| Author |
Topic |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 15:43:00 - [ 31]
 Originally by: Ragnar256
Have drones kill the fragates. Large guns for everything else.
It is one of those "good on paper" arguments, but falls apart in the "real world". My Slicer will two-volley all medium drones, three-volley light drones (pesky tracking) and laugh at heavies trying to hit me. Full flight of drones lasts 20-30s max against a skilled pilot. They become a perfect counter when you have a bunch of BS, but then you also have loads of webs, neuts and zero-transversal opportunities so drones are secondary at best. QR really did a number on the power distribution between the classes. The first several months you had equal number of AB and MWD frigs roaming the skies and you never knew which was what .. one died easily enough, the other killed you (now replaced with dual-prop and MWD fits, pure AB is all but gone). |
Joss56
Gallente
Unleashed' Fury |
Posted - 2010.12.11 16:22:00 - [ 32]
Edited by: Joss56 on 11/12/2010 16:24:44
BS is not the good example of balanced ship, has no versatility or if you try to invent anything against smaller size ships you take the risk of getting a biggest target and be blowned has well.
The biggest problem of BS class ship is they're absurd tracking speed so that you cant choose between large rails (in my case) or Blasters but, if blasters have the most stupid range in the game they have the best tracking...
The only item that can give you a little help is the tracking enhancer, not for the tracking bonus but the op range even if it still ridiculous.
And maybe here's the point for ccp, magnetic fields give you some interesting bonus wile tracking enhancer has a single one interesting on both cases, do you care about op distance when you can already shoot some guy +150km?? really??
On the other side do you care about tracking when you already have tons of it on blasters?
I really think that, at least for blasters, CCP should find something or compromise item.
Something like Range enhancer 25% op dist and 1.15dps or rate of fire with "penalities" (?) if more than one mod fit
Wy 1.15dps bonus? -rails/blasters suffer from some low dps, adding a little extra is not overpowered has Tipia (i think) said on BS thread, around 11% is ok to balance those weapons and make Gallente ships become more useful than just run missions, transport goods or be killmails. |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.11 16:47:00 - [ 33]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
Making gun bonuses generic would not turn BS's into Solopwnmobiles.
Yes, if you decided to build a battleship dedicated to frigate defense, it would be a monster--lots of tank, and plenty of damage for the size weapon you choose to fit.
Thus, it would be murder to everything smaller Quote:
You still have limitations when facing smaller ships though. ECM in particular would be very effective, because unless you also fit a couple of sensor boosters, it still takes 10ish seconds to lock a frig, and in many cases better than 6 to lock a cruiser.
Have you looked at sensor strengths? BS is much harder to jam than anything smaller, and it has slots to use, for instance for ECCM. Smaller ships must gimp themselves severely Quote:
It also means that a single frigate no longer tackles a Battleship easily and without fear. It would take at least 2---one for tackle, and one for Electronic Warfare.
Ewar does not really come into play, you just wish to be able to kill everything up to other BS, If you want to lock faster, bring scripted computers. You already have locking range and sensor strength no need to add fast locks to that. Quote:
It might even help balance out PvP---you could make a fleet of BSs with mixed size weapons that would be able to break a drakeblob without being a blow-up doll for the smaller ships. It would not offset the lag issues, bu it would help change the status quo.
Newsflash, you can already do that, you just miss out on 25% dps (the hull bonus) in most cases, sometimes more, but well, tough luck. I do not think that should be given to the larger ships. What you are suggesting is not a small boost, and will obsolete a lot of ships. I will oppose it until my last subscription day. I will not say that BS are at their best this day, but this idea is silly and should never even meet the test server. It is fine to state that a bit more sensor strength and a bit more speed/agility is needed for BS, or a bit more tank, and especially a supercap nerf, but changing the way everything works, and doing things to balance you could not explain to Santa is not it. What was your plan with missiles by the way? |
Aerilis
Gallente
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 16:48:00 - [ 34]
Sure you can fit small guns onto a BS, But doing so in the current state of things is simply ******ed. I think what the OP wants is for small weapons to actually be viable on bigger ships, and as such be more realistic. For instance, if and when we are able to construct space battleships in real life, they are much more likely to have the Eve standard battery of 8x big guns, PLUS dozens of smaller ones.
The problem with this, of course, is that frigates would be useless and they would just get slaughtered by battleships. |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.11 18:01:00 - [ 35]
Originally by: Aerilis
Sure you can fit small guns onto a BS, But doing so in the current state of things is simply ******ed. I think what the OP wants is for small weapons to actually be viable on bigger ships, and as such be more realistic. For instance, if and when we are able to construct space battleships in real life, they are much more likely to have the Eve standard battery of 8x big guns, PLUS dozens of smaller ones.
Eve ships are like the Dreadnaught age, simply cram the largest guns you can on the ship, as much as you can. Anything other would obsolete smaller ships as you concur. Quote:
The problem with this, of course, is that frigates would be useless and they would just get slaughtered by battleships.
The problem is that you can't use an analogy, simply because there is 1 player in the frigate and 1 player in the BS. Compared to some 50 in the frigate an 200 in the battleship in real life (numbers are probably nonsense). Both players need to be able to have a good time. With the current BS state, that might be hard for the BS pilot, what the OP suggests would make life pointless for the frig player. Note that while every ship might have a bonus for larger guns, they would not actually be able to fit it, due to grid, making it a straight boost for larger ships. There may be ships that would be useful when scaling down, but use it case by case. For instance, if CCP decides the maller might be good with smaller guns, the energy weapon bonus could change, but capacitor, grid and CPU should also change to reflect its new choice in weapons. I'm just saying you can't have the cake and eat it. If you want smaller weapons on your ship, pay for it. I could only see the bonus applied, if the fitting of the weapons was multiplied eightfold for each category smaller, and for each category larger divided by 8. This, however, is ugly as sin, and still not good for the total environment. I thus propose to let this proposal rest in piece and see what the BS class needs to be better, and strive to not only leave the BS, but also the rest of Eve's identity in place. |
Drakarin
Gallente
Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 18:56:00 - [ 36]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Whats I think would be cool and in line with this proposal is to have a large gun rack of small weapons. Like a point defense battery.
Its a large gun, has the same bonus as a large gun but it has duel cruiser or quad frig turrets.
People would say that's overpowered but what small ship should survive a head to head engagement with a battleship? Let alone win it. In any situation when you attack a large ship, in RL and in most games, with small ships you do it in force, not solo.
Never heard of a single naval battle in history, where a solo frigate or destroyer or even a cruiser, went toe to toe with a battleship and won. There have been cases where multiple frigates and cruisers sank battleships however.
No one wants an immersive gaming experience, they want ships designed by grade school kids. Only in the future will we have the genius to design a full fledged, small city size battleship in space, with absolutely zero built in capabilities to take on smaller vessels even remotely effectively. Yep, only in the future, where technology is advanced and we're as dumb as ever. |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.11 19:01:00 - [ 37]
Originally by: Drakarin
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Whats I think would be cool and in line with this proposal is to have a large gun rack of small weapons. Like a point defense battery.
Its a large gun, has the same bonus as a large gun but it has duel cruiser or quad frig turrets.
People would say that's overpowered but what small ship should survive a head to head engagement with a battleship? Let alone win it. In any situation when you attack a large ship, in RL and in most games, with small ships you do it in force, not solo.
Never heard of a single naval battle in history, where a solo frigate or destroyer or even a cruiser, went toe to toe with a battleship and won. There have been cases where multiple frigates and cruisers sank battleships however.
No one wants an immersive gaming experience, they want ships designed by grade school kids. Only in the future will we have the genius to design a full fledged, small city size battleship in space, with absolutely zero built in capabilities to take on smaller vessels even remotely effectively.
Yep, only in the future, where technology is advanced and we're as dumb as ever.
In the now we want a game, not a lifelike foreshadowing of the future. |
Mike Voidstar |
Posted - 2010.12.14 05:58:00 - [ 38]
Quote:
Thus, it would be murder to everything smaller
Yep... at the cost of effectiveness on hulls your size or larger. This isn't just a Battleship discussion, though that's the largest commonly flown hull, and therefore the most common large difference. Quote:
Have you looked at sensor strengths? BS is much harder to jam than anything smaller, and it has slots to use, for instance for ECCM. Smaller ships must gimp themselves severely
Slots used for ECCM are not being used for Webs, Scrams, extra sheilds, etc. This is self balancing. E-War can be used by hulls of any size, and the most benefit is when it's used by a small ship on a larger ship, since the large ship takes a long time to lock and deal with the smaller ship. Quote:
Ewar does not really come into play, you just wish to be able to kill everything up to other BS, If you want to lock faster, bring scripted computers. You already have locking range and sensor strength no need to add fast locks to that.
I didn't suggest anything to do with faster locking---I was pointing out that Battleships are more affected by E-war from a small ship due to lock time. If I lose my lock on another battleship, it's nothing to relock it once I can. If I lose my lock on a small ship, it's going to be a while before I re-aquire the lock---time that I can't afford because there's larger backup on the way coming to explode me. I am in favor of this dynamic, it's the way it should be. I was pointing out the weakness, not suggesting it be 'fixed'. Quote:
Newsflash, you can already do that, you just miss out on 25% dps (the hull bonus) in most cases, sometimes more, but well, tough luck. I do not think that should be given to the larger ships. What you are suggesting is not a small boost, and will obsolete a lot of ships. I will oppose it until my last subscription day.
I will not say that BS are at their best this day, but this idea is silly and should never even meet the test server. It is fine to state that a bit more sensor strength and a bit more speed/agility is needed for BS, or a bit more tank, and especially a supercap nerf, but changing the way everything works, and doing things to balance you could not explain to Santa is not it.
What was your plan with missiles by the way?
It's not like I'm asking for tracking on large weapons to be increased to the level of small weapons. All I'm suggesting is that small weapons enjoy the same bonus larger weapons do on the same hull. That 25% bonus would apply to small weapons, with small weapons range and damage. I'd trade the ability to be effective in my own size class to be effective on a smaller size class. As you point out, this can already be done without the bonus---and it currently does not break the game. It takes a battleship and gives it the offensive punch of a Destroyer, something that hardly sends fear down the spine of most pilots. Changing Sensor Strength, Speed, Agility, and Tank are topics for other threads, and would have more impact than this. This is just a suggestion to make a fail-fit less fail. I'd treat missles the same way---rather than a boost to a certain missle size, it'd simply be a boost to Missle Damage. |
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 07:06:00 - [ 39]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
Quote:
Thus, it would be murder to everything smaller
Yep... at the cost of effectiveness on hulls your size or larger. This isn't just a Battleship discussion, though that's the largest commonly flown hull, and therefore the most common large difference.
Agree 100%. Megathron with bonused T2 large blasters and ogre II drones = 1130 dps. Megathron with bonused T2 medium blasters with ogre II drones = 927 dps. Megathron with bonused T2 small blasters with ogre II drones = 774 dps. Of course if you in combat with smaller ships that would drop even more since you most probably be using med drones on cruisers and light on small ships. I doubt it would be murder to everything smaller. Smaller ships still have a distinct advantage over large ships in mobility, thus they can dictate range and traversal. It would mean that small ships wouldn't be immune to battleships except on the chance they equipped a neut. And quite frankly, if I pay 100 million isk for a ship, I expect it to perform well over a ship worth 200 thousand. Bring more 200 thousand isk ships if you want to beat me. |
Robert Caldera |
Posted - 2010.12.14 10:02:00 - [ 40]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
It also means that a single frigate no longer tackles a Battleship easily and without fear. It would take at least 2---one for tackle, and one for Electronic Warfare.
this should not be that way. requiring multiple interceptors for tackling a stupid ratter is a very bad idea. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 10:41:00 - [ 41]
this would make my blaster proposla badass.
frigates could hit battleships at long range anyways. |
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 12:17:00 - [ 42]
ed Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
It also means that a single frigate no longer tackles a Battleship ea sily and without fear. It would take at least 2---one for tackle, and one for Electronic Warfare.
this should not be that way.
requiring multiple interceptors for tackling a stupid ratter is a very bad idea.
Explain? You are in a tiny little ship, worth 1/5 that of a the massive battleship you are attacking. Why do you deserve to be completely immune to it? |
Robert Caldera |
Posted - 2010.12.14 12:50:00 - [ 43]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/12/2010 12:52:51
because:
1) its interceptors role
2) other frigates are pretty fragile against light drones which are already at your disposal
3) its bad for the gameplay
4) we would never catch any ratter again |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.14 17:12:00 - [ 44]
Originally by: Mike Voidstar
Quote:
Thus, it would be murder to everything smaller
Yep... at the cost of effectiveness on hulls your size or larger. This isn't just a Battleship discussion, though that's the largest commonly flown hull, and therefore the most common large difference.
This is a battleship discussion. Frigates have only to lose with this proposal, Cruiser will get hurt somewhat and hurt frigates somewhat better, and battleships will reign. Quote:
Quote:
Have you looked at sensor strengths? BS is much harder to jam than anything smaller, and it has slots to use, for instance for ECCM. Smaller ships must gimp themselves severely
Slots used for ECCM are not being used for Webs, Scrams, extra sheilds, etc. This is self balancing. E-War can be used by hulls of any size, and the most benefit is when it's used by a small ship on a larger ship, since the large ship takes a long time to lock and deal with the smaller ship.
It takes longer to lock back, but it also will get jammed less. To me that looks like balance. Quote:
Quote:
Ewar does not really come into play, you just wish to be able to kill everything up to other BS, If you want to lock faster, bring scripted computers. You already have locking range and sensor strength no need to add fast locks to that.
I didn't suggest anything to do with faster locking---I was pointing out that Battleships are more affected by E-war from a small ship due to lock time. If I lose my lock on another battleship, it's nothing to relock it once I can. If I lose my lock on a small ship, it's going to be a while before I re-aquire the lock---time that I can't afford because there's larger backup on the way coming to explode me. I am in favor of this dynamic, it's the way it should be. I was pointing out the weakness, not suggesting it be 'fixed'.
They will get affected by ecm less often, with greater effect if you do succeed, let's conclude that ewar has no place in this discussion Quote:
Quote:
Newsflash, you can already do that, you just miss out on 25% dps (the hull bonus) in most cases, sometimes more, but well, tough luck. I do not think that should be given to the larger ships. What you are suggesting is not a small boost, and will obsolete a lot of ships. I will oppose it until my last subscription day.
I will not say that BS are at their best this day, but this idea is silly and should never even meet the test server. It is fine to state that a bit more sensor strength and a bit more speed/agility is needed for BS, or a bit more tank, and especially a supercap nerf, but changing the way everything works, and doing things to balance you could not explain to Santa is not it.
What was your plan with missiles by the way?
It's not like I'm asking for tracking on large weapons to be increased to the level of small weapons. All I'm suggesting is that small weapons enjoy the same bonus larger weapons do on the same hull. That 25% bonus would apply to small weapons, with small weapons range and damage. I'd trade the ability to be effective in my own size class to be effective on a smaller size class. As you point out, this can already be done without the bonus---and it currently does not break the game. It takes a battleship and gives it the offensive punch of a Destroyer, something that hardly sends fear down the spine of most pilots.
It does change a lot, you cannot claim that effectively losing fitting requirements in your highslots will not make your tank reach epic proportions. The offensive qualities of the destroyer are not what I fear, it is the defensive properties of a carrier that worries me. |
Corina Jarr |
Posted - 2010.12.14 19:23:00 - [ 45]
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/12/2010 12:52:51
because:
1) its interceptors role
2) other frigates are pretty fragile against light drones which are already at your disposal
3) its bad for the gameplay
4) we would never catch any ratter again
1) doesn't mean it shouldn't take two 2) so 3) says you 4) then you will be a moron for not taking two tacklers |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.14 20:30:00 - [ 46]
Originally by: Corina Jarr
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/12/2010 12:52:51
because:
1) its interceptors role
2) other frigates are pretty fragile against light drones which are already at your disposal
3) its bad for the gameplay
4) we would never catch any ratter again
1) doesn't mean it shouldn't take two
2) so
3) says you
4) then you will be a moron for not taking two tacklers
1) It does mean that a ship specialised for one duty, sacrificing much of its usability on other fronts should be able to do what it was designed to do 2) You have tools to make them go away, don't deny it 3) It is bad for gameplay to obsolete multiple classes of ships 4) You would need two tacklers and at least one damage dealer, needing a three to one advantage instead of the current 2 to 1 advantage needed to catch people. This would mean s significant change in gameplay. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.14 21:55:00 - [ 47]
Epic tank if weapon fittings are freed up .. hmmm. Where do you propose the extra slots for that mythical tank will come from? You can already pretty much max out EHP on all BS with proper size weapons of lowest tier, so the only place where such free fittings could be used is double tanking (shield+armour) which is just 'lol' on so many levels. Quote:
1) BlaBla
2) Bla
3) BlaBlaBla
4) Bla
Are you seriously debating whether it takes one or two frigates to hold a ship (95% BS size) if it has downsized weapons? BS are fat and lazy, can't accelerate if their lives depended on it (which it often does :)). Tackle range is 24km+, or 20km if you are a cheap bastard (ie. well outside majority of <Large weapons). Please consider this before you go off on a tangent; ratting is boring so speed is of the essence. Do you really think a ratter will sacrifice a bazillion dps (less raw dps and -range = +travel),'just in case'? The only case where this might be wrong and a second ship is needed for initial tackle is the dreaded Assault Launcher Raven. FEAR IT!, its real I swear!  |
Mike Voidstar |
Posted - 2010.12.14 23:13:00 - [ 48]
This proposal changes nothing about how a ship can be fit.
You can already fit small weapons to a ship, and double tank it if you really really want to be that fail. This would result in the same situation with needing 3 people vs. 2, as said ship will now be able to shoot the tackler, with 8 weapon slots if he so chooses, plus light drones.
This just gives the ships weapons bonuses on all sides, making what is recognizably a fail fit less fail, not removing the fail all together.
The argument of bringing a ship dedicated to the purpose and making sacrifices to fulfill a role cuts both ways. If someone wants to sacrifice the advantages of large weapons to fit small weapons so as to be effective against frigates, then those sacrifices should be useful, right? Because that's the argument being used in favor of the interceptor. What do interceptors do when tackling other frigates? That ship and it's sacrifices make it capable of out tracking even small guns if flown well. |
Herping yourDerp |
Posted - 2010.12.14 23:15:00 - [ 49]
if it changes from "large energy turret to just energy turret" it would be fine, this means a battleship can lolfit medium guns and be good :D |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:09:00 - [ 50]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Epic tank if weapon fittings are freed up .. hmmm. Where do you propose the extra slots for that mythical tank will come from?
Removing any problems to fit the existing tank, increasing tracking about fourfold, decreasing DPS by a margin. This is what you propose and I oppose. It is true I could not for the life of me fill the grid in any of the setups I proposed, and still gun damage versus cruisers and below would increase about 100%. This is not a small boost. Quote:
You can already pretty much max out EHP on all BS with proper size weapons of lowest tier, so the only place where such free fittings could be used is double tanking (shield+armour) which is just 'lol' on so many levels.
It is needed, however, to downgrade to the lowest tier guns, which don't differ that much from highest tier smaller guns in DPS, and some setups are still impossible even then Quote:
Are you seriously debating whether it takes one or two frigates to hold a ship (95% BS size) if it has downsized weapons?
Interceptors. It has been stated that one ship, specialised for the duty should not be able to keep one other ship, with a more generic application tackled. This I oppose indeed. Quote:
BS are fat and lazy, can't accelerate if their lives depended on it (which it often does :)).
Tackle range is 24km+, or 20km if you are a cheap bastard (ie. well outside majority of <Large weapons).
20-24km is not beyond the range of many sub-large weapons by a long shot, and it is most often needed to enter closer range to out-transverse medium weapons already Quote:
Please consider this before you go off on a tangent; ratting is boring so speed is of the essence.
Do you really think a ratter will sacrifice a bazillion dps (less raw dps and -range = +travel),'just in case'?
The only case where this might be wrong and a second ship is needed for initial tackle is the dreaded Assault Launcher Raven. FEAR IT!, its real I swear!
I'd do so, there are many cruiser and battlecruiser rats, you'd be able to take out tacklers better, have easier to fit tank, and be able to compete with pvpers better. I don't, and will never, support this proposal. As stated before, if you want to do things your ship is not designed to do, pay for it. |
Anonymous Player |
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:40:00 - [ 51]
Originally by: Jekyl Eraser
I'd like to see a battleship that has large projectile bonus for 4 slots and medium hybrid bonus for 4 slots. All battleships are alike now, all with 8 high slots, all with 4+ midslots etc... same goes for BC:s too
All battleships are the same? No, they are not. They don't all have 8 highs, they have different strengths and different weaknesses. |
Anonymous Player |
Posted - 2010.12.15 16:52:00 - [ 52]
Originally by: Jaik7
i am actually skipping straight to the top from a kestrel, so skipping both caracal and drake, and when i get my 2 mil learning sp refunded, i'll be able to fly the raven just fine, thank you.
yes, i know this is stupid, but it'll be hard getting it killed in the lvl 1 hisec missions that are the only things i have access to.
correction, i suppose the top would be a tengu, but whatever. raven ftw! 
Sadly, you are very far from the truth, here. If you think 2 mil SP is going to allow you to fly a Raven with any proficiency, you will be losing a lot of them. |
Jaik7 |
Posted - 2010.12.15 17:42:00 - [ 53]
Originally by: Anonymous Player
Originally by: Jaik7
i am actually skipping straight to the top from a kestrel, so skipping both caracal and drake, and when i get my 2 mil learning sp refunded, i'll be able to fly the raven just fine, thank you.
yes, i know this is stupid, but it'll be hard getting it killed in the lvl 1 hisec missions that are the only things i have access to.
correction, i suppose the top would be a tengu, but whatever. raven ftw!
Sadly, you are very far from the truth, here. If you think 2 mil SP is going to allow you to fly a Raven with any proficiency, you will be losing a lot of them.
Why would i assume that? for the most part i'm going to be grinding levels one and two until my standings let me get at the good stuff, so why can't i fly a lolfitted underskilled raven in those? btw, i've already got 2 mil in raven stuff, shields and drones are almost t2 now, and i've upgraded to heavy launchers. i am fully aware of the amazing sp needs to fly a battleship well. i am crazy, not stupid. null |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.15 18:28:00 - [ 54]
Originally by: Zilberfrid
Removing any problems to fit the existing tank, increasing tracking about fourfold, decreasing DPS by a margin.
You also cut range by similar amount so guess what, it evens out. Originally by: Zilberfrid
It is needed, however, to downgrade to the lowest tier guns, which don't differ that much from highest tier smaller guns in DPS, and some setups are still impossible even then
Big difference is range. Large guns has it, smaller ones do not. Have you been keeping up with the blaster debates? The main complaint is the constant travel needed to apply any significant damage .. guess what happens when you downgrade guns - ALL guns. Originally by: Zilberfrid
Interceptors. It has been stated that one ship, specialised for the duty should not be able to keep one other ship, with a more generic application tackled. This I oppose indeed.
How does that even make sense? You oppose that an interceptor should be able to tackle a ****-fit target? Originally by: Zilberfrid
20-24km is not beyond the range of many sub-large weapons by a long shot, and it is most often needed to enter closer range to out-transverse medium weapons already
Unless you are going for a scram then you will not be hit by medium guns. Takes a stupidly high reliance on the orbit command to get hit enough for it to matter, even twin TE auto Ruptures will barely scratch a properly flown interceptor. Originally by: Zilberfrid
I'd do so, there are many cruiser and battlecruiser rats, you'd be able to take out tacklers better, have easier to fit tank, and be able to compete with pvpers better.
Have you tried ratting with small bore guns? You spend 80%+ of the time MWD'ing around just to get in bloody range .. hell, try ratting in a Sacrilege and you'll yearn for BS guns. I flew the MPII Maller quite a bit in FW some time ago, but gave it up for a medium gun version due to capping out from all the damn MWD usage .. range is far more important that you seem to think. The only "problem" that a proposal such as this might cause is when it comes to missile boats. Ranges for all of them are quite long, then again the infamous Assault Caracal is very easy to counter (it actually HAS the damage bonus already). |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.15 22:21:00 - [ 55]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Zilberfrid
Removing any problems to fit the existing tank, increasing tracking about fourfold, decreasing DPS by a margin.
You also cut range by similar amount so guess what, it evens out.
You do not divide the range by 4, sooner by 2, and not even that in the sample provided. Also, you do not adress that there is no more sacrifice for weapons Quote:
Originally by: Zilberfrid
It is needed, however, to downgrade to the lowest tier guns, which don't differ that much from highest tier smaller guns in DPS, and some setups are still impossible even then
Big difference is range. Large guns has it, smaller ones do not.
Have you been keeping up with the blaster debates? The main complaint is the constant travel needed to apply any significant damage .. guess what happens when you downgrade guns - ALL guns.
So don't. You do not see the advantage in going down a step, I see great disadvantages for the balance of eve if you can and keep your bonus. We should just conclude that those who wish it changed don't know what to do with it, and those who don't see the problem. Then why change? Quote:
Originally by: Zilberfrid
Interceptors. It has been stated that one ship, specialised for the duty should not be able to keep one other ship, with a more generic application tackled. This I oppose indeed.
How does that even make sense? You oppose that an interceptor should be able to tackle a ****-fit target?
That is not what I said at all. It was argued that you'd need two interceptors to tackle one non-specialised ship. That is nonsense Quote:
Originally by: Zilberfrid
20-24km is not beyond the range of many sub-large weapons by a long shot, and it is most often needed to enter closer range to out-transverse medium weapons already
Unless you are going for a scram then you will not be hit by medium guns. Takes a stupidly high reliance on the orbit command to get hit enough for it to matter, even twin TE auto Ruptures will barely scratch a properly flown interceptor.
wait, what? orbiting closer will get you hit more often by medium guns? I guess my client is off then... Quote:
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I'd do so, there are many cruiser and battlecruiser rats, you'd be able to take out tacklers better, have easier to fit tank, and be able to compete with pvpers better.
Have you tried ratting with small bore guns? You spend 80%+ of the time MWD'ing around just to get in bloody range .. hell, try ratting in a Sacrilege and you'll yearn for BS guns.
I rat in a cane, a cynabal and sometimes an Ishkur. Quote:
I flew the MPII Maller quite a bit in FW some time ago, but gave it up for a medium gun version due to capping out from all the damn MWD usage .. range is far more important that you seem to think.
The only "problem" that a proposal such as this might cause is when it comes to missile boats. Ranges for all of them are quite long, then again the infamous Assault Caracal is very easy to counter (it actually HAS the damage bonus already).
And the infamous AML caracal is indeed bad news for frigates. The caracal however, is alike the stabber a light cruiser, seemingly built specifically to have fitting challenges even with the AML (which is not entirely a small weapon) |
Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 00:26:00 - [ 56]
Originally by: Zilberfrid
Removing any problems to fit the existing tank, increasing tracking about fourfold, decreasing DPS by a margin. This is what you propose and I oppose. It is true I could not for the life of me fill the grid in any of the setups I proposed, and still gun damage versus cruisers and below would increase about 100%. This is not a small boost.
Hmmm. With a 5% per skill level damage bonus and a limit of level 5 how does the damage increase by 100%? |
Drakarin
Gallente
Absentia Libertas Solus
|
Posted - 2010.12.16 01:08:00 - [ 57]
|
galphi
Gallente
Furnulum pani nolo
THE SPACE P0LICE |
Posted - 2010.12.16 06:42:00 - [ 58]
Something to consider in this discussion too is a ship like the Dominix gets a drone damage bonus that applies to drones of all sizes, so in that respect it's nasty at taking on ships of all sizes (disregarding things like locking time, speed etc). Other battleships without drone bonuses (pretty much all of them) have a much more difficult time with smaller ships. So yes, I agree with the OP that the weapon bonuses shouldn't be restricted by size. If someone wants to fly a megathron with 7 light rails, that's fine, it's not like they get the locking speed or agility to really compete with a frigate anyway. But it'd be a great escort ship |
Zilberfrid |
Posted - 2010.12.16 18:26:00 - [ 59]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Originally by: Zilberfrid
Removing any problems to fit the existing tank, increasing tracking about fourfold, decreasing DPS by a margin. This is what you propose and I oppose. It is true I could not for the life of me fill the grid in any of the setups I proposed, and still gun damage versus cruisers and below would increase about 100%. This is not a small boost.
Hmmm. With a 5% per skill level damage bonus and a limit of level 5 how does the damage increase by 100%?
Better tracking and signature, more applied dps to cruisers and below. |
Mike Voidstar |
Posted - 2010.12.17 06:43:00 - [ 60]
Edited by: Mike Voidstar on 17/12/2010 06:43:58
You need to think straight.
You don't get 100% damage increase out of a 25% max bonus.
Any ship can *already* fit small guns. There would be no tracking increase, unless the hull grants a tracking bonus. The only possible issue here would be if certain bonuses are not available on all hull sizes.
This whole suggestion allows nothing that is not already available in game. All it does is include the weapon bonuses regardless of size, instead of restricting the bonus (and just the bonus) to a certain size weapon. Arguing that a BS would somehow be granted a tracking increase by allowing hull bonuses is a strawman at best, and a sign of diminished capacity at worst. |
|
All Channels
Features and Ideas Discussion
