EVE Search - Apocalypse the new super ship, Raven still a dud

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Apocalypse the new super ship, Raven still a dud

» 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)
Nafri	Posted - 2004.05.16 14:53:00 - [31] Originally by: Aerfen 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. mhh i hope you got it that this is a reply forum for the devs, cause were testing the changes atm so please dont play mister smart Wanna fly with me?
Lord Zap	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:08:00 - [32] 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? Where are you getting this figure of 110 seconds from?! As far as I was aware the fastest capacitor charge time you could get on an Apocalypse was 145 seconds unless using Capacitor Flux (which is pointless) with energy systems ops 5 and 7 cap relays. That aside, these proposed changes look like they will make the game even more imbalanced. At present a shield tanked apocalypse with 6 x 425mm rails 2 x H-50 arbs will beat, by way of outlasting, pretty much any other ship, the proposed changes only look set to make it even more uber. I also don't have the answer :/ but these changes will not help matters one bit.
Siddy	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:17:00 - [33] heve u read the new missile changes thinggy ? that thing promice missile nerf beyond anything we seen before... granted - they hit from longer range now ... but the fackt they RoF got nerffed to half minute (on some launchers) indicates that some one in there h8ts missiles... -------------------------------------------
Hellek	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:18:00 - [34] Edited by: Hellek on 16/05/2004 15:21:24 megathron, tempest, etc. also got a boost, the only thing is that raven is not supposed to armortank, therefore armor reps and the ships which are supposed to use them got an increase in grid. Raven got a huge CPU boost (700 CPU is a lot). I also think that a megathron with 6x 425 is far better than an apoc with 6x or 7x 425. besides that, baum's setup should have a cap recharger II and 3 hardeners instead of 4 hardeners. its easy to compare a good apoc setup to a bad raven setup and then say "apoc is so much better".
YuuKnow	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:30:00 - [35] Edited by: YuuKnow on 16/05/2004 15:31:53 Originally by: Nafri 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 Aren't cruise launcher missle bays on chaos already?
Nafri	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:34:00 - [36] Originally by: YuuKnow Edited by: YuuKnow on 16/05/2004 15:31:53 Originally by: Nafri 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 Aren't cruise launcher missle bays on chaos already? you saw their ROF? 36 seconds, that thing is useless Wanna fly with me?
Marcus Aurelius	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:39:00 - [37] imo neither raven OR apoc need a boost of any kind atm. Raven is the top in having good damage and good defense in one loadout. Apoc can fit insane amoutns of weaponry while still retaining good defenses. Can the megathron fit 6 rails and retain good defenses ? No So what is the problem again ?
Zu Lu	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:39:00 - [38] ye but the tempest got a 1000 mw grid boost to accomodate cruise launchers. With cruise launcher's ROF of 32 secs (IIRC), without doing the exact calcs that is surely a damage output nerf on the tempest more so than other ships even if you take into account the less reloads.
Isiana	Posted - 2004.05.16 15:45:00 - [39] Edited by: Isiana on 16/05/2004 15:48:43 Edited by: Isiana on 16/05/2004 15:46:53 Lol unless something is done to mutliple cap relays apoc will be the best ship - with 7 cap relays it can run xl forever, and with the super grid boost it could fit lots of 1400 mm's or 425 rail guns, The 7 cap relay, 2 harderners, XL and shieldamp + 6-7 1400 mm's it's very tempting - defence can run forever, and still hit pretty hard, altho i u might be able to run the 425's and defences forever too i enjoy the initiative, but sry its not the way to do it WTT tempest for apocalypse oh and im not speaking as a raven user thats jealous that my ship will be kinda useless, i can fly all bs, amd i can change as the nerf wheel goes forward, The Apoc will be the flavor of the month :) Go kill some minnies Pie with your new superduperships Carebear\|Me Alts
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:06:00 - [40] Quote: Where are you getting this figure of 110 seconds from?! It was mainly a guess :O. I stuck 7 cap power relays on my megathron and got 145 second recharge rate and then subtracted what I believed to be the 25% bonus given to an apoc. It may well be that the apoc's base rate is such that with 7 relays AND its lvl5 bonus it still gets 145 seconds. Quote: 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). A megathron cannot fit 7 Rails without scrapping a few low slots so that comment is largely irrelevant. 6 Siege Launchers with a base 24 second ROF that shoot missles that do slight more damage than a good hit on a 425 rail gun do MORE damage than 8 railguns? I am possitive this is not the case now and is certainly not the case when you factor in the changes. Quote: 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.... Ok so before a Siege Launcher could fit 10 CMs with a 20 second RoF (lets ignore all bonuses for simplicity): Time to fire 2 full salvos: 400 + 10 = 410 seconds 20 CMS/410 seconds = .0488 CM/second Now a Siege Launcher fires 30 CMs with a 24 second RoF Time to fire 2 full salvos: 1440 + 10 = 1450 60 CMs/1450 = .0413 CM/Second So no the increase in capacity does not compensate for the increased RoF. This can already be seen in the current patch wherein arbalest heavies are better than siege standards Quote: besides that, baum's setup should have a cap recharger II and 3 hardeners instead of 4 hardeners. its easy to compare a good apoc setup to a bad raven setup and then say "apoc is so much better". Wake up please. If I put in a Cap II I still don't have defense as good as the Apoc's, the cap recharge rate is higher. If I put in a second cap II and in so doing decrease my resistance significantly, I STILL don't have a recharge rate as high as the apoc's but now im only marginally improving my defense by sticking in cap mods and trading resistance for recharge rate. So, I am left with a lower recharge rate than the Apoc, very similiar defense and offense which is INCREDIBLY WORSE. Quote: 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? That Siege Launchers aren't in line with other BS weapons and that a Raven needs ALL of its low slots for cap power relays in order to remain a viable ship (especially when one factors in the increased PG of the other tier2 ships). Quote: Why should a raven beat an apoc? When a scorp will totally dominate it? A Scorp could never kill an Apoc alone. It can just tie it down and it needs a second battleship to come and kill it. There is no domination in that AND all of this will change when EW is changed. So are you arguing that Caldari ships are just supposed to be support ***es and should be incapable of fitting offense and defense? Quote:** cap relays r getting stacking nerfed so u wont get apoc's with these amounts of cap. Yes and neither will the Raven. The disparity will remain the same and the Apoc will STILL be the better shield tank, even if both ships' defense are worse. The Enemy's Gate is Down

YuuKnow	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:08:00 - [41] Edited by: YuuKnow on 16/05/2004 16:12:27 Originally by: Lord Zap 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? Where are you getting this figure of 110 seconds from?! As far as I was aware the fastest capacitor charge time you could get on an Apocalypse was 145 seconds unless using Capacitor Flux (which is pointless) with energy systems ops 5 and 7 cap relays. That aside, these proposed changes look like they will make the game even more imbalanced. At present a shield tanked apocalypse with 6 x 425mm rails 2 x H-50 arbs will beat, by way of outlasting, pretty much any other ship, the proposed changes only look set to make it even more uber. I also don't have the answer :/ but these changes will not help matters one bit. How can a apoc can equip 6 x 425's, 2 x H-50 arbs, 2 x shield harderners, and a XL SB, without running outta CPU?? Are you referring to a setup made of entirely named and techII goods?
Bella Verde	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:17:00 - [42] Sorry guys, but the big loser here is the TEMPEST. The Raven is going to be very, very useful, as are the apoc, armageddon, megathron, and typhoon, with their grid increases and new bonuses. The tempest gets a marginal grid increase, but it still cant fit anything more than 5 of anything without grid enhancing modules.
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:25:00 - [43] I would tend to agree with you there in a general sense. I personally don't see how the Raven can be that useful, however, if all of its grid is taken up by 6 somewhat crappy primary weapons and if it has poorer defense than ships with better offense. All in all I would say that the Tempest will remain better than the Raven, but that both ships are going be hurt by increased grid requirements on some of their weapons. Given that the Raven's primary weapon is being increased significantly in grid usage while the Temepst's secondary weapon is being increased significantly in grid usage, I would say that the Raven is hit quite a bit harder (especially in light of a Tempest powergrid increase and NO powergrid increase on the Raven). The Enemy's Gate is Down
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:27:00 - [44] 6 rails on a megathron do the same damage as 7,5 rails on an apoc. 6 siege launchers on a raven do more damage than 8 rails on an apoc. u got 2 more high slots to play with to get even MORE damage. add the cap relay stacking nerf to the pot and i don't see a problem. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:36:00 - [45] Edited by: qrac on 16/05/2004 16:42:21 Quote: 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 Booster (now reduced, ostensibly to 80 CPU from 160, 500 MW) 3 Hardeners (32 tf each, 5 MW each) 7 Cap Power Relays (3.2 tf each) Totals: 618.4 CPU 22515 MW shield hardeners are 40 cpu so an apoc can't even fit that setup. the named ones vary from 32 to 38 afaik. aren't xlarge shield boosters 200 cpu? 1/2 should be 100 then. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:40:00 - [46] Quote: 6 siege launchers on a raven do more damage than 8 rails on an apoc. u got 2 more high slots to play with to get even MORE damage. How so? Those 6 Siege Launchers have a far higher RoF than those 8 rails (over twice as high 24 seconds vs 9.56 seconds). Are you saying that the 1 siege launcher does more damage over time than 1 and 1/3rd (i.e 8/6) 425 Rail Guns? Lets be generous and give the Raven user a lvl5 BS skill: His RoF is now 12 Seconds. Let us also give the Apoc user a lvl5 Rapid firing skill: His RoF is now 7.17 seconds. In order for the Siege Launcher Raven to do more damage over time 1 Siege Launcher has to be able to do: (8/6)*(12/7.17)= 2.23152 times as much damage per shot as a 425mm Railgun on an Apocalypse. This means that the apocalypse has to do less than 161.325 damage per shot, on average, per railgun. This is easily doable with the proper range and decent skills. All in all therefore, the Apoc probably has better damage output overtime, and still has a FAR superior and more long lasting defense. As you heard Zap say earlier, an Apoc can already outlast any ship out there. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:43:00 - [47] Originally by: qrac Edited by: qrac on 16/05/2004 16:42:21 Quote: 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 Booster (now reduced, ostensibly to 80 CPU from 160, 500 MW) 3 Hardeners (32 tf each, 5 MW each) 7 Cap Power Relays (3.2 tf each) Totals: 618.4 CPU 22515 MW shield hardeners are 40 cpu so an apoc can't even fit that setup. the named ones vary from 32 to 38 afaik. Named are 32tf each. Quote: aren't xlarge shield boosters 200 cpu? 1/2 should be 100 then. X-L clarity wards are 160, so 1/2 is 80. I accidentally edited that out when I took the clarity ward out of the Raven's setup as being unnecesary, I will add it back in now. The Enemy's Gate is Down
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:44:00 - [48] Quote: Max Ship Bonus Rate Of Fire "Damage Bonus": 37.6171875 (Raven only) apoc rails with skills @ 5: 26,4562 ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:46:00 - [49] Quote: Named are 32tf each. it's only the named em hardener that's 32. the named thermal is at 38 cpu. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:47:00 - [50] Originally by: qrac Quote: Max Ship Bonus Rate Of Fire "Damage Bonus": 37.6171875 (Raven only) apoc rails with skills @ 5: 26,4562 Not sure where that comes from, but assuming your comma is a period than: 37.617/26.4562 = 1.417 Which is FAR less than the 2.23 needed for the Raven to do more damage. The Enemy's Gate is Down

Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:50:00 - [51] Originally by: qrac Quote: Named are 32tf each. it's only the named em hardener that's 32. the named thermal is at 38 cpu. Yes, thats correct, hadn't ever noticed that before. Named Kinetic is 36. In total we have to add in 10 CPU (4 more for the named Kinetic, 6 more for the named Thermal). This will require the apoc to fit named CPRs. I will correct the setup now. The Enemy's Gate is Down
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:50:00 - [52] Originally by: Baun Originally by: qrac Quote: Max Ship Bonus Rate Of Fire "Damage Bonus": 37.6171875 (Raven only) apoc rails with skills @ 5: 26,4562 Not sure where that comes from, but assuming your comma is a period than: 37.617/26.4562 = 1.417 Which is FAR less than the 2.23 needed for the Raven to do more damage. yes, it's a period (we use commas for that), the quote is from tomb and it's damage/s. 8 rails do 211,7 dmg/s. 6 siege do 225,7 dmg/s. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
Aequitas Veritas	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:51:00 - [53] Noone is really complaining about todays Ravens with what they can fit. They can fit a good complement of offence and defence, but missiles will ALLWAYS have a huge drawback in combat - its not a instant hitting weapon, regardless of changes you can still run away from missiles coming at you if the distance is over 30km without taking much damange. Its been a very good 1vs1 ship and not good in fleet skirmishes Missiles are the only weapon which there are defence against, given that defenders doesnt really work when you are being spammed from more battleships, but smartbombs are still as efficient as they have been. For fleet battles I'm better off fitting more guns and less launchers so i can do instant damage instead of waiting quite some time before the missiles hit and look at our target warping out. This is getting a lot harder with the lowering pg. Ravens cant only use Launchers and now it cant use guns to complement them either. It would be ok that it couldnt fit 425's next to it guns, but i should be able to fit the new 350's or at least dual 250's next to that. Trying to strap on a microwarpdrive and you have run out of luck trying. Ok, so u can tell me to use pdu's and pwr modules in my low slots. Then you have to remember than Ravens only have 5 of them, and some needs to be used for cpr's or i cant shield tank and id want a warp core stab or two on as well. In addition the very low power grid gives minmal boost to pg compared to other bs. I could do it, but then i cant use Heavy Cap boosters either since that needs 1750 pg so there is no way to tank it. A raven can tank well, but needs most of its low slots for that purpose and thereby cant increase its powergrid, unlike most other bs. After fitting 6 Launchers, 1XL booster + 3 hardeners I now have 810 pg left. I cant even fit a Mirco warp drive on the raven now.
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 16:53:00 - [54] Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 16:56:50 Quote: 8 rails do 211,7 dmg/s. 6 siege do 225,7 dmg/s. Please verify this. Post the calculations. I don't think this is correct, but even if it is it doesn't change the fact that the Apoc wins and is able to out shield tank the Raven, while the Raven cannot even fit 2 of its high slots. The Enemy's Gate is Down
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 17:00:00 - [55] Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 16:56:50 Quote: 8 rails do 211,7 dmg/s. 6 siege do 225,7 dmg/s. Please verify this. Post the calculations. I don't think this is correct, but even if it is it doesn't change the fact that the Apoc wins and is able to out shield tank the Raven, while the Raven cannot even fit 2 of its high slots. the siege launcher figure is tomb's. the rail figure is what u get from. (2,751,251,15)/(9,5630,75)48 (damagemod * skills)/(rofskills)(ammo). multiply the figure by 8 and u get the damage 8 rails do per second. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 17:08:00 - [56] Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 17:09:53 Originally by: qrac Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 16:56:50 Quote: 8 rails do 211,7 dmg/s. 6 siege do 225,7 dmg/s. Please verify this. Post the calculations. I don't think this is correct, but even if it is it doesn't change the fact that the Apoc wins and is able to out shield tank the Raven, while the Raven cannot even fit 2 of its high slots. the siege launcher figure is tomb's. the rail figure is what u get from. (2,751,251,15)/(9,5630,75)48 (damagemod * skills)/(rofskills)(ammo). multiply the figure by 8 and u get the damage 8 rails do per second. Yes, the figure I was disputing was the siege launcher figure ... I could pretty much intuit the railgun figure. Let me give it a shot: 6 Siege launchers hold 180 cruise missles and fires with at max a 12 second RoF. Each one of these does at max 375 damage. 6((30375)/(30*12)) = 187.5dmg/second < 211.7dmg/second Maybe he is including 5 of these new missle damage modules? If he is factoring in 5 of the damage modules for the Raven and 7 of the damage modules for the Apoc, how can we possibly get that the Siege Launcher is doing MORE damage? The Enemy's Gate is Down
Aequitas Veritas	Posted - 2004.05.16 17:15:00 - [57] Edited by: Aequitas Veritas on 16/05/2004 17:20:12 At least give raven pilots the OPTION to have some guns fitted on its ship. As it is with the current pg it cant use microwarpdrive and cant use cap boosers and fit any viable offence to that. If you really have to make sure the Raven can only have 6 weapons fitted, then at least up the pg output and increase the pg demand of the sieges even further so that it can have more versatile setups to play around with. With this little pg on it thats something thats not going to be possible. Now the Raven wont be doing much more damage than a Scorpion fitted with 4 sieges and 1 425 wich then has 1500 pg to play around with. Lol, just realized that I might be posting in the wrong thread here :p
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 17:24:00 - [58] Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 17:09:53 Originally by: qrac Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 16:56:50 Quote: 8 rails do 211,7 dmg/s. 6 siege do 225,7 dmg/s. Please verify this. Post the calculations. I don't think this is correct, but even if it is it doesn't change the fact that the Apoc wins and is able to out shield tank the Raven, while the Raven cannot even fit 2 of its high slots. the siege launcher figure is tomb's. the rail figure is what u get from. (2,751,251,15)/(9,5630,75)48 (damagemod * skills)/(rofskills)(ammo). multiply the figure by 8 and u get the damage 8 rails do per second. Yes, the figure I was disputing was the siege launcher figure ... I could pretty much intuit the railgun figure. Let me give it a shot: 6 Siege launchers hold 180 cruise missles and fires with at max a 12 second RoF. Each one of these does at max 375 damage. 6((30375)/(30*12)) = 187.5dmg/second < 211.7dmg/second Maybe he is including 5 of these new missle damage modules? If he is factoring in 5 of the damage modules for the Raven and 7 of the damage modules for the Apoc, how can we possibly get that the Siege Launcher is doing MORE damage? it's with torpedos, not cruise missiles. ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!
Baun	Posted - 2004.05.16 17:36:00 - [59] And Torpedos only have a range of like 20km now whilst your max skilled apoc is going to have an optimal of around 35km with his antimatter 425s. You can't compare torpedos (with their slow speed and short range) to 425s. If you want to compare, then lets compare to Neutron Blasters (which I believe have the same power req as 425s). (3.51,251,15)/(7.870,75)48 (damagemod * skills)/(rofskills)(ammo) =5.03/5.90 * 48 = 40.922 40.922 * 8 = 327.376 dmg/second This is WAY higher than the short range torpedos. So the Apoc has better long range AND better short range damage AND far better longer lasting defense. The Enemy's Gate is Down
qrac	Posted - 2004.05.16 17:42:00 - [60] from tomb: Quote: Torpedo I Slow and sluggish missiles only able to hit slow moving objects in semi-straight line from launch destination. Damage: 450 Max Skilled Damage: 562.5 Ballistic Control System I: 601.875 Speed: 1000 Max Skilled Speed: 1250 Max Ship Bonus Speed: 1875 Flight Time: 20 secs Max Skilled Flight Time: 25 secs Max Base Distance: 20 KM Max Skill & Ship Bonus Distance: 46.875 KM ------------------------------------------- Insanes numquam moriuntur!



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.