EVE Search - golem/pally

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

golem/pally

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 01:13:00 - [1] Originally by: SiLeNTFoRCe Golem does need some major assistance. Caldari took a major hit when our Tier 3 BS was the rokh giving us no chance to compete with something like the hyperion, and now they've done it again. A CNR would do much more dmg then the golem and would prolly be a better bet even with the t2 resistance of the golem (which is only going to be a very slight difference after normal tank is applied). The ship may be set rigged for "long" warfare but still wouldn't be worth it in the long run. Doesn't matter how long you can sit there and fight for if you can't kill anything. %5 ROF bonus is deff necessary!!! (dont want to dominate just want to be able to put up a fight) A golem with a 5% rof bonus would do 1500 DPS, capless, out to 30km. Just no. Btw, none of the other marauders do more dps than their t1 counterpart(vargur is basically a maelstrom) except the overpowered Kronos. J
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 07:54:00 - [2] Originally by: Futureface01 Edited by: Futureface01 on 26/10/2007 07:31:59 Originally by: Gamesguy A golem with a 5% rof bonus would do 1500 DPS, capless, out to 30km. Just no. Btw, none of the other marauders do more dps than their t1 counterpart(vargur is basically a maelstrom) except the overpowered Kronos. J Why would you be concerned with Golems in PVP? Someone you know planning on flying a 1bill+ Battleship in PVP? Because that 1500 dps at 30km is 0-DPS in a mission as many NPCs dont fight 30km or less. In the current state of torpedos, even Javelins aint gonna cut it inside a mission, and currently we arent able to just MWD up to an NPC in a mission..... So ATM your "1500 DPS at 30km" can only happen in a PVP encounter, and in PVP thats one HELL of an expensive ship to go out in. Consider also how easy it can be jammed. At best it might be part of a fleet, but is someone really going to choose a Golem in PVP over other 1bil+ isk ships? And the complaining about the Golem is based on a lot of things. One of which being its DPS is far less than the CNR, and about on Par with the standard Raven.....until you factor in NPC defender missiles that is. I'm hoping CCP just didnt consider that and it'll be fixed. Half my corp is going to buy one of the new BS for pvp, so... you don't know wtf you're talkinga about? With a single eccm you kick your sensor str up to 27-28, not hard to jam after all. And a 1500 dps ship that has 30km capless weapons is just plain unbalanced. Complaining about expense seriously means nothing. People took 1bil isk vindicators with 2bil deadspace fittings out to pvp, people took billion+ machs out to pvp. Saying it costs 1 bil and therefore should be stupidly overpowering is the most ******** logic ever.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 07:58:00 - [3] Originally by: Futureface01 Heh I also noticed three posts suggesting the Kronos is OP. Hell I dunno if it is or isnt, I stopped caring when I found out that it was a gunboat. Given Marauders are focused towards mission runners, fear not Kronos-Haters! I doubt that a majority of Mission-running Galentee pilots have their Tech 2 Large Hybrid turrets trained. I'm sure it'll be nerfed to obvilion before my Dominix Drone pilot could get the 3-4 months of gunnery skills to use the Kronos right... Are you insane or something? The Kronos is overpowering for pvp. You seriously cant understand that people are more than willing to fork out a bil for a pwnmobile like the kronos?
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 08:15:00 - [4] Originally by: Axos V Everyone knows Caldaris weakness is pvp... so why not adjust the Golem to be our pvp boat. As for the comments about missiles needing no cap and so high dps would be unfair... Caldari are shield tankers, shield tanks eat cap quicker than armour tanks. Which is a lie. Since shield tanking is actually more cap efficient than armor tanking. Quote: If we fit a cap injector our tank is weakened. Armour tankers can do this without weakening their tank. And shield tankers can add damage mods without weakening their tank, armor tanks cannot, its called a balance. Quote: Thats why Caldaris weapon of choice uses no cap. Yes hybrids use no cap. Quote: So yeah. I request that we have that 5% ROF bonus. Give us a ship that can deal some 1500dps at close range. OR give us a missile that deals extra damage but uses cap to be launched. Either way Caldari need the ability to deal high dps at close range to be on par with Gallante (well closer anyway). 30km is NOT close range, and 1500 dps is a freaking megathron with officer magstab level damage. It order to do this the mega uses quite a bit of cap, and has an optimal of like 3km, in addition to not being able to fit any sort of active tank(best it can do is plates and dcu). With capless weapons you should be comparing to autocannons not blasters or lasers(although autocannons outdamage lasers). With 30km range you should be looking at autocannon with barrage level dmg, when the current raven deals more damage with 6 torps out to 30km than the megathron does with 7 neutron blasters and void at 3km.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 08:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Futureface01 [ Well see there is your logic. ---> @ Gamesguy It does X in PVP so its gonna stay broke in PVE. I guess that leaves me with 2 questions. 1) Why does PVP take priority when it comes to our ship? The only ships optimized for mission runners to ever be released since the games creation? Because eve is a pvp game, the devs have said it many times. Mission running is a side profession that happens to use a lot of the same skills and ships as pvp ships. Quote: 2) Why cant it be fixed in PVE then, and have them come up with a creative way to limit it in PVP? Its just as downright ******** for the ship to do 450-500 dps in PVE as it is for it to to 1500 dps in PVP. (Talking about the Golem, btw... Like I said I havent bothered researching/caring about the Kronos a gunboat) Because Caldari really doesnt need any more help in PvE? Are you seriously whining because you think the golem wont be as good as the CNR at missions? When everyone else absolutely struggles at them? You ever try doing a mission with an apoc instead of a raven? In addition, I'd love to see how the Golem would be worse, since it has 1 more mid plus a free shield boost amp that isnt stacking penalized.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 08:37:00 - [6] Originally by: Futureface01 Originally by: Gamesguy Because Caldari really doesnt need any more help in PvE? Are you seriously whining because you think the golem wont be as good as the CNR at missions? When everyone else absolutely struggles at them? You ever try doing a mission with an apoc instead of a raven? In addition, I'd love to see how the Golem would be worse, since it has 1 more mid plus a free shield boost amp that isnt stacking penalized. Whining, no. Summarizing issues currently on the latest test build as it pertains to mission runners, yes. Why do you attack a straw man? You knew full well the problem with the Golem is "less" DPS in missions, and yet you point to its tank and call me a whiner. Wtf is your problem, seriously? Yeah, the Golem tank rocks. So do all the Marauders. We know that, but thanks. The GOLEM has a PVE-DPS problem. There are people like me pointing this out in hopes that on this "Game Development Forum" that an actual game developer will read the analysis and take it from there. The golem has a pve-dps problem, when it does exactly the same dps the raven. Yes I would call that whining.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 11:11:00 - [7] Primary role? Where in the raven's description does it say "mission runner's ship"? Please. Defenders a problem with NPCs? Then simply give the Golem's missiles a hp bonus, or simply reduce NPC defender spam. Problem solved without giving it a ridiculous amount of dps that would be completely unbalancing.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 21:52:00 - [8] Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 26/10/2007 14:14:30 Originally by: Gamesguy A golem with a 5% rof bonus would do 1500 DPS, capless, out to 30km. I dont know how you got that number. I get arround 1300 DPS out of the Golem with: 25% ROF 3 x BCU 4 x TII Sieges with Rage 5 x Hammerhead II All skills LVL V And arround 1200 DPS without drones.. Mind post your setup? Still dont get your concern a CNR dishes out way more dmg:) Boot up eft. Fit a raven with 6 sieges and 3 BCUs(load rage), use the all lvl 5 skill character, check dps(it is 743 dps, 711 with faction). 7431.33(torp buff)1.33(-25% firing rate that people want)=1314 DPS. 5 hammerhead IIs do 158 DPS, 1314+158=1472 DPS. So I was off by 28, big deal, with faction torps you're still doing 1415 dps.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.26 21:53:00 - [9] Originally by: Malachi Nefzen Edited by: Malachi Nefzen on 26/10/2007 19:25:26 Originally by: Gamesguy A golem with a 5% rof bonus would do 1500 DPS, capless, out to 30km. With an ROF bonus, lv5 skills, and faction ammo a golem would do ~1350 DPS, IF THE TARGET WAS PAINTED I guess its a good thing the golem has 7 mids and a painting bonus isnt it.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 01:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Futureface01 Ahh a "gamesguy" arguement about balance. Well where to begin: Thank you for admitting that your using EFT to determine the DPS and setting all skills to Lvl 5. I'm glad you did because at least your being honest. I happen to have a friend that just started Eve a couple months ago, and I have his API to help him with skills. For Kicks, I created a new plan for him using only the skills relevant to getting that 1415 dps. Starting today, October 26th, 2007 he will be able to fly a Golem (at level 1 Marauders) using the Torpedos and Hammerhead II drones and all the T2 fittings he'd need. ....He'll be rocking it up in his Golem (marauders level 1) at 1415 dps (if they gave it the ROF bonus) on April 15, 2009. Ah I love those arguments, did you happen to include learning skills? Didnt think so. Quote: So what your saying is: "Look at the DPS when I buy premium gear, Faction Torpedos and have all level 5 skills!!" "Premium gear"? Its a standard t2 fit you muppet. Everyone I know(including myself) uses faction ammo, as they are generally far superior to the t2 short range ammo. As for lvl 5 skills, I know lots of people with surgical strike 5, rapid firing 5, etc. Ok not a lot of people will have torp spec 5, so take 2% off that dps, but this can be made up with implants fairly easilly. In addition, all ship comparisons are made with max skills. How is it fair to use less than perfect skills for one ship and then compare to another with perfect skills? Its not. So the standard is everyone uses max skills to equalize the playing field. Quote: Ahh, if someone is going to spend multi-billions on a ship and fire off faction ammo and have 2 years worth of skills SPECIFICALLY for that one ship, should they not be doing a lot of DPS???? Thats bull**. Multi-billion? The Marauders will probably end up costing around 600mil to buy. In addition, you have to balance vs other ships in its class. Its ridiculous for the golem to so vastly outdamage the vargur from further away AND out-tank it at the same time. What did the Vargur pilot also not spent this "2 years of training" to get into his ship? Quote: I notice your signature, the whole "Dont nerf my carrier" sig thats going around. Isnt that the basis for your entire case against nerfing carriers? You've put in multiple billions of isk into your ship and 6 months + training time to fly it.... So you guys feel you deserve to own everyone. Maybe... Maybe not. But how can you turn around and argue against a Raven/Golem pilot doing the exact same thing? It takes MUCH less time to get into a marauder compared to a carrier. And marauders are balanced against other ships in its class, carriers do not have another ship in its class to compare to. Quote: Exactly how much DPS does your Carrier do right now, Gamesguy? Maybe I should EFT a carrier and grant "all level 5 skills" and toss on some premium gear/ammo/etc..... Lets see your DPS. If you can justify that, then so can the Raven/Golem pilot because in reality they dont have ALL level 5 skills and premium fittings. EFT DPS != Real Dps. "Premium gear"? You call a fairly standard t2 fitting "premium gear and ammo"? Carriers are balanced around their max theoretical DPS as well. The often quoted 100dps/fighter number includes fighter V, a rank TWELVE skill. Its not some vast conspiracy where everyone uses less than perfect numbers for other ships than use max skills for caldari ships. This is THE standard for ship comparisons. And a 1400-1500 golem that can fire out to 30km and use capless weapons is ******ly unbalanced in pvp.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 01:52:00 - [11] Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 27/10/2007 01:49:48 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 26/10/2007 14:14:30 Originally by: Gamesguy A golem with a 5% rof bonus would do 1500 DPS, capless, out to 30km. I dont know how you got that number. I get arround 1300 DPS out of the Golem with: 25% ROF 3 x BCU 4 x TII Sieges with Rage 5 x Hammerhead II All skills LVL V And arround 1200 DPS without drones.. Mind post your setup? Still dont get your concern a CNR dishes out way more dmg:) Boot up eft. Fit a raven with 6 sieges and 3 BCUs(load rage), use the all lvl 5 skill character, check dps(it is 743 dps, 711 with faction). 7431.33(torp buff)1.33(-25% firing rate that people want)=1314 DPS. 5 hammerhead IIs do 158 DPS, 1314+158=1472 DPS. So I was off by 28, big deal, with faction torps you're still doing 1415 dps. hmm weired i somwhere lost 100 dps:) Anyhow CNR dishes out 1,37k dps after the torp buff with 4 x bcu/Siege II w Rage/Hammerhead II's. Imho 1,41k for the golem (full gank/also 4 x bcu) wouldn't be so over the top... 1. You're comparing rage with faction. 2. You try fitting CNR with 7 Siege launcher IIs lol, have fun with that.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 02:01:00 - [12] Originally by: d026 huh my cnr uses 7 sieges right now on tq.. and everythign fits fine inc tank without fitting mods.. anyway you came with those 1,4k dps with rage not me.. This for pvp, I pretty sure you can't have 7 siege IIs a mwd and a heavy injector on the CNR without fitting mods...
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.27 02:11:00 - [13] Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 27/10/2007 02:08:51 but actually if you really want you can do it anyway you just need a anci router and a buffer tank.. ther problem remains tough.. if we dont give him the rof bonus the golem is just going to suck bad ass in pve.. whats your suggestion here? fly a cnr?:) Well if damage is a problem with cruise due to defender missiles then simply give the golem an hp bonus to its missiles. Like say 2x bonus so it takes twice as many defenders to shoot down cruises fired from a golem, or even 3x. No/very little missile shoot down from npcs=higher actual dps without affecting its pvp balance.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.