Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 14:34:00 -
[1]
Missiles are going to be revamped because they be to powerful against fast targets once they can't do as fast as now on TQ. But what about range turret ships ? Everything gets slower means traversal speed will be lower aswell. What will stop a railgun mega with tracking mods and rigs from insta-popping frigs or dealing full damage to cruisers, since they can't orbit as fast as before.
If missiles will get nerfed in their ability to hit fast targets, shouldn't longrage turrets be adjusted aswell ?
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 14:43:00 -
[2]
YOu cant just adjust tracking, because then the turrets will get problems hitting their intended targets, eg Blasterthron missing 80% of shots against another BS at 5km, including the soon to be nerfed web! And i wouldnt worry too much about Railguns. Pulse lasers will be much more lethal to anything not at point blank range.
But afterall, we had this discussion about 3 years ago, and the arguments were 1) just warp out, scramblers dont reach your cruiser/frig/whatever some 50km away, 2) get a better warp in next time, 3) deal with it, you should not be able to just ignore every ship thats bigger then your own "because its unfair" ... ^^
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 15:11:00 -
[3]
Edited by: lecrotta on 21/10/2008 15:15:10
I suggest you get on sisi and try thing out before you start making claims i did.
A max skilled mega fitted for max tracking cannot hit a ceptor with even a 190-200ms transversal with rails using t1 ammo, as t2 gives negative tracking it seemed best to use t1.
A raven with just lvl 4 relevant missile skills and using t2 precisions hits a ceptor for around 22-34 raw dmg per missile mwd running or not.
Gonna try both fits on cruiser sized ships next but at the moment its the precision cruise that are way over powered compared to turret BS.
SOLUTIONS:
1. New T2 railgun/artie,lazor BS ammo that could give 100% perfect tracking to rails so it always hits (like precision cruise) but considerably lower dmg mod (so it hits for the same as t2 precision cruise) and a range modifier (that gives it the same range as precision cruise).
2. Or we can just remove precision cruise from the game as no other race has a long range BS ammo that can hit inties.....
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 15:18:00 -
[4]
Friggin Caldari will always find something to whine about. Just shut up already.
Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 15:40:00 -
[5]
NERF SNIPERS
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
ps. told you so ;p
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 15:46:00 -
[6]
The Rohk should be able to target at something like 300k, and have an optimal of about that range as well. For whatever reason it only works out to 249?
and I have to agree with that ahahahahaha statement above me. Stop trying to nerf everything that can kill you.
|
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 16:48:00 -
[7]
we gona have soo much fun wn this pach is relesed so many wyners who says wyyyyyyyy wyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy you change this!!!
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 17:02:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba Missiles are going to be revamped because they be to powerful against fast targets once they can't do as fast as now on TQ. But what about range turret ships ? Everything gets slower means traversal speed will be lower aswell. What will stop a railgun mega with tracking mods and rigs from insta-popping frigs or dealing full damage to cruisers, since they can't orbit as fast as before.
If missiles will get nerfed in their ability to hit fast targets, shouldn't longrage turrets be adjusted aswell ?
1. You know caldari have excellent turret ships in each ship class aswell right?
2. Missiles have extreme range compared to the damage they can do to their intended targets.
3. It's balanced. Live with it. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 17:57:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
3. It's unbalanced. I like overpowered Amarr ships.
Fixed.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 18:24:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
I don't know how to fly ships
fixed. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
Knawt Ongrid
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 18:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
3. It's unbalanced. I like overpowered Amarr ships.
Fixed.
Now now Capt. Try flying Amarr as a noob and love the "hey, where did my cap go?" experience. It's only when you get the 5 skill level trained that the things become possible.
Amarr may be doing ok atm, but I would not call it op. Minmatar on the other hand is now and the foreseeable future imprisoned in Amarr's former residence. Only consistent thing I've seen in eve is that Caldari never are teh suck and are often the opposite. One reason why they outnumber everyone.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 18:38:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba Missiles are going to be revamped because they be to powerful against fast targets once they can't do as fast as now on TQ. But what about range turret ships ? Everything gets slower means traversal speed will be lower aswell. What will stop a railgun mega with tracking mods and rigs from insta-popping frigs or dealing full damage to cruisers, since they can't orbit as fast as before.
If missiles will get nerfed in their ability to hit fast targets, shouldn't longrage turrets be adjusted aswell ?
They still have no chance of hitting even at the decreased speed unless you fly straight at them or are far enough away to be ineffectual, did you actually try and run some tests yourself, instead of spewing worries mindlessly? If so, put the numbers in that caused you to have a concern, if not, test it, and then post, rather then putting up such a poor post.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 18:58:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Captator
They still have no chance of hitting even at the decreased speed unless you fly straight at them or are far enough away to be ineffectual, did you actually try and run some tests yourself, instead of spewing worries mindlessly? If so, put the numbers in that caused you to have a concern, if not, test it, and then post, rather then putting up such a poor post.
You must be blind if you need proof or numbers. There were several announcements that missiles are going to be changed, there is even a sticky thread about missile change, but none about any changes in turret hit formula. Did you hear that speed will be reduced significantly ? Don't you think that this will make longrange turrets stronger than before ? I don't say they should be nerfed, just adjusted so they deal the same damage as before and not just remain unchanged when speed is reduced on everything. This or leave missiles allone.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:01:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Originally by: Captator
They still have no chance of hitting even at the decreased speed unless you fly straight at them or are far enough away to be ineffectual, did you actually try and run some tests yourself, instead of spewing worries mindlessly? If so, put the numbers in that caused you to have a concern, if not, test it, and then post, rather then putting up such a poor post.
You must be blind if you need proof or numbers. There were several announcements that missiles are going to be changed, there is even a sticky thread about missile change, but none about any changes in turret hit formula. Did you hear that speed will be reduced significantly ? Don't you think that this will make longrange turrets stronger than before ? I don't say they should be nerfed, just adjusted so they deal the same damage as before and not just remain unchanged when speed is reduced on everything. This or leave missiles allone.
a railgun fit mega, to use your example, last time I tested it, cannot hit a cruiser going 200m/s orbiting it at 5km, let alone something doing 2-5km/s (yes those speeds are still achievable) out at 20km. They might be able to hit at 40km instead of 45km now, but their improved hit chance is so small, that it doesn't affect the result enough to be concerned.
|
Knawt Ongrid
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:05:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
You must be blind if you need nullproof or numbers. There were several announcements that missiles are going to be changed, there is even a sticky thread about missile change, but none about any changes in turret hit formula. Did you hear that speed will be reduced significantly ? Don't you think that this will make longrange turrets stronger than before ? I don't say they should be nerfed, just adjusted so they deal the same damage as before and not just remain unchanged when speed is reduced on everything. This or leave missiles allone.
Nothing like torpedoing yourself (see what i did there)
Hey, try doing something other than hitting f1-f8 in a Raven or Drake and actually using turrets sometime before you create a thread. Noob Caldari whines
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:33:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Knawt Ongrid
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
You must be blind if you need nullproof or numbers. There were several announcements that missiles are going to be changed, there is even a sticky thread about missile change, but none about any changes in turret hit formula. Did you hear that speed will be reduced significantly ? Don't you think that this will make longrange turrets stronger than before ? I don't say they should be nerfed, just adjusted so they deal the same damage as before and not just remain unchanged when speed is reduced on everything. This or leave missiles allone.
Nothing like torpedoing yourself (see what i did there)
Hey, try doing something other than hitting f1-f8 in a Raven or Drake and actually using turrets sometime before you create a thread. Noob Caldari whines
Look how dumb you are. Because of you trolls i had to get the latest SiSi patch to doublecheck:
Tracking speed remains the same. For example 0.009625 for 425mm t2 rails. Skills give the same bonus. Modules and rigs still give the same bonus. There are no statements that the formula has been changed. The signature radius of ships is the same. If you are not a complete ****** you should have noticed that turrets will now hit more precise when the targets move slower. Now **** off and make post your fake-quote-mockery somewhere else.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:37:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Captator
a railgun fit mega, to use your example, last time I tested it, cannot hit a cruiser going 200m/s orbiting it at 5km, let alone something doing 2-5km/s (yes those speeds are still achievable) out at 20km. They might be able to hit at 40km instead of 45km now, but their improved hit chance is so small, that it doesn't affect the result enough to be concerned.
And in a fleet fight everything orbits only you ? How about fitting some tracking mods and rigs on your mega. The point is that it is now easier than before, because now the cruiser will move slower than before and your tracking remains the same. That's an advantage. Why should you get that advantage while it is denied to a missile user ?
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:42:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba The point is that it is now easier than before, because now the cruiser will move slower than before and your tracking remains the same. That's an advantage. Why should you get that advantage while it is denied to a missile user ?
You've just displayed ignorance of not only the mechanics of missiles on SiSi but those on TQ as well.
Perhaps you should look into explosion velocity, transversal/angular velocity, signature radius and how these things factor into the damage done by missiles and turrets before posting about what gives one an advantage and not the other.
Beyond all this missiles are still being heavily tweaked, at least give it a week or so before you use them as a basis for a whining comparison. |
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:53:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Captator on 21/10/2008 19:54:25
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Originally by: Captator
a railgun fit mega, to use your example, last time I tested it, cannot hit a cruiser going 200m/s orbiting it at 5km, let alone something doing 2-5km/s (yes those speeds are still achievable) out at 20km. They might be able to hit at 40km instead of 45km now, but their improved hit chance is so small, that it doesn't affect the result enough to be concerned.
And in a fleet fight everything orbits only you ? How about fitting some tracking mods and rigs on your mega. The point is that it is now easier than before, because now the cruiser will move slower than before and your tracking remains the same. That's an advantage. Why should you get that advantage while it is denied to a missile user ?
Are you honestly this stupid? You cannot hit anything within about 20km as long as it is moving at some speed reliably with rails, even with a sniper fit including enhancers and tracking computers. In a fleet fight the cruisers are sniping at your support, from near their BS, and so they are hittable whether their base speed is 200 or 400 or 600, because they are so far away.
The tacklers are frigates, which you cannot hit unless they fly straight at you anyway, which they don't unless they are stupid, or new to the role.
How about you try actually testing this, in your own mega, and see what happens, or is it the case that, inferring from your posts, you don't actually fly gunboats?
Don't comment on things you don't know about, it makes you look like an idiot.
edit: to provide you with an analogy, this is similar to what you are describing - someone whining that someone is wearing body armor, and so will be better able to survive being run over by a tank, it is irrelevant, because they will still both die. |
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba The point is that it is now easier than before, because now the cruiser will move slower than before and your tracking remains the same. That's an advantage. Why should you get that advantage while it is denied to a missile user ?
You've just displayed ignorance of not only the mechanics of missiles on SiSi but those on TQ as well.
Perhaps you should look into explosion velocity, transversal/angular velocity, signature radius and how these things factor into the damage done by missiles and turrets before posting about what gives one an advantage and not the other.
Beyond all this missiles are still being heavily tweaked, at least give it a week or so before you use them as a basis for a whining comparison.
You just displayed ******ness since you applied a statement that was clearly made for turrets on missile mechanics. Next time first read, then press the "Post Reply" button. |
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 19:59:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Captator emorage
You miss the whole point of this thread. It is about that with the speed changes longrange turrets get stronger than before. I'm not discussing that they are not good against orbiting speed in general. Now get out.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 20:09:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Originally by: Captator emorage
You miss the whole point of this thread. It is about that with the speed changes longrange turrets get stronger than before. I'm not discussing that they are not good against orbiting speed in general. Now get out.
You miss the whole point of my replies clearly.
I am saying that your concerns are meaningless, as the strength increase is too small to have an effect. You also still haven't given any evidence that you have/can/will test this, so, as far as I am concerned you are whining unnecessarily, you haven't got any empirical evidence to justify your concerns, and are theorycrafting to the detriment of this forum.
Perhaps you should read what is written, not what you think is written, as dismissing my post as an emorage shows your lack of insight.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 20:42:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Captator
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Originally by: Captator emorage
You miss the whole point of this thread. It is about that with the speed changes longrange turrets get stronger than before. I'm not discussing that they are not good against orbiting speed in general. Now get out.
You miss the whole point of my replies clearly.
I am saying that your concerns are meaningless, as the strength increase is too small to have an effect. You also still haven't given any evidence that you have/can/will test this, so, as far as I am concerned you are whining unnecessarily, you haven't got any empirical evidence to justify your concerns, and are theorycrafting to the detriment of this forum.
Perhaps you should read what is written, not what you think is written, as dismissing my post as an emorage shows your lack of insight.
I've posted in one of the replies above that i looked up the things which are relevant for tracking. Everything remains the same, tracking is not changed, the only factor in the formula that is changed will be the orbiting/transversal. This factor will be decreased because of lower speed. And the speed will be lowered considerably, not insignificant. I don't need any empirical evidence, when the changes are that obvious. You also don't need empirical evidence that missiles would have worked better after update, since you know what things affect missile damage. But the effect of missiles will be cared of, the effect on turrets will be not. That's what i complain about, the diffrence between "before" and "after" the speedchange and how missiles are adjusted and turrets are not, when it is obvious that speed is an important part of traversal speed, which is an important part of the tracking formula and will therefore lead for an improvement. It's a syllogism, you don't need specific numbers to back that.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 20:47:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba I've posted in one of the replies above that i looked up the things which are relevant for tracking. Everything remains the same, tracking is not changed, the only factor in the formula that is changed will be the orbiting/transversal. This factor will be decreased because of lower speed. And the speed will be lowered considerably, not insignificant. I don't need any empirical evidence, when the changes are that obvious. You also don't need empirical evidence that missiles would have worked better after update, since you know what things affect missile damage. But the effect of missiles will be cared of, the effect on turrets will be not. That's what i complain about, the diffrence between "before" and "after" the speedchange and how missiles are adjusted and turrets are not, when it is obvious that speed is an important part of traversal speed, which is an important part of the tracking formula and will therefore lead for an improvement. It's a syllogism, you don't need specific numbers to back that.
Here we go again....
This is the last time I will try and explain to you what I mean, if you still show no glimmer of insight, I will stop posting:
Yes the tracking value doesn't change, but if you actually tested it, you would find that it still falls far short of the value required to track a smaller ship moving close to the example railmega, i.e. even though the ships are a bit slower (in some cases faster/more agile), they are still more than fast enough to out-track the long range guns when close. This means that your concerns are although well-intentioned, not valid.
That any clearer?
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 20:49:00 -
[25]
Im only wondering if he is serious or just a troll... looked like troll at first but now im really not sure.
|
Knawt Ongrid
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 20:57:00 -
[26]
Yeah it's not worth it. This guy has obviously not flown a turret battleship and probably never will. Just an uninformed troll.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 21:11:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Knawt Ongrid Yeah it's not worth it. This guy has obviously not flown a turret battleship and probably never will. Just an uninformed troll.
Based on your moronic statements in this thread you are not in a position to call someone troll. Get out of here if you don't have anything to say on the topic.
|
Azuse
Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 21:38:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Azuse on 21/10/2008 21:38:37
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Im only wondering if he is serious or just a troll... looked like troll at first but now im really not sure.
While i agree it's entirely possible it's just someone who wasn't playing when we got RMR, which is pretty much where sisi is now (they even broke the drone ai again). In either case turrets are still transversal/sig based, missiles are now speed/sig based, one can be evaded one cannot. I'd say we're back where we were 3 year ago. -------------------------
|
Qob
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 21:44:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
The point is that it is now easier than before, because now the cruiser will move slower than before and your tracking remains the same. That's an advantage. Why should you get that advantage while it is denied to a missile user ?
You sir, are completely correct. If things move slower, tracking gets buffed. In cases where tracking was completely out, it won't matter much. However, those cases where tracking could *almost* keep up, become enabled. I wonder how much of a boost this will be to POS turrets.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 22:08:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Yakia TovilToba on 21/10/2008 22:08:53
Originally by: Captator
Here we go again....
This is the last time I will try and explain to you what I mean, if you still show no glimmer of insight, I will stop posting:
Yes the tracking value doesn't change, but if you actually tested it, you would find that it still falls far short of the value required to track a smaller ship moving close to the example railmega, i.e. even though the ships are a bit slower (in some cases faster/more agile), they are still more than fast enough to out-track the long range guns when close. This means that your concerns are although well-intentioned, not valid.
That any clearer?
Since you are not a dumb guy, i think you don't want to understand my concern deliberately. Now there are situations where you hit small targets. Orbiting at 20km or 40km or 60km, you will see situations where you start hitting them. After the speednerf things will improve for you. Don't take extreme situations for the comparison, in extreme low ranges or extreme high orbiting speed you still won't be hitting. But there will be more situations where you will start to hit after the speednerf. And at situations where you hit now, you will hit better after the patch. So how can you seriously doubt that the speednerf will be a significant improvement of turrets ?
I'll try last time to show the chain of causation, since people still don't understand my concerns and think i make a pointless statement:
a) The speed of a target has impact on it's traversal velocity.
b) A significant lower speed after the speednerf will reduce the traversal velocity of your targets.
c) Traversal velocity is part of your tracking formula, the higher the target's traversal velocity is, the worse your ability to hit the target.
d) No other parts of the tracking formula will be changed, only the target speed and with it the traversal velocity.
e) Conclusion: turret tracking will be better after the speednerf than it was before, since only one factor of the formula, which had a bad effect, will be lower, and therefore turning the result of the formula in your favour.
f) Conclusion: your turrets will now hit in more situations than before and/or will hit small/fast targets harder than before in same situations.
Which part, a-f, don't you agree with ?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |