|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
   |
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:45:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Butterless Toast
Edited by: Butterless Toast on 03/08/2008 23:39:48
I admit to having no tackling experience. So flame me away for that if you wish.
Seems to me all this crying is going on over MWD setups, though. Even as they are, MWDs have always had a built-in penalty to being tracked. Their signature radius increase massively increases their ability to be tracked over a ship using an AB, while only increasing speed by a factor of two or three.
Pulling numbers out of my butt, a MWD'ed interceptor will have around 150m sig radius moving at about 5 km/s (going by numbers people are giving for singularity now). An AB'ed interceptor will be roughly 25m and 2 km/s. The MWD setup only gives a bonus factor to speed of about 2.5, while giving a sig radius penalty factor of about 6. This means that interceptors running a MWD are more than twice as easy to track with turrets.
In addition, since fast ships actually have to acknowledge the existence of missiles on singularity now, having a really small sig radius will be a major MAJOR factor in how much damage they take from missiles. You can't just rely on escaping the explosion velocity. I don't have the resources on-hand at the moment to know if lower sig radius by a factor of 6 is enough to counteract the damage gained from a decrease in speed of about 2 explosion velocity falloffs, though...
EDIT: Assuming the missile guide is even close to accurate, MWD interceptors going 5 km/s should still be able to essentially ignore all non-precision missiles due to explosion velocity and velocity falloff ... this thread makes it sound like the situation is otherwise?
I've tested interceptors both with MWDs and ABs, and they are equally as dead. In fact, i've found AB inties to be much less survivable than MWD inties. Sig res reduction or not.
--
this is my sig. |
Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:00:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Gordon Red
a) increase the signaure resulution of small (=> 40m) and medium drones (=> 125m)
b) decrease the mass of an interceptor (=> more speed and better acceleration)
c) make the damage ceptors (4/2/4-ceptors, don't know about Gallente) immune to Scrambler-MWD-disruption
That may be enough for a start. We'll just have to see what happens once the changes hit TQ i guess.
--
this is my sig. |
Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 00:24:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Gordon Red
The point is that we are dieing even vs ships that aren't fitted vs ceptors!
- A Hurricane with ACs isn't fitted vs ceptors in the first place, that's their NORMAL PvP-setup.
- A ratting Caracal with T1-heavies is also not thought to be the ceptor killer. => An assault missile Caracal with light precisions would be anticeptor, but that's not needed!
Reduce the mass => resulting in greater speed even with the the 500%MWDs and we get also better acceleration back
This. When a heavy cruiser fit for damage can 1 or 2 volley an interceptor with a normal fit, at orbit distance, you know something is broken. When a battleship can effectively kill an interceptor without any dedicated anti frigate weaponry, something's broken. 5x light drones and a heavy neut is enough to kill an interceptor post patch, thanks to the MWD re-activation penalty
--
this is my sig. |
Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 06:42:00 -
[4]
Originally by: El Mauru
Edited by: El Mauru on 15/08/2008 11:58:28
I am personally not too worried about roles of the ceptors, though i didn't fully test them on the testserver yet.
Please test them on Multiplicity (The speed changes have been rolled back in SISI to test the upcoming patch). Then come back. And tell us how much "I'm not worried about them"
--
this is my sig. |
|
|
| |
|