EVE Search - Afterburners are overpowered :)

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Afterburners are overpowered :)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:05:00 - [1] Solution : +100% sigradius penalty to all afterburners
Andraine Coded Arms Corp	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:07:00 - [2] how about noooo
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:08:00 - [3] how about yes
baltec1 R.U.S.T.	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:08:00 - [4] But I like being good in pvp
Neth'Rae Gallente Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:09:00 - [5] nooo, don't take my frigs away from me!
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:10:00 - [6] Originally by: Akita T how about yes only if they get an additional 200% speed boost.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:10:00 - [7] Better solution: Grasp the idea that it is supposed to be possible to speed tank missiles. Since you are failing to adapt, I guess you are doing a lot of dying, huh? Lols, noobs.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:15:00 - [8] Originally by: Vaal Erit Better solution: Grasp the idea that it is supposed to be possible to speed tank missiles. 135% speed boost for BA-II * 1.25 from Accel Control 5 = +168.75% speed vs +100% sig. You're still getting a benefit from it. Just not as huge as before. Quote: Since you are failing to adapt, I guess you are doing a lot of dying, huh? Lols, noobs. I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything... so, no, I don't do a lot of dying.
Kiotsu Adler	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:17:00 - [9] Seriouslly: no. They're certainlly not OP on pvp and that's where things should be balanced at. Please stop asking for nerfs we got enough with current changes. Adapt or die and stuff...
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:18:00 - [10] Originally by: Kiotsu Adler Please stop asking for nerfs we got enough with current changes. Adapt or die and stuff... How ironic...
Neth'Rae Gallente Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:19:00 - [11] lol, btw.. Am I the only one who thinks Akita's portrait looks like 60 year old lady on the forums? (but not when you see the larger version)
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:21:00 - [12] Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything. So, no, I don't do a lot of dying. If you don't play the game, then STFU. You know nothing of current game mechanics. Your opinions are about as relevant as George Bush in a rocket scientist convention.
ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:21:00 - [13] Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now... Ah ok I see now. Having fun orbitting ppl on the test server eh?
Sarciss Black Legion Command	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:22:00 - [14] Originally by: Neth'Rae lol, btw.. Am I the only one who thinks Akita's portrait looks like 60 year old lady on the forums? (but not when you see the larger version) It does! It looks like the default human female char off Oblivion..
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:25:00 - [15] Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything. So, no, I don't do a lot of dying. So with little to no current practical knowledge of missions or pvp you are proposing a drastic change to the just introduced speed mechanics as per afterburner statistics? kk /signed on op and will back up Akita T on any other mission and pvp oriented subject.
Jana Clant New Dawn Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:30:00 - [16] Originally by: Neth'Rae lol, btw.. Am I the only one who thinks Akita's portrait looks like 60 year old lady on the forums? (but not when you see the larger version) I get that too. Join New Eden Research today and never worry about queues again!
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:34:00 - [17] Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything. So, no, I don't do a lot of dying. What posible thought process lead you to believe this would be a good thing to include in your post while advocating such a huge nerf to afterburners?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:37:00 - [18] Originally by: ElCoCo Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now... Ah ok I see now. Having fun orbitting ppl on the test server eh? SOME people actually do other stuff than just stand still and shoot or hit "orbit" and shoot. However, even IF you did that and only that, you'd still have a decent idea of what's good and what's bad. Originally by: Vaal Erit If you don't play the game, then STFU. You know nothing of current game mechanics. Your opinions are about as relevant as George Bush in a rocket scientist convention. Missiles were broken (OVERPOWERED) at the beginning because they did full damage all the time, they were "fixed" so that they would deal less damage to smaller/faster targets, and it was good enough before rigs and overheating came into play. Missiles were broken (UNDERPOWERED) in the "nano age" against nano-boats, dealing next to no damage at all. A double "fix" came into being, one for the nanoboats in general (since turrets also had the same problems) and a quasi-fix for missiles. Now missiles lose way too much damage way too early with increased target speed, and then almost stop losing damage as targets get faster and faster. The SHAPE of the damage reduction curve is ok (i.e. the formula is good), but the coefficients are all wrong. You could do a slight linearization of the missile damage formula, but then ships without an afterburner (or a MWD) would be toast and ships with afterburners too good. The OBVIOUS solution that does least "collateral" damage is to have afterburners get a penalty SIMILAR to that of MWDs, but lower. Missile damage formula remains the same, afterburners STILL help more at speed-tanking than no afterburners or MWDs, still increase ability to dictate range, still have a negligible capacitor consumption, but would have a slight drawback on top of using up a midslot. At the same time, turrets get better too against AB-using targets. The advantage of being able to maneouver much better should have a drawback in vulnerability, same logic by which MWDs have a sigradius penalty. Do you hate the IDEA of a sigradius penalty or the AMOUNT of it ? Adding a sigradius penalty is only LOGICAL. If you feel like 100% penalty for a T1 AB is too high, how about 80% then ? Or 75%, whatever. _ Create a character \|\| Fit a ship \|\| Get some ISK
Tippia Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:37:00 - [19] But I like my 2kps/37m sig radius AF…
Dez Affinity Evocati.	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:38:00 - [20] Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now We noticed.
Haraldhardrade Amarr Pax Amarr	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:44:00 - [21] I dont even care anymore, I dont care if OP were being sarcastic or not. What the **** is it with all the nerf requests. Nerf yourself isntead you douchebags. Kind regards Harald and mr J Beam.
StarWars BadGuy	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:44:00 - [22] Frigates getting you down? For all your frigate popping needs Destroyers-With-Uber-Tracking-For-Anti-Frigate-Support Incorperated reckonds destroyers with uber tracking for anti frigate support for all your anti frigate support needs. Destroyers, making frigates an easier load.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:45:00 - [23] Originally by: Gnomes Rock Originally by: Akita T I haven't PVPed on TQ in almost a year now, I seldom do missions (and I do them in a NH which works awesome right now), and I'm cross-trained in almost everything.So, no, I don't do a lot of dying. What posible thought process lead you to believe this would be a good thing to include in your post while advocating such a huge nerf to afterburners? Lack of "TQ PVP experience" is not a disqualifier for an informed opinion on a "hot topic" issue. So what lead me to believe it would be a good idea to add that comment IN SPITE of the obvious "omgn00b you know nothing then, STFU" comments ? Honesty on one side (why bother lying when telling the truth is so easy), and the belief logical arguments can be compelling for their own sake, NOT only because the one behind it has a lot of experience in dealing with the issue so far. Heck, I believe I have a much better perspective on the whole situation MAINLY because I can look at it objectively - I am not nerfed nor boosted by any of the changes, therefore I have no problem looking at it from all possible angles.
Sheriff Jones Amarr Clinical Experiment	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:45:00 - [24] Hey! You can't type absolution without AB, no touching! Though, Solution would sound nice too
Haraldhardrade Amarr Pax Amarr	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Akita T Lack of "TQ PVP experience" is not a disqualifier for an informed opinion on a "hot topic" issue. Yes it is because you cant simulate proper pvp on test server Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
Winterblink Body Count Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Akita T 135% speed boost for AB-II * 1.25 from Accel Control 5 = +168.75% speed vs +100% sig. You're still getting a benefit from it. Just not as huge as before. P.S. With missiles, it's a simple matter of "right direction, wrong amount". Also, the AB change would be an equally large advantage for turret users anyway. Lets see your crunched numbers for this vs turrets then. If they come out equal, I'd endorse it. :) warp drive active \| nature vraie
ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:51:00 - [27] Indeed, we need math proofs! Maybe an excel sheet as well! Boink!
Mistress Frome SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:54:00 - [28] I love how akita can make a topic and suggest changes, admit he doesn't play the game, and still make everyone else look stupid. protip for those who disagree with him: try putting some content in your posts.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.11.14 20:54:00 - [29] I'd be happier with a solution that allowed people to solo without the target almost always reaching the gate.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.14 21:24:00 - [30] Edited by: Akita T on 14/11/2008 21:24:30 Originally by: Mistress Frome I love how akita can make a topic and suggest changes, admit he doesn't play the game, and still make everyone else look stupid. It's a gift, it's a curse... Originally by: Winterblink Lets see your crunched numbers for this vs turrets then. If they come out equal, I'd endorse it. :) Assuming target speed, range, transversal and weapons used to shoot at it are the same and only signature differs, assuming target is within optimal for turrets so we can forget the falloff part, assuming we're dealing with the part of the missile damage formula where speed matters (all of these for simplicity's sake), you get: * for missiles : DPS = DPS * (C1sig/speed)^C2 * for turrets : CTH = 0.25 ^ (C3speed/sig) where C1, C2 and for the most part C3 too are weapon-related things that don't change during a fight. C3 also depends on range to target, but we assumed that to be constant too. NOTE: DPS of turrets is NOT base DPSCTH (chance to hit), it's more complicated. It's actually Average DPS = BaseDPS * [ 0.03 + (CTH - 0.01) * (0.5 + CTH/2) ] But it's pretty close to BaseDPS*CTH, only slightly lower. ...so it's kind of hard to put it as simple as "X% increase in signature leads to an Y% increase in DPS", because it's not linear at all, and it's not even the same kind of formula. You can only do it on a case-by-case basis (target ship mass leading to speed differences for same sig difference, type of weapon used, etc). For some, missiles will benefit more, for others, turrets will benefit more.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.