| Author |
Topic |
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:28:00 - [ 271]
 Originally by: Bibbleibble
Edited by: Bibbleibble on 03/08/2009 20:25:08
I was right! 
Bout what? |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:32:00 - [ 272]
Originally by: Kismo
Originally by: Bibbleibble
Edited by: Bibbleibble on 03/08/2009 20:25:08
I was right!
Bout what?
The link... Its not important though. I'm reading through the whole thread right now and will perhaps post a summary of anything interesting latre. |
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:34:00 - [ 273]
Originally by: Bibbleibble
The link...
Its not important though. I'm reading through the whole thread right now and will perhaps post a summary of anything interesting latre.
A far more informative thread was the "why should I train large artillery" thread. I'm seaching through the 400+ pages of Liang's posting history right now. W T F. I should pick another forum regular. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:36:00 - [ 274]
Originally by: Kismo
Originally by: Bibbleibble
The link...
Its not important though. I'm reading through the whole thread right now and will perhaps post a summary of anything interesting latre.
A far more informative thread was the "why should I train large artillery" thread. I'm seaching through the 400+ pages of Liang's posting history right now. W T F. I should pick another forum regular.
This? |
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:37:00 - [ 275]
|
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:39:00 - [ 276]
Ohh, the days where I proposed optimal for autocannons. Still a great idea, just far too ambitious.  |
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:42:00 - [ 277]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Ohh, the days where I proposed optimal for autocannons.
Still a great idea, just far too ambitious.
I still say moar falloff is the way to go. I'm not so sure about Bibble's idea for no optimal/all falloff artillery though. You just can't balance them at sniper ranges and up close, IMO. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:46:00 - [ 278]
|
Beverly Sparks |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:52:00 - [ 279]
|
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:54:00 - [ 280]
|
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:55:00 - [ 281]
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:57:00 - [ 282]
Well, its going to be hard to argue for improvements unless you have the weapons use some cap. It was only a few years ago that all projectiles got a 100% cap reduction. mind you, back then a raven had a hybrid bonus but thats another story lol. |
Nikolay Tesla
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 20:58:00 - [ 283]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Alpha is worthless in sniper fleets, it's all about DPS
Whatta hell are you talking about? Alpha is the most important thing you need in sniper fleets. Optimal sniper fleet one volleys it's target. Close range ganking is all about DPS, not sniper fleets. |
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:00:00 - [ 284]
Edited by: AstroPhobic on 03/08/2009 21:01:35 Originally by: Lord WarATron
Well, its going to be hard to argue for improvements unless you have the weapons use some cap. It was only a few years ago that all projectiles got a 100% cap reduction. mind you, back then a raven had a hybrid bonus but thats another story lol.
We can't all be winners. 2006 called, they want their poorly thought out arguments back. edit: to quote Liang Originally by: Liang Nuren
Dude, projectiles are uber because they don't use cap, you can run 3 reppers at the same time and i cantt' do that becaus of hi cap use on my lazers so lazers suck boost lazers because autocannons are awesome
Quote:
Whatta hell are you talking about?
Alpha is the most important thing you need in sniper fleets.
Optimal sniper fleet one volleys it's target.
Close range ganking is all about DPS, not sniper fleets.
I can't be bothered to do all the maths myself, but check out the link Kismo posted. You'll be sorely disappointed if you think alpha is superior to DPS in any way. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:06:00 - [ 285]
Originally by: Nikolay Tesla
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Alpha is worthless in sniper fleets, it's all about DPS
Whatta hell are you talking about?
Alpha is the most important thing you need in sniper fleets.
Optimal sniper fleet one volleys it's target.
Close range ganking is all about DPS, not sniper fleets.
Not if they only get to destroy one target every 10+ seconds. |
Nikolay Tesla
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:10:00 - [ 286]
|
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:11:00 - [ 287]
Originally by: Nikolay Tesla
Whatta hell are you talking about?
Alpha is the most important thing you need in sniper fleets.
Optimal sniper fleet one volleys it's target.
Close range ganking is all about DPS, not sniper fleets.
You're wrong. The numbers are above in this very thread for the discussion between Nikon and me about whether 10% ROF or 10% damage would be a better choice. If you'd like a bit more concrete example, I'm sure I can arrange a simulation showing that 10 alpha heavy ships will get their asses handed to them by 10 ROF heavy ships with higher DPS. What you said might have been true once upon a time, but I don't really think so. |
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:11:00 - [ 288]
Edited by: Ecky X on 03/08/2009 21:14:18
^ 'tis true, the maths say otherwise. You're always better off with more consistent DPS than you are with large bursts with big lags in between. Continuous DPS can take down ships as fast as the damage adds up to the ship's HP, while burst damage can only take down a ship as quick as the guns fire - you'll often be wasting damage on overkill. You're at an advantage for the first couple of ships you kill, since their DPS will be removed from the field a few seconds earlier, but continuous DPS will remove more ships from the field over a period of time; the longer the fight, the more advantage it has.
What this means is, even if artillery did the same DPS as lasers, they'd be superior in short skirmishes (warp in and kill 1-2 ships and warp out), and at a disadvantage in longer ones. But, they don't do the same DPS. And, most fights are not "warp in, kill a ship, then warp out" due to mixed fleets, and the fact that those who are "defending" are at an advantage. |
AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:13:00 - [ 289]
Originally by: Nikolay Tesla
LOL... You do not need math for that.
IF you have damage enough to one volley a target, then you are optimal sniper. If you need second volley, you are not. Simple as that.
Someone was sleeping during math class. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=736133&page=11#304 |
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:13:00 - [ 290]
Originally by: Nikolay Tesla
I can't be bothered to do all the maths myself, but check out the link Kismo posted. You'll be sorely disappointed if you think alpha is superior to DPS in any way.
LOL... You do not need math for that. IF you have damage enough to one volley a target, then you are optimal sniper. If you need second volley, you are not. Simple as that.
Let's make this really easy, ok? Suppose you have 2 groups of snipers with equal numbers, one with high ROF, one with high alpha - same DPS. T0: Both groups fire, one of each explodes. T1: One of the alpha guys explodess, they're now permanently behind in DPS. The end. |
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:19:00 - [ 291]
^ What he said.
Once both fleets reach the point where each side is almost 1-volleying a ship on the other side - which is maybe 25-35 ships - the RoF group will rapidly pull ahead of the alpha group, even if the DPS difference isn't large. |
Bibbleibble |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:20:00 - [ 292]
Originally by: Kismo
Originally by: Nikolay Tesla
I can't be bothered to do all the maths myself, but check out the link Kismo posted. You'll be sorely disappointed if you think alpha is superior to DPS in any way.
LOL... You do not need math for that.
IF you have damage enough to one volley a target, then you are optimal sniper. If you need second volley, you are not. Simple as that.
Let's make this really easy, ok? Suppose you have 2 groups of snipers with equal numbers, one with high ROF, one with high alpha - same DPS. T0: Both groups fire, one of each explodes. T1: One of the alpha guys explodess, they're now permanently behind in DPS. The end.
This. If the ROF on artillery is more than twice that of another sniper weapon, without either the ship or weapon having some extra feature, they will never be used. |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar |
Posted - 2009.08.03 21:26:00 - [ 293]
Originally by: Drek Grapper
Edited by: Drek Grapper on 03/08/2009 19:13:56
Originally by: Orakkus
On that note: I am again letting folks know there is a push for a CSM review of this in the Assembly Hall forums
Autocannon/Tempest Issue
Please visit this forum, post, and indicate your support.
Supported.
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE THOUGH 
Come on folks...
I'll agree with that, we should try to keep that thread alive. The way I look at this now, it seems we agree that there's issues with large projectiles, and issues with the Tempest in particular, but we're coming up with a thousand different ways of fixing it. When we're talking to CSM, or CCP, I think we just need to be clear about what we want. CCP is going to fix it in the end however they choose, but we should at least be clear about what the result should be. For large projectiles, it needs a range where it's the best, or at least very good, at something. ACs should dominate at middle ranges, and get dominated at close and long ranges. Artillery seems like it should be best at (relatively) 'close' ranges, while lasers then rails beat them after that. Neither of those are currently true. For the Tempest, currently the Typhoon outdamages it, and the Maelstrom both outtanks and outdamages it. The roles of damage and tank are filled. Give it the role of sniper (good damage at range), or harasser (good damage with speed), or brawler (great damage up close), or come up with something new. |
Azears |
Posted - 2009.08.03 22:41:00 - [ 294]
Edited by: Azears on 03/08/2009 22:40:58 Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Drek Grapper
Edited by: Drek Grapper on 03/08/2009 19:13:56
Originally by: Orakkus
On that note: I am again letting folks know there is a push for a CSM review of this in the Assembly Hall forums
Autocannon/Tempest Issue
Please visit this forum, post, and indicate your support.
Supported.
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE THOUGH
Come on folks...
I'll agree with that, we should try to keep that thread alive. The way I look at this now, it seems we agree that there's issues with large projectiles, and issues with the Tempest in particular, but we're coming up with a thousand different ways of fixing it.
When we're talking to CSM, or CCP, I think we just need to be clear about what we want. CCP is going to fix it in the end however they choose, but we should at least be clear about what the result should be.
For large projectiles, it needs a range where it's the best, or at least very good, at something. ACs should dominate at middle ranges, and get dominated at close and long ranges. Artillery seems like it should be best at (relatively) 'close' ranges, while lasers then rails beat them after that. Neither of those are currently true.
For the Tempest, currently the Typhoon outdamages it, and the Maelstrom both outtanks and outdamages it. The roles of damage and tank are filled. Give it the role of sniper (good damage at range), or harasser (good damage with speed), or brawler (great damage up close), or come up with something new.
I agree, if I'm asked to bring a Minmtar BS to PVP, I would choose Typhoon even if it's more expensive than tempest or Maelstrom. Typhoon can be used like a Domnix. |
Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 23:16:00 - [ 295]
Personally, one of the things that should have been a huge red flag to CCP is the fact that mounting four Torp launchers (a teritary weapon system for the Minmatar), does more damage than mounting four T2 800mm Autocannons, the primary weapon system for Minmatar. |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 00:23:00 - [ 296]
I think the Tempest would be just grand as the Minmatar Ewar BS, a counterpart to the Scorpion.
Same slot layout, but change the following:
3 turret, 5 missile hardpoints
10% Bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Velocity per level
10% Bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level
|
Kismo |
Posted - 2009.08.04 00:40:00 - [ 297]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
I think the Tempest would be just grand as the Minmatar Ewar BS, a counterpart to the Scorpion.
Same slot layout, but change the following:
3 turret, 5 missile hardpoints
10% Bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Velocity per level
10% Bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level
Negatory, morning glory. |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente
NME1
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 01:34:00 - [ 298]
(you need to allow the gasoline to run across the ground a bit before igniting it) |
Aranis Nax
Minmatar
Minmatar United Freedom Front
The 11th Hour |
Posted - 2009.08.04 01:55:00 - [ 299]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Well, its going to be hard to argue for improvements unless you have the weapons use some cap. It was only a few years ago that all projectiles got a 100% cap reduction. mind you, back then a raven had a hybrid bonus but thats another story lol.
Not that 3 cap per shot(for large unnamed and T2 projectile turrets) was exactly much... Might as well be nothing then. You make it sound like it was some huge boost by saying it was 100% reduction(while accurate, actual difference is relatively small). |
HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.08.04 03:18:00 - [ 300]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 04/08/2009 03:18:46
edit;damn forums |
All Channels
Ships and Modules
