EVE Search - Post-rev3 torps VS blasters... still can't believe this is serious o.O

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Post-rev3 torps VS blasters... still can't believe this is serious o.O

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 12:44:00 - [1] Edited by: Melor Rend on 21/11/2007 12:51:54 Edited by: Melor Rend on 21/11/2007 12:50:05 Hello Can a Dev or someone that is part of the "balancing" team pls be so kind as to explain to me why on earth ANYBODY should use t2 large blasters after rev3 when torps do just as much DPS with more range, less skills and no cap usage? So far it's been pretty logical and imho post rev3 it's gonna be totally imbalanced: Torps pre-Rev3 + Long Range + No cap useage + No tracking problems + Can hit faster targets better then large guns + only need about 3-4 mil SP to use effectivly ~ average DPS for BS sized weapons - have no other drawbacks except not so great DPS but they have many other things to help them get over that Blasters pre-Rev3 + Do alot of DPS ~ can't track small or fast targets - Need tracking to hit stuff - Use (a lot) of cap to fire - have super short ranges (under 10km) - need 5-6 mil SP to use effectivly Now let's look at Post-Rev3: Torps Post-Rev3 + No cap useage + No tracking problems + only need about 3-4 mil SP to use effectivly + Do alot of DPS (roughly the same as blasters!!!) ~ have 30km range (thats worse then before but still 5 times more then blasters) ~ need a target painter to do full DPS (but blasters need a web to hit anything fast and that has a 10 times shorter range then a painter!) - no drawbacks Post-Rev3 Blasters are pretty much unchanged. So lets compare: Pre-Rev3 Blasters had a super short range but did a lot of DPS while using cap and being very speed and size dependant. Torps did much less DPS (about 1/3 less) but had a very high range compared to blasters and don't use any cap to fire. Post-Rev3 Blasters have a super short range but still do the same amount of DPS and still use cap to fire. The torps now do the same DPS as blasters, with 30km range, no cap usage and nearly no other drawbacks. This doesn't bring any balance! It's ten times worse then it was before! Instead of balancing the short-range BS guns so torps and blasters are about the same (if you look at all their pros and contras) you made blasters utterly obsolete with all the contras they used to have and removed all the contra-points from torps. This makes me ask myself: What sense do blasters still have in BS sized combat? I mean the devs at CCP must have some kind of concept and some kind of idea as to how players are supposed to use blasters VS. torps VS. other weapon systems and i'd like to hear what they have planned for people that use blasters? Currently on SiSi there is no good reason to use blasters over torps that I can see... is that the case or am i missing something? How did the Devs plan this to pan out? Combined with the massive drone nerf, torp boost and the fact that damps have been made obsolete i really wonder what plan CCP has for gallente? Yes Damps were overpowered, yes caldari need a boost but this is totally over the top and screws gallente and amarr totally (minmatar also but less because they use missiles to some extent and speed is still just as iWin as pre-rev3). So whats the deal!?! Edit: Yes i know it's been posted before and i don't give a damn. If you don't wanna read what i said then pls don't tell me about it. Also the idea is not that players start posting what they think is the truth.. i need a response from the people that actually planned and implemented this change.. they are the ones that think this is "good" so i want to know why. What scenraios are used to "balance" weapons and why the hell does it always seem that CCP is playing a totally different game then us?
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 12:59:00 - [2] Why should anybody use torps pre Rev 3?
a51 duke1406 Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:23:00 - [3] Dont forget that you can pick your damage type with torps. This is the gallente nerf patch, anyway what is it, 60% of the games population are caldari, this makes people happy.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:27:00 - [4] Quote: Originally by: Melor Rend less skills and no cap usage? if you start a character from scratch it takes longer to train for torps doing comparable dps to blaster than if you go straight to large neutrons! (if you dontbelieve me check evemon:) Quote: + Can hit faster targets better then large guns - with a tech I torp you hit a 4k moving ishtar for 0.01 dmg Quote: + only need about 3-4 mil SP to use effectivly then you are not gonna squeeze blaster dps out of em. Quote: - have no other drawbacks except not so great DPS but they have many other things to help them get over that you never i Quote: Blasters pre-Rev3 + Do alot of DPS still applies. Quote: ~ can't track small or fast targets neither can torps. Quote: - Need tracking to hit stuff missiles are affected by velocity and sigradius Quote: - have super short ranges (under 10km) missiles effective range is affected by the targets movement and speed. you never gonna achieve those 30k max range on a raven post rev 3 except shooting stationary targets. Quote: - need 5-6 mil SP to use effectivly same applies for torps if you want to do comparable blaster dmg. Quote: Now let's look at Post-Rev3: Torps Post-Rev3 + No tracking problems wrong missiles are affected by targets speed and sig radius. Quote: + only need about 3-4 mil SP to use effectivly wrong see above Quote: + Do alot of DPS (roughly the same as blasters!!!) true but the blaster botes have a huge dronebay to compensate. Quote: ~ have 30km range (thats worse then before but still 5 times more then blasters) see above Quote: ~ need a target painter to do full DPS (but blasters need a web to hit anything fast and that has a 10 times shorter range then a painter!) but teh web does not go to your tank slots Quote: - no drawbacks lol Quote: Post-Rev3 Blasters have a super short range but still do the same amount of DPS and still use cap to fire. The torps now do the same DPS as blasters, with 30km range, no cap usage and nearly no other drawbacks. dont forget the drones AND your tackling/ewar slots Quote: This doesn't bring any balance! It's ten times worse then it was before! Instead of balancing the short-range BS guns so torps and blasters are about the same (if you look at all their pros and contras) you made blasters utterly obsolete with all the contras they used to have and removed all the contra-points from torps. + Mega does equivalent dps to a Raven + Mega does better dmg to smaller and fast targets (tracking bonus + can fit a WEB!) + Mega can tackle while not gimping its tank Quote: What sense do blasters still have in BS sized combat? Same as now... Quote: Currently on SiSi there is no good reason to use blasters over torps that I can see... is that the case or am i missing something? How did the Devs plan this to pan out? I use alot with my raven a...
Nyack GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:27:00 - [5] well u have to consider what ships the guns/torps are fitted to. mega still got less mass, higher speed, agility and more drones. depends on how much bandwith the mega or hyperion is going to get and what drone bay size.. going by teh last statement amarr will also get great dronebays but lower bandwith making it possible to bring more utility drones and combat drones
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:28:00 - [6] Originally by: d026 Why should anybody use torps pre Rev 3? - nearly 10 times better range then blasters - No cap usage - only 3 mil SP needed But I know what you mean. It's not that i don't think torps need a boost it's just that now they are boosted far to much.
NeoTheo Caldari Species 5618 R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:29:00 - [7] without being rube, if you think a torp can hit a target thats moving as speed any better than a blasterboat your i am afraid talking rubbish. whilst torps dont have tracking, they DO have a explosion speed and there fore cant hit fasting moving targets. /Theo.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:31:00 - [8] Quote: Blasters have super short ranges (under 10km) My neutrons hit just fine at 17+16k on my rokh My neutrons hit just fine at 11+16k on my mega
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:32:00 - [9] Originally by: d026 - with a tech I torp you hit a 4k moving ishtar for 0.01 dmg And my blasters hit an ishtar better? lol at least you do 0,01 dmg.. i do 0,0 because of tracking. I don't know why you are going all defensive d026.. i know you want your torps boosted and i agree that they do need a boost i'm just saying that it's totally over the top. Instead of making a battle mega VS. raven "fair" it's just as bad as it was pre-rev3 only that the raven is now the winner.
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:34:00 - [10] Originally by: d026 Quote: Blasters have super short ranges (under 10km) My neutrons hit just fine at 17+16k on my rokh My neutrons hit just fine at 11+16k on my mega Yeah they hit but 17km is at the end of falloff so you don't hit well enough. I really don't see the problem.. we both tested on SiSi and it's pretty clear it's not balanced imo.

d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:34:00 - [11] Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:36:44 Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 Why should anybody use torps pre Rev 3? - nearly 10 times better range then blasters - No cap usage - only 3 mil SP needed But I know what you mean. It's not that i don't think torps need a boost it's just that now they are boosted far to much. you need much higher sp investement. ever tryed to fit a torp raven? awu V is your friend. besides as i allready pointed out with 3 mill in missiles you are going to be compettive againsta 6mil sp blaster specced pilot. no cap usage but no tacklin.. fair tradeoff we dont need 2 long range missile systems.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:38:00 - [12] Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 Quote: Blasters have super short ranges (under 10km) My neutrons hit just fine at 17+16k on my rokh My neutrons hit just fine at 11+16k on my mega Yeah they hit but 17km is at the end of falloff so you don't hit well enough. I really don't see the problem.. we both tested on SiSi and it's pretty clear it's not balanced imo. you are not goingto hit anything with torps if your target is moving away from you at specific distance. at least you can hit for 0.01 dmg!
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:39:00 - [13] Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:45:32 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:44:00 Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 - with a tech I torp you hit a 4k moving ishtar for 0.01 dmg And my blasters hit an ishtar better? lol at least you do 0,01 dmg.. i do 0,0 because of tracking. I don't know why you are going all defensive d026.. i know you want your torps boosted and i agree that they do need a boost i'm just saying that it's totally over the top. Instead of making a battle mega VS. raven "fair" it's just as bad as it was pre-rev3 only that the raven is now the winner. im not sure if you are the alt i think you are. but if you are our fights were extremely balanced in favour of my raven. but considering i have to go full tank while you can fit injector, web, scram you are so much more flexibel in your mega while still doing a **load of dps whilst i am ONLY a dmg dealer who cant keep **e in place.. also if you are the alt i think you are:) you have surgical strike IV whilst i have warhead upgrades V. Also we both were either dead or had like 10-40% structure left after each fight. I would say both ships are extremely balanced in the closerange area probably a lil bit in favour of the raven dmg and tank wise but on the other hand you have all those mids free for ew or tackling! One thing i agree with you tough is that TII Rage Torps deserve a "little" nerf. But imho i feel completely comfortable my Raven beeing able to wtfbbq a Mega:)
Stellar Vix State War Academy	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:43:00 - [14] Trops take alot less skills/rigs than other missiles do, Traget Trajectory and guided missiles are null to torpedos and provide no benifits for them, thus target painters are needed to be maxed out instead. SWA PVP
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:54:00 - [15] Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:56:28 Originally by: Stellar Vix Trops take alot less skills/rigs than other missiles do, to get the full dmg and range out of torps you need arround 5.5mil sp. if you add the tp skills on top you need quite some ew skills which is another 1-2mil sp investement. so stfu with this torps are easy to train bull**e. Quote: Traget Trajectory and guided missiles are null to torpedos and provide no benifits for them, thus target painters are needed to be maxed out instead. Wrong Target Navigation Prediction** applies to Guided AND Unguided Missiles!
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:02:00 - [16] Edited by: Melor Rend on 21/11/2007 14:07:11 Edited by: Melor Rend on 21/11/2007 14:03:55 Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:45:32 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:44:00 Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 - with a tech I torp you hit a 4k moving ishtar for 0.01 dmg And my blasters hit an ishtar better? lol at least you do 0,01 dmg.. i do 0,0 because of tracking. I don't know why you are going all defensive d026.. i know you want your torps boosted and i agree that they do need a boost i'm just saying that it's totally over the top. Instead of making a battle mega VS. raven "fair" it's just as bad as it was pre-rev3 only that the raven is now the winner. im not sure if you are the alt i think you are. but if you are our fights were extremely balanced in favour of my raven. but considering i have to go full tank while you can fit injector, web, scram you are so much more flexibel in your mega while still doing a **load of dps whilst i am ONLY a dmg dealer who cant keep **e in place.. also if you are the alt i think you are:) you have surgical strike IV whilst i have warhead upgrades V. Also we both were either dead or had like 10-40% structure left after each fight. I would say both ships are extremely balanced in the closerange area probably a lil bit in favour of the raven dmg and tank wise but on the other hand you have all those mids free for ew or tackling! One thing i agree with you tough is that TII Rage Torps deserve a "little" nerf. But imho i feel completely comfortable my Raven beeing able to wtfbbq a Mega:) I am the alt you think i am and i'd agree with you but the only problem is that most of our battles were pointless because we didn't start at high enough ranges. If we start at my optimal in webrange then it's very balanced as you said but as soon as i have to close 20km to get into optimal then you will remember that it wasn't that tight at all. Anyway I don't really wanna argue about 2% more or less damage (ie. surgical strike 4 vs 5 etc.) i think the problem is much larger then this. What I'd like is to hear CCP telling me how they planned the new torps to be balanced compared to blasters - not if a torp does +3% more DPS or not. If torps do the same DPS as a blaster with a longer range and no cap usage then this is a little strange no? Even the in-game description of blasters says that they do crazy DPS but only over very short ranges... now they actually only do a few % more DPS then torps but over 5 times less range. Thats what I don't understand.. how can that be balanced? I'd probably be fine with the changes if the torps got +20% damage instead of +33%.. it's just that with the +33% damage AND all the advantages of torps over blasters it becomes a little overpowered. So can anyone explain to me what advantage a blaster now has over a torp? It used to be tradeoff damage VS range.. now it's either "short range with good DPS" (Blasters) or "long range with good DPS and no cap-usage" (Torps). A little wierd no? Sounds like anyone in their right mind would choose "long range with good DPS and no cap-usage" so that begs the question as to why you would use a weapon system that has more drawbacks with equal DPS at crappy range? As I said before... it's not a huge imbalance.. if the tradeoff where "much DPS at short range" (blasters) VS. "15% less DPS with 20% more range" then it would be fair.
LiBraga Killjoy.	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:24:00 - [17] Do you understand how balance works ? Balance isn't just mod comparisons. It's achived via looking at the ships that use the mods, other mods that are considered required and skills. As already posted the advantage of blasters is that the mods that improve it ie webs etc don't affect your tank. Now stop whining. --------------- What! Caldari have dps now... noooo Aye, T2 HAMs FTW!!!!!
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:24:00 - [18] Originally by: d026 One thing i agree with you tough is that TII Rage Torps deserve a "little" nerf. But imho i feel completely comfortable my Raven beeing able to wtfbbq a Mega:) Oh yeah thats another thing.. you wtfpwned my mega twice with t1 torps when i was using t2 guns even if we started at mega-friendly ranges (~15km) so i don't even wanna imagine how it will be if you use t2 torps and we start at 25km. I guess we should go test tonight on sisi.
Melor Rend	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:26:00 - [19] Originally by: LiBraga Do you understand how balance works ? Thats why I asked the people that are "balancing" this game to explain to me why they do things the way they do you genius.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:29:00 - [20] Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 14:31:31 Originally by: Melor Rend Edited by: Melor Rend on 21/11/2007 14:07:11 Edited by: Melor Rend on 21/11/2007 14:03:55 Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:45:32 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:44:00 Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 - with a tech I torp you hit a 4k moving ishtar for 0.01 dmg And my blasters hit an ishtar better? lol at least you do 0,01 dmg.. i do 0,0 because of tracking. I don't know why you are going all defensive d026.. i know you want your torps boosted and i agree that they do need a boost i'm just saying that it's totally over the top. Instead of making a battle mega VS. raven "fair" it's just as bad as it was pre-rev3 only that the raven is now the winner. im not sure if you are the alt i think you are. but if you are our fights were extremely balanced in favour of my raven. but considering i have to go full tank while you can fit injector, web, scram you are so much more flexibel in your mega while still doing a **load of dps whilst i am ONLY a dmg dealer who cant keep **e in place.. also if you are the alt i think you are:) you have surgical strike IV whilst i have warhead upgrades V. Also we both were either dead or had like 10-40% structure left after each fight. I would say both ships are extremely balanced in the closerange area probably a lil bit in favour of the raven dmg and tank wise but on the other hand you have all those mids free for ew or tackling! One thing i agree with you tough is that TII Rage Torps deserve a "little" nerf. But imho i feel completely comfortable my Raven beeing able to wtfbbq a Mega:) I am the alt you think i am and i'd agree with you but the only problem is that most of our battles were pointless because we didn't start at high enough ranges. If we start at my optimal in webrange then it's very balanced as you said but as soon as i have to close 20km to get into optimal then you will remember that it wasn't that tight at all. Anyway I don't really wanna argue about 2% more or less damage (ie. surgical strike 4 vs 5 etc.) i think the problem is much larger then this. What I'd like is to hear CCP telling me how they planned the new torps to be balanced compared to blasters - not if a torp does +3% more DPS or not. If torps do the same DPS as a blaster with a longer range and no cap usage then this is a little strange no? Even the in-game description of blasters says that they do crazy DPS but only over very short ranges... now they actually only do a few % more DPS then torps but over 5 times less range. Thats what I don't understand.. how can that be balanced? I'd probably be fine with the changes if the torps got +20% damage instead of +33%.. it's just that with the +33% damage AND all the advantages of torps over blasters it becomes a little overpowered. So can anyone explain to me what advantage a blaster now has over a torp? It used to be tradeoff damage VS range.. now it's either "short range with good DPS" (Blasters) or "long range with good DPS and no cap-usage" (Torps). A little wierd no? Sounds like anyone in their right mind would choose "long range with good DPS and no cap-usage" so that begs the question as to why you would use a weapon system that has more drawbacks with equal DPS at crappy range? As I said before... it's not a huge imbalance.. if the tradeoff where "much DPS at short range" (blasters) VS. "15% less DPS with 20% more range" then it would be fair. Fit a tank on your mega and you are fine.. it just happens now that a gank mega < raven at +20k.. Also you would die right now engaging a raven w/ torps at 20-30k To the post above. No i lost (you had lik 20-30% hull left) fighting with T1 torps.. only started to own you after using TII Rages.

d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:40:00 - [21] Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 One thing i agree with you tough is that TII Rage Torps deserve a "little" nerf. But imho i feel completely comfortable my Raven beeing able to wtfbbq a Mega:) Oh yeah thats another thing.. you wtfpwned my mega twice with t1 torps when i was using t2 guns even if we started at mega-friendly ranges (~15km) so i don't even wanna imagine how it will be if you use t2 torps and we start at 25km. I guess we should go test tonight on sisi. No i lost badly while using T1 torps.. I only started to own you after using TII Rages and a full tank setup but even then you always took me in structure. I have to mention i could have always warped away due to raven not able to fit a scram (if i had fitted one i just sacrificed this few 1000 hp that saved my butt).
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:41:00 - [22] Stop thinking Blasters are only about VOID!! A megathron is the best BS to fight nanoships! With Null or any other random Faction ammo. Try fighting a nano ishtar in a raven. He wont kill you probably but you won be able to hurt him either. A mega will hurt him deeply. Blasters have GREAT tracking! If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kaathar Rielspar Minmatar Universal Exports	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:42:00 - [23] again, nobody thinks about battleships with torps other than the raven. they are affected much more markedly by the range decrease ____________________
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:45:00 - [24] Originally by: d026 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:45:32 Edited by: d026 on 21/11/2007 13:44:00 Originally by: Melor Rend Originally by: d026 - with a tech I torp you hit a 4k moving ishtar for 0.01 dmg And my blasters hit an ishtar better? lol at least you do 0,01 dmg.. i do 0,0 because of tracking. I don't know why you are going all defensive d026.. i know you want your torps boosted and i agree that they do need a boost i'm just saying that it's totally over the top. Instead of making a battle mega VS. raven "fair" it's just as bad as it was pre-rev3 only that the raven is now the winner. im not sure if you are the alt i think you are. but if you are our fights were extremely balanced in favour of my raven. but considering i have to go full tank while you can fit injector, web, scram you are so much more flexibel in your mega while still doing a **load of dps whilst i am ONLY a dmg dealer who cant keep **e in place.. also if you are the alt i think you are:) you have surgical strike IV whilst i have warhead upgrades V. Also we both were either dead or had like 10-40% structure left after each fight. I would say both ships are extremely balanced in the closerange area probably a lil bit in favour of the raven dmg and tank wise but on the other hand you have all those mids free for ew or tackling! One thing i agree with you tough is that TII Rage Torps deserve a "little" nerf. But imho i feel completely comfortable my Raven beeing able to wtfbbq a Mega:) Just to add. If you accept the full tank and gank as a valid category, either a Maelstrom or Ababdon could most likely defeat both of the raven and Mega. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Ulstan	Posted - 2007.11.21 16:38:00 - [25] Quote: as to explain to me why on earth ANYBODY should use t2 large blasters after rev3 when torps do just as much DPS with more range, less skills and no cap usage? Please provide a list of which ships are agonizing over whether to drop their blasters in favor of seige launchers. Right. None. So the issue is, how do blaster ships stack up against the single sole ship (The raven) that may use torpedos in PvP? As seen in this thread, they seem pretty comparable in damage, except that the raven, being a shield tanker, naturally has less utility than the armor tanked blaster boats. I see nothing to complain about. If the raven has a slight damage edge, the blasterboat has a better versatility and is more likely to be an effective solo ship still. You seem to have fallen prey to the "Gallente must be the absolute best at everything" belief. That's the only reason I can think of to explain why another ship being as effective in pure damage terms at short ranges as a blaster boat gets you all upset.
oniplE Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.21 16:57:00 - [26] Edited by: oniplE on 21/11/2007 16:57:45 Originally by: Ulstan Quote: as to explain to me why on earth ANYBODY should use t2 large blasters after rev3 when torps do just as much DPS with more range, less skills and no cap usage? Please provide a list of which ships are agonizing over whether to drop their blasters in favor of seige launchers. Right. None. So the issue is, how do blaster ships stack up against the single sole ship (The raven) that may use torpedos in PvP? As seen in this thread, they seem pretty comparable in damage, except that the raven, being a shield tanker, naturally has less utility than the armor tanked blaster boats. I see nothing to complain about. If the raven has a slight damage edge, the blasterboat has a better versatility and is more likely to be an effective solo ship still. You seem to have fallen prey to the "Gallente must be the absolute best at everything" belief. That's the only reason I can think of to explain why another ship being as effective in pure damage terms at short ranges as a blaster boat gets you all upset. I think his problem is the a raven outdamaging a megathron, thats not how its supposed to be. Gallente does the damage, caldari get the missiles, minmatar get the speed and amarr gets the finger, thats the way it is right? :P Anyway, would be nice if people could post some DPS stats on these new torps. x
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:46:00 - [27] I'm in favor of making torp ravens viable in pvp.. but blasters should still do more damage due to their short range, cap use, and inability to change damage types. Really need to see the dps numbers though to compare.
Hamcraft Bombshell Cartel	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:54:00 - [28] Edited by: Hamcraft on 21/11/2007 17:55:54 well look at it this way right now, a megathron can tear thru a raven pretty easily, it just takes a minute to tackle it. (the raven cannot stay out of range of the megathron long enough to take the advantage in battle, unless it is so far away it cannot put a point on the megathron, in which case the megathron will just warp out.) after the patch, these ships will be closer to being equals. again though if the megathron closes the gap soon enough it'll dominate, and it really isn't hard to do with the lumbering raven. also note that putting a target painter on a raven is devastating to its tank, unless it decides not to fit tackling or not to fit propulsion. in which case, its dead anyway.
Natalie Jax Indecision Industries	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:13:00 - [29] Er, sounds to me like they did a pretty good job balancing things, really.
JesterWiLD Caldari Greenspring Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:23:00 - [30] currently I have 3 setups for my raven on sisi. Setup #1: Tank raven With this raven I get about 650 dps (6 torps, 6.5rof, 720 dmg per missile). However, against no caldari ships, and anything smaller thana bs I dont get nearly that dps. Due to the fact that I dont have a target painter with this setup. And can tank about 600dps, for a short time, as long as its not em. Setup #2: Midgrade With my midgrade setup I can get around 750-850 dmg range, depending on t1 or t2 torps. This setup again I have no target painter. A 500 dps tank. Setup #3: Damage fit raven With a damage fitted raven I can pump out 860-950 dps, with t1 and t2 torps respectivly. However I can only tank about 500 dps for about 2 mins, till my cap is empty. Now understand this. With a full armament of t2 torps my cap recharge rate drops by I believe its 25%. So that reduces the tank time on the first 2 setups by 3 mins before i need to start injecting on the second setup, and by 7 mins on the first setup. Also, realize that on the first setup if I use rage torps I sometimes(anyone but caldari/shield tankers) do less dmg than t1 due to ships speed/sigradius. All 3 setups have about 20m-40m in rigs. I have basically 2 empty high slots for each setup. Mind you these are 3 of my best setups. And NONE of them can tackle. None have a mwd, scram, or web. So any nanno can pick me apart. ============================================================= Now, on my raven yes, i can hit up to 26k with t1 torps, t2 its 11-16k just like a t2 blaster. if I am not moving away or towards an enemy bs and they are less than 4k from me I wont hit thim with t2 torps, Unlike a blaster. I cannot hit drones With t2 torps even with a target painter, and the drone is a large. Hell I cant hit a jettisoned can target painted at 100m. Why? because tps dont help you hit, they help you do full dmg, something the other races dont have to worry about. So when I own a mega starting at 20k with a raven I take it with a grain of salt. Id have done the same pre trinity with at 80km start range. When I can get a mega into structure in a fight starting a 5km im happy I didnt get killed with the damn mega having 100%armor. Id say thats balanced. when it can web me, making my torps possibly miss, and keep me from warping, and using a full bay of t2 heavy target jamming drones. ------------------------------------------------------------- Also, as someone else state. No one in their right mind is gona use torps in pvp other than a phoon and a raven. In my rokh, t1 torps only go 17km, and t2's out to about 12km if im lucky with the same problems I mentioned earlier. PS: a mega gets torp slots and can usem if it thinks its worth it... but it doesnt cause they suck on non ravens. Cause they are balanced. so stop crying and see ur the only gallente crying. :P



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.