| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
   |
Posted - 2008.02.05 02:43:00 -
[1]
I finally got on to test the new Raptor in regards to fitting...
the powergrid reduction might be slithly over the edge, but here is my fittings.
I have near perfect fitting skills (AWU5, and also all/most upgrade skills level 5)
****************
My favorite:
3 x 75mm Gatling Railgun II
1 x Rocket Launcher II (used Arbalest on testserver though)
-
1 x 1mn MWD II
1 x Small Capacitor Booster II
1 x Warp Disruptor II
-
3 x Overdrive Injector System II (or IS/NF doesn't matter for fitting)
-
I'm using 32 of 32,5 Powergrid and 107,25 cpu of 187,5 seems fine
****************
125mm for testfitting:
3 x 125mm Railgun II
1 x Rocket Launcher II (not enough PG for Standard Missile Launcher)
-
1 x 1mn MWD II
1 x Webifier II
1 x Warp Disruptor II
-
1 x Micro Auxillary Power Core I
2 x Overdrive Injector System II (or IS/NF doesn't matter for fitting)
-
I'm using 44,2 of 45 Powergrid and 162 cpu of 187,5
I need 3,7PG extra to swap the Rocket Launcher II for a Standard Missile Launcher II so I don't see why The Raptor should lose 4 Powergrid. I haven't even tried to fit damage mods which take 1 PG each.
****************
150mm sniper testfitting
3 x 150mm Railgun II w/Spike @ about 50km optimal (maybe 60 with best skills)
1 x Empty
-
1 x 1mn Afterburner II
1 x Sensor Booster II w/lock range (giving lock range of 50km)
1 x Sensor Booster II w/lock range (giving lock range of 76km)
-
1 x Micro Auxillary Power Core I
2 x MFS II
-
I'm using 44,7 of 45 Powergrid and 113 cpu of 187,5
*to install a rocket launcher II require 3,3 more PG
*to install a standard missile launcher II require 7,8 more PG
*to upgrade for 1mn Microwarpdrive I require 3,7 more PG
*to upgrade for 1mn Microwarpdrive II require 5,7 more PG
*a MFS II require 1 PG pr unit
Nerf is taking away 5 PG (incl skills) which would otherwise allow for a T1 MWD instead of an Afterburner II (T2 with losing a MFS II), but still not enough to install a Standard Missile Launcher II.
Not nerfing the Raptors Powergrid might result in Interceptors with T1 MWD and 2 MFSII - With or Without nerf it would still take 2 MAPC's to install a Standard Missile Launcher II and Microwarpdrive I or II.
So the question is does CCP want to nerf reasonable 125mm setups (no MFS II with T2 MWD or 2 MFS II with T1 MWD) to avoid Raptors with 3 x 150mm Railgun II's, T1 MWD and 2 MFS II with 1 empty hi-slot.
I haven't even tried installing a small Shield Booster II taking 3 Powergrid.
Personally I can see why it has been suggested, but those Powergrid changes will not really make a difference. If people want to snipe with the Raptor for some reason they can still do it. With the loss of a damage mod perhaps but with the lack of tackle and poor cap to support prolonged gunfire the Raptor will be a poor choice over a Harpy no matter how you put it, so why ruin some good 125mm setups maybe even having a small tank though not many uses it.
Dare I say debate? 
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 06:19:00 -
[2]
What if, with the second setup that uses 125mm Railguns, you removed the Rocket Launcher and just left the fourth highslot empty? |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 12:42:00 -
[3]
That would clear 3-4 PG and where are you going with that? They can ofcourse be used to install MFS II, but why give tha Raptor 4 HIslots if CCP only want it to use 3 of them efficiently?
Pinky
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Pattern Clarc
Quam Singulari
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 13:07:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Pinky Denmark
That would clear 3-4 PG and where are you going with that? They can ofcourse be used to install MFS II, but why give tha Raptor 4 HIslots if CCP only want it to use 3 of them efficiently?
Pinky
same could be said of the crow, or ranis
|
Nova Fox
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 13:42:00 -
[5]
anythoughts about using blank slots for heat sinks?
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
Karjala Inc.
Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 14:01:00 -
[6]
Interceptor being tackler, I see no point -sniping-. Whole ship as an idea seems pretty broken. Slow interceptor with turret range bonus, wait... Why don't I just use AF? 
I tried few 125mm setups on test server didn't manage to fit 3x without MAPC in any way. I think I'd rather stay with 2x125mm on TQ and fit more speed. Tbh. 75mm are pretty much out of question as they are.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 15:19:00 -
[7]
What blank slots? (hybrid version of heatsinks = MFS)
And yes - no reason to snipe with the Raptor (though it can be fast while sniping) but apparantly CCP states in the recently published devblog that the Raptor is getting it's PG nerfed to avoid Sniper Raptors and make people fit 125mm Railguns over 150mm Railguns. I just wanted to show some setups and how the powergrid would affect the options - And pilots with less than AWU 5 will have serious issues with fitting even 125mm Railguns and IMO it's not worth it to avoid the theoretical 150mm setups..
I actually have very good success with my favorite tackler setup using 75mm Gatling Railgun IIs - Im not really fitting them for dps anyway...
It keeps the point and speed and the guns and rockets are good enough for killing drones, pods and add dps for the situations you can go under web range
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Nova Fox
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 15:53:00 -
[8]
let me rephrase
Using offline modules as heat absorbtion.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 17:30:00 -
[9]
I can't see how it would be of any real use - can you?
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Gordon Red
SteelVipers
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 18:14:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Gordon Red on 05/02/2008 18:14:09
First I want to say that a range version is studid, because this ship has NO tracking bonus!!! Even with a tracking computer is is still too bad...
Secon, I don't see our problem. EVERY caldari ship seems to be build from CCP to have at last a PDU II to work PG and energy wise. (same on crow, I laught every time I see crows with T1 launcher... without precision and/or web they fail every time vs my crusader...)
=>
3x 75mm rail II
1x standard missile launcher II
1x 1mn MWD II
1x tracking computer with tracking script
1x fleeting warp scrambler (or T2)
1x overdrive II
1x nanofiber II
1x PDU II
I have the feeling that CCP wanted to change the ARES (+1 turret) and not the Raptor...
because this ship sucks now. => a close range variant has problems with the 4th high slot to fit now (for close range I prefer a damage control and not a PDU) and for long range no tracking bonus.
|
|
|
Tozmeister
Caldari
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 19:44:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Tozmeister on 05/02/2008 19:45:21
The Raptor vs Ares contrast is a good one, being as they both are there respective racial versions of the 'tackler' inty.
.............. Raptor ...... Ares
TQ:-
highs:- .... 4 ..... 3
PG:- .... 30 ..... 30
SiSi
Highs:- .... 4 ..... 3
PG:- .... 26 .... 30
does anyone see a problem here?
yes the Ares has an extra low but thats always fitted with a third OD II for top speed. The ares can fill all its module slots with good functional gear with no fitting mods required.
The Raptor without any grid mods runs out of PG with 2x 125mm rails, 1x WMD and a disruptor II. leaving 2 highs and 1 mid to fit with >1 grid. go figure....
+++????+++Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start+++
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 19:47:00 -
[12]
Giving the Raptor choice to fit 3rd gun is nice...
Removing 4 powergrid to avoid a sniping platforms not many people would ever think/want to use and in the same process making it very very hard for average SP players to fit a decent 125mm setup is definately not worth it.
And Im sure most caldari setups are meant to fit PDS as a natural thing but I doubt CCP plans to in regards of the Raptor. Maybe a MAPC to fit the bigger guns like 125mm, but not a PDS...
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 22:42:00 -
[13]
An interceptor fitting a MAPC in one of it's precious low slots for extra DPS is a great way to get blown up, especially if you happen to already be in one of the slowest interceptors around.
Raptor didn't need the PG nerf. It's not a good sniping platform and wouldn't have been able to fit 3 150mm II and a MWD II anyway.
|
Nova Fox
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 23:15:00 -
[14]
In reply:
simple overloading for that extra few seconds or pulsing the mwds overloads so you can maitain faster speeds alot longer before busting the mwd.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 00:11:00 -
[15]
I know what overheating does - and I know heating spreads to modules next to them (or at least they are planned to) but exactly what you are on to is a serious mystery.
which modules should I remove and why? Basically IMO the ship need all it's modules to be competitive or usefull...
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Rn Bonnet
Free Collective
The OSS
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 01:49:00 -
[16]
CCP has considered that this makes the Raptor even more cap unstable right? Even with max skills this thing wouldn't last two minutes while scrambling something and firing at it. You could fit an MWDI, but gfl not exploding because your are slow, or could could change one of the lows out for a powergrid mod... and die horribly because you are slow. The craptor is already one of the slowest (hence most hated, hence least useful) interceptors in the game. No need to force pilots to fly even slower to have a prayer of surviving on the battle field.
|
Andreya
Direct Intent
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 06:36:00 -
[17]
i refuse to fly caldari intys :P but.. i can honestly say,, i wouldnt care if the raptor could fit 150mm;s properly, nevertheless 125mms... who cares? i think itd be pretty cool don tyou? its not like raptor are going to take over the world of eve after or anything. i say bring it on and make ALL INTYS kick arse please :)
*for example*
ALL intys need another 10km to lock range
ares with 3 turrets
CLAW NEEDS 4 TURRETS :)
or
claw drop rocket slot for +1 mid slot
stiletto, drop the rocket slot for another low slot
malediction, get rid of that USELESS armour bonus, for a dual unracial rocket damage bonus, (or dual rocket range :P)
raptor, 3 turrets, with kewl long range abilities....
remember. these shisp all still do a measly 125 dps or so with those changes i propose.. and more importantly.. thats all within web range, where, they will still die once locked and web'd or neuted.
_________________________________________________________
Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected]) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 08:55:00 -
[18]
I agree - the Raptor powergrid adjustment is very well thought out and calculated. But the calculations have basis in something that would never work out very well with the current gameplay.
I'd say the Raptor should be allowed to keep it's already low powergrid. Thats why I did these few calculations... That powergrid doesn't really influence a 150mm setup as it needs lots of MAPCs in the first place, but really makes it hell to fit 125mm setups - even for players with perfect or near perfect fitting skills (which ofcourse should be used for balance but people without should still have a fair chance)
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Wilvarin Sense
Thundercats
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 16:56:00 -
[19]
Third turret, good. Reducing the already too low powergrid, bad. However, what the Raptor really need is a speed boost or mass reduction, it's already the slowest interceptor by far. The Taranis makes up for it's place as second slowest by actually being able to kill things, something the Raptor isn't really known for.
Even if the disruptor range bonus have improved its usefulness a little, there is really no reason except for price why anyone would use it over a Crow. Third turret is a start, but if you want fit turrets that actually do decent damage (read: guns other than 75mm gatling rails) you will have to sacrifice some of its already low speed. |
Bronson Hughes
Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 17:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Rn Bonnet
CCP has considered that this makes the Raptor even more cap unstable right? Even with max skills this thing wouldn't last two minutes while scrambling something and firing at it.
This isn't a unique problem of the Raptor. The long-range-point 'Ceptors have to choose between tackling at max range and doing any sort of DPS.
I don't understand CCP's reasoning behind the PG nerf. They said it's to keep the Harpy as the undisputed king of T2 frig rail sniping, but that logic really makes me scratch my head. The Raptor only gets one range bonus, still has fewer turrets than the Harpy, and had a very hard time fitting T2 150mm rails even before the PG nerf. Also, the Ares, which is a much better choice to compare to the Raptor than the Harpy, has 3 turrets and 30 PG.
4 PG isn't going to make the Raptor overpowered. If CCP wants us to use that last turret, giveus back the PG please.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
|
|
Rn Bonnet
Free Collective
The OSS
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 17:54:00 -
[21]
No its not; however, the raptor with this change will both be uniquely gimped in speed and uniquely gimped in cap since nothing else will have one quite as bad as it.
|
Bronson Hughes
Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 17:56:00 -
[22]
Linkage
This is my petition in Ships and Modules to have CCP leave the Raptor's PG alone. It's pretty detailed so I didn't want to double-post it in both sections.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Gordon Red
SteelVipers
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 17:59:00 -
[23]
If CCP really thinks that a Raptor could ever be a match to the Harpy... they really have no clue.
a) no Tracking bonus => I will never fit anything with something bigger as 75mm Rails
b) if I want range, I also need lockingrange => sensorbooster
=> I fail to see, what a ceptor is good for, when I switched every usefull slot to tracking + lockrange AND many low slots to fittingmods (to be able to get this guns online in the first place)
|
Andreya
Direct Intent
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 15:55:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Wilvarin Sense
Third turret, good. Reducing the already too low powergrid, bad. However, what the Raptor really need is a speed boost or mass reduction, it's already the slowest interceptor by far. The Taranis makes up for it's place as second slowest by actually being able to kill things, something the Raptor isn't really known for.
Even if the disruptor range bonus have improved its usefulness a little, there is really no reason except for price why anyone would use it over a Crow. Third turret is a start, but if you want fit turrets that actually do decent damage (read: guns other than 75mm gatling rails) you will have to sacrifice some of its already low speed.
i refuse to fly my caldari t2 frigs :P but dont get me wrong, the raptor and crow SHOULD be the slowest ships.. they CAN shoot the furthest. and traditionally , caldari ships are slower... also have longer lock range and jam strength, and other fun jazz.. but even while being slwer than other intys, being able to shoot at decent ranges makes them more usefull against larger targets... where as those faster claws and malediciton must get web range in order to do and realistic damage, hence, why they are better at killing off things 'like' a rail raptor
_________________________________________________________
Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected]) |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 16:05:00 -
[25]
Quote:
the raptor and crow SHOULD be the slowest ships.. they CAN shoot the furthest. and traditionally , caldari ships are slower... also have longer lock range and jam strength, and other fun jazz.. but even while being slwer than other intys, being able to shoot at decent ranges makes them more usefull against larger targets...
Yeah, except, no one cares about an interceptors DPS. Often all that really matters is the speed and tackling ranges. Being the slowest inty just means you're the worst inty.
|
Bronson Hughes
Knights of the Wild
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 16:53:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ulstan
Moreover, raptor doesn't have an advantage in locking range over the other interceptors in its class.
The raptor is considered a terrible tackler and it's not because of it's lack of turret slots.
I never noticed that before, but you're right; the Raptor has no lock range advantage over the other 'tackler' 'Ceptors. Given that it shares the other racial trends (slower, less damage at longer range) it should get the longer lock range too.
Hell, all of the 'Tackler' 'Ceptors should get some sort of lock range boost to go along with their warp scrambler range bonus.
--------------------
"I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 22:18:00 -
[27]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 07/02/2008 22:21:43
With max skills:
3x 125mm II = 21.6 powergrid
1mn MWD II = 17 powergrid.
Generic midslot modules 1 grid each.
That means, to fit 125s on a raptor, you need 40.6 powergrid, out of your 37.5.
You _need_ a MAPC to do it.
With a MAPC right now, you have an extra 12.5 grid.
So 50 in total.
Which means you could fit:
3x 125mm II, 1x STD II
MWD II, web, point
MAPC, 2 speed mods.
This leaves you exactly 0.25 CPU, and 14.25 CPU.
WITH a fittings mod.
You get 61dps, and an optimal on your rails of 20km.
Alternatively, you can fit 3x 150mm IIs (losing the launcher).
This gives you 10cpu left. An optimal of 27km (base). And you do 51dps with max skills.
Optimal range can be extended to 36km and 49km respectively, if you're prepared to use spike. (61 and 51dps respectively)
The concept of a 'frigate sniper' is acutally pretty laughable as is, but it's in no danger of threatening the harpy or the cormorant for that niche.
The harpy clocks in at a 55km spike optimal with 125s, and 65dps. But can also manage to fit 2 magstabs relatively easier than the raptor can (218.75cpu is noticably easier to work with).
Or 68dps and 73km with spike and 150s.
Similarly, the cormorant can reach 74km and 76dps with spike.
And the taranis, can fit 125s and a MWD II _without_ needing the MAPC (closest equivalent as a 3 turret ship). 58dps at spike range, of 24km. Or with 150s and the MAPC 32km spike optimal. and 61dps.
Really.
Even with a 3rd turret slot, the Raptor is not a lean mean owning machine.
It becomes _usable_, because you STILL need a MAPC to fit it.
Actually, even if it could fit 125s and a MWD, web and point without an MAPC, it'd still be quite a distance from the Taranis, simply because the latter gets a 50% damage bonus.
This is, of course, all in addition to being the slowest, heaviest interceptor, in a niche where speed is VERY DEFINITELY critically important.
Seriously guys, the Raptor's been known as the cRaptor for ages. An extra turretslot makes it usable, but dropping the powergrid again, puts it straight back in the 'really cheap, because it sucks so hard' bin.
And as correctly pointed out, with a 25km locking range, you also don't get the benefits of EITHER That optimal, OR your 28km warp disruptor, without having a sensor booster using up one of your rather valuable 3 midslots.
Am I alone in thinking it is entirely unreasonable that a ceptor being unable to lock as far as it's warp disruptor optimal is just plain wrong?
Incidentally, the Crow will do: 37.5km locking, 64dps with navy bloodclaws, with a range of 51km. It's also faster and more agile than the cRaptor. (and needs no tracking)
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Andreya
Direct Intent
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 20:00:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 07/02/2008 16:43:09
Edited by: Ulstan on 07/02/2008 16:42:34
Quote:
the raptor and crow SHOULD be the slowest ships.. they CAN shoot the furthest. and traditionally , caldari ships are slower... also have longer lock range and jam strength, and other fun jazz.. but even while being slwer than other intys, being able to shoot at decent ranges makes them more usefull against larger targets...
An interceptors DPS is not very important. Their speed and tackling ability are all that counts. If you're the slowest inty, but do 10 more dps than other inties, that makes you the worst inty around.
Moreover, raptor doesn't have an advantage in locking range over the other interceptors in its class.
The raptor is considered a terrible tackler and it's not because of it's lack of turret slots.
i DO agree with you almost 100%. cept something like the taranis, who is very slow for an inty itself, but can max our around 300 dps gank fit.... well, being slow arse, but having a tiny sig rad, when mixed in a medium gang with a large variety of ships, that ranis will get in there for a LOT of dps.. or if the target is EWAR'd a ranis can get in there and lay on a LOT of hurt, of course, this is only the ranis who can pull off such crazy dps...
but true, dpe on an inty is useless in most cases.. unless its inty on inty.
personally, being an inty pilot. i would rather them scrap all damage bonus's and give them more cap/sig/tackling bonus's... the damage bonus on intys, is almost like giving a Rohk a hybrid falloff bonus  whats the point
_________________________________________________________
Only once you've lost everything, are you free to do anything.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Navigator ([email protected]) |
Kane Darkstar
Caldari
Fukumaden
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:11:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tozmeister
Edited by: Tozmeister on 05/02/2008 19:45:21
The Raptor vs Ares contrast is a good one, being as they both are there respective racial versions of the 'tackler' inty.
.............. Raptor ...... Ares
TQ:-
highs:- .... 4 ..... 3
PG:- .... 30 ..... 30
SiSi
Highs:- .... 4 ..... 3
PG:- .... 26 .... 30
does anyone see a problem here?
yes the Ares has an extra low but thats always fitted with a third OD II for top speed. The ares can fill all its module slots with good functional gear with no fitting mods required.
The Raptor without any grid mods runs out of PG with 2x 125mm rails, 1x WMD and a disruptor II. leaving 2 highs and 1 mid to fit with >1 grid. go figure....
This
I don't understand CCP's problem forcing people to use fitting mods on Caldari race ships but the let the other race's get a free ride..
Thanks CCP this will make the raptor suck even more then it did before the last buff patch. So why would anyone use this ship over the Crow CCP? It's slower and needs to use a fitting mod in the low that's a joke.
|
Vitriol17
Distractions
Lucrum
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:17:00 -
[30]
Will the cRaptor simply become the scRaptor?
Or is there an even funnier name out there?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |