| 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.
|
|
|
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. (2,75*1,25*1,15)/(9,563*0,75)*48 (damagemod * skills)/(rof*skills)*(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. (2,75*1,25*1,15)/(9,563*0,75)*48 (damagemod * skills)/(rof*skills)*(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*((30*375)/(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. (2,75*1,25*1,15)/(9,563*0,75)*48 (damagemod * skills)/(rof*skills)*(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*((30*375)/(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).
(3.5*1,25*1,15)/(7.87*0,75)*48 (damagemod * skills)/(rof*skills)*(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! |
|
|
Kurenin
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 17:44:00 -
[61]
Why are you talking about apocs with railguns.
Megabeam > 425.
Also, Armageddon has the highest DoT using megabeams and 2 Heat Sink II I think
-----
[22:02] <Kurenin> anyhow, on a more serious note, what did you think of those ideas?
[22:02] <Hammerhead> we can't do anything that requires programming
Inactivity wins you. |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 17:45:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Baun on 16/05/2004 17:49:25
Quote:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and they take 37.5 seconds to reach max range at max skills.
They are thus STILL the blasters of the missle family, but they do way less damage (but have better range) than the blasters of the hybrid family.
None of this changes the fact that the Apoc does more damage under ideal circumstances than the Raven AND has better defense, ALL without having to sack any slots for fitting enhancers.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 17:48:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Kurenin
Why are you talking about apocs with railguns.
Megabeam > 425.
Also, Armageddon has the highest DoT using megabeams and 2 Heat Sink II I think
Cap and powergrid requirements. It can fit 8 railguns and fire them all while running its defense without running into significant cap problems. An apoc cannot even fit 8 megabeams much less fit them all and fire them all while running an X-L booster ad infinitum.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 18:04:00 -
[64]
a apoc can never fitt 8 425 and shield tank without using 1 or 2 co-processors...
"We brake for nobody"
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 18:55:00 -
[65]
raven still a dud ?
where do you live ? Raven isnt a dud, never was as long as it could fit 8 oremium large size weapons AND shiedl or armor tank at the same time.
Instead, it needed and got a downward correction to its fitting abilities.
Apoc is³ber tho, certainly with even more powergrid.
And an apoc CAN fit 8 large turrets and still armortank to hell and back easily if these new changes get in.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 18:59:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
a apoc can never fitt 8 425 and shield tank without using 1 or 2 co-processors...
wtf ? You kidding me ?
One or two cpu's for fitting 8 large turrets ?
Withwhat in medslots ? an XL shieldbooster MWD and two other cpu intensive modules ?
an even if you need a cpu in lows, you still have more then neough to fill with cap relays.
the megathron, actual intended user of the 425 railgun, can't fit 5 of them and a XL shieldbooster without adding a CPU in lows.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 19:08:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
a apoc can never fitt 8 425 and shield tank without using 1 or 2 co-processors...
wtf ? You kidding me ?
One or two cpu's for fitting 8 large turrets ?
Withwhat in medslots ? an XL shieldbooster MWD and two other cpu intensive modules ?
an even if you need a cpu in lows, you still have more then neough to fill with cap relays.
the megathron, actual intended user of the 425 railgun, can't fit 5 of them and a XL shieldbooster without adding a CPU in lows.
what do u mean? that a apoc (625 cpu) dont need a co-processor? wtf?
"We brake for nobody"
|
qrac
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 19:10:00 -
[68]
Quote:
an even if you need a cpu in lows, you still have more then neough to fill with cap relays.
they're getting nerfed!
an apoc can't fit 8 425's without using either cpu's or named stuff.
Quote:
the megathron, actual intended user of the 425 railgun, can't fit 5 of them and a XL shieldbooster without adding a CPU in lows.
ehh... if the apoc can fit 8 how can't the megathron fit 5??
-------------------------------------------
Insanes numquam moriuntur! |
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 20:20:00 -
[69]
Quote:
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.
I'm not so sure you are correct. Let's not panic just yet. Just because something didn't get major improvements, does not mean that it was screwed over. Tempest was pretty good to begin with.
It could be that the rest of the ships were fubared and needed fixing. 
Amarr ships needed SOME kind of boost. As for the Raven, I think the powergrid reduction did it a great disservice. CPU is useless if you have no powergrid to use it with (not that I have this problem much).
Reducing the CPU load of the shield boosters will help the Tempest immensely. So will the slight increase in powergrid. Having 5-6 1400mm on is nice, but there are other setups which are far more useful and efficient in terms of powergrid use, and lowering the cpu load while increasing grid can only help.
I'd rather have my Tempest's powergrid raised and my cpu load eased, then have the cpu increased and the power grid nerfed (aka. as in the Raven).
|
Lord Zap
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 20:38:00 -
[70]
Originally by: YuuKnow
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?
Not entirely, I Seem to remember being able to equip them with only a named XL booster. And trust me although the setup doesnt do as much damage outright as a megathron you will still beat him because your cap is so strong.
|
|
|
Lord Zap
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 20:42:00 -
[71]
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.
Surely any calculation for missile dot must factor in the range of the target.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 21:03:00 -
[72]
How much cpu would 8 425mm's take (with weapons upgrades 5)?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
qrac
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 21:23:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
How much cpu would 8 425mm's take (with weapons upgrades 5)?
didn't u read the thread? ;)
420 cpu.
-------------------------------------------
Insanes numquam moriuntur! |
TheFatman
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 22:15:00 -
[74]
Just read through the thread, but it seems TomB is missing the mark somehow, or I am missing his.
I thought what they were attempting to do, was get Amarr pilots to use lasers?
From what I am reading here, it looks like the proposed changes won't do it, because the buffs, still don't give amarr pilots any reason to choose lasers over the 425s, since using lasers doesn't give them as good an advantage over using 425s and using all the extra cap to tank.
Why don't they give the Amarr a damage modifier when using lasers? Or am I just being naive, because to me it looks like that will be the only way to convince Amarr ship users to use lasers. Any other way and it seems people will just switch to guns that use much less cap and do the same if not more damage, when used on amarr ships.
|
Jorlin
|
Posted - 2004.05.16 23:05:00 -
[75]
i think (and hope) the changes are done with the upcoming advanced skills in mind. we have only little knowledge about them...only what eve-db or other tools tell us about it (and the data might change).
like:
Advanced Weapon Upgrades
i didn't even calculate if it will be of any use to me...
no police, no summons, no courts of law;
no proper procedure, no rules of war;
no mitigating circumstance;
no lawyers fees, no second chance! |
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 01:48:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Lord Zap
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.
Surely any calculation for missile dot must factor in the range of the target.
I agree, although in the case of Cruise Missles it will not make nearly as large of a differnce.
It is, however, pure comedy that TomB posts DOT for torpedos without factoring in range and that qrac thinks this is a good baseline comparison against Apocs with 425s. The simple truth is that Torpedos are the new short range missles but don't do nearly as much damage as short ranged hybrids while their long ranged equivalents also do less damage. Meanwhile the apoc still has way better defense.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 01:52:00 -
[77]
Quote:
raven still a dud ?
where do you live ? Raven isnt a dud, never was as long as it could fit 8 oremium large size weapons AND shiedl or armor tank at the same time.
Raven is currently a dud because its weapons are worthless at range and because it cannot fully tank without incredible mods and skills while having a full offense.
Now, its weapons are being made semi-viable at range but their RoF is being increased and they are being made restrictively hard to fit. It has improved on its old deficiencies whilst being handed new ones.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Shevaun Ashnirelim
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 01:56:00 -
[78]
When a laser of sufficient intensity strikes an object, it can induce flash-vaporization with effects quite similar to explosion. How about adding some crystals that do thermal/explosive for chewing through hull? Lasers in Eve suffer from a ton of disadvantages... huge cpu/grid need, low damage potential, and huge deficits against armour/hull.
Might as well make them a bit more rounded, no other weapon suffers this horribly against a specific resistance type.
|
Lord Zap
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 02:01:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Baun
Quote:
raven still a dud ?
where do you live ? Raven isnt a dud, never was as long as it could fit 8 oremium large size weapons AND shiedl or armor tank at the same time.
Raven is currently a dud because its weapons are worthless at range and because it cannot fully tank without incredible mods and skills while having a full offense.
Now, its weapons are being made semi-viable at range but their RoF is being increased and they are being made restrictively hard to fit. It has improved on its old deficiencies whilst being handed new ones.
I think at present the Raven is uber only with the upcoming proposed change will it be sub-par.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 02:07:00 -
[80]
Quote:
I think at present the Raven is uber only with the upcoming proposed change will it be sub-par.
How is it uber now?
Its missles are worthless at range and as such its high targetting range is a useless attribute. It is slow, slow targetting and is easy to target. It cannot armor tank effectively with the 20% Cap IIs that aren't on TQ and it is an inferior shield tanker to your Apoc of doom described earlier.
All in all it is a good close range ship, but it is hardly uber or unbalanced at the moment.
I do agree though that the changes will really make it sub par. To this effect please check out my newest post on fitting requirement tweaks.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
Yuni
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 02:53:00 -
[81]
what if they just increased hybrid fitting by 10cpu and gave gallente 50 more cpu on there ships. Apoc will be forced to use lasers then.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 03:15:00 -
[82]
No, they would be force to use meta-modded railguns.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Yuni
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 03:27:00 -
[83]
well obviously they would have to up the cpu req's on meta hybrids also.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 03:29:00 -
[84]
They would, but a 10 base increase on the base 425s won't even bring carbides back up to OLD base CPU reqs on the base 425s.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Xeris
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 05:35:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Baun
No, they would be force to use meta-modded railguns.
The sky is falling. We get it.
Now shut up already.
Too lazy to get my sig changed |
corporal hicks
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 05:52:00 -
[86]
What I fail to see through all this thread is why you are complaining about the apoc getting more pw and mounting 8 425 rails ect and been this ubur shield tank. Please stop and ask yourself what can the apoc pilot do with that much pw fitting the guns he was ment to fit such as lasers ect.
I think until the apoc is tested with lasers on chaos this argument is pointless, I am sure the devs want apoc pilots on chaos testing apocs with lasers as opposed to 425 rails and 1400 artys.
I use projectile guns on minmatar ships, lasers on Amarr ships and hybrids on gallente ships I don't have any caldari ships so am not saying anything as regards the raven but i think imo you should use the guns best suited to your ship. Go test the apoc with lasers on chaos not with rails/projectiles or missiles then state your observations.
My 2 cents
" Stay Frosty "
|
Arthur Eld
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 05:57:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Arthur Eld on 17/05/2004 06:11:36
Originally by: corporal hicks
What I fail to see through all this thread is why you are complaining about the apoc getting more pw and mounting 8 425 rails ect and been this ubur shield tank. Please stop and ask yourself what can the apoc pilot do with that much pw fitting the guns he was ment to fit such as lasers ect.
I think until the apoc is tested with lasers on chaos this argument is pointless, I am sure the devs want apoc pilots on chaos testing apocs with lasers as opposed to 425 rails and 1400 artys.
I use projectile guns on minmatar ships, lasers on Amarr ships and hybrids on gallente ships I don't have any caldari ships so am not saying anything as regards the raven but i think imo you should use the guns best suited to your ship. Go test the apoc with lasers on chaos not with rails/projectiles or missiles then state your observations.
My 2 cents
You can test the Apoc with lasers all you want, but it wont represent real world setups on TQ. I've used lasers on Amarr ships and I've used hybrids on Amarr ships and hybrids are far superior.
Edit: Some stats straight from the horses (TomB's) mouth.
Originally by: TomB
425mm Railgun I
Damage Multiplier: 2.75
Capacitor Need: 35
Rate Of Fire: 9562.5
Damage Multiplier Per Sec: 0.288
Capacitor Need Per Sec: 3.66
Damage Per Sec (Antimatter L): 13.80
Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 3.7714286
Mega Beam I
Damage Multiplier: 2.75
Rate Of Fire: 9000
Damage Multiplier Per Sec: 0.306
Damage Per Sec (Multifrequency L): 13.44
Capacitor Need: 70
Capacitor Need Per Sec: 7.78
Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 1.7285714
Amarr Level 5 Ship Bonus (-10% need per level): 3.89
Amarr Level 5 Damage Per Cap Per Sec: 3.4571429
Even with the new bonuses 425's have better range, more damage, and less cap use.
____________________
First comes smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. We deal in lead.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 06:02:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Xeris
Originally by: Baun
No, they would be force to use meta-modded railguns.
The sky is falling. We get it.
Now shut up already.
Thanks for wasting your own time trolling, please take your trash elsewhere.
Hicks:
I don't think you understand what I am saying.
Yes, the PG was increased to so apocs could fit more tachyons AND armor tank, but the reality is that if they using hybrids instead, they can mount comparable offense and have an INSANE defense.
The issue isn't what an Apoc is supposed to do, but rather what it CAN do. This was the same issue with a Raven that could out armor tank an apoc and fit 8 high level battleship weapons. In your mind this wasn't a problem because the Raven wasn't supposed to armor tank, but the reality is that if the shield tanking setup was inferior to the armor tanking setup than the Raven would armor tank regardless of what it should do.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
corporal hicks
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 06:49:00 -
[89]
I understand Baun trust me. I think the main problems with the ships is that people can use weapons of other race's on ships with no penalty, imo this is a bit stupid as it makes no sense, that is all.
My suggestion to fix this type of shield tanking setups on ships by using guns that require less cap is to make all guns triple there pw requirements but give all ships of a particular race a -66% fitting requirement for there specific guns, ie a Tacyhon takes up 12000 pw or so but a Amarr ship has a -66% pw fitting requirement for lasers that way the players will try to use the best gun for there ships bonus's. If they do want to fit a nice 425 rail on there apoc it will take them 8250 pw to mount one of them. Remember Amarr ships would have hugh reacters to vent energy to there laser turrets and such and would be designed with lasers in mind all the way so how come it is so easy ingame to just rip out the old tach and throw in a shiny new 425 rail?
There should be a penalty for mounting guns on ships that were not designed to take them.
This would kind of get rid of the ubar apoc shield tank you are talking about and also make people use the guns that the ships were ment to use in the first place.
I can not fathom why anyone would mount 425 rails on a apoc but thats just me I like to play the game in a kind of common sense type of way and abit of realisim.
Again my 2 cents but I posted twice so must be 5 cents
" Stay Frosty "
|
fras
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 08:56:00 -
[90]
I havn't been able to get on Chaos since the changes So I wont comment on setups etc. I think if we are really going down the route of Ravens having to shield tank(which I think is a shame), then the ships that have gotten a PG boost need to be forced to armour tank too, it's the only way of adding some balance to their huge grid.
I really am going to reserve judgment though, describing the Raven as "still a dud" doesn't inspire confidence to an objective post. The Raven has never been a dud on Chaos or TQ.
|
|
|
Sewell
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 09:10:00 -
[91]
I thinks Baun's assumption that the Raven is presently a dud is way off.
In my opinion the Raven is one of the best battleships out there - it is a superb shield tank, missiles always hit, and if you get jammed - just switch to FoF missiles and carry on fighting (a jammed Apoc with rails is a sitting duck).
To everyone saying "but missiles never hit at long range so the Raven is worthless!" I can only point out that a Megathron with blasters won't hit anyting at long range either. And since missiles are going to travel faster, the range issue will not be as big as now.
So, I think the Raven still will be a good ship after these changes, and the Apoc will have been made a good ship too, and that's ok with me.
|
Estios
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 09:35:00 -
[92]
As it appears whiners seem to get un-needed nerfs and changes through, I would like 7 Turret hard points on the Tempest please because if we are going to have to fit anti frig guns such as 425 AC's I feel only have 6 points is unbalanced.
Also while you are at it I would also like 5000 more shield and a billion more armour. Plus some go faster stripes and speed holes.
So HMV consider Andy Williams and Dean Martin to be "easy listening" do they? Tell that to my mate Dave, he's been deaf for 20 years.
|
Matanga
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 11:40:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Isiana
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 :)
Sad but true This is the only way to go in this game.
Cheers
A sad Scorp pilot
"ÆIn accordance with the principles of double-think it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.Æö
George Orwell ô1984ö |
Grut
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:03:00 -
[94]
After playing around on chaos for abit i've found the only real way to goes pdus and a cap injector even then my raven could only fit 1x dual heavy and 1x heavy beam, the damage seems well... sucky.
I'd much prefer a higher dot launcher with more reloads to the current system of treating them like turrets and forgeting about htem after they've switched on.
Conversely i took out a well equiped raven in a geddon using lasers so it looks like amarr are getting all the love these days 
Mostly harmless |
Grut
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:03:00 -
[95]
After playing around on chaos for abit i've found the only real way to goes pdus and a cap injector even then my raven could only fit 1x dual heavy and 1x heavy beam, the damage seems well... sucky.
I'd much prefer a higher dot launcher with more reloads to the current system of treating them like turrets and forgeting about htem after they've switched on.
Conversely i took out a well equiped raven in a geddon using lasers so it looks like amarr are getting all the love these days
Mostly harmless |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:14:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Estios
As it appears whiners seem to get un-needed nerfs and changes through, I would like 7 Turret hard points on the Tempest please because if we are going to have to fit anti frig guns such as 425 AC's I feel only have 6 points is unbalanced.
Also while you are at it I would also like 5000 more shield and a billion more armour. Plus some go faster stripes and speed holes.
425er wont hit the frigs, what about 2 small assault launchers with light missles? should solve the problem for you and with 6x 1400er you can still deal nice damage.
think i will use small weapons on my raven till it finally dies and i get a tempest too
Wanna fly with me?
|
Jazz Bo
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 12:24:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Jazz Bo on 17/05/2004 12:29:25
Originally by: fras
I havn't been able to get on Chaos since the changes So I wont comment on setups etc. I think if we are really going down the route of Ravens having to shield tank(which I think is a shame), then the ships that have gotten a PG boost need to be forced to armour tank too, it's the only way of adding some balance to their huge grid.
Yes.
I suggest that the Shield booster Cpu requirement is kept the same or even increased, but that the ships that are "supposed" to shield tank get a Cpu boost, just like the ships that are "supposed" to armor tank are getting a PG boost.
That way the shield tankers can't use armor repairers without PG enhancing modules, and the armor tankers can't use shield boosters (or rather can't use the XL booster) without Co-processors.
This way we'd get rid of uber armor tanking Ravens and uber shield tanking Apocs. Althought with a stacking penalty on the Cap Relays (?) and none on the med slot cap rechargers the Apoc is still going to have more cap, which it will need to use it's more cap sucking main weaponry.
Originally by: DB Preacher
Celestial Apocalypse - Brave souls fighting the endless smak.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 13:27:00 -
[98]
Quote:
To everyone saying "but missiles never hit at long range so the Raven is worthless!" I can only point out that a Megathron with blasters won't hit anyting at long range either.
I was unaware that cruise missles, which have a range of over 150km, are supposed to be the equivalent of a blaster with an optimal range of 6km, o silly me.
The reason I am calling the Raven a dud is simple; While all the Megathron and the Apoc are being made even better (by virtue of increased powergrid) or at worst being left essentially as they are, the Raven is being handed new problems. As it stands a Raven already has an incredibly hard time fitting siege launchers and tanking, so it is already handicapped. Luckily, if you spend an assload of money on modules and train weapons upgrades 5, you CAN get around some of its fitting issues.
Now, however, the Raven users are being shackled with a problem that different modules cannot help and that no skill that they train can alleviate. The result is that the Raven now has an even harder time fitting what it is "supposed to fit" while the Megathron and the Apocalypse (and the armageddon and to some extent the typhoon) have an easier time fitting what they are "supposed to fit". For this reason, despite the fact that it seems the Raven's main weapon has been fixed, the Raven itself is still getting the short end of the stick.
For my proposed balancing of this issue, check out the proposition for named launchers and shield boosters. This would bring the powergrid reduction of those modules, intended for CPU strapped ships, inline with the CPU reduction of turrets intended for CPU strapped ships. It wouldn't alleviate the Raven's new fitting issue on its own, but it would give a Raven user more options.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:11:00 -
[99]
The raven is not suppose to fitt 6 siege launchers and 2 large guns... just like the apoc is not suppose to fitt 8 tachyons...
stop ur whining, its stupid... why should the raven be able to fitt the best weapons for its race (siege launchers) and still be the best shield tank?
You want to be a uber shield tank in ur raven? use the new Cruise Launcher I!!!!
"We brake for nobody"
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:22:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
The raven is not suppose to fitt 6 siege launchers and 2 large guns... just like the apoc is not suppose to fitt 8 tachyons...
stop ur whining, its stupid... why should the raven be able to fitt the best weapons for its race (siege launchers) and still be the best shield tank?
You want to be a uber shield tank in ur raven? use the new Cruise Launcher I!!!!
No but an Apoc CAN fit 8 425s which are better than 8 tachyons and still outshield tank the Raven. THAT is one of the central issues here.
Rather than getting caught up in self righteously denouncing my "whining" why don't you strap your thinking cap on and start reading what I am writing.
I have no issues with the Raven being handed fitting problems. Indeed, it already had fitting problems which it was difficult to get around. Now, however, it is impossible to get around the fitting problems without sacrificing a LOT of low slots. All I am asking for are the same options turret users have to equip their ships with CPU issues. Indeed, given that there is no skill for powergrid reduction I am asking for only 1 out of the 2 options turret users have that missles users do not have.
Finally,
The cruise launcher is not a viable primary weapon. It has an RoF of 30 seconds. That is plain trash.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:30:00 -
[101]
Quote:
Finally,
The cruise launcher is not a viable primary weapon. It has an RoF of 30 seconds. That is plain trash.
Offence Vs Defence!
If you want to use 6 of the ravens "primary" weapons, then u cant shield tank as good as u would without the 6 of the "primary" weapons...
"We brake for nobody"
|
qrac
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 14:51:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
The raven is not suppose to fitt 6 siege launchers and 2 large guns... just like the apoc is not suppose to fitt 8 tachyons...
stop ur whining, its stupid... why should the raven be able to fitt the best weapons for its race (siege launchers) and still be the best shield tank?
You want to be a uber shield tank in ur raven? use the new Cruise Launcher I!!!!
No but an Apoc CAN fit 8 425s which are better than 8 tachyons and still outshield tank the Raven. THAT is one of the central issues here.
Rather than getting caught up in self righteously denouncing my "whining" why don't you strap your thinking cap on and start reading what I am writing.
I have no issues with the Raven being handed fitting problems. Indeed, it already had fitting problems which it was difficult to get around. Now, however, it is impossible to get around the fitting problems without sacrificing a LOT of low slots. All I am asking for are the same options turret users have to equip their ships with CPU issues. Indeed, given that there is no skill for powergrid reduction I am asking for only 1 out of the 2 options turret users have that missles users do not have.
Finally,
The cruise launcher is not a viable primary weapon. It has an RoF of 30 seconds. That is plain trash.
i still don't get it. 6 siege launchers do more damage than 8 425mm rails and the apoc can't outtank (shields) the raven.
-------------------------------------------
Insanes numquam moriuntur! |
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:04:00 -
[103]
baun, the 8 425rails are about as good as 6 of them on a megathron. furthermore, if mounting those guns, it can NOT outtank a raven with 6 sieges if the raven pilot has good skills.
|
JoCool
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:07:00 -
[104]
Of course it can outtank the Raven. How should the Raven with PDUs to fit its weapons outtank the Apoc with 6-7 CPRs, a big ass cap and thus its monstrous cap recharge?
|
qrac
|
Posted - 2004.05.17 15:25:00 -
[105]
Originally by: JoCool
Of course it can outtank the Raven. How should the Raven with PDUs to fit its weapons outtank the Apoc with 6-7 CPRs, a big ass cap and thus its monstrous cap recharge?
hmm let me see.. 1 shield amp means that he can turn off his shield booster ~1 per 3 repeats. this is enough to keep it going without ever capping out and still be able to tank as much as the apoc. the torps hit for more than the railguns and thus the raven has superior firepower too. fit the 2 highslots left over with something and u can have fun :P
*note* cap relays are getting stacking nerfed and u wont be able to fit that apoc loadout with power diags while the raven can fit power diags and then fit some in the high slots. i played around a bit with the raven and could run a xlarge c5-l for some minutes with power diags before capping out.
the xlarge c5-l together with an amp repairs roughly 50% more shield than the xlarge clarity which the apoc wont even be able to fit with power diags.
-------------------------------------------
Insanes numquam moriuntur! |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |