Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 15:07:00 -
[511]
Originally by: Ravoc
Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Disagree with that. The optimal script is supposed to reduce the range of turrets, and it does just that when it lowers optimal and falloff. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that it affects two stats of is simply because turret range derives from the combination of two stats, optimal and falloff.
You're right. Didn't think of the joint effect. But in that case the optimal script in a tracking computer must also boost falloff as well as optimal.
No, it doesnt.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 16:54:00 -
[512]
Originally by: Ravoc But in that case the optimal script in a tracking computer must also boost falloff as well as optimal.
Nope, and do you know why? ACs arent balanced around their dps at their optimal. To put that short: we dont want AC boats sticking dmg mods in mids and lows that dont stack nerf with gyros. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 17:58:00 -
[513]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Nope, and do you know why? ACs arent balanced around their dps at their optimal. To put that short: we dont want AC boats sticking dmg mods in mids and lows that dont stack nerf with gyros.
Have you even once compared ACs, Blasters and Pulses?
You'll find that ACs are easily the weakest of all because they never make full damage due to having to fight in falloff. The only thing a minmatar pilot can play out is a bit better tracking. Blasters on the other hand are pretty much overpowered entirely as their higher damage modifier more than compensates the partial falloff zone.
If anything, a tracking computer should even boost falloff more than optimal, to at least keep the damage loss due to falloff on par with laser's optimals.
And if you are concerned with tracking computers being used as damage mods, an Amarr ship usually has much more low slots anyway, which can be used for real damage mods. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 19:21:00 -
[514]
Originally by: Ravoc
You'll find that ACs are easily the weakest of all because they never make full damage due to having to fight in falloff. The only thing a minmatar pilot can play out is a bit better tracking. Blasters on the other hand are pretty much overpowered entirely as their higher damage modifier more than compensates the partial falloff zone.
If anything, a tracking computer should even boost falloff more than optimal, to at least keep the damage loss due to falloff on par with laser's optimals.
And if you are concerned with tracking computers being used as damage mods, an Amarr ship usually has much more low slots anyway, which can be used for real damage mods.
Excuse me but did you read what I wrote? The damage balance of ACs already takes the "fighting in fall off mostly" into consideration. If minmatar would have high optimals and low fall off ccp would REDUCE the damage and/or the tracking of ACs. This is where you totally fail to grasp the balance in the weaponsystems. "ACs fight in fall off" is not an argument you can use because its already in the dps balance (and the non cap use).
Yeah amarr have alot of low slots but are missing mid slots. Im sure everyone can tell you how bullzhit anything less then 4 mid slots are on ships that are bigger then frigs. Fail. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 20:41:00 -
[515]
Stats of the large heavy short range turrets: 800mm Repeating Artillery II optimal: 4800m / 3000m with skills & EMP L (20em, 16ex, 8ki - 44 total) falloff: 16000m / 20000m with skills tracking: 0.0432 dam mod: 3.234
Neutron Blaster Cannon II optimal: 7200m / 4500m with skills & Antimatter Charge L (28ki, 20th - 48 total) falloff: 10000m / 12500m with skills tracking: 0.0433 dam mod: 4.2
Mega Pulse Laser II optimal: 24000m / 15000m with skills & Multifrequency L (28em, 20th - 48 total) falloff: 8000m / 10000m with skills tracking: 0.03375 dam mod: 3.6
Now, let's add 2 tracking disruptors (-40% optimal & falloff each) and 2 tracking computers (+15% optimal each), disregarding stacking penalties: 800mm Repeating Artillery II optimal: 1428m with skills & EMP L falloff: 7200m with skills
Neutron Blaster Cannon II optimal: 2142m with skills & Antimatter Charge L falloff: 4500m with skills
Mega Pulse Laser II optimal: 7142m with skills & Multifrequency L falloff: 3600m with skills
Not counting any skills or modifiers on tracking and damage modifier, an amarrian boat can do full damage up to 7km, whereas a minmatar boat already loses 1/3 of his already inferior damage. A gallente boat is loses even more, but has a higher damage modifier to compensate. Both end up with an effective dam mod of around 2.1 while the amarrian stays unchanged at 3.6, that's 70% more damage, for only 20% less tracking!!
Now tell me how that is balanced?
|
Takeshi Yamato
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 21:05:00 -
[516]
Quote: Now tell me how that is balanced?
Nobody uses tracking comps or enhancers on pulse ships.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 22:14:00 -
[517]
Originally by: Ravoc
Now tell me how that is balanced?
First off, taking single turrets and looking at their damage mod is NOT a good way to determine damage. You need to look at rof aswell yes? Also there are several minmatar gank ships that get dual damage bonuses where the corresponding amarrian ship only gets one. Your whole comparison is bogus.
Also the point is that all 3 weapons get their range cut by crippling amounts AND THATS THE POINT. So what is all this talk about dps? Its fine. Really. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 23:36:00 -
[518]
Edited by: Ravoc on 09/02/2008 23:37:20 Let me give a practical example: Maelstrom vs Hyperion vs Abaddon, 2 disruptors (-40% optimal & falloff each), (edit) full skills
Maelstrom Optimal: 3000m / old disruptor: 1080m / new disruptor: 1080m Falloff: 20000m / old disruptor: 20000m / new disruptor: 7200m Tracking: 0.054 RoF: 4.253 Dam Mod: 5.114 DPS: 423 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 351 / new disruptor: 152
Hyperion Optimal 4500m / old disruptor: 1620m / new disruptor: 1620m Falloff 12500m / old disruptor: 12500m / new disruptor: 4500m Tracking 0.054 RoF 5.670 Dam Mod 8.302 DPS: 562 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 313 / new disruptor: 56
Abaddon Optimal: 15000m / old disruptor: 5400m / new disruptor: 5400m Falloff: 10000m / old disruptor: 10000m / new disruptor: 3600m Tracking: 0.042 RoF: 5.670 Dam Mod: 7.116 DPS: 482 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 410 / new disruptor: 241
Clearly the entire falloff factor on tracking disruptors is a very bad idea, and looking at the above, it pretty much kills gallente blaster ships.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:42:00 -
[519]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 10/02/2008 00:42:51
Originally by: Ravoc Edited by: Ravoc on 09/02/2008 23:37:20 Let me give a practical example: Maelstrom vs Hyperion vs Abaddon, 2 disruptors (-40% optimal & falloff each), (edit) full skills
Maelstrom Optimal: 3000m / old disruptor: 1080m / new disruptor: 1080m Falloff: 20000m / old disruptor: 20000m / new disruptor: 7200m Tracking: 0.054 RoF: 4.253 Dam Mod: 5.114 DPS: 423 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 351 / new disruptor: 152
Hyperion Optimal 4500m / old disruptor: 1620m / new disruptor: 1620m Falloff 12500m / old disruptor: 12500m / new disruptor: 4500m Tracking 0.054 RoF 5.670 Dam Mod 8.302 DPS: 562 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 313 / new disruptor: 56
Abaddon Optimal: 15000m / old disruptor: 5400m / new disruptor: 5400m Falloff: 10000m / old disruptor: 10000m / new disruptor: 3600m Tracking: 0.042 RoF: 5.670 Dam Mod: 7.116 DPS: 482 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 410 / new disruptor: 241
Clearly the entire falloff factor on tracking disruptors is a very bad idea, and looking at the above, it pretty much kills gallente blaster ships.
I took your numbers and put them into the tracking guide (you can verify this yourself if you like) and simulated all these 3 turrets shooting a pilgrim in orbit. No mwd, no Ab.
Pilgrim sig radius 156 and speed 219m/s.
Each gun (all have 8 guns so we dont have take different amounts of guns into consideration) projects this dps on a pilgrim in orbit at approx 10km:
Maelstrom: max 9dps per gun at 9km range Hyperion: max 4dps per gun at 7km range Abaddon: max 6.5 dps per gun at 9km range
So no, ACs are ontop. Add to this that they run without cap and the pilgrim cant even stop it by cap draining and you can understand how silly this crusade is. If anything ACs need a nerf.
Hint: Learn to understand the power of higher tracking. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:50:00 -
[520]
I assumed a bs vs bs scenario, not bs vs recon. A Rook can easily beat all 3 either. Besides, a Pilgrim is prolly better of disrupting the tracking instead of the range. |
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:56:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Ravoc I assumed a bs vs bs scenario, not bs vs recon. A Rook can easily beat all 3 either. Besides, a Pilgrim is prolly better of disrupting the tracking instead of the range.
It is. But what Amarr or Gallente battleship can run 2 tracking disruptors with an mwd, web, and scram while not needing cap to fire its guns or run its tank?
A: The tempest
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:11:00 -
[522]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ravoc I assumed a bs vs bs scenario, not bs vs recon. A Rook can easily beat all 3 either. Besides, a Pilgrim is prolly better of disrupting the tracking instead of the range.
It is. But what Amarr or Gallente battleship can run 2 tracking disruptors with an mwd, web, and scram while not needing cap to fire its guns or run its tank?
A: The tempest
Wich is funny *points at "Tempest: Any Minmatar love?" thread in Game Development Forum* -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:13:00 -
[523]
Originally by: Goumindong It is. But what Amarr or Gallente battleship can run 2 tracking disruptors with an mwd, web, and scram while not needing cap to fire its guns or run its tank?
A: The tempest
The Tempest is prolly the ****tiest bs ingame, despite its 5 med slots. :)
Why 2 tracking disruptors you wonder? To clearly illustrate the effects on a ship. I never said it has to be a true solo bs vs bs, if that kind of PvP still exists even. PvP is getting reduced to blob and alt wars anyway. A simple cov-ops or even something like a Sentinel can already be enough. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:17:00 -
[524]
Originally by: Ravoc
Originally by: Goumindong It is. But what Amarr or Gallente battleship can run 2 tracking disruptors with an mwd, web, and scram while not needing cap to fire its guns or run its tank?
A: The tempest
The Tempest is prolly the ****tiest bs ingame, despite its 5 med slots. :)
Why 2 tracking disruptors you wonder? To clearly illustrate the effects on a ship. I never said it has to be a true solo bs vs bs, if that kind of PvP still exists even. PvP is getting reduced to blob and alt wars anyway. A simple cov-ops or even something like a Sentinel can already be enough.
But sentinel is supposed to kill turrets. I dont get the point? It does its job? Oh noes? Or what.. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:43:00 -
[525]
The Sentinel doesn't matter. The point is that under the same conditions, Amarr becomes overpowered and Gallente underpowered. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 03:55:00 -
[526]
Originally by: Ravoc The Sentinel doesn't matter. The point is that under the same conditions, Amarr becomes overpowered and Gallente underpowered.
I think they are fine on sisi. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 12:36:00 -
[527]
Sorry, but I can't take your word on that. Your holy love for the new I-win button doesn't make you that credible. |
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 13:16:00 -
[528]
The deimos is good how she is at the moment but if you guys really must play with the slots change the 6th high to a 4th med slot. Makes no sense to kill the deimos' tank by lowering the slots in an excuse to make it tank better... this is the drone bandwith nerf all over again killing something by saying it will be better. Good job ccp.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 13:51:00 -
[529]
Originally by: Ravoc Sorry, but I can't take your word on that.
You dont have to, I proved your calculations wrong. If anything ACs were proven stronger then blasters and pulses in TD resistance. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 14:00:00 -
[530]
No you didn't.
ACs against blasters? yes ACs/blasters against pulses? hardly |
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 14:09:00 -
[531]
ECM got nerfed in general strength for the sake of balance. Sensor Dampening got nerfed in general strength for the sake of balance. Now it's time to nerf Tracking Disruption in general strength too.
|
Neuromandis
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 17:04:00 -
[532]
Edited by: Neuromandis on 10/02/2008 17:06:08 I very strongly support the +1 moa-ferox-eagle changes, they were needed. *** I very strongly support the tracking change on tracking disruptors *** I am neutral about the deimos change because I don;t know how it would end up, i don't fly it *** I support the +1 raptor turret, it was needed. *** I disagree with the -4 raptor powergrid. The reason given by DEV's is that it would be very potent with 150's and it should be used with 125's. In which case, it should need a PG BOOST, not a nerf, because it would not conceivably be able to fit 3x125's in the first place without completely neutralising its interceptor role... Since this (a PG boost) is out the question anyway, the raptor's PG should be left alone. It will still be no powerhouse, but at least it would be borderline usable. *** I support the amarr ship changes (+1 turret for several ships). They will hurt a lot my Caldari ships, but at least the whine will lessen. Yes the changes were needed. *** I am neutral changes to base shield and armor. I don't really believe they will change anything much. If you feel they will make amarr better and they should, go ahead. --- If someone else from my Corporation or Alliance agrees with me, he will say so. Assume nobody does :) --- WTB: Scorpion wing (left)
|
Taius Pax
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 17:36:00 -
[533]
Edited by: Taius Pax on 10/02/2008 17:38:52 Just read the blog on the Deimos. Who the **** puts an active tank on it?! Armor bonus and a mid slot for cap boosting instead of MWD and a low slot?! Your changes suggest you're completely out of touch with how that ship is used. If someone fitted as your bonuses suggested they'd gimp their offense completely.
|
starfish22
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 17:41:00 -
[534]
I strongly oppose the 1+ turret Moa changes. Moa IS THE MOST POWERFUL BLASTER CRUISER IN EXISTANCE, nothing even comes close. And thats right now. It will be totally ridiculous overpowered once the changes are in effect. Just cause it may, or may not, underperform as a sniping vessel, doesnt mean it underperforms in other areas. It is the most powerful close range cruiser in existance ALLREADY, period. Either nerf its bonuses, or dont go through with the changes at all. The problem seems to be that about 1% on this forum knows how to fit one.
|
starfish22
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 18:01:00 -
[535]
Oh, and I also want to comment on the zealot/omen/diemos changes.
The omen is underperformed compared to maller, no question. however, like argued in the blog if the omen is given +1 turret, then the zealot must too. So before, you had a 4 turret zealot that was winning most of the fights vs deimos due to the deimos gank fit, however it still had a good chance. So with the +1 changes the zealot destroys the deimos. So you decide to swap the deimos slots and bonuses. Now its an underperforming brutix for 5 times the price instead, while also in effect making the vigilant completly useless. Im not surprised though, since every faction BS is allready outperformed by tier 3 BSs, since a year and a half ago. But if thats the way you want it then thats the way you want it I guess
/ end rant
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 18:30:00 -
[536]
The Zealot wasnt beating deimos's due to fittings on the deimos, but due to speed on the Zealot.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 18:39:00 -
[537]
Originally by: Ravoc
The Tempest is prolly the ****tiest bs ingame, despite its 5 med slots. :)
Why 2 tracking disruptors you wonder? To clearly illustrate the effects on a ship. I never said it has to be a true solo bs vs bs, if that kind of PvP still exists even. PvP is getting reduced to blob and alt wars anyway. A simple cov-ops or even something like a Sentinel can already be enough.
So then what is so wrong about a tempest boost[hint, the TD change is a tempest boost].
As well, why do you discount getting closer. TD's hit all ships equally, they reduce their range by 40%. Lasers have high range and in exchange have low tracking. You have never been able to get be under lasers range and doing more damage than them. You have very very high EM resists on armor, so just get close and exploit your tracking advantage if you have a problem with getting TD'd against amarr. Or td them right back twice as much because you have more med slots.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 18:53:00 -
[538]
Fine, stay blind and expect a bunch more whine threads later on.
Anyway, I guess the dominix and amarr recons are going to be the new FOTM ...again! DTja vu anyone? |
SiJira
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 21:42:00 -
[539]
Originally by: SiJira please ccp i want to remain the underdog in eve and i dont want to find out that you need to nerf me or buff every other race against me to balance things again
dont overboost me please - giving the omen a new turret slot with the proposed resistance changes makes it too powerful and thats more apparent with the zealot
please dont get our collective hopes up dont boost us so much this is going to make us overpowered and you will have to nerf us
lessen the boosts please Trashed sig, Shark was here |
Wheya
Amarr Bruderschaft des Wahrhaftigen
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 03:09:00 -
[540]
Omen already was very hard to fit and getting the most out of the additional turret slot is a task which can be done by people who have maxed skills, have the money to buy rigs and are crazy/stupid/adventuresome enough to spend lots of isk for rigs instead of buying a much more powerful Harbinger for the same money. In gang PvP the new Omen for sure is 25% better than the old Omen as long as everybody is ignoring you. Active tanking in PvP for the Omen is a no go and the only reasonable way to fit an Omen in PvP without rigs imho are 3 heasinks, a 800mm plate and a damage control. Unfortunately I believe the Omen will still have a hard time in 1:1 situations. For new players who don't have max skills and most of the time need a ship for PvE with an active tank the Omen is more powerful and at the same time more harder to handle than before. An active tank with cap injector, 3 active hardener, 1 hs, afterburner, web and 5 quad beams is a reasonable PvE fitting in Empire space, though.
My experience with t1 cruisers is almost non-existant but I think there is a very huge amount of imbalance in the t1 cruiser class especially if I look at the damage that can be done by other ships solely from drones. The gap between cruisers and battlecruisers is huge while the additional required training time for battlecruisers is insignificant. Insurance makes the difference in price almost obsolete. I would go so far to say there is room for a ship class between battlecruisers and cruisers but another skill in the 'beginner class' would be a not so much welcome timesink (we need more timesinks for vets, though). I think the Omen boost is ok for now but for the future I would like to see a complete overhaul and boost for all t1 cruisers of all races.
The Zealot needed a boost very badly. With the new resistance on Sisi and an additional 5th turret slot the Zealot had received a boost which was a little bit too much. Maybe changing the RoF to a a less powerful damage bonus would be a good idea. After that the Deimos vs Zealot comparision would be different as well.
Deimos: I don't fly non-amarrian ships but I can understand people complaining about the new Deimos. If the role for the Deimos is to get as fast as possible to your target to deal blasterdamage hoping you last longer than your enemy then this supposed boost was a failure.
The new slot layout and bonusses force you to use at least 1 armor repairer and 1 med slot for a cap injector. The current TQ Deimos has this 2 slots as 2 low slots for passive tanking or for weapon upgrades. In other words: you have one less effective slot for the role. (I know sometimes it's hard to understand my reasoning but in 'my world' a cap injector in most situations is an ineffective module that I only fit if I see no other solution. That doesnt mean that sometimes a cap injector can be very powerful. I hope a few people understand).
To get the most out of your repair bonus you want two repairers. Two repairers also help to get the most out of the cap injector to make it a more useful module. To get the most from your repairers you need hardeners. A double repairer setup with cap injector and 3 hardeners might be very effective (I can't test it) but this setup would be more like a tanked Sacrilege. Compared to a Sac it has similar tanking ability, more damage at the cost of energy for the turrets but less cargo for charges. It would not at all fill the role of the old Deimos. There must be a better way to boost the Deimos.
Apocalyse: the range bonus is a good idea to find a role for the Apocalypse. For Pulse laser setups this will not change that much, though. I still will prefer Armageddon or Abaddon.
Tracking Disruptors: adding the falloff penalty is fair but now I fear TDs will become a lot more popular than before. Maybe less effect for optimal, falloff and tracking penalty would be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |