 6.4 RoF = 17.65625 DPS Ok, excuse me, NOT doubled damage, but more... actually, *2.26 damage compared to current (+126% DPS).
And yeah, compared to lights/standards (75 damage / 12 RoF = 6.25 DPS) *2.825 damage, or +182.5% DPS. NEARLY TRIPLE. _
1|2|3 |
Dragon Lord
Caldari InQuest Ascension R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:26:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Brixer
Originally by: Dragon Lord I dont have a problem with the range at all, my problem is that only a plated neut mega is slower and why fit plates on a mega when u absolutly have to get in range to do anything???? Make it so ravens can catch there targets and ill be happy, ie mwd raven can go as fast as mwd mega with no other mods on.
Granted!
And I want 40km optimal on my Neutron Blasters IIs, with no tracking issues even if target sits ontop of me.. yeah! and btw, those blasters should only use 1 cap / shot... And while I'm at it, I want to be able to passive tank my armor.
Granted!
And i want insta torp dmg, able to get 2x and 4x wreaking hits and able to hit small ships for full dmg
Geez missiles and guns are different they both have there advantages and if torps are so good how come every good pvp i know uses guns???
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:46:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Aramendel on 18/10/2007 12:47:39
Originally by: Akita T I was comparing "rockets now" vs "rockets after", same for HAMs.
Have you sold your account? All you are doing right now is essentially trolling which is rather unlike you.
HAML-IIs a 9.6 RoF (instead of 6.4) and T1 HAMs 225 base damage (instead of 100) with 10km reach (instead of 20)
That is a 50% dps boost. I already said that. Are you unable to read?
And, for the THIRD time:
Torps do 83% more dps than cruise.
rockets & HAMs deal 25% more dps than their longrange. You want to bring them "inline with torps" and boost their dps to 150% more dps than longrange?
Torps: 83% Rockets/HAMs: 150%
Hello? How is that inline with torps??
If you want to bring them inline it would be a 46% dps boost to them. Not a 100% one.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:05:00 -
[74]
Bloody. Freaking. HELL.
Guided: CrML-II 17.6 RoF 300 dam -> 17.0454 DPS HvML-II 11.7 RoF 150 dam -> 12.8205 DPS StML-II 7.8 Rof 75 dam -> 9.6153 DPS
Unguided: SiML-II 14.4 RoF 450 dam -> 31.2500 DPS HAML-II 9.6 RoF 225 dam -> 23.4375 DPS RoLa-II 6.4 RoF 113 dam -> 17.6562 DPS
Cruise-vs-Siege, +83.33% DPS ; range ~168km vs ~20km (aprox *8.4) Heavy-vs-HAM, +82.81% DPS ; range ~84km vs ~10km (aprox *8.4) Light-vs-rocket, +83.62% DPS ; range ~42km vs ~5km (aprox *8.4)
GET IT NOW ? _
1|2|3 |
Fuazzole
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:11:00 -
[75]
Even a paultry 20km range, is long range in the world of close range weapons.
It will be gud BS vs BS
|
VoYvod
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:15:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Vandalias
Originally by: Akita T Doesn't anybody find torps getting same range as HAMs even a little bit unsettling ? Sure, high damage, 50% maxrange bonus from Raven only and all that blahblah, but still... wtf ?
Agreed. Lower the range of HAMs.
/signed
|
Black L0tus
Illegal Prostitution Ring Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:20:00 -
[77]
with these new torp changes , the raven fitting these torps being it goes so slow will have to be flown like the amarr battleships that are fitting close range guns (scorch ftw) - medium range is your friend
besides the raven doesn't have an optimal range
|
DARTHxFREE
G.R.U.N.T
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:20:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Akita T
Cruise-vs-Siege, +83.33% DPS ; range ~168km vs ~20km (aprox *8.4) Heavy-vs-HAM, +82.81% DPS ; range ~84km vs ~10km (aprox *8.4) Light-vs-rocket, +83.62% DPS ; range ~42km vs ~5km (aprox *8.4)
GET IT NOW ?
From memory... Blaster vs Rail, ~+40-45% DPS ; Range 1-15km vs Deadzone >:-E3 /join Cheeze & Whine Club
|
Francesca Fritzlestickz
Snopes
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:23:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Akita T Bloody. Freaking. HELL.
Guided: CrML-II 17.6 RoF 300 dam -> 17.0454 DPS HvML-II 11.7 RoF 150 dam -> 12.8205 DPS StML-II 7.8 Rof 75 dam -> 9.6153 DPS
Unguided: SiML-II 14.4 RoF 450 dam -> 31.2500 DPS HAML-II 9.6 RoF 225 dam -> 23.4375 DPS RoLa-II 6.4 RoF 113 dam -> 17.6562 DPS
Cruise-vs-Siege, +83.33% DPS ; range ~168km vs ~20km (aprox *8.4) Heavy-vs-HAM, +82.81% DPS ; range ~84km vs ~10km (aprox *8.4) Light-vs-rocket, +83.62% DPS ; range ~42km vs ~5km (aprox *8.4)
GET IT NOW ?
does it really matter? remember when all t2 guns got the damage nerf ? it could be worse ...
ccp is just balancing things
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:24:00 -
[80]
I'm not setting the Cruise-vs-Torps ratios, I'm merely aligning all the rest with Cruises/Torps _
1|2|3 |
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:24:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Aramendel on 18/10/2007 13:25:21
Originally by: Akita T Bloody. Freaking. HELL.
Guided: CrML-II 17.6 RoF 300 dam -> 17.0454 DPS HvML-II 11.7 RoF 150 dam -> 12.8205 DPS StML-II 7.8 Rof 75 dam -> 9.6153 DPS
Unguided: SiML-II 14.4 RoF 450 dam -> 31.2500 DPS HAML-II 9.6 RoF 225 dam -> 23.4375 DPS RoLa-II 6.4 RoF 113 dam -> 17.6562 DPS
Cruise-vs-Siege, +83.33% DPS ; range ~168km vs ~20km (aprox *8.4) Heavy-vs-HAM, +82.81% DPS ; range ~84km vs ~10km (aprox *8.4) Light-vs-rocket, +83.62% DPS ; range ~42km vs ~5km (aprox *8.4)
GET IT NOW ?
I still do not see your twice the damage boost.
HAMs have 50% more dps (which is totally not worth a drop from 20 to 10k) and rockets 120% more dps than before (which most likely will utterly break them when compared to small blaster & AC dps).
Also, nice try with giving totally incorrect numbers for what you claim and then changing the longrange versions to fit it in your perception.
Originally by: Akita T I'm not setting the Cruise-vs-Torps ratios, I'm merely aligning all the rest with Cruises/Torps
By ignoring the frigate & cruiser dps of other weapon systems. Yes, real smart..not.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:32:00 -
[82]
Originally by: DARTHxFREE From memory... Blaster vs Rail, ~+40-45% DPS ; Range 1-15km vs Deadzone
From database, Neutron Blaster Cannon II vs 425mm Railgun II: +54.55 DPS blasters, *8 optimal range rail, *2.4 falloff range rails With AM charge L and at optimal+0.5*falloff (so at around 83% of effective top DPS for both), *4.74 range rails. _
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:37:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Aramendel I still do not see your twice the damage boost.
BEFORE: RoLa-II 3.2 RoF, 25 dam -> 7.8125 DPS AFTER : RoLa-II 6.4 RoF 113 dam ->17.6562 DPS => aprox *2.26 DPS increase, before and after. MORE than double.
Originally by: Akita T I' Originally by: Aramendel I'm not setting the Cruise-vs-Torps ratios, I'm merely aligning all the rest with Cruises/Torps
By ignoring the frigate & cruiser dps of other weapon systems. Yes, real smart..not.
EXCUSE me ? _
1|2|3 |
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:47:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Francesca Fritzlestickz
Originally by: Akita T Bloody. Freaking. HELL.
Guided: CrML-II 17.6 RoF 300 dam -> 17.0454 DPS HvML-II 11.7 RoF 150 dam -> 12.8205 DPS StML-II 7.8 Rof 75 dam -> 9.6153 DPS
Unguided: SiML-II 14.4 RoF 450 dam -> 31.2500 DPS HAML-II 9.6 RoF 225 dam -> 23.4375 DPS RoLa-II 6.4 RoF 113 dam -> 17.6562 DPS
Cruise-vs-Siege, +83.33% DPS ; range ~168km vs ~20km (aprox *8.4) Heavy-vs-HAM, +82.81% DPS ; range ~84km vs ~10km (aprox *8.4) Light-vs-rocket, +83.62% DPS ; range ~42km vs ~5km (aprox *8.4)
GET IT NOW ?
does it really matter? remember when all t2 guns got the damage nerf ? it could be worse ...
ccp is just balancing things
Balancing what? The problem is, once you start playing the balancing act by nerfing something, then you realize something else has now become over-powered. Then you need to "balance" that. The problem is CCP in it's endless desire to tweak the game creates a situation where one no longer knows what long term skill to train for. Thus the time it took to train for T2 torp launchers for use in PvE is now basically useless. I suspect when the game "Sins of a Solar Empire" comes out, a number of Eve players will be switching over. Hopefully SSE devs understand endless tweaking of the game leads to dis-satisfied players.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:54:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Akita T BEFORE: RoLa-II 3.2 RoF, 25 dam -> 7.8125 DPS AFTER : RoLa-II 6.4 RoF 113 dam ->17.6562 DPS => aprox *2.26 DPS increase, before and after. MORE than double.
Originally by: Akita T I was comparing "rockets now" vs "rockets after", same for HAMs.
Get it now? Your rockets, yes. And the HAM one is still a 50% boost. No ifs or buts. 50%. Not 100%. For which it is not worth to loose the 10-20k range area.
You claim a principle for 2 weapon systems which is only true for one of them.
Quote: If you agree that Cruise-vs-Torps are "the right ratios", then you have to tweak the rest accordingly. If you don't agree that Cruise/Torps have the right ratios, propose BETTER ratios, then tweak rest accordingly. Also, see post above regarding DPS/range ratios in blasters/rails.
Your fallancy is that you assume that the range increase ratio from small-med-large versions HAS to be the ration on every weapon system.
It doesn't. There is no logic which suggests that.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:58:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Aramendel Your fallancy is that you assume that the range increase ratio from small-med-large versions has to be the same ration on as every weapon system turret type. It doesn't. There is no logic which suggests that.
On the other hand, there's no logic that suggests otherwise either. We're just presenting both our opinions. _
1|2|3 |
Amaron Ghant
Caldari Ascent of Ages Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:03:00 -
[87]
Adapt.
Thats all i've got to say really.
|
Tenebrious
Quantum Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:06:00 -
[88]
Nighthawks with insane tanks out damaging Astartes - this is exactly what we need in EVE! Please think before throwing out these wild ideas that you even seem to think are a bit farfetched.
Also, while you're at it please boost smartbombs. Their natural progression to DDDs is off by 192.38%.
|
Freya Gleamingstar
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:32:00 -
[89]
I dont personally have an issue with the change, and might lend itself to some nice new setups. If you want long range bombardment, use cruise.
Wonder how much this alteration has to do with the one million ratting bots/farmers in Ravens in the mission hotspots. Guess things might get interesting for them now...
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:34:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Akita T On the other hand, there's no logic that suggests otherwise either. We're just presenting both our opinions.
Out of arguments so we're trying now the grammar police route? How sweet.
Anyway: All your arguments are based on how it is for turrets. Without giving any reasons why missiles should follow that route in exactly the same way.
It can be argued either way, of cource, but that is the whole point: it can be argued. You are trying to sell it as natural law which it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |