| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baun
   |
Posted - 2004.05.16 06:36:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 16:52:03
Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 16:44:28
Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 07:34:04
 Quote:
Ship Power & CPU changes:
Apocalypse Power: 19500 (was 15000)
Quote:
2. CPU requirement has been reduced for shield boosters by half for testing to see fitting problems for Caldarian shield tanks (that are starting to armor tank very successfully on Chaos...)
If you add in enginerring lvl5 an Apocalypse will have the following insane power grid:
24375
With Electronics level 5 it will have:
625 CPU
An Apoc can then fit the following setup:
8 425mm Rail Guns (420 CPU with weapon upgrades 5, 22000 MW)
1 X-L Clarity Ward (now reduced, ostensibly to 80 CPU from 160, 500 MW)
3 Hardeners (32 tf, 36tf, 38tf, 5 MW each)
7 Named Cap Power Relays (2 tf each)
Totals:
620 CPU
22515 MW
The Apoc will have a ~110 second cap recharge rate and will be able to shoot and run its defense for an incredibly long time. Admittedly it cannot fit a shield boost amplifier, for want of CPU, but if it used modded 425 rail guns these could easily be accomodated.
Raven:
With Engineering and Electronics lvl5:
12500 Powergrid
875 CPU
Discounting CPU, which the Raven now has in spades (especially with Shield boosting CPU decrease) Raven can fit:
6 Siege Launchers (10500 MW)
1 X-L Clarity Ward (500 MW)
4 Hardeners (20 MW)
1 Shield Booster Amp (2MW)
5 CPRs (0 MW)
The Raven has (12500-11022 = 1478):
1478 MW left to fit 2 Highslots
The Raven has a 227 Cap Recharge Rate
This is not even enough to fit 2 Dual Heavy Ion blasters or 2 Dual250mm Railguns. The Raven could substitute a few Siege Launchers for the new "mini-sieges" and in so doing self-nerf his ROF for the purpose of being able to fit 2 turrets (or neutralizers) onto his ship.
All in all, the Apoc has better offense, almost equivalent defense and a MUCH MUCH higher Cap Recharge rate, making it the better tank.
Does this make no sense to anyone else?
If TomB re-reverses his Cap Power Relay nerf then the Raven is reduced to using Power Diagnostics and becomes worthless at shield tanking whilst still not being able to fit an adequate offense AND the Apoc can still revert to armor tanking, which while giving it a less effective tanking, is still viable.
In essence, the series of proposed changes has really accomplished nothing and this latest batch actually makes the problem worse. Here is the sequence of events as I know it:
1. Apocalypse is the best Shield tank out there and can run an X-L booster forever using 7 Cap Power Relays. Doing so, however, cripples its offensive potential.
Result: Cap Power Relay nerf is proposed. This forces ships like the Apocalypse to armor tank.
2. Raven pilots, realizing that the cap power relay nerf kills their shield tanking begin testing Armor tanking setups on chaos. They realize that they can armor tank just as effectively as they used to be able to shield tank and in so doing free up enough cpu to be able to fit a full array of Siege Launchers.
Result: TomB changes Large Armor Repairers so that they take up far more powergrid, making it impossible for Raven's to equip them and field viable offense. Inexplicably at the same time TomB decreases the CPU requirements for shield tanking but increases the powergrid requirements for Raven's offense. TomB, however, recognizing the imbalance in the defense smartly reverses his prior decision about nerfing cap power relays.
3. Ravens are now incapable of fielding any sort of complete offense while the lower CPU requirements of the proposed shield tanking combined with the powergrid fiddling and the CPR de-nerf allow Apocalypse's to field the same shield tanking that they could in phase 1 while fielding a FULL offense they could not in phase 1.
I think the time for half measures is over. We need to find a real solution to this instead of just creating and recreating different incarnations of the same problem. I am by no means blaming TomB for this. He is obviously very responsive to player feedback and is very dedicated to solving this and doing so without restricting certain ships to certain types of defenses.
I don't have the answers here, but I am pretty sure that these proposed changes aren't solving anything.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Arthur Eld
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:05:00 -
[2]
And the wheel of nerfs goes round. I'm not sure what the proper solution is but I'm certain that buffing the Apoc is not the answer. The Apoc is already an extremely powerful ship with its large cap and grid. Boosting grid even further will only compound the problem.
____________________
First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. We deal in lead.
|
DarkMatters
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:10:00 -
[3]
Hail,
your compaisons are poor, you are comparing two ships but have not changed the load out they will have if the changes go though. why is the apoc a sheild tank and using rails, if its getting laser and armour tanking buffs?
the recent changes apear to have been made in order to
a) make the apoc the better armour tank
with the changes on chaos last week the raven could outperform the apoc in tanking (mid slot cap rechargers x 5,
4 harders / repairer in low) and still keep all of its firepower (6 siege + 2 guns)
the devs have done this by increasing the grid of the apoc and increasing the grid needed to use armour stuff.
b) make the laser a usable PVP weapon
your raven set up is ideal, what i mean is that you have the best equipment you could possible put on it and nouthink better you could put into any slot, so you are running out of grid.
its like saying i cant fit the apoc with 8 tachions, and 6 armour harders and a large armour repairer, with 4 cap rechargers in the mid slots.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:16:00 -
[4]
Here are some possible contributions to a final solution
1. Leave Siege Launcher Power Grid at 1000 and leave Siege Launcher RoF at 20 seconds
2. Moderate the increase in PG reqs for Large Armor Repairers and the increase in PG of the different ships. Make it so that a Raven will have trouble fitting Large Armor repairers but not so that an Apoc or megathron can exploit the increase in base powergrid to fit better weapons
3. INCREASE CPU requirements for shield boosting and further increase the Raven's base CPU. The Raven cannot exploit this CPU increase to fit anything it shouldn't be able to fit anyway but it will still allow it to shield tank while preventing the armor tanking ships from shield tanking without sacking a ton of low slots.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Arthur Eld
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:17:00 -
[5]
Originally by: DarkMatters
your compaisons are poor, you are comparing two ships but have not changed the load out they will have if the changes go though. why is the apoc a sheild tank and using rails, if its getting laser and armour tanking buffs?
The apoc can fit (even) more rails due to the lower grid requirements and they use less cap anyway with longer range than lasers. And with the removal of the CPR shield boosting nerf the apoc can have a huge recharge rate that can be put directly into shield boosting again.
____________________
First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. We deal in lead.
|
Arthur Eld
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:22:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Arthur Eld on 16/05/2004 07:23:54
Originally by: Baun
Here are some possible contributions to a final solution
1. Leave Siege Launcher Power Grid at 1000 and leave Siege Launcher RoF at 20 seconds
2. Moderate the increase in PG reqs for Large Armor Repairers and the increase in PG of the different ships. Make it so that a Raven will have trouble fitting Large Armor repairers but not so that an Apoc or megathron can exploit the increase in base powergrid to fit better weapons
3. INCREASE CPU requirements for shield boosting and further increase the Raven's base CPU. The Raven cannot exploit this CPU increase to fit anything it shouldn't be able to fit anyway but it will still allow it to shield tank while preventing the armor tanking ships from shield tanking without sacking a ton of low slots.
I think if the objective is to make armour tanking not viable for the Raven then just increasing the PG requirements of the siege launchers would be sufficient. If Ravens are using most of their grid on their weapons, like most other ships currently are, then they wont have the grid left to fit armour repairers without using low slots for PG enhancing modules which would hamper its armour tanking ability anyway. Increasing grid on so called armour tanking ships is a bad idea IMO.
____________________
First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. We deal in lead.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:26:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 07:29:42
Quote:
your compaisons are poor, you are comparing two ships but have not changed the load out they will have if the changes go though. why is the apoc a sheild tank and using rails, if its getting laser and armour tanking buffs?
Ok apparently you ENTIRELY missed my point.
This laser and armor tanking "buffs" actually help it to be a better shield tanker.
Quote:
the recent changes apear to have been made in order to
a) make the apoc the better armour tank
with the changes on chaos last week the raven could outperform the apoc in tanking (mid slot cap rechargers x 5,
4 harders / repairer in low) and still keep all of its firepower (6 siege + 2 guns)
the devs have done this by increasing the grid of the apoc and increasing the grid needed to use armour stuff.
Yes, that was indeed the purpose of the changes, but they failed miserably. The result is that while the Raven used to be the better armor tanker the Apoc is now the better shield tanker.
Quote:
your raven set up is ideal, what i mean is that you have the best equipment you could possible put on it and nouthink better you could put into any slot, so you are running out of grid.
Did you actually read what I posted?
The Apoc can fit EIGHT, yes 8, top of the line battleship weapons and fit full defense while the Raven can fit 6 marginally top of the line battleship weapons and only ONE other ****TY battleship weapon.
Quote:
its like saying i cant fit the apoc with 8 tachions, and 6 armour harders and a large armour repairer, with 4 cap rechargers in the mid slots.
You are right, you can't do that. Instead you can do something just as good, 1 X-L booster 3 hardeners or 1 X-L booster, 2 hardeners and 1 amp. 8 425s, which use less cap than the tachs and still do alot of damage, and 7 cap power relays which let you hold your defense for FAR longer than you could with your "ideal" setup.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
DarkMatters
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: DarkMatters
The apoc can fit (even) more rails due to the lower grid requirements and they use less cap anyway with longer range than lasers. And with the removal of the CPR shield boosting nerf the apoc can have a huge recharge rate that can be put directly into shield boosting again.
its a fair point but if the rail are still a better weapon then lasers even with the ship bonuses given to them, then somethink is STILL wroung. also did i read somewhere that CPRs are going to be effected by stacking now?
INCREASE CPU requirements for shield boosting and further increase the Raven's base CPU. The Raven cannot exploit this CPU increase to fit anything it shouldn't be able to fit anyway but it will still allow it to shield tank while preventing the armor tanking ships from shield tanking without sacking a ton of low slots.
sounds perfectly fair to me
|
Arthur Eld
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:27:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Arthur Eld on 16/05/2004 07:29:46
Originally by: DarkMatters
Quote:
The apoc can fit (even) more rails due to the lower grid requirements and they use less cap anyway with longer range than lasers. And with the removal of the CPR shield boosting nerf the apoc can have a huge recharge rate that can be put directly into shield boosting again.
its a fair point but if the rail are still a better weapon then lasers even with the ship bonuses given to them, then somethink is STILL wroung.
I agree. Lasers have been made more viable but still no incentive over other weapon types.
Edit: quotes messed up. BTW its a slow night at work. I'll try not to spam the thread anymore.
____________________
First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. We deal in lead.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:32:00 -
[10]
Quote:
I think if the objective is to make armour tanking not viable for the Raven then just increasing the PG requirements of the siege launchers would be sufficient. If Ravens are using most of their grid on their weapons, like most other ships currently are, then they wont have the grid left to fit armour repairers without using low slots for PG enhancing modules which would hamper its armour tanking ability anyway. Increasing grid on so called armour tanking ships is a bad idea IMO.
Yes, increasing power grid on armor tanking ship is a bad idea if implimented poorly. If implimented properly, however, you give them just enough additional grid to fir the repairers whilst not changing what they can fit otherwise.
No, increasing power grid on siege launchers is NOT sufficient. You are leaving the Raven with 1400 MW to fit 2 high slots. This isnt even enough to fit REALLY AWFUL battleship weapons. No other ships have the ability to fit nothing in their utility high slots after fitting their best weapons in their primary high slots.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
Arthur Eld
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Baun
Quote:
I think if the objective is to make armour tanking not viable for the Raven then just increasing the PG requirements of the siege launchers would be sufficient. If Ravens are using most of their grid on their weapons, like most other ships currently are, then they wont have the grid left to fit armour repairers without using low slots for PG enhancing modules which would hamper its armour tanking ability anyway. Increasing grid on so called armour tanking ships is a bad idea IMO.
Yes, increasing power grid on armor tanking ship is a bad idea if implimented poorly. If implimented properly, however, you give them just enough additional grid to fir the repairers whilst not changing what they can fit otherwise.
No, increasing power grid on siege launchers is NOT sufficient. You are leaving the Raven with 1400 MW to fit 2 high slots. This isnt even enough to fit REALLY AWFUL battleship weapons. No other ships have the ability to fit nothing in their utility high slots after fitting their best weapons in their primary high slots.
Well....just increasing grid reqs on the siege launchers wouldn't require the nerfing of the raven's grid and I dont necessarily agree with the numbers put up by TomB for the siege grid reqs. They should be balanced to whatever the Raven's grid can handle without nerfing its ability to fit 2 decent turrets.
Adding grid to armour tankers is still bad IMO because they can still forego armour tanking for shield tanking (or at least sheild based defense) and fit more guns with the repairer grid allocation.
____________________
First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. We deal in lead.
|
DarkMatters
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:45:00 -
[12]
take a deep breath and count to 10 braun
the first point you made is that the new changes (ie the increase power grid) helps the apoc be a better sheild tanker in what way? does it allow to fit better weapons?
the secound point you have quoted me and then commented, please read that again you have argeed with me, i was trying to explain how they had failed previously and why the new changes (incresed grid, and increased requirments) are needed i am unsure what further point you are trying to bring to the disscussion?
i did indead read what you posted, and 6 siege launchers blasting out cruse + torps is not a "marginal weapon" IMHO.
i will ask again is their anythink ealse you could fit into thoes launcher slots? why dont you replace them with guns and only have a couple of launchers.
|
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 07:53:00 -
[13]
I think I gotta agree with Baun on this one.
I really dont understand the logic of reversing the decision on the Cap Relays and then making armor tanking harder while simutaneously making ships better armor tankers by giving them more powergrid. The extra powergrid, I imagine on any ship which is getting the boost is just going to go to more and bigger weapons while everyone goes back to the same uber-shield tanks that were the problem in the first place.
I mean dang, look at the typhoon. They're prposing to boost its MW to 12,500, which is what the tempest has now. Certainly I could use that extra power to more effectivly armortank... but without the cap relay nerf I could instead use the same shield-tank setup an apoc would use (more easily with superior cpu) and put 4x1400mm on instead. That's a pretty easy choice.
If they want to make some ships better armor tanks then others they need to introduce a new set of ship bonuses where ships like the typhoon and apoc get +10% armor repairing and -10% shield boosting, or maybe reduce the MW to mount a repairer for armor tank ships and a reduction in CPU need for boosters for shield tank ships.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 08:45:00 -
[14]
I thought Cap Relays were getting a stacking penalty?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 08:48:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I thought Cap Relays were getting a stacking penalty?
Well, if it's "the" stacking penalty I'd say 4 or more cap relays are still very viable.
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 09:37:00 -
[16]
Well in tomb's latest post he didn't mention that shield boosters will get that reduction in cpu so hopefully mega and apoc will be prevented from having uber weapons set up due to CPU issues. 8x1400mm's on apoc with no bonuses are not gonna be that great and the changes to lasers is a step in the right direction for amarr ships. Increasing CPU of shield boosters will just cause big problems for tempest which wont have the grid to use armor defence properly (tempest getting small grid boost cos of new launchers)and is already tight for cpu and will now be tight for grid and cpu cos it has to accomodate for cruise laucnhers.
I have thought that maybe a penalty for shield boosting on apoc,mega,'phoon and arma may be a good solution cos as the proposed changes stand the raven,tempest,domi and scorp are forced to use shield defence but the others still may have the option to use either and a whole lot of extra grid to boot....
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 09:59:00 -
[17]
Oh no, the apoc is a good ship again. What shall we do!
Lets cry for the nerf bat!
On a serious note:
Using the apoc as a shield tank doesnt really make sense. You have more armor to work with, more pg designed for armor tanking, and its easier to get 60% resistance to all dmg types (3hardners).
________________________________________________________
|
Jazz Bo
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 10:15:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Baun
No other ships have the ability to fit nothing in their utility high slots after fitting their best weapons in their primary high slots.
The Tempest can only fit four 1400 Howies without PG enhancing modules. Not sure of their requirements, but it probably won't be able to fit four mini-Sieges on top of those four either.
Originally by: DB Preacher
Celestial Apocalypse - Brave souls fighting the endless smak.
|
Xtro 2
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 10:17:00 -
[19]
Give each race its own shield boost bonus that works similar to a shield boost amplifier, this way you can have whatever "race" you like with a better shield boosting ability than another race, same applies to armour repairers.
__________________________________________
Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights. |
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 10:23:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jazz Bo
Originally by: Baun
No other ships have the ability to fit nothing in their utility high slots after fitting their best weapons in their primary high slots.
The Tempest can only fit four 1400 Howies without PG enhancing modules. Not sure of their requirements, but it probably won't be able to fit four mini-Sieges on top of those four either.
Well with the slightly increased grid on tempest it will be able to fit 5 1400's alone without any uprades but you can gurantee that the mini siege will have a fairly large grid requirement to prevent cruisers from using them so will probably need pdu's to fit them along with 1400's....
|
|
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 11:18:00 -
[21]
why whine about the Ravens PG? Becouse YOU cant fitt 6 Siege Launchers AND 2 Guns? Siege Launchers are Battleship sized, and i cant see a Tempest fitt 6 1400mm without using PDU's and Reactors... Soo, whats the problem?
"We brake for nobody"
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 11:22:00 -
[22]
I use power diagnostics anyway so I'll be able to fit the 2 425mm railguns regardless of the new pg changes for siege.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
de meyer
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 11:32:00 -
[23]
Why should a raven beat an apoc?
When a scorp will totally dominate it?
|
Jazz Bo
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 11:59:00 -
[24]
Originally by: de meyer
Why should a raven beat an apoc?
When a scorp will totally dominate it?
There is no way a lone Scorpion can kill the new improved Apoc alone. Tons of cap and a recharge of 110 seconds?
Originally by: DB Preacher
Celestial Apocalypse - Brave souls fighting the endless smak.
|
Shevar
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 13:22:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Jazz Bo
Originally by: de meyer
Why should a raven beat an apoc?
When a scorp will totally dominate it?
There is no way a lone Scorpion can kill the new improved Apoc alone. Tons of cap and a recharge of 110 seconds?
If cap recharge attribute isnt getting a stacking nerf...
--------
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
qrac
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 13:37:00 -
[26]
cap relays r getting stacking nerfed so u wont get apoc's with these amounts of cap.
-------------------------------------------
Insanes numquam moriuntur! |
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 13:41:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Hellek on 16/05/2004 13:45:17
I agree, Baun, wait for the stacking nerf on CPRs and then discuss the issue again. Starting to whine before the changes are fully done is a bit too early in my opinion.
Don't forget that a Megathron with 7 425rails does more damage than Apoc with 8. Don't forget that 6 Siege launchers deal a HUGE amount of damage (more than the 8 rails I think).
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 14:01:00 -
[28]
well i have to agree to Baun about this, the Raven needs to fit siege launchers now since all the other launchers are really crap and not suited for beeing a primary attack weapon.
Thy already increased the ROF of Siege launchers by 4 seconds! Giving it 24 seconds ROF, that awful slow already, even with the Raven thy will be the slowest firing weapons.
Thats even worse for the Scorp, who gets even crappier Damage output now, and giving it big problems to fit 6 BS size weapons 
not really fair 
Wanna fly with me?
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 14:08:00 -
[29]
Ye but each siege launcher holds 30 cruise missiles with the change so far less reloading than before which is bound to make up for those increased ROF changes. Plus the introduction of missile damage mods and better bonuses on scorp and raven....
|
Aerfen
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 14:23:00 -
[30]
Another person who is unable to read any of the statements tomb has had to highlight, to try and prevent this kind of whine.
THESE ARE ONLY IN TESTING TO SEE HOW THEY WORK AND CAN AND WILL BE CHANGED BEFORE REACHING TRANQUILITY
Instead of complaining, try the changes and make constructive comments in the relevent thread. If you can't find anything more constructive to say than, "i don't like these changes" but can give no factual reasoning, say nothing. If you can't test these changes then you can't comment, as you have no idea how they work, theory is no substitute for actually trying things. It's these whine without trying threads that contribute to getting things nerfed to high heaven, which has now led to this major overhaul to try and fix.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |