open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Summit Topic: Ship Balance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

Scandal Caulker
Posted - 2011.05.12 15:47:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington


Fixed. It isn't about guided missiles at all, you just want a Drake nerf. Light missiles are fine and cruises are broken so I'd be rather surprised if you were dimwitted enough to want those nerfed as well.

Here's a more elegant solution: reduce Drake lock range (max skilled) by 20km or so. There, it now has to use a slot of some sort to reach max range. Mission accomplished without your moronic idea.

Oh in fact, while I'm talking about missiles in this thread:

Reduce flight time and significantly increase velocity, for cruises and to a lesser extent heavies.
No weapon (I'm looking at you, cruise missiles) should be relegated to PVE for being so utterly useless in PVP.


Thanks for your passionate and quite frankly offensive replies. I do enjoy it when people assume what my agenda is. Although I admire your passion, please be a little more civilised on the forums.

Anyway. I agree with your proposal about increasing missile velocity however as far as I understand it, guided missile velocity is already at (or very close to) the maximum it can be. This is of course taking into account skills, implants and ship bonuses. The game physics engine just can't handle it. From the blog I read many years ago I think CCP said that "missiles behave very strange at very high velocity". I understand that you want to use missiles to snipe with however the pain of waiting for that initial volley to land can be un(care)bearable. This is why I suggest a flight time reduction and not a velocity reduction.

So, to defending my argument about reducing guided missile velocity.
I agree a little that light missiles are okay however a slight reduction in flight time, and I mean slight, and a reduction to fitting requirements.
Heavy missiles, they simply project their damage too far when compared to other weapon systems. This is why the Drake out performs most, if not all, other ships of its class in the PvE environment. I fly the Drake all the time and reducing Heavy missile flight time will hurt me but I accept that it's probably required. When looking at the PvP aspect, any Heavy missile using ship far outperforms all other ships of their respective classes due to the fact that they do not require to have to sacrifice tank and gank slots to achieve the same range. Turrets also must use T2 guns and T2 ammo to achieve similar capabilities where as T1 HML's still perform very well.
Cruise missiles, These are very much the same as HML's however their use in PvP is limited due to the fact that current in game strategies when fighting at extreme range require shock tactics (read: alpha striking) and players being able to see these missiles flying towards them for 30 seconds before they hit gives them more than enough chance to escape or call for reps.
The issue isn't the weapon system but current player tactics due to current game mechanics allowing unlimited people to focus fire on a single target even if their LoS is blocked.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.05.12 21:01:00 - [212]
 

Target painter bonus on Rapier and other mini hulls.

The target painter needs to be more effective in what it does. Especially for these ships as mid slots are at a premium.

The 7.5% bonus is not huge and target painters are better off on other ships where the mid slots are not at such a primum(though mostly a pilot would fit ECM instead).

Painters are further hampered by diminishing returns and thus again not worth stacking.

A painter increase the sig radius of a ship by 30% un bonused. or 41.25% bonused.

so your 30m2 frigate goes to....42m2...wow your still not bigger than a destroyer.So even 2 and a frigate only goes to 57m2.
A 10% or even 15% bonus would make them actually worth equiping.Currently the bonus does not increase a gangs dmg on target enough to be worth it.


Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.12 22:54:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: E man Industries
Target painter bonus on Rapier and other mini hulls.

The target painter needs to be more effective in what it does. Especially for these ships as mid slots are at a premium.

The 7.5% bonus is not huge and target painters are better off on other ships where the mid slots are not at such a primum(though mostly a pilot would fit ECM instead).

Painters are further hampered by diminishing returns and thus again not worth stacking.

A painter increase the sig radius of a ship by 30% un bonused. or 41.25% bonused.

so your 30m2 frigate goes to....42m2...wow your still not bigger than a destroyer.So even 2 and a frigate only goes to 57m2.
A 10% or even 15% bonus would make them actually worth equiping.Currently the bonus does not increase a gangs dmg on target enough to be worth it.



fail matar whine fails

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.12 23:30:00 - [214]
 

Quote:
I do enjoy it when people assume what my agenda is


Oh please. Your agenda is blindingly obvious:

Quote:
introducing modules that will increase that range again is the first major step to balance of battlecruisers


How many battlecruisers use guided missiles? One. The Drake. And as I stated, light missiles are fine while cruises are broken, so what else would you be talking about?
Combine this with the fact the Drake is one of the most whined about ships currently in-game and your agenda couldn't be more obvious if you had a "nerf Caldari" bumper sticker on your forehead.

Quote:
The game physics engine just can't handle it.


I am aware of the issues CCP ran into trying this. However I also know there is currently a theoretical maximum of 11km/s on missiles with current fitting/ship requirements*. Thus; missile velocity can likely be increased to at least this.

Quote:
light missiles are okay however a slight reduction in flight time


Why? How exactly are light missiles overpowered range-wise?

Quote:
and a reduction to fitting requirements.


Agreed. 8 power grid (9 on t2?) is absurd for a shipline that's already power grid limited.

Quote:
This is why the Drake out performs most, if not all, other ships of its class in the PvE environment.


PVE balance is purely coincidental and should be kept apart from PVP balance. Drake mission performance is irrelevant to this issue.

Quote:
Turrets also must use T2 guns and T2 ammo to achieve similar capabilities where as T1 HML's still perform very well.


Apples and oranges. Missiles have a completely different damage reduction formula to turrets, I can alpha quite a few frigates at 70km with my artycane, this wouldn't be possible with a Drake.
There's also the slight issue that turrets lack flight time.
When your lasers take 20 seconds to reach their target, then you can talk about nerfing long range missile fire.

(RE:Cruises)
Quote:
The issue isn't the weapon


It is completely the weapon. This is a launcher intended to be used at long ranges, which is competing with 3 other weapon systems that do comperable dps with instant damage.
Having flight time is an acceptable limitation to cruise missiles - taking 30 seconds to reach their target is not.

*Said example is a velocity rigged Cerberus with light missiles

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.13 00:45:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
I do enjoy it when people assume what my agenda is


Oh please. Your agenda is blindingly obvious:

Quote:
introducing modules that will increase that range again is the first major step to balance of battlecruisers


How many battlecruisers use guided missiles? One. The Drake. And as I stated, light missiles are fine while cruises are broken, so what else would you be talking about?
Combine this with the fact the Drake is one of the most whined about ships currently in-game and your agenda couldn't be more obvious if you had a "nerf Caldari" bumper sticker on your forehead.

Quote:
The game physics engine just can't handle it.


I am aware of the issues CCP ran into trying this. However I also know there is currently a theoretical maximum of 11km/s on missiles with current fitting/ship requirements*. Thus; missile velocity can likely be increased to at least this.

Quote:
light missiles are okay however a slight reduction in flight time


Why? How exactly are light missiles overpowered range-wise?

Quote:
and a reduction to fitting requirements.


Agreed. 8 power grid (9 on t2?) is absurd for a shipline that's already power grid limited.

Quote:
This is why the Drake out performs most, if not all, other ships of its class in the PvE environment.


PVE balance is purely coincidental and should be kept apart from PVP balance. Drake mission performance is irrelevant to this issue.

Quote:
Turrets also must use T2 guns and T2 ammo to achieve similar capabilities where as T1 HML's still perform very well.


Apples and oranges. Missiles have a completely different damage reduction formula to turrets, I can alpha quite a few frigates at 70km with my artycane, this wouldn't be possible with a Drake.
There's also the slight issue that turrets lack flight time.
When your lasers take 20 seconds to reach their target, then you can talk about nerfing long range missile fire.

(RE:Cruises)
Quote:
The issue isn't the weapon


It is completely the weapon. This is a launcher intended to be used at long ranges, which is competing with 3 other weapon systems that do comperable dps with instant damage.
Having flight time is an acceptable limitation to cruise missiles - taking 30 seconds to reach their target is not.

*Said example is a velocity rigged Cerberus with light missiles


The Drake uses guided missiles because Assault missiles are netirely useless, and see no benefit from skills like guided missile precision or like implants. The reason it's the only one, is becauste the rest of them only have two launchers at most, and a more effective use of high slots is to drop in Neut's, rather than fit an unbonused launcher that's applying DPS that is less effective than a NOS.

Scandal Caulker
Posted - 2011.05.13 05:33:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington


PVE balance is purely coincidental and should be kept apart from PVP balance. Drake mission performance is irrelevant to this issue.




I completely disagree. PvE and PvP balance should always be considered for all ships and weapon systems. I agree that no ship or weapon should be relegated to only be useful for PvE or maybe even just PvP.

If missile velocity is capable of reaching 11kms why is it still sub 6kms? I agree that cruise missiles need this buff but light and heavy are probably fast enough already. However I am going to stick by my guns on the flight time reduction of all guided missiles. Some more than others (Heavy and Cruise over Light).

The SML needs a rethink fitting requirement wise and the whole T1 frigate line up needs a complete rethink and rebalance. The tier system is terribad and hits frigates the most.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.05.13 08:06:00 - [217]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 13/05/2011 08:10:04

Originally by: Mars Theran
The Drake uses guided missiles because Assault missiles are netirely useless, and see no benefit from skills like guided missile precision or like implants.


"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Originally by: Scandal Caulker
I completely disagree. PvE and PvP balance should always be considered for all ships and weapon systems. I agree that no ship or weapon should be relegated to only be useful for PvE or maybe even just PvP.


Considered, and kept separate. Meaning no nerfs/boost to a ship's performance in PVE because it's too good at PVP, and vice versa.

(BTW any overpoweredness, perceived or real, of the Drake in PVP and PVE can be addressed by calling for a nerf to all tier 2 BCs.)

Chuc Morris
Posted - 2011.05.13 10:20:00 - [218]
 

T2 frigs already obsolete a lot of Tech1 hulls like cruisers. (Tech1 frigs are just crap for 2 days noobs)

The next step with 4th T2 bonus and T3 frigs will make it even worst.
HAC's and all T2 cruiser lineup need some love: some extra PG/CPU/Cap recharge, med and low slots, base speed increase, drone bay and bandwich increased, specific bonus review

Battleships need a lot of love:
Only a few of them are viable (hi pirate BS's), tiers system is screwed
Marauders need titanic love: med/low slots, sensor strength, 5th weapon hard point, tractor bonus changed to something useful, drone bay, pg/cap/cpu. Such skill intensive ship shouldn't be the shadow of any pirate bs with production costs insane compared with pirate stuff.

Mining barge: Mackinaw needs some real tank/cap and some cargo (extra 2k imho), right now it's just an expensive mining barge that can be easily ganked by any T1 destroyer small gang, should be little harder than that.
Hulk: would be interesting to fit 5 sentry drones -hello, some belt rats are bs's and some are really nasty!!
Both need love to warp capabilities, give those low sec/null belts some life by improving mining barges without making them un catchable stuff.


Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.13 10:29:00 - [219]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 13/05/2011 10:31:05
Quote:
PvE and PvP balance should always be considered for all ships and weapon systems.


Not to mention the fact that if PVP ships were nerfed based on PVE ability, you'd break an entire race or two.
That's why it's a monumentally stupid idea not to keep them seperate.

Quote:
If missile velocity is capable of reaching 11kms why is it still sub 6kms?


Because like many imbalances in this game, CCP haven't got round to fixing it yet.

Quote:
The Drake uses guided missiles because Assault missiles are netirely useless


... Judging by your remarks on guided missile precision, I'll assume you're talking about HAMs being useless here.
As such: Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, sorry, but you just lost all credibility and should stay out of missile debates.

Quote:
(BTW any overpoweredness, perceived or real, of the Drake in PVP and PVE can be addressed by calling for a nerf to all tier 2 BCs.)


^ This, tbh.
That post pretty much beat me to it on the points I was going to make.

KlintortheDestroyer
Posted - 2011.05.13 23:20:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: KlintortheDestroyer on 13/05/2011 23:22:18
new ships from various posts

combat shuttles
command frig
transport ships with transport agents and missions

industrial salvager/ship tug
industrial gas harvester
industrial large platform ship
sub-capital industrial hauler 120k-240k range
super cap industrial hauler (resources only)

destroyer #2 -> interdictor #2
pirate destroyers

cruiser ecm?
cruiser stealth torpedo?
heavy destroyer?

battleship recon -> black ops t2
battleship combat -> faction flagship and marauders t2
battleship assault -> (flagship) or support missile boat
battleship ecm/ewar ship?
battleship submarine/stealth torpedo boat?

capital dreadnaught -> juggernaut? capital gun/missile boat
capital planetary siege ship -> planetary troop carrier
capital super destroyer -> capital interdictor t2
capital ewar/science ship research facility -> cloaking mothership t2
capital carrier -> super carrier t2
capital hive ship -> incursion pvp carrier t2




even more ships


new ship lines to be added to invention/research within regions of origination (faction space) - these ships are basically t1s with different colored hulls and opposing/border faction weapons or use of pirate hulls but they are not overly powerful or use any new technology like their t2 blueprints
t1 khanids blue amarr hulls with blasters or missiles, high tech
t1 ammatar orange amarr hulls with cannons, pulse lasers or missiles, low tech
t1 syndicate gallente hulls cannons/artillery
t1 ore securities ships grey industrial gallente hulls, laser tech
t1 serpentis green gallente hulls- missiles blaster tech
t1 guristas white caldari hulls - missiles rail tech
t1 mordus red minmatar hulls with rails and drone tech
t1 thukker green/orange camo minmatar hulls with cannons/missiles

t1 angels blueprints - equivalent to minmatar/gallente t1s (not buffed like dramiel/mach which would still be more like t2s)
t1 sansha blueprints - equivalent to amarr/caldari t1s (not buffed)
fly sansha or angel frigs into combat

blood raiders? red amarrian hulls
eom? black amarrian hulls

Roland Schlosser
THE EXOGEN CONSORTIUM

Posted - 2011.05.14 00:59:00 - [221]
 

The Rorqual

Capital Industrial Ships skill bonuses:
-5% reduction in fuel consumption for industrial cores per level
10% bonus to bonus to effectiveness of mining foreman gang links per level when in deployed mode
50% bonus to the range of Capital Shield Transporters per level. (useless)
20% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints per level. (useless)

Role Bonuses:

900% bonus to the range of survey scanners (useless)
200% bonus to the range of cargo scanners (useless)

99% reduction in CPU need for Gang Link modules
99% reduction in CPU need for Clone Vat Bay
Can use 3 Gang Link modules simultaneously.

4 of the Rorqual's 6 main bonuses are completely useless in a POS shield. As this is where it is used 99% of the time it is not being moved between systems these bonuses need to be reworked so they can be used inside a POS shield.

Some suggestions: 5% reduction in compression job time per level of cap industrial skill.
Increase the mining gang links bonus to 15-20% when in siege mode.
Increase the fuel reduction per level of cap indy to -10%

I'm sure there are several other possible bonuses, but I'm to tired to think anymore tonight.

Gimpb
The Scope
Posted - 2011.05.14 01:55:00 - [222]
 

Big stuff tends to be able to crap on small stuff a bit too easily in serious fights. This issue extends from supers to frigates. A small sig and speed just isn't that much in the way of protection for the following reasons:
- Larger ships have larger range so tracking doesn't matter much when they spread out. How about changing the angular velocity portion of the turret equation to perpendicular velocity.
- A good tracking situation can compensate for a bad sig radius ratio or vice versa.
- Neuts
- Drone bay flexibility (little to no cost/consequence for bringing a wing of lights on many ships)


The limitations on concurrent bomb usage greatly limits the effectiveness of bombers against t2/t3/capital targets. Those ships already have much higher health for their sig radius and that's enough of an advantage for them against bombs.


With the jumpbridge changes, capitals are going to become considerably more mobile compared to sub caps and iirc, in the dialog from late last year where grayscale was talking to the old csm about bridges and such, it was noted that capital mobility was also an issue. Shouldn't these things be addressed at the same time?


Good luck with your push to get constant balance iteration; CCP is way behind the times and their competition on this matter... it's high time this happened, we're rooting for you!

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.14 17:50:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington


Quote:
PvE and PvP balance should always be considered for all ships and weapon systems.


Not to mention the fact that if PVP ships were nerfed based on PVE ability, you'd break an entire race or two.
That's why it's a monumentally stupid idea not to keep them seperate.


All ships should be balanced for PvP, and PvE should recieve the benefits of advanced AI, and be brought up to spec for PvP. That makes PvE content better, and insures that all ships are equally effective in both arena's.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington


Quote:
If missile velocity is capable of reaching 11kms why is it still sub 6kms?


Because like many imbalances in this game, CCP haven't got round to fixing it yet.


While I agree that missiles should travel faster, reducing time-to-impact, I think your perspective is a little skewed. It takes a little more work, than simply adjusting the velocity and Flight time, as changing velocity will change missiles usefulness in PvP. Specifically, at 11 km/s they will catch even Interceptors with MWD's travelling at 5000 m/s or better, while that vessel is seeing a 500% Sig radius penalty and quite likely being target painted. After that, the only thing to reduce DPS is explosion velocity.

I would assume changing this also means that the physics engine would have to be adjusted to account for the additional velocity somehow, the same as onboard targeting systems, or guided missile control systems would have to be adjusted to account for higher velocity missiles and reduced flight times and fuel. Obviously their is some leeway here, given the dynamic nature of skill, implant, and other effects on missile velocity and flight times, but the faster it travels, the faster the physics engine has to calculate adjustments to speed and direction.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington


Quote:
The Drake uses guided missiles because Assault missiles are netirely useless


... Judging by your remarks on guided missile precision, I'll assume you're talking about HAMs being useless here.
As such: Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, sorry, but you just lost all credibility and should stay out of missile debates.


Let's talk Torpedo's. Explosion radius on a Torpedo is 450 m min., with Rage Torpedo's being around 650 m. A Megathron has a Sig Radius of 485 m, while a Typhoon has a Sig radius of 320 m. Highest and lowest of the armor tankers respectively.

Armor Tankers don't have their Sig radius increased by any means outside of fitting an MWD, which means that outside of skill use or implants intended to reduce a missiles Explosion radius, Battleship class assault missiles are suffering from the inability to apply fully DPS against ~half the available Battleships in that fashion.

Coincidentally, the Signature Radius Effect reducing skill and implants only affect Guided Missiles, and have no effect in this case. Meaning that Torpedo DPS is significantly reduced against most Battleships unless they're Shield Tanked with Extenders or using MWD's. Now let's look at Explosion Velocity. 61 m/s for Rage, and 71 m/s for all others. The slowest Battleships are the Rokh, (500 m; 89m/s), and the Abaddon, (470m; 89m/s). This means that Torpedo's are ineffective against even their own class of vessel, and of more practical use against something larger. Ironically, they are generally most effective against Caldari ships, which tend to see increased Sig Radius as a result of Shield Extenders; though Plate might slow down an armor tanked vessel enough to remove the effect of the lower explosion velocity on others.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington


Quote:
(BTW any overpoweredness, perceived or real, of the Drake in PVP and PVE can be addressed by calling for a nerf to all tier 2 BCs.)


^ This, tbh.
That post pretty much beat me to it on the points I was going to make.


*cough* bs *cough*

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.05.14 21:25:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
Now let's look at Explosion Velocity. 61 m/s for Rage, and 71 m/s for all others. The slowest Battleships are the Rokh, (500 m; 89m/s), and the Abaddon, (470m; 89m/s). This means that Torpedo's are ineffective against even their own class of vessel, and of more practical use against something larger.



Have you tried training skills past zero?

Voith
Posted - 2011.05.15 04:56:00 - [225]
 

I hate that after 5 years the game is still "Minmatar for PvP, Caldari for PvE".

I really don't care how it is fixed, but I'm getting bored of seeing the same 5-6 hulls all damn day.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.15 06:28:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Mars Theran
Now let's look at Explosion Velocity. 61 m/s for Rage, and 71 m/s for all others. The slowest Battleships are the Rokh, (500 m; 89m/s), and the Abaddon, (470m; 89m/s). This means that Torpedo's are ineffective against even their own class of vessel, and of more practical use against something larger.



Have you tried training skills past zero?


Train Navigation and the speed of a ship increases, (Level 5 Abaddon achieves 111 m/s); train Target Navigation Prediction and Explosion Velocity increases, (Explosion Velocity becomes 106 m/s). Either way Explosion Radius remains 450 m for Standard and Advanced Long Range Torpedoes, and 650 for Advanced Anti-Ship Torpedoes, so what is your point exactly?

I am fully aware that with the assistance of Target Painters on your own or an allies ship you can make Assault Missiles functional, but it also applies bonuses to Guided Missiles and Turrets. When was the last time you saw a Battleship with Short Range guns miss another Battleship?

Why don't you try formulating an argument that has some content, and actually uses a more convincing argument?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.05.15 10:04:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Mars Theran
Now let's look at Explosion Velocity. 61 m/s for Rage, and 71 m/s for all others. The slowest Battleships are the Rokh, (500 m; 89m/s), and the Abaddon, (470m; 89m/s). This means that Torpedo's are ineffective against even their own class of vessel, and of more practical use against something larger.



Have you tried training skills past zero?


Train Navigation and the speed of a ship increases, (Level 5 Abaddon achieves 111 m/s); train Target Navigation Prediction and Explosion Velocity increases, (Explosion Velocity becomes 106 m/s). Either way Explosion Radius remains 450 m for Standard and Advanced Long Range Torpedoes, and 650 for Advanced Anti-Ship Torpedoes, so what is your point exactly?

I am fully aware that with the assistance of Target Painters on your own or an allies ship you can make Assault Missiles functional, but it also applies bonuses to Guided Missiles and Turrets. When was the last time you saw a Battleship with Short Range guns miss another Battleship?

Why don't you try formulating an argument that has some content, and actually uses a more convincing argument?


The point is that the numbers that you so smugly quoted in your post were nonsense.

It's also a form of nonsense to state that an Abaddon travels at 111 m/s. It's EFT warrior nonsense, posted by someone who see numbers in EFT but is unable to apply them to the real game. Torps hitting an Abaddon traveling at 111 m/s requires that it a) is not trimarked, b) is not webbed and c) has been struggling up to top speed for a about a minute. This combination of events is so rare that basing an argument on it is nonsense. But even when they do occur, a torp with explosion velocity of 107 m/s does 100% damage on an Abaddon cruising at max speed of 111 m/s, because the Abaddon's sig is sufficiently larger than the explosion radius of the torp. So what was your point again?

At this point you'll start blustering about other BS. Here are the facts. All tier 3 BS, and all Caldari BS, have sufficient sigs to receive no damage mitigation from signature from torps. Ignore speed, that's what webs are for, unless you have too much space honour to tackle your targets, and don't you dare mention ABs on BS. The other BS sigs range from 320 m to 420 m, leading to damage mitigation from sig of 29%, 24%, 18%, 11% and 7%.

You seem to believe this is a crippling issue. But torps do so much raw damage - more than a neutron blaster cannon - and, with the luxury of selectable damage type, the resultant applied damage, even without painter support or standard Crash, is completely satisfactory. And yes, I have seen a BS miss another BS very many times. Everyone has. I can't believe that you said that lol.

Moving on to HAMs, well, they do full damage to all BCs, and to pretty much all webbed cruisers, so I've no idea what you're talking about. Although the fact that you call HAMs their correct name of "assault missiles" makes me think that you've never used them, because nobody who has used them calls them their strictly-correct name because it's so confusing.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.15 20:26:00 - [228]
 

Well, at least you answered with some degree of consideration this time.

I deliberatly limited the factors with regards to the Torpedoes, because not everybody fits reduced speed tanks and it simply wasn't neccessary. It's a control group, using only the factors that are present in every scenario. Sure, under certain circumstances I suppose a BS could miss a Battleship with turrets, and certainly they can apply reduced DPS as a result of the various factors at play. I use the term Assault missiles not to identify HAM's, but the Group of short range unguided missiles as a whole. That's what they are.

The fact is, that Sig radius plays an important role in many aspects of combat, whether it be PvP or PvE, decreasing locking times, allowing for damage to be maximized, etc.. Why do you think Caldari vessels are generally so poor in PvP? It's an obvious problem, which many seem to fail to grasp.

There are so many factors at play in EVE and ,not-withstanding they are all calculable variables, it leaves a lot of room for balance problems.

Assault missiles have limited range, and you can't directly improve their explosion radius by lowering it.

Shield Extenders increase the Sig Radius of vessels they are on, making them easier to scan down, faster to lock, and increasing the ability to apply DPS to them with missiles or turrets.

Guided missiles outrange nearly every other weapon, yet they take long enough to reach their target at range, that it's usually destroyed before the first one hits in PvP.

Microwarp Drives can make a ships sig large enough that a Dread could hit it with near full DPS.

Faction, Complex, and Officer Modules are the only effective way of making a ship truly effective in PvP or PvE; yet they cost so much it's not worth the bother. They are very nearly required for any operations in C5 and C6 wormhole space against sleepers, such that without them two Cap ships, and 10-12 RR Strategic Cruisers and/or Battleships are required to run a site in a C6, reducing individual rewards to less than 70 Million ISK per site, assuming the Corp gets nothing.

Energy Destabilizers make Local Repping nearly impossible in PvP, and even completely render Afterburners, Stasis web's, EWAR, and other modules useless in short order.

Recon's can be used to such effect at long range, that solo PvP is near to impossible, applying EWAR, Painter's, Web's and the rest, while safely out of range of Neut's, and most common PvP weapons.

You need a handful of everything, to combat anything, which means you have to have at least 5-10 guys to even realisticly approach Lowsec these days, and even then you're likely to be outnumbered in some places, yet you can safely fly through fifteen systems in Nullsec without seeing a single person.

There's plenty of problems.

I like how you can only throw 1-3 small drones in a Cruiser, Battlescruiser, or HAC depending on which you choose to fly. Multi-fit High's for Turrets and Launchers rendering both obsolete and useless? Yep, we got that too!

Assault Missiles bite.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.05.15 22:40:00 - [229]
 

Going back to my analogy of Bugatti Veyron's and Camaro's.

It's actually not a bad idea. In lieu of a full rebalance, just change the BP specifications to increase manufacturing time and material costs on the ships that are considered really good, and reduce the costs of some of the others which are considered really bad, in the same way. Drakes will end up being 60-70 million ISK, putting them on PAR with low-end BS, and Ferox will run in at around 20 million ISK. Rifters will probably be near a million ISK, and Bursts will stay down around where they are currently.

Better ship = higher cost.

It's an alternative, though I'd probably prefer the rebalance.

JcJet
Caldari
Pretenders Inc
W-Space
Posted - 2011.05.16 03:27:00 - [230]
 

Fleet command ships needs a +1 high slot, or -1 weapon high slot.
Why?
Because when you fit 3 gang modules, there is not enough high slots left to use all of turret/launcher slots, 1 remains unused. It's not because of DPS, it's low anyway, but this is not right, when you need to remove 1 of the link to fit all maximum turrets/launchers.
It's for Vulture and Damnation, at least.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:26:00 - [231]
 

Quote:
Specifically, at 11 km/s they will catch even Interceptors with MWD's travelling at 5000 m/s or better


And with that sentence, you just proved both myself and Gypsio absolutely right that you are utterly clueless about anything to do with missiles.

Here're a couple of basic facts for you, as you don't seem to know the first thing about cruise missiles or missile damage reduction in general:
1. A cruise missile max skilled trvels over 8km/s from a Raven, and flys for a good 30 seconds. Good luck outrunning that without overheating.
2. Now here's the bit that makes you look like an utter tool: that same Raven firing cruise missiles at the inty is doing all of 12 dps. Yeah, that's so game breaking.

Stop posting about missiles, you know nothing.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:31:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
Specifically, at 11 km/s they will catch even Interceptors with MWD's travelling at 5000 m/s or better, while that vessel is seeing a 500% Sig radius penalty


Feel free to check interceptors' bonuses.

Andrea Griffin
Posted - 2011.05.18 19:36:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
The Drake uses guided missiles because Assault missiles are netirely useless
... Judging by your remarks on guided missile precision, I'll assume you're talking about HAMs being useless here.
As such: Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, sorry, but you just lost all credibility and should stay out of missile debates.
HAMs are pretty good, but they could use a slight buff to flight time. It would be nice if they could hit out at point range in practice instead of just in theory. Missile speed-up + moving around gives you an effective range of 20km or so.

Overall though, I don't see a problem with the Drake. It's popular with large fleets, but so are battleship gangs and HAC gangs. In small gang PvP it is an okay choice. For solo PvP it's not so good because of its speed and sluggish agility, even nano-fit. It is easy-mode for missions up to L3, but once you skill up other ships will complete the missions more quickly. Yeah, it can do L4s, but only very slowly... You can do some L4s with assault frigates too, should all those be nerfed?

Drake is good, no doubt about it, but far from being super uber no matter how you look at it.

Andrea Griffin
Posted - 2011.05.18 19:55:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran
Energy Destabilizers make Local Repping nearly impossible in PvP, and even completely render Afterburners, Stasis web's, EWAR, and other modules useless in short order.
I'm annoyed with the prevalence of neuts as well. If you have any spare high slots you fill it with a neut, no questions asked, with the occasional exception of a tackling frigate which might use a nos.

I would like to see energy neuts destroy less energy than is used to activate them. Then, buff the neut bonus of the Curse, Pilgrim, and Sentinel to compensate. This makes neuts a little less viable overall. Usable, but not in a "one module to rule them all" kind of way.

A buff to nos would also be nice; perhaps they could always pull in capacitor, but when your target has less capacitor than you do, the amount transferred is proportional to the amount left in the target (they have 10% cap, the nos only transfers 10% of its normal amount). Something like that anyway. Right now the nos is too defensive of a module and a bit of offensive capability would be great.

As far as the AF 4th bonus... I really would enjoy an EWar Resistance bonus, maybe 5% per level. 25% resistance to webs, ECM, Damps, whatever is affecting them. This would greatly reinforce the role of a heavy tackler and give them something truly unique.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.18 20:11:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Andrea Griffin
Some stuff about HAM range


It would be nice I suppose, but I've always thought of HAMs as being a scram/barely out of it range weapon which happens to have a bit of extra range as a nice bonus. Ships with a velocity bonus like the Cerberus can reach out to about 40km with them.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.05.18 22:04:00 - [236]
 

Heavy missiles need to be looked into.

the drake and tengu are simply to versatile with out the trade off's of other weapons systems.

They have by default an insane range for a cruiser sized weapons. They hit farther than the other ranged option and do full damage at there full range. Getting artillary to hit out 100km is difficult and requires additional mods.

They are also just as viable close up and do not suffer from a ranged weapons handicap of not being able to hit close targets.

For a weapon that always hits they simply do to much dmg and are far to versatile without penalty.

Changes to keep the flavor coiuld involve them traveling slower and making that aspect, or an improvment to defender missiles.

Jita mcheck
Posted - 2011.05.18 22:07:00 - [237]
 

Can we get a comment on defender missiles?

Also Believe they should reduce damage incoming to your fleet and not just yourself. I know this is not simple but a comment on the defender system would be nice

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.05.18 22:14:00 - [238]
 

Mimnitar tracking links are vastly vastly under used. When was the last time you saw one? do you even know what they are?

These really really need to be more effective.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.19 08:12:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: E man Industries
Mimnitar tracking links are vastly vastly under used. When was the last time you saw one? do you even know what they are?

These really really need to be more effective.

what?:O
fail matar whine is fail btw
go cry in your scrapyard more ,just dont let us hear it thx

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.05.19 15:56:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: E man Industries on 19/05/2011 16:06:02
Edited by: E man Industries on 19/05/2011 16:00:20
Tracking disruptors could use a buff. I have never seen them take precedence over other forms of e-war. This is due to the limited ship types they effect(and is fine) and the reduction in incoming dps is nto comparable to damps or jamming.

Often even bonused ships do not fit many of these modules.

I would like to see tracking disruption improved and be a viable contender to other forms of e-war mid slots such that they are actually used in fleet fights.
Even fast HAC gangs would would pontentially benifit from these mods do not fit them over jams.

Edit: It's a ship balance thread...want me to whine about the lack of matar sunglass options?...or are you saying tracking links are used and are great and I'm misinformed and you fit them all the time(with a link to kill mail where these are fit)..I'll wait.


Or is yout beef that i fly a lot of matar ships? Or that i don't point out rails are under used as already been pointed out? Or would that be a boo hoo caldari whine?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (13)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only