| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
   |
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:22:00 -
[1]
Original thread that spawned the idea
ALL turrets in EVE follow a rather simple progression from small to medium to large and even extra-large.
The progression is +100% range (both optimal and falloff), +100% ammo damage, +50% RoF penality (so +33.33% DPS).
Both before and AFTER the current torpedo changes, the missile weapon systems in EVE fail to follow it.
And they fail to follow it quite badly, I might add.
So, if you do plan on adjusting the torpedoes to make them "viable in PvP", then you might as well throw a damn eye into the issues with rockets and HAMs while you're at it.
Namely, bring them in-line already.
___
Let's ASSUME for a moment that the "new torpedoes" we see right now (or very close to them) are somehow magically PERFECT for PvP... that everything about them would be just peachy... range, DPS, volley damage, explosion radius/velocity and just about ANYTHING you can think of.
IF the final changes result in giving the Siege Missile Launcher IIs a 14.4 RoF and T1 torps a 450 base damage with 20km reach (maxskills, no ship bonus)...
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 113 (or 112.5) base damage (instead of 25) with 5km reach (instead of 10).
That all comes out as +50% HAM DPS (+100% volley damage) and +100% Rocket DPS (+300% volley damage) compared to current values.
OF COURSE, explosion sig and velo should be looked at too and brought "in line" with the torp tweaks too.
That also fixes the "butbutbuuut lagstrike on rocket ships insane RoF" issues, and you can finally give some rocket-boats RoF bonuses instead of damage bonuses.
___
As for the (somewhat valid) issue that this would completely screw over some rocket/HAM users ?
Well, there's some Caldari ships (and not only Caldari ships) that have rocket/HAM range bonuses.
Crow and Hawk (putting it now at 15km, would finally have to get in 7.5km range or use javs, it COULD be a problem, but then again, Crow is definetely overpowered, and Hawk is meh-okish but still)... Condor is the "wtf who uses this" ship, so doesn't really matter... still, double DPS with rockets ? HELL YEAH.
Flycatcher (which has more than enough speed and could use the HUGE DPS increase quite nicely)
Caracal (and all variants, esp. Cerberus with double range bonus), which would get 15km (and 22.5km respectively), and a 50% extra DPS would be AWESOME
Of course, there's also the Heretic (rockets) and Damnation (HAMs), which COULD both use the extra DPS badly too.
And what's there to speak against the DRAKE getting a makeover from ANY of its two bonuses to a missile velocity bonus ?
For that matter, might as well do the same for the Nighthawk, a lot more bonuses to pick from.
___
Last but not least, you could start readjusting lights/heavies/cruise missiles so that they "make sense" from a short-vs-long range and damage-vs-range ratio similar to the NEWLY changed rockets/HAMs/torpedoes the same way as how blasters/rails, pulses/beams and ACs/arties fit in here.
"Could" being the operative word here. As in, not absolutely necessary, but nice to.
For starters, you could HEAVILY tweak their flight speed upwards and flight time downwards, before anything else.
Second, you could increase their base damage but decrease launcher RoF (not necessarily completely proportional to current value, but in line with what's been said so far).
And with that, I'm done for now 
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:32:00 -
[2]
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:50:00 -
[3]
Well, it's either that or slightly renerf torps.
They have to fall in-line with eachother.
I'm perfectly content with either approach...
_
1|2|3 |
Talthrus
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:51:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Talthrus on 18/10/2007 04:52:06
 Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Edit: 
Originally by:
Well, it's either that or slightly renerf torps.
They have to fall in-line with eachother.
I'm perfectly content with either approach...
----------------------
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 05:25:00 -
[5]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/10/2007 05:29:15
Edited by: MotherMoon on 18/10/2007 05:28:44
have you looked at tracking speed progression? I'm sure CCP factor this in.
Quote:
"So then, please explain to me like I'm the crazy person everybody seems to think I am, what makes rockets/HAMs ok right now, but a similar range/damage progression torpedo would totally break ?
Why SHOULDN'T rockets/HAMs/torpedoes be "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is ?
_"
what other weapons systems? turrets?
they are missiles.
they aren't turrents.
and thus the reason why they don't have to "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is becuase they aren't every other weapon system in eve.
also while were at it let us look at smartbombs compared to fitting and damage output compared to the range thewy progress in.
is that the same as every other weapon system??
I don't see what's wrong with 10km/20km/30km
30km is damn father than my autocannons
Quote:
flight speed upwards and flight time downwards
I do agree with this however :)
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Icome4u
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 08:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
Goonswarm at its smartest, right there
______
Originally by: Vyger
If I lose connection while walking around a station will my avatar run off in a random direction and go hide in a corner? 
|
Xenny Lee
Minmatar
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:23:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Xenny Lee on 18/10/2007 09:23:50
Just like to point out, you seem to be missing the fact that the torps will have 520 explosion sig up from 400 not even a 3rd of the range they go now and basically become a form of blasters which have ridiculously low range and need painters to be effective, LOTS of painters for cruisers forget frigs. Im preety sure a huginn mixed with a bunch of ravens with sensorboosters sitting on a gate will do wonders, but blow up or make the huginn run away and the ravens dps drops.
Theirs no realistic way you can increase the maximum potential volley damage with explosion radius alone without making them ridiculous against larger ships. (Think drake with higher dps hams spewing at Battleships)
You could reduce the range on them to say compensate and give em more volley damage as a result... but would you really want to drop even more range. While comparing them to other forms of turrets to be honest is just not fair seeing as how missiles started out as a secondary weapon system.
|
Igualmentedos
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:28:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
Wrong.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 12:36:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 12:36:16
Hey, what do you know, heavies and lights need a boost too !
Like, taking the current stats of cruise (300 ammo damage, 20 sec flight time) and CML-II (17.6 RoF)...
...what do you know, the ammo DOES indeed follow both range (flight time) and damage x2 rule perfectly !
What about launchers RoF then ?
Well, not THAT bad... HML-IIs should be 11.7 Rof (instead of current 12), and SML-II should be 7.8 Rof (instead of current 12)... AML-IIs should probably be 6.25 RoF then (instead of current 9.6).
_
1|2|3 |
Transcendant One
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 13:29:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Not at the same time. Try fitting a HAM2 Nighthawk and then come back. Hint: look at the pg reqs of hams.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:40:00 -
[11]
Also, let's not foget crappy mass (and hence speed/agility) of NH compared to other field CSs, or the fact you can't effectively neutralize the enemy's speed and/or sig advantage (if any) when you're using HAMs unless you fit painters (usually not needed, true) and manage to get him into web range (but then again, you have to HAVE a web first, and also a MWD of course, don't forget a scram too, which leaves you with 2 midslots for a shieldtank... let alone the issues of GETTING into web range due to crappy speed), let alone the insane fiting requirements on HAML-IIs compared to available PG on the NH, and so on and so forth.
So, yeah, ON PAPER, it could work with HAMs acceptably.
In practice however, it positively and totally sucks compared to just about any other field command ship when used in PvP.
Due to the vast number of reasons explained above.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:48:00 -
[12]
Lord Akita, please stop. Have you even bothered to look at what this will do to the ships?
|
maarud
Knight of Anubis
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 14:48:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Talthrus
Edited by: Talthrus on 18/10/2007 04:52:06
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Edit:
Originally by:
Well, it's either that or slightly renerf torps.
They have to fall in-line with eachother.
I'm perfectly content with either approach...
600 DPS with Hams?! Well, I suppose its close to the 570 DPS I get with T2 lauchers and T2 Rage ammo... While thats okay, it's not fantastic.
Tbh, HAM launchers need a PG decrease. I need to fit 2x RCU II's to the NH to get it to fit HAM Launchers. Otherwise I suppose they are okay.
Maarud.
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
<t20> i'd rather have a python in my pants than a sleipnir |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 15:47:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Goumindong
Lord Akita, please stop. Have you even bothered to look at what this will do to the ships?
Actually, I did. Have you ?
Let's see... shortest-range highest-damage weapon systems around ? CHECK.
Longest-range, lowest-damage weapon systems around ? With a crippling delay in delivery ? DOUBLE CHECK.
One for PvP, other for PvE ? Hell check.
Makes all missile-using boats feasable in PvP ? Rain check, for some... regular check, for most.
_
1|2|3 |
Riddick Valer
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 16:46:00 -
[15]
No need to change damage much. (though rockets could use some +damage and slower ROF).
If you just change the fitting reqs on HAMS and Torps I'd be happy. It would be nice to be able to fit then along with a MWD without having to totally gimp my setup. I'm not saying they should be less then the long range systems (they don't have to be like turrets), but if the difference was halved it would make missiles ships a lot more viable.
|
Vulture Virtue
Caldari
Pyrrhus Sicarii
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 17:13:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
So other races field command ships doing upwards 1000 dps is okay then? Tell me how it's balanced that the NH barely competes in damage with other race's HACs.
|
Jessica Molla
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 17:58:00 -
[17]
you guys keep on whining...just dont forget that your missies hit every single time...while my blasters dont...that kinda makes up for the damage difference
cheers
|
Captain Rius
ELITE SUPPORT SERVICE
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:12:00 -
[18]
Something of this sort would be nice, caladri for pvp!
/signed
~~
-Rius |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:16:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 13:46:24
stuff about 2 x rule
explosion velocity and explosion radius do not follow this formula..
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Goumindong
Lord Akita, please stop. Have you even bothered to look at what this will do to the ships?
Actually, I did. Have you ?
Let's see... shortest-range highest-damage weapon systems around ? CHECK.
Longest-range, lowest-damage weapon systems around ? With a crippling delay in delivery ? DOUBLE CHECK.
One for PvP, other for PvE ? Hell check.
Makes all missile-using boats feasable in PvP ? Rain check, for some... regular check, for most.
I am not sure how 10 is lower than 3, or 7.5 for that matter, but i guess they have good drugs where you reside.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 18:55:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Transcendant One
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
Not at the same time. Try fitting a HAM2 Nighthawk and then come back. Hint: look at the pg reqs of hams.
Get more skill? Full rack of HAM2 is quite *****ble.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vulture Virtue
Originally by: Talthrus
This. Seriously... For example, the Nighthawk already does 600 DPS with HAMs and is able to tank way more than any armor tanker in its class. Rockets and HAMs are completely fine as they are.
So other races field command ships doing upwards 1000 dps is okay then? Tell me how it's balanced that the NH barely competes in damage with other race's HACs.
How about no?
What 1000dps you talking about?
Absolution 800dps
Astarte around 900dps
Sleip around 900dps
Nighthawk around 770dps
This is max skills, full drone bays included and full racks + missiles to fill empty high slots. In reality these are mostly much lower.
You want a no tracking, long range weaponry like missiles to do 900dps?
Good thing you arent involved in the balancing team.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Goumindong
I am not sure how 10 is lower than 3, or 7.5 for that matter, but i guess they have good drugs where you reside.
When posting those numbers, it would be helpful to have an unit of measure attached to it (like "km" for instance) and explain which number pairs with what ship, weapon or whatnot (like "10km actual rocket range now, 7.5km rocket range from crow with proposed changes").
_
1|2|3 |
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:35:00 -
[24]
This is a bizarre suggestion. You balance things by examining their effects in game, not by making the numbers look pretty.
The damage/ROF/range of HAMs and rockets are balanced very well (although their PG and CPU maybe less so), and the new torps will be brought into line in a similar fashion - defined by in-game effects, not by nice patterns in sets of numbers.
If an additional 1 km of range in a weapon system had a value that was constant and absolute, then pretty numbers would be the way forward. But the value of that additional 1km of range isn't static - it varies depending on the nature of the weapon and its host ship. Hence, balancing has to be done via an analysis of in-game effects.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:37:00 -
[25]
as your ignored it before I will bring it up again.
does tracking speed follow this?
Do smartbombs?
what about bombs?
Anything on drones?
ou said every weapons system in eve follows this magic rule so please show us that EVERY weapons system needs to be like this. I want to see prove outside of turrets.
I'm not saying your point is valid or not, just to show more information.
yes include fighters in that drone system and make sure you compare the increase in damage and speed compared to the amount of space they take up.
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Exlegion
Caldari
New Light
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:55:00 -
[26]
Wasn't this the reason torps were nerfed to begin with? Because they didn't "follow the progression" on paper? There was nothing wrong with torps. But all of a sudden they're supposed to be short short-range weapons because that's how it is on paper for turrets. Nevermind the fact that Caldari battleships are slow hunks of metal that can't even close the distance. But now it looks good on paper  .
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Guru |
Matyae
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 19:56:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Absolution 800dps
Astarte around 900dps
Sleip around 900dps
Nighthawk around 770dps
Could we please see this 770dps NH setup? Thanks. |
Dragon Lord
Caldari
InQuest Ascension
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 20:28:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Dragon Lord on 18/10/2007 20:31:46
Originally by: Jessica Molla
you guys keep on whining...just dont forget that your missies hit every single time...while my blasters dont...that kinda makes up for the damage difference
cheers
Yes they do but can a torp hit a frig for full dmg? a large blaster can, can a torp do double and quadruple dmg? a gun can. Can a torp hit instantly? a gun can.
People dont tend to mention that the dps calcs for guns are for normal hits, when you start maxing you skills in gunnery you get a lot of good excellent and wreaking hits which skyrockets your dps.
So yes at certain ranges you get next to no dps but once ur in range you will get anywhere from half to 4 times your max dps depending on how good your gunnery is.
now obviously you wont get 4 times more dps than what eft says but you will at times and you will also get less than 50% of ur ef dps, but my point is it averages out so that you do get around the eft number for dps.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 20:36:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dragon Lord
People dont tend to mention that the dps calcs for guns are for normal hits, when you start maxing you skills in gunnery you get a lot of good excellent and wreaking hits which skyrockets your dps.
No, it doesnt, the hit quality formula does not work that way and only serves to reduce dps faster than missiles lose it.
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:34:00 -
[30]
Rockets power comes entirely from the fact that you can hit for full dps out at 8-10km IE the edge of web range. Nerfing range on rockets is dumb. They barely kick ass as a frigate weapon as is, "lets get into small blaster range :D" is just stupid.
--
All these graphs show is how bad the apocalypse is with different kinds of weapons.
-Dr Jigglez |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:38:00 -
[31]
Originally by: MotherMoon
as your ignored it before I will bring it up again.
does tracking speed follow this? Do smartbombs? what about bombs? Anything on drones?
you said every weapons system in eve follows this magic rule so please show us that EVERY weapons system needs to be like this. I want to see prove outside of turrets.
Well, I answered this 4+h ago in the other thread, but here goes again... SLIGHTLY shorter version.
The TWO main concepts of EVE combat damage are:
* larger weapons reach farther, deal more raw damage, hit smaller/faster targets worse
* the longer you reach, the less damage you deal, and vice-versa
Argue as much as you like to the contrary if you like, fact remains, THOSE TWO ARE THE NATURAL LAWS.
Now, you have drones, which don't reach farther, but just deal more damage (while moving slower).
Drones however are a common aspect of most ships in EVE, and for the vast majority of them, only take a secondary (or even tertiary) damage-dealing spot, with the exception of a handfull (really just a handfull) of Gallente ships, where they are more or less in a tie between primary/secondary damage dealers.
You can exclude them from the "balancing act" we were trying to pull here without much problems (quite the contrary, they would only reinforce my argument, since missile-using ships barely do have a noticeable dronebay to begin with).
You also have smartbombs, which ignore everything except proximity, deal damage to everybody in range, no ship whatsoever has any bonuses to them, and all ships without exception can use them.
It would be pretty much pointless to count them in from the viewpoint of this argument, wouldn't you agree ?
SO WHAT'S LEFT THERE ? Well, just turrets and missiles now, isn't it ?
Taking a glimpse at turrets, you see that the previously (countless times mentioned) progression goes always and without exception for the same "relative class size" of turret (e.g. "biggest small/med/large/XL blaster") as x2 ranges, x2 ammo damage, x1.5 RoF.
Not only THAT, but if you compare DPS output vs optimal+falloff as a ratio (same as comparing with optimal*0.5+0.5*falloff, really, for high-damage ammo and 83% of effective DPS), you will notice a pretty CLEAR correlation between them... namely, that a small DPS increase comes as a price for a heavy range decrease (in a previous example, a bit more than +50% DPS for more than *4 range difference, for blasters-vs-rails).
Looking at missiles, we notice that the "guided missile" T1 ammo also follows the same x2 range, x2 ammo damage progression, and to a much lesser/coherent degree the RoF progression.
But that's where the similarities stop... frigate-sized missile systems are completely out of whack with just about everything, assault launchers are weird (to say theleast) and HAMs are pretty much a "wtf" moment.
So, ok, I get it... you DON'T want rockets/lights to fall completely in line with HAMs/heavies and torps/cruise.
But the ammo (i.e. volley) damage and guided ranges at least have to be "ok" here, if nothing else.
I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind the rocket resistance (5km instead of 10km means even with a missile speed bonus you get in web range, so that is OBVIOUSLY a bad thing), but then again you could just reduce that to 7km (10.5 with max range bonus, so out of web range again) and buff the DPS a bit less compared to current values, say just *2 instead of *2.26 as initially proposed.
What's the magical difference between 20 and 10 km HAM range in cruiser/battlecruiser combat, for starters ? It's not like you wouldn't be in scram range already, and the enemy wants to have you in web range anyway (alternatively you can just switch to javs if he doesn't), or fit a single missile flight speed rig and go past that value too. And so on and so forth.
_
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:45:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Dragon Lord
People dont tend to mention that the dps calcs for guns are for normal hits, when you start maxing you skills in gunnery you get a lot of good excellent and wreaking hits which skyrockets your dps.
Actually, nope.
IF you have "near perfect tracking" (i.e. nearly 100% chance to hit), damage bonuses are spread evenly between x0.5 and x1.5 of "normal" damage, and 1% of your shots are x3 damage wreckings.
At nearly 100% chance to hit, you deal on average roughly 102% of your "normal" damage.
NO HIT EVER gets more than x3 damage, and the average (if you shoot long enough) is never above 102% normal damage, in ideal circumstances.
Originally by: Julius Romanus
Rockets power comes entirely from the fact that you can hit for full dps out at 8-10km IE the edge of web range. Nerfing range on rockets is dumb. They barely kick ass as a frigate weapon as is, "lets get into small blaster range :D" is just stupid.
So, if rockets would deal MORE damage as small blasters, but have a shorter range as small blasters... would you still say the same, or would you say the exact opposite, namely "using small blasters ? well, stay the hell away from rocket range them, getting closer would be just stupid".
I fail to see how this is an argument for anything but "hello, I can't grasp the concept of higher damage shorter range always needing to apply regardless of type of weapon used".
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 21:57:00 -
[33]
You cant make rockets have less range than small blasters, they going to have a .5km range?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 22:31:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Goumindong
You cant make rockets have less range than small blasters, they going to have a .5km range?
All guns still deal around 83% of their "nominal" damage at optimal+0.5*falloff, and roughly 50% at optimal+falloff.
At max skills, a Light Neutron Blaster has 2250m optimal and 3125m falloff.
With Antimatter Charge S, that's 1125m optimal + 1562m half falloff, for a 2687m range with 83% DPS, or 4250m w/50% DPS.
With Iron Charge S, it becomes 3600m optimal and same 1562m half falloff, 5162m range w/83% DPS, or 7725m w/50% DPS.
AM-S DPS is *2.4 of Iron-S DPS, and the "effective" range of Iron-S is roughly *1.9 that of AM-S.
Lead-S you get 3812m w/83% DPS and 5375m w/50% DPS.
Lead-S DPS is *1.6 of Iron-S, effective range ratio of Iron roughly *1.35 vs Lead.
Considering rockets are a "do or die" situation, I believe even an optimal+falloff effective range equalisation would be sufficient here... so, at a roughly 5km base maxreach, I'd fully expect them to deal roughly just as much DPS as a Light Neutron with Lead at similar skill levels, if not even slightly more.
_
1|2|3 |
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 01:12:00 -
[35]
Edited by: d026 on 19/10/2007 01:15:29
nevermind.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 01:45:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
|
Swamp Ziro
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 01:59:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
where are you getting those? Isn't the definition of falloff itself "50% to hit chance at optimal+falloff" ?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 02:04:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Goumindong on 19/10/2007 02:05:09
Originally by: Swamp Ziro
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
where are you getting those? Isn't the definition of falloff itself "50% to hit chance at optimal+falloff" ?
I am running them through the average hit quality formula.
50% hit chance = about 40% real dps.
|
Swamp Ziro
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 02:08:00 -
[39]
Just so I have this straight(since i dont have that formula):
Optimall+falloff range = 50% to hit chance, but every hit also has some penalty on the quality, resulting in that 39.5% figure of expected damage?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 02:14:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Swamp Ziro
Just so I have this straight(since i dont have that formula):
Optimall+falloff range = 50% to hit chance, but every hit also has some penalty on the quality, resulting in that 39.5% figure of expected damage?
Yes. Running naughty boys spreadsheet, run the "variable" damage calcs to get the real numbers.
Alternatly search SHC for the thread where we figured it all out.
|
Andreya
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 04:24:00 -
[41]
DEVS, javelin rockets and HAMS explosive radius are not correct, Hams javelins have a higher explo radius than the javelin rockets! plz investigate it, much appreciated
Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything. |
Pudnucker
Boennerup Banden
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 04:53:00 -
[42]
1) Turrets are not missile launchers. Missile launchers are not Turrets.
2) Different race's ships have different stats; so why shouldn't weaponry vary? This isn't a ****ty RTS where every side has the same unit that just looks different.
3) You usually come up with a high standard of entertaining forum material but this latest crusade of yours represents a new nadir. The basis of your argument is flawed and your ideas in this regard would contribute nothing worthwhile to the game overall.
4) Just because you think something should be doesn't mean other people do. Remember that you're not a member of the RAND Corporation here to advise CCP. You're just a player. Get some perspective, please.
Pud out, word.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 05:29:00 -
[43]
Quote:
It would be pretty much pointless to count them in from the viewpoint of this argument, wouldn't you agree ?
yes.
However i still think you should look at tracking speed and the fact that missiles ignore tracking speed.
p.s.(didn't this all come form you saying torp should be nerfed but have as much of a range decrease??)
-----------------------------------
I'm working my way through college
target CCP
need...more room... |
Pudnucker
Boennerup Banden
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 05:45:00 -
[44]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Quote:
It would be pretty much pointless to count them in from the viewpoint of this argument, wouldn't you agree ?
...p.s.(didn't this all come form you saying torp should be nerfed but have as much of a range decrease??)...
No, it came from him firstly stating that Torps need a 60km range and later that every weapon in Eve, regardless of the difference, should have a twofold scale applied as the size increases, hence the rocket/HAM spam.
|
Chavu
Ganja Labs
Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 07:48:00 -
[45]
Hey Goumindong, you should join the rest of us in just ignoring Akita T's relentless whining.
She makes a post every few months or so about how Caldari missile PvP is broken, posts some wrong information and then writes a "solution" that would make missiles completely overpowered.
Originally by: Akita T
Last but not least, you could start readjusting lights/heavies/cruise missiles so that they "make sense" from a short-vs-long range and damage-vs-range ratio similar to the NEWLY changed rockets/HAMs/torpedoes the same way as how blasters/rails, pulses/beams and ACs/arties fit in here.
"Could" being the operative word here. As in, not absolutely necessary, but nice to.
The whole post is about how you want short range missiles to follow turrets, and then you don't want long range missiles to follow turrets. That's fair? Good god. Stop posting. Not balanced. 2 word. Sentences own.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.19 12:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
...
1/2 falloff = 77.62% of expected damage before tracking
Falloff = 39.5% of expected damage before tracking
At least get the numbers right before balancing.
Oh, you are right here... I was ignoring the quality of hits issue I helped put into a formula (Kazuo Ishiguro had the raw data, I helped a bit, Naughty Boy integrated it into his spreadsheet later on). My bad.
Still doesn't change much of what's been said so far, the only difference is that insetad of calculating for optimal+falloff you calc for optimal+2/3*falloff... which is not all that huge of a difference, now is it ?
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 01:39:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Akita T
i helped
That is funny, I dont remember you helping, who are you on scrapheap?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:17:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 02:26:12
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
i helped
That is funny, I dont remember you helping, who are you on scrapheap?
I don't have a scrapheap account. I just read it once in a while. Not often tho'.
Linkage
Helped. Not VERY much, but helped nevertheless.
Enough to KNOW it well enough anyway. But apparently not to remember it when it matters.
Partially on this forum (see link in linked thread), partially in-game convos with Ishiguro.
The funny thing is you replied in those thrads too, but you don't seem to remember that either
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 02:41:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 02:29:52
Originally by: Goumindong
That is funny, I dont remember you helping, who are you on scrapheap?
I don't have a scrapheap account. I just read it once in a while. Not often tho'.
Linkage
Helped. Not much, but helped nevertheless.
Partially on this forum (see link in linked thread), partially in-game convos with Ishiguro.
Helped enough to KNOW it well anyway. But apparently not to remember it when it matters.
The funny thing is you replied to me in the thread too, but you don't seem to remember that either
I replied to you saying "it exists, i think, but i think we should change the entirety of tracking", not to you doing any actual work.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 03:04:00 -
[50]
Not that it matters anyway... back on the ACTUAL issue at hand.
So, ok, maybe I exagerated in the "rocket/HAM DPS buff, range nerf" department with my initial suggestion.
Still... let's have some very direct and relatively simple questions.
Do you believe that rockets are fine in PvP just the way they are now, when comparing ships able to use rockets with similar ships that are using turrets ?
I mean, not just the Crow and Vengeance, but ALL ships that actually are designed for missile use... compared to similar ships using guns.
Same question/request for HAMs, on ships designed for missile use, compared to similar class gunboats... as PvP results, of course, and don't just use the Sacrilege as example.
Now, OTHER than Raven and Typhoon (out of currently existing ships), was there any OTHER good reason to change Torpedoes the way they were changed, for PvP use ?
And finally, IF you conclude that rockets/HAMs aren't quite as good (relatively speaking) as the new torps when compared to similar sized weapon systems... why shouldn't the exact same reasoning apply to "HAMs/rockets need a similar change too" ? Or would you rather see the torp PvP-buff, PvE-nerf reversed ?
You can't both eat your cake then still have it too, you know ?
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:01:00 -
[51]
I pretty much dont see a problem with rockets and ham dps, the only issue i have with missiles is ham/siege fitting and long range missile speed/flight time.
|
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 06:54:00 -
[52]
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 07:11:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
Hmm, let's try this...
Lol blasters should do laser level damage ? That's pretty funny. Blasters barely use half the cap, and have insane base tracking that doesn't even begin to compare to pulses.
The thought of Deimos doing over 1k DPS is just
Yeah I know, I was intentionally being facetious, just to drive a point home.
_
1|2|3 |
Gamesguy
Amarr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 11:12:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 07:28:59
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
Hmm, let's try this...
Lol blasters should do laser level damage ? That's pretty funny. Blasters barely use half the cap, and have insane base tracking that doesn't even begin to compare to pulses.
The thought of Deimos doing over 1k DPS is just
Yeah I know, I was intentionally being facetious, just to drive a point home.
Now you're being ********. Neutron blasters have a 16% dps advantage over pulse lasers, in return they have around 1/5 the optimal. In addition, blasters use about as much cap as pulse lasers with the relevant skill at 5.
HAMs dont use cap at all, have much longer range than blasters, and dont have problems with tracking ever(at any speed where their exp velocity would be significant factor blasters and pulse lasers wont hit either).
Btw, deimos does so much dps is because of its 5 medium drones. We can argue about how the zealot isnt up to par and should get 5 turrets, but that has nothing to do with how overpowered a sacriledge doing 700 dps would be.
|
Kaleidon Reth
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:20:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Kaleidon Reth on 20/10/2007 12:22:49
Originally by: Akita T
The TWO main concepts of EVE combat damage are:
* larger weapons reach farther, deal more raw damage, hit smaller/faster targets worse
* the longer you reach, the less damage you deal, and vice-versa
Argue as much as you like to the contrary if you like, fact remains, THOSE TWO ARE THE NATURAL LAWS.
You argue in circles, you claim that they are the natural laws because that is how turrets operate and then you claim that because rockets don't follow the natural law of other weapons(in reality: only turrets) they should be changed. You suffer from a bad case of "turrets are the normal weapon"-disease.
Why does longer range HAVE to mean lower dmg? You completely fail to recognize that there are a number of variables that you could fiddle with to allow for longer ranges. Why not long range, high dmg but fiddle around with the explotion velocity and radius to makes these weapons useless against anything that isn't a carrier or larger (I'm not talking about rockets here mind you)?
Instead of thinking up ways of making every weapons system work exactly the same way why don't you put some of that brainpower into figuring out good ways of making each weapons system unique, so that there is actually a reason to have several different systems?
Your argument is flawed in it's entirety because you assume a couple of things that just don't make sense:
1)Guns are the only normal weapons while all other systems are deviating systems (not-normal)
2)All weapons systems should be "normal" (aka like guns)
3)Normal is good (diversity is bad)
These three form your "unconscious" argumentation, in the way that you claim that there is a "natural law" in a space video game that dictates how things "should" be, you arrive at this "law" by looking at only guns because of (1). Then you go on to claim:
4)The only factor important is that range and damage should stand in relative proportion to each other, and because of (1)-(3) you propose to make rockets adhere to this system since it is "normal"
5)All factors not goverend by (4) such as velocity, explosion velocity, flight time, ability to deal different kinds of dmg, explotion radius, tracking, countermeasures abillity(defender missiles/tracking disruption/dampening), abillity to blindfire and dozens of other factors are not important
In other words, you look at one relation on one weapons system, and claim that because this relation looks so and so then that is THE natural law. It's like looking at small and large smartbombs and claiming that the damage scaling from small to large that is present in a smartbomb should govern every scaling of damage in the game. And you know whats funny? Nothing in this whole post matters, becasue the concept of a "natural law" in a videogame is laughable and most players, unlike you, crave diversity, not adherence to limiting "laws of the videogame".
|
Kaleidon Reth
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:22:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Akita T
"hello, I can't grasp the concept of higher damage shorter range always needing to apply regardless of type of weapon used".
Tell me again where you made a solid argument for why it has to? Because I can't seem to find it.
|
Pesadel0
Ordem dos Templarios
Pax Atlantis
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 12:39:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Icome4u
Originally by: Goumindong
So ccp overpowers torps and intead of fixing them you want to overpower hams and rockets?
Goonswarm at its smartest, right there
Erm ,the goon is right is this particular line of tough.
|
Myra2007
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 16:37:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Now you're being ********. Neutron blasters have a 16% dps advantage over pulse lasers, in return they have around 1/5 the optimal. In addition, blasters use about as much cap as pulse lasers with the relevant skill at 5.
Although i agree to your point i have to nitpick a bit. If we are counting ship bonuses when comparing weapons then we should include *all* ship bonuses. So lasers may use about the same cap as gallente with the typical ship skill at lvl5, but in that case the difference in dmg will be much higher than 16% due to the +25% dmg for the gallente ship skill level. (~45% if i am not mistaken)
Arguably some amarr ships do have a dmg or rof bonus which makes it more difficult. Its just not fair to compare two ships and account for only one bonus on one ship and both on the other. So imo either leave skills out or make a more detailed, case-for-case analysis.
However i don't see a reason why missiles should do that without any of the drawbacks turrets have either.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.20 18:12:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Akita T
[Then what about rockets ?
Would you say a rocket Hawk stands a chance against a blaster Enyo ?
Or that a rocket Kestrel will ever prevail over a blaster Incursus ?
What about a Merlin vs Tristan fight ?
How about a rocket Flycatcher vs a blaster Eris, or god forbid, an AC Sabre ?
All depends on starting range and how aggressive the blaster pilots are.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 02:10:00 -
[60]
Well, fine, I give up, all missiles are fine, ok ?
Have fun with not using any of'em (succesfully) in actual (you know, as in "not on paper") PvP from any Caldari ships, with the exception (maybe) of torpedoes from a Raven/Golem.
Sheesh.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 02:35:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Akita T
Well, fine, I give up, all missiles are fine, ok ?
Have fun with not using any of'em (succesfully) in actual (you know, as in "not on paper") PvP from any Caldari ships, with the exception (maybe) of torpedoes from a Raven/Golem.
Sheesh.
No, not all missiles are fine, they just arent nearly as bad as you make them out to be, and can be fixed without doing things to their dps.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 03:43:00 -
[62]
TBFH, I wouldn't mind if HAML-IIs get changed to 33tf/46MW and nothing else gets changed on them
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 03:53:00 -
[63]
46 is a tad low, try 80 as a better number.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 05:07:00 -
[64]
Well, I was merely comparing fiting start of rocket launchers with standards, then applying same ratio to HAML/HAMs... since rocket/standard DPS is +25%, same as HAMs/Heavies DPS difference (and range difference for that matter... same flight speed for rockets/HAMs and lights/heavies, double flight time for hams/heavies).
Well, ok, I guess it would also work fine enough even with something like 44 tf and 88 MW for HAML-IIs.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 05:28:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Akita T
Well, I was merely comparing fiting start of rocket launchers with standards, then applying same ratio to HAML/HAMs... since rocket/standard DPS is +25%, same as HAMs/Heavies DPS difference (and range difference for that matter... same flight speed for rockets/HAMs and lights/heavies, double flight time for hams/heavies).
Well, ok, I guess it would also work fine enough even with something like 44 tf and 88 MW for HAML-IIs.
That doesnt work due to the differences in ancillary modules for different sized ships and the larger discrepency between single unit changes at small sizes.
|
Ed Kraka
Racketeers
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 11:53:00 -
[66]
Yes boost to missiles would be great, my Cerb would kill miners even faster
Tactical Mastermind |
madaluap
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 17:51:00 -
[67]
Edited by: madaluap on 21/10/2007 17:51:30
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 20/10/2007 07:28:59
Originally by: Gamesguy
Lol hams should do blaster level damage? Thats pretty funny. Hams dont use cap, null doesnt give blasters 80km range, and hams dont have tracking problems at extremely close range.
The thought of a sacriledge doing 700 dps is just.
Hmm, let's try this...
Lol blasters should do laser level damage ? That's pretty funny. Blasters barely use half the cap, and have insane base tracking that doesn't even begin to compare to pulses.
The thought of Deimos doing over 1k DPS is just
Yeah I know, I was intentionally being facetious, just to drive a point home.
Originally by: Goumindong
I pretty much dont see a problem with rockets and ham dps, the only issue i have with missiles is ham/siege fitting and long range missile speed/flight time.
Ok, let's assume for a moment that HAMs would be fine, if the fiting requirements would be more rocket-launcher-like (so that ships like Caracal/Cerberus/Drake/Nighthawk could actually fit them without crippling themselves)... which I tend to partially agree with. The main point of contention here would be huge sig and low speed of ships in question compared to pretty much every other ship, but that's not a weapon system issue, so let's skip that part.
Then what about rockets ?
Would you say a rocket Hawk stands a chance against a blaster Enyo ?
Or that a rocket Kestrel will ever prevail over a blaster Incursus ?
What about a Merlin vs Tristan fight ?
How about a rocket Flycatcher vs a blaster Eris, or god forbid, an AC Sabre ?
Just reading throught this thread but: Most amarr ships have a capbonus. For example the armageddon uses 1 more cap/s on each gun and it doesnt require a mwd tbh. Quite whining about missiles, you are the kind of person ruining EvE. What, who, why?:
Finnally CCP makes torps a good weapon for pvp and instead of simply replying with: "yay! \o/" you start whining about other (non broken) weapontypes. You dont take into account that they do not use cap, that in order for a astarte to deal 900 DPS its needs to shove its guns up your ass and needs to hang fairly still at the same time. The risk of overshooting a target are high aswell, you try to avoid, but its not that easy.
Than you forget that small ships move faster, so they dont need this kind of tweaking tbh. I get the strong suspicion its heading the way of the old days where you were required to drop out below a certain range from a raven, else it was gonna be close. This requires a plate nerf though.
These changes are nothing but goodness, another point you seem to be forgetting. I rather have a little unbalance between weapontypes to make them balanced. But that probably doesnt make sense to you, everything has to follow the sames lines, same ****.
You are forcing people into your opinion. Showing your opinion fine, but dont use these boards are youre personal EVE_BALANCE_PROGRAM.EXE
_________________________________________________
Breetime
A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:39:00 -
[68]
Originally by: madaluap
Finnally CCP makes torps a good weapon for pvp and instead of simply replying with: "yay! \o/" you start whining about other (non broken) weapontypes. You dont take into account that they do not use cap, that in order for a astarte to deal 900 DPS its needs to shove its guns up your ass and needs to hang fairly still at the same time.
These changes are nothing but goodness, another point you seem to be forgetting. I rather have a little unbalance between weapontypes to make them balanced. But that probably doesnt make sense to you, everything has to follow the sames lines, same ****. You are forcing people into your opinion. Showing your opinion fine, but dont use these boards are youre personal EVE_BALANCE_PROGRAM.EXE
Oh, seriously ? So now you go around saying that somehow TORPEDOES DON'T use capacitor ?
Or at least that's what you just said seems to imply, from a logical standpoint.
No, the Astarte DOESN'T need to "hang fairly still", it just needs to keep a low enough transversal for its guns to hit... you know, those "best tracking of all the guns" weapons ?
If YOU personally hold still in a blasterboat jammed into the other person's ship by simply pressing the "approach" button (like I've seen many idiots doing on SiSi with pretty much every blasterboat) and nothing else, like, of, for instance KNOWING what transversal you can still keep at what range to still get a near-maximum hit effectiveness but minimize the other's damage on you, then I feel sorry for even trying to explain it to you.
Again, have I said anything so far about "damage/range/blahblahstuff" in THIS thread regarding the "new" torpedoes ? I doubt that.
What I HAVE said however is that IF the torpedo change is supposed to be GOOD AND NEEDED for PvP (and very bad for PvE, you can't deny that either), then WHY THE HELL aren't the rest of the shortrange missiles getting the same kind of treatment ?
We went through range issues (web range, blaster range, etc), we went through DPS issues (nah they're fine no they aren't stfu etc), through fiting issues even... we went through a lot of OTHER stuff, and the only general consensus is that for SOME reason, everybody flaming THIS idea seems to think rockets and HAMs are fine, no changes are needed, yet somehow torpedoes were crippled and needed that change very very much.
And the basic idea behind all those flames was "because I think so it would be better".
Not much else.
Let's put it this way : this is a SLIGHT torpedo buff for PvP, targetted almost exclusively at Raven users that WANT to use them in PvP (and a boost to Typhoon users that frankly didn't actually needed it), they are still underpowered compared to other weapon systems in pretty much every way except ACTIVE tanking ability (i.e. weaker in DPS and fitings), when we all know it's BUFFER that matters most in current-day PvP, not DPS tank... yet everybody sits here hooray-ing the minor improvement in Raven combat ability (still a "oooh, stuff to kill yay" kind of target) when it's the SHIP that's more lacking in PvP regards NOT the weapon system itself so much.
IS the torpedo change for the better for Raven PVP ? YES IT IS. Is it the BEST possible one ? HELL NO.
You want to know what *I* would have done ? +40 CPU and +750 MW on the Raven, +1 launcher slots, change +10% missile flight speed with +5% kin torp/cruise damage, and leave the torpedoes themselves alone.
Then I would have debuffed the torpedo resistance to defenders back to cruise missile levels, to cripple them slightly in PvE.
Oh, you don't like that ?
Well, tough luck, I don't like either of them, not even what I just proposed in the above paragraph.
If I'll ever use torps in PvP, either the current ones OR the new ones, it will be from a TYPHOON, not from a freaking Raven.
_
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:47:00 -
[69]
You know, the more I reread things in here the more convinced of some thing I am.
For starters, that people that actually applaud the torpedo change are either clueless wannabe Raven torp users, cunning Typhoon pilots, and people that are likely to ENCOUNTER torpedo Ravens.
Second, that people just lost all track of logic and reasoning, and that they easily accept a force-fed-by-the-devs idea, but refuse to apply the same basic rules of the force-fed idea to ANYTHING ELSE, making up fantasy reasons why that wouldn't or couldn't possibly work, yet the apply the backwards reasoning when looking at torpedoes.
Finally, that there's no point arguing balance, because people confuse balance with identity.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:56:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Akita T
ITT Akita T doesnt use turrets
1. You dont press approach in a blaster boat, that will put you under tracking threshold. As you get very close any movement causes you to miss. If you get too close you do 0 dps period.
2. You press "keep at range" which lowers your transversal because orbiting kills angular that will already be very high due to the short ranges. You only ever orbit larger ships than you and even then it allows them to pull away due to the nature of velocity changes in eve.
3. This is a huge ******* torpedo buff. Its 19.5% more DPS at the miniumum with an increase in flight speed! Holy goodness can you increase pulse DPS by 20% please? The 6 torps with an ROF bonus do MORE dps than 7 Megapulses with an ROF bonus with twice the range and fewer drawbacks! Its freaking insane. And ravens can fit a similar passive tank to a geddon!
4. If this is a small buff to torp PvP then Geddons and Abaddons must be ******* useless in small gang pvp.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 18:57:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Akita T
Let's put it this way : this is a SLIGHT torpedo buff for PvP, targetted almost exclusively at Raven users that WANT to use them in PvP (and a boost to Typhoon users that frankly didn't actually needed it), they are still underpowered compared to other weapon systems in pretty much every way except ACTIVE tanking ability (i.e. weaker in DPS and fitings), when we all know it's BUFFER that matters most in current-day PvP, not DPS tank... yet everybody sits here hooray-ing the minor improvement in Raven combat ability (still a "oooh, stuff to kill yay" kind of target) when it's the SHIP that's more lacking in PvP regards NOT the weapon system itself so much.
IS the torpedo change for the better for Raven PVP ? YES IT IS. Is it the BEST possible one ?
sorry but get a clue... raven fields exactely the same effective hp buffer as a plated gank neutronmega while doing higher dps from his main weaponery and on top of that being faster to! i dont understand you..
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 11:21:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Akita T
ITT Akita T doesnt use turrets
1. You dont press approach in a blaster boat, that will put you under tracking threshold. As you get very close any movement causes you to miss. If you get too close you do 0 dps period.
2. You press "keep at range" which lowers your transversal because orbiting kills angular that will already be very high due to the short ranges. You only ever orbit larger ships than you and even then it allows them to pull away due to the nature of velocity changes in eve.
I see you missed the part saying "like I've seen idiots on SiSi do". Re-check what I just said, you will notice upon careful reading that you just said the exact same thing that I did.
Originally by: Goumindong
3. This is a huge ******* torpedo buff. Its 19.5% more DPS at the miniumum with an increase in flight speed! Holy goodness can you increase pulse DPS by 20% please? The 6 torps with an ROF bonus do MORE dps than 7 Megapulses with an ROF bonus with twice the range and fewer drawbacks! Its freaking insane. And ravens can fit a similar passive tank to a geddon!
4. If this is a small buff to torp PvP then Geddons and Abaddons must be ******* useless in small gang pvp.
That only means Amarr is even more screwed-up at the moment as Caldari, but that comes as absolutely no surprise, now does it ? Why don't you compare it to blasters and autocannons instead ? Oh, well, whatever, boost Amarr
Originally by: d026
sorry but get a clue... raven fields exactely the same effective hp buffer as a plated gank neutronmega while doing higher dps from his main weaponery and on top of that being faster to! i dont understand you..
Oh, *really* ?
Full fitting, tactics used, DPS and time to death or STFU.
A TRIPLE-armor-rig Megathron has roughly the same MWD speed as a Raven, yeah, I can agree with *that*.
With 3 trimarks, a plate, dc/eanm/eanm you do get roughly the same total buffer HP as a Raven with em/inv/inv and 3 exender rigs... but in that case, the Raven't sig is over 518 even at max skills with the MWD off (while the mega's is just 400) and still Mega gets slightly more overall HP (ok, depends on damage type, and Raven can select it, but against the typical incoming damage from Mega, with THAT hardner setup, you still get almost 8% less effective HP... or you can open yourself up to EM damage and throw a LSE-II instead of the EM hardner, in which case you do get 10% better overall HP as the Mega in the exact same situation as before, but you get 546+ m sig radius with MWD off now).
Also, a heavy cap booster doesn't fit alongside 6 siege and tackling gear plus hardners (even if you had a slot, which you don't, you wouldn't have the grid)... so if you plan to KEEP that MWD going to keep you out of the Mega's web but still in torp/scram range... you will find out it runs out of juice in barely over a minute.
Meanwhile, your torps do deal full sig-based damage, but barely half speed-based damage. Your drones might be dealing full damage, but so are his, and he CAN just switch to faction Iron... sure, he gets only around 40% of that 390-ish DPS, but add that to the 5x Ogre IIs and you get 472 DPS still being dealt in this chase scenario, while you don't deal much more yourself.
Once your MWD just switches off from a lack of capacitor (and it will happend soon), he quickly covers the remaining distance and punches you with the full power of faction AM at 1250+ DPS (drone damage included). While you are still doing marginally significant damage, it's nowhere even close to that.
_
1|2|3 |
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 12:34:00 -
[73]
Projected DPS of missiles dosen't mean a whole lot when the missiles themselves have such a large Explosion Radius that the full damage isn't delivered. The New torps won't even be able to do max damage to another Battleship, let alone smaller ships. (at least without a target painter)
The NH isn't exactly in line with other command ships, either. Absolution can get 700+ DPS whilst itself tanking roughly 600 DPS AND has 2 medslots left for Scram/whatever.
Nighthawk on the other hand CAN be made to do 700+ DPS max (albeit only to BCs and up), but tanking more than 420 DPS at the same time with a Warp Disruptor also fitted isn't really possible without Faction/Deadspace gear or a Crystal set, although I guess that's a problem with Shield Tanking in general more than anything.
-----
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:34:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Goumindong on 22/10/2007 13:35:07
Originally by: Akita T
That only means Amarr is even more screwed-up at the moment as Caldari, but that comes as absolutely no surprise, now does it ? Why don't you compare it to blasters and autocannons instead ? Oh, well, whatever, boost Amarr
There is nothing wrong with the Geddon or the Abaddon, they could use a bit more longevity, but on the whole that isnt all that usefull in small gang combat. They are superb battleships in that regard. There isnt anything with the Raven in this type of combat either at the moment, aside from the fact that torps take a bit too much PG.
Quote:
A TRIPLE-armor-rig Megathron has roughly the same MWD speed as a Raven, yeah, I can agree with *that*.
A full tri-makred megathron is slower than an MWDing raven that has no speed mods. And this is at max skills, each trimark reduces speed even more when you dont have top skills. No such problem exists for ravens, who get a sig size increase on their already massive sig which does literally nothing.
Quote:
With 3 trimarks, a plate, dc/eanm/eanm you do get roughly the same total buffer HP as a Raven with em/inv/inv and 3 exender rigs...
That is because the raven is missing an essential module. Its called a damage control, i know you see it because i can see it right there on the megathrons fittings.
Quote:
but, but i cant tackle!
Yea, and when you can ewar or field a large tank that doesnt matter, your job in a gang is to deal dps. Now you can either deal good dps with a great tank, or you can deal good dps with lots of ewar.
This makes you literally the best damage platform in a small gang, able to put down ewar and dps over the entire battle, the two most essential pieces of winning such a battle.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 13:55:00 -
[75]
Originally by: madaluap
For example the armageddon uses 1 more cap/s on each gun and it doesnt require a mwd tbh.
In empire maybe.
Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Projected DPS of missiles dosen't mean a whole lot when the missiles themselves have such a large Explosion Radius that the full damage isn't delivered. The New torps won't even be able to do max damage to another Battleship, let alone smaller ships. (at least without a target painter)
1. Yes it does, especially with this explosion radius.
2. Yes they will.
3. Even when they wont they do 19.5% more dps than they used to
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:05:00 -
[76]
Actually, the Raven gets 1070 m/s, the unplated triple-trimark rigged Megathron gets 1040 m/s at maxskills, with 100MN MWD-II, or 1028 vs 999 with named.
Add one 1600mm RT plate, the Mega gets 983 with Q-Lif, 1024 with T2.
No, I was using a DC-II on the Raven, as opposed to an IFFA-I on the Mega.
Both ships have 3 T2 damage mods. Last low on the Raven was a PDS-II.
Mega also needs a slot-10 3% turret CPU usage implant to fit it all with an empty highslot (7.26 tf leftover with a 5% turret CPU implant instead of the 3%), Raven doesn't need any fiting implants at all.
However, you don't have any significant CPU/MW leftover to fit anything of actual relevance (i.e. not even large ACs, not even if you add a 5% PG implant) in the last two Raven highslots... I slapped in 2x med dim just for kicks, you could put some med guns if you really wanted, not that it would help much.
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:08:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Goumindong on 22/10/2007 14:07:49
So the trimarked megathron IS slower than the raven at max skills...
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:12:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Akita T on 22/10/2007 14:13:45
Take off a trimark, put something else in without a speed penality (like, oh, maybe a hybrid ambit... yeah, it DOES fit, no grid mods needed).
Then Mega is faster (1078 with T2 MWD and a plate) and has roughly the same total raw damage HP tank as the Raven
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:24:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 22/10/2007 14:13:45
Take off a trimark, put something else in without a speed penality (like, oh, maybe a hybrid ambit... yeah, it DOES fit, no grid mods needed).
Then Mega is faster (1078 with T2 MWD and a plate) and has roughly the same total raw damage HP tank as the Raven
No it doesnt, it clearly has less.
Not to mention the whole 25km range advantage the raven has.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 14:39:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Akita T on 22/10/2007 14:45:25
You're happily ignoring the halfed damage from the torps when hitting the full-speed Mega, the double damage of drones (meds vs heavies) and the fact you can just swap to Null on the Mega if the Raven can somehow manage to keep you at range while pursuing... STILL giving the Mega more effective DPS at those specific ranges and specific fits as the Raven.
That exact setup has 745 raw gun DPS plus 316 drone DPS, with 11.25 optimal and 15.625 falloff.
You will be at least at 24km (or else you can just disengage, and I doubt overloading it would hold very well), so you get close to 300 DPS out of the guns and 300+ out of the drones, for 600+ DPS effective... Raven gets 150+ from drones, plus around 400 from torps (remember the speed damage reduction), so, at best, close to 550 DPS (lower as the Mega).
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 15:00:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Goumindong on 22/10/2007 15:02:03
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 22/10/2007 14:47:46
You're happily ignoring the halfed damage from the torps when hitting the full-speed Mega
3/4ths damage. Missile Falloff is 1500, max megathron speed is 1000, exp velocity is 250, 750/3000 = 1/4 == 1/4 of damage reduced.
Quote:
the double damage of drones (meds vs heavies)
2/3rds damage, the mega doesnt get a spare flight of lights, nor should you.[ 60% if the mega gets a flight of lights]
Quote:
and the fact you can just swap to Null on the Mega if the Raven can somehow manage to keep you at range while pursuing
At a 70% damage penalty!
So megathron dps is actually 610, and Raven DPS is actually 918.75[210+3/4x945]
Now when we start looking at DPS against webbed targets in small gangs where the megathron has to reposition every target change and move heavier drones every target change the Raven really steps up.
And that is right now, and right now when the Megathron finnaly does close it doesnt have any specific advantage over the Raven!
I mean come on, you advantage the mega 20% gun dps from falloff[50%=/-50% Damage] and then disadvantage the raven 50% dps from falloff[1000m/s = 1/4 damage reduction, not 1/2 damage reduction]. And ignore the time it takes for both to speed up[where the raven will be doing full dps]. And ignore repositioning dps problems and it STILL looks close.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 18:16:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Akita T on 22/10/2007 18:22:04
Edited by: Akita T on 22/10/2007 18:19:06
Originally by: Goumindong
Missile Falloff is 1500
 *grumble* serves me right for not checking... was that recently changed or did torps always have a 1500m AoEFalloff like most other missiles too ? Why the *bleep* was I convinced it's 750m ?
Ah, right... *RAGE* torps have it 750, normals and javs 1500.
The only others with diff AOEFalloffs than 1500 are rage rockets (1000) and jav rockets (3000).
Hmm, weird that rage/jav heavies don't have it diff. too.
_
1|2|3 |
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:03:00 -
[83]
ok, kiss and makeup time kids, you are increacing the iq levels of EvE-O too much and scaring the younger pilots.
On a more serious matter - I would like the debate to move back into the OPs suggestion about the proposed changes to the other missle classes. While my logical mind is screaming yes. I will have to agree with Guomingdung that if these changes were to be implimented, missle damage would be too high. But a more important fact is: if you take range away from Caldari ships, you are effectivly nurfing them.
I don't think there is much need to explain this small fact but. . .lets say you do implement these changes, then the next thing Caldari will have a problem with is their lack of mid slots for proper tackling gear. As it stands, Caldari ships do not need to fit tackling mods because they should, in theory, not be within tackling ranges. If a ship managges to close the range, then the caldari ship relies on its short but heavy duity tank to escape. Thats the logic.
If missles are made short range. . .then what. . .Amarr become the long range snipers of EvE?
Anyway, the Mega vs. Raven scenario is so over analyzed its not even funney. After the changes, Ravens will have a much better time killing other BBs if the support takes advantage of their dps.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:18:00 -
[84]
The thing is, even with these changes, Caldari has significantly more range than Amarr[nearly twice with short range ammo], which is an issue since long range ammo is all EM and the Caldari get nearly 3/4 of that range with their short range ammo that does more dps than Amarr short range weapons.
As well, you dont have the disadvantages that keep autocannons competitive[tracking, tracking disruptors, low sensor strength, lack of meds, cap use] on the raven and no short range disadvantage.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:03:00 -
[85]
Errr.... just so we're clear here, what exactly are we in agreement with so far ?
That the range and DPS of rockets/HAMs is fine, just that fitting requirements of HAMs is too high, and the old torps were just right ?
That the new torps are overpowered for PvP, with both DPS increase and range decrease too much ?
Or is it the other way around, that the torp change was sorely needed, and even if overpowering, it's not quite that unfair seing how Caldari ships are built ?
And that doing the same type of changes to rockets/HAMs would make them overpowered in PvP, and it's about damn time for Caldari to be the FOTY again ?
You know, clear it up for me, will ya, I'm getting a bit confused here
_
1|2|3 |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 06:41:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Akita T
Errr.... just so we're clear here, what exactly are we in agreement with so far ?
That the range and DPS of rockets/HAMs is fine, just that fitting requirements of HAMs is too high, and the old torps were just right ?
That the new torps are overpowered for PvP, with both DPS increase and range decrease too much ?
Or is it the other way around, that the torp change was sorely needed, and even if overpowering, it's not quite that unfair seing how Caldari ships are built ?
And that doing the same type of changes to rockets/HAMs would make them overpowered in PvP, and it's about damn time for Caldari to be the FOTY again ?
You know, clear it up for me, will ya, I'm getting a bit confused here
Range of rockets/hams is fine, fitting requirements of HAMS/Current sieges is too high. Old torps could have used a bit of range knocked off [but that is a general missile balancing issue with velocities and they arent effective out to that range due to flight time anyway]
New torps are overpowred for pvp, with the DPS much to high for its range
Torp change was not needed, caldari ships have excellent configurations for group pvp, much better than Amarr, Minmitar[cept the maelstrom], and gallente. Lack of solopwnmobile does not said changes. Just like it doesnt warrant changes to the Geddon or Abaddon.
That balancing things to be "the best" is stupid and****goty behaviour that should not be encouraged no matter how long ships have been in the gutter, or how bad people are at fitting their ships and not realizing their full potential.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 18:15:00 -
[87]
So, technically, you agree with me in a backwards way 
The whole point of this thread WAS to show how absurd the torp changes are by a "reduction to the absurd"
And that was "making the same change to rockets/HAMs" 
_
1|2|3 |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |