open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Bring the universe to its knees!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Gauss
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 16:31:00 - [1]
 

Im looking at the dandy stats on my newly christened 650mm 'scouts'. It says the tracking speed is .00575 radians per second. For those of you who don't know what a radian is, I recommend you discontinue reading so that your life can remain sheltered from reason.

Anyway, 2pi radians is 360 degrees. So these turrets turn at a whopping (0.00575 * 360) / (2 * 3.14) = 0.33 degrees per second!! It would take one of these turrets roughly 1100 seconds to make a full revolution. That's about 18 minutes. Obviously they chose to record this statistic in radians instead of degrees so that you people wouldn't be outraged.

So lets see.. those guns loaded with the least damaging ammunition have an optimal range of 10.5km. Lets see how fast something can be going at a range of 10.5km that the turrets can still track them.

w = v/r => v = 0.00575*10500m = 60 m/s ! This with my well trained skills! Anything moving transversly at greater than 60 meters per second at the optimal range will not be possible to hit! God forbid you load EMP ammo, cutting your range to 6000m. Then you're talking 35 m/s! Stock the optimal range is 9000m and the tracking speed is .005 rad/s. That's a 45 m/s ship.

None of the other weapons got nerfed this badly. 250mm gauss guns can hope to hit 216 m/s ships at their optimal range, heavy modulated beams also 216 m/s.

Now, maybe the artilleries do terribly huge damage when they do hit to make up for it. So lets see.. Ill check the stats on the 0% range modifying ammo for each type of gun:

projectile: depleted uranium: 14 damage total
hybrid: lead charge: 14 damage total
laser: infrared crystal: 14 damage total

The infrared crystal gives a range bonus of 20%, which is the closest to zero I could find. For some reason. So now heavy mod beams can hit 260m/s ships at their optimal range.

650 scouts: dam mod 3.9, rof 9.6sec
250mm gauss: dam mod 3, rof 6 sec
heavy mod beam: dam mod 3, rof 7 sec

proj: 3.9 * 14 / 9.6 = 5.7 damage/sec
hybr: 3 * 14 / 6 = 7 damage/sec
lasr: 3 * 14 / 7 = 6 damage/sec

Assuming that you need to be at optimal range to do full damage, we can conclude that:
650mm scouts can hope to do 5.7 damage/sec to a ship moving 45 m/s 9km from them.
250mm prototypes can hope to do 7 damage/sec to a ship moving 216 m/s 24km from them.
heavy mod beams can hope to do 6 damage/sec to a ship moving 260 m/s 17.2km from them.

The cynic might say that CCP's nerfing energies were focused by what moo was using to the exclusion of all else. But Im not cynical.. this must be an honest mistake!

Anyway, now lets look at the damage of hybrids and lasers and compare that to shield recharge rate. My rupture has 1000 shields, with a recharge time of 900 seconds. So, it recovers about 1.1 damage/second. So if you're firing a laser at optimal range at a ship that's not moving too fast, and assuming it's doing all EM damage, you'll be doing about 5 dam/sec, meaning it will take you about 200 seconds to down their shields. That's, uhh, more than 3 minutes. Supposing you get three mounted and you do a net damage of 17/sec, that's still 60 seconds to take down the shields. Heavy mod beams use 26 cap/shot, and my rupture recovers cap at about 3 cap/sec. Firing three lasers the net cap usage is 3 - 3*26/7 = -8.1 cap/sec. You can fire 3 heavy mod beams for about 2 minutes. So supposing that your lasers magically switch to explosive damage when the shields are downed, you can hope to get through both the armor and the shields in about 2 minutes time, draining your full capacitor.

Hehe. Two minutes is way more than enough time for a ship to get from warp in to a jump gate. Webify you say? Webifiers only work at 10km. Anyone using lasers or hybrids will be unable to even down someone's shields before they stroll to a gate. Projectile users will be able to webify you, but they'll also need to scramble you so you don't warp. Webifying will reduce their speed to ~40m/s, the speed something needs to be going to be hit by a projectile! Sweet! So they've essentially made it so that for projectiles to do damage they need to use both ammo and cap (from webifier), and medium slots (from webifier)! and they do less damage than anything else! At a shorter range! No reason to watch your ship autopilot across the universe anymore, because you're in no danger.

Not that you can fight at gates anymore. There's sentry guns at almost anywhere people go.. stations, gates.. next patch will have sentry guns in asteroid belts, I hear.

Anyway, combat has had it's duration extended from "oh crap I'd better watch my back in dangerous areas" to "wooee I suppose I have time to visit the bathroom while I shoot this guy. And matlock is on! I think Ill watch old people solve crimes while I play this eve game."

Is this really what you people wanted?

Gauss
moo

Neve Lucelli
Caldari
New Frontiers Expeditionary Inc.
Posted - 2003.07.03 16:38:00 - [2]
 

All of your maths are correct Guass, but i cannot believe that those stats will be replicated in the game - combat will not be possible surely? And no-one will get podded. OK, so that affects how you do business, but those of us who would be wary of your corp would still rather have a chance of losing a ship rather than the game being nerfed to the point where there is not fun. What's the achievement of escaping from M0o's guns if it is now so easy?

This is only one issue in any case, the other is that there is no level playing field any more- why do new players want to join the game in any case now - they would be so far behind. I listened to a conversation ealier today on local channel where someone boasted of completing a trade with 80k profit. You talk in millions and billions, they talk in thousands. What hope is there for them now?

Bambooza
CORE Technologies Inc.
Posted - 2003.07.03 16:43:00 - [3]
 

I must say you build a very convincing argument with a lot of supporting facts. Maybe CCP did take the nerfing a little to far. I do know that before now it seemed like combat was more of an fps instead of an rpg/stratagy game when it came to combat.

DenFbomb
Posted - 2003.07.03 16:43:00 - [4]
 

This is my first post you may not like it.

Just because your element of killing people without warning, and also pod killing them without warning, has suddenly vanished because of the work done by the devs on eve, you have no margin to complain on these boards.

You choose the line of though to be a priate, good on you. Now that your enemy or targets are too hard to kill now you say its unfair and it isnt in the intrest of eve or this game. Well, bo bo boo, Go and play counter stike. Eve is about role playing, interaction with players over a global scale. Not some childish game were you want everthink your way.

Sorry, but battle in eve will be done the way the devs want them to be, not by camping a spawn location and shot everone in sight. That has been the main reasoon 20 people i know have quit eve-online because of the action of your corp and your childish views on how you want to play the game.


Xane
Minmatar
Republic Security Services
Posted - 2003.07.03 16:57:00 - [5]
 

Good post, but a couple of points in case you missed them though ...

All speeds are relative, i.e. it's not that the ship is going faster than 45 m/s, just that if it's going +/- 45m/s than you, and you need to take deflection into account (what angle you travel at).

For example, a ship heading directly towards you on a collision course has a relative speed of 0 m/s, regardless of either ship's speed.

The other point is that your ship moves too, so skills and modules that affect ship agility will count for more.

Gauss
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:00:00 - [6]
 

Yeah, that's why I said transverse velocity. A tranverse velocity is also by definition a relative velocity.

Bambooza
CORE Technologies Inc.
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:01:00 - [7]
 

I dont know Neve Lucelli but in all the MMORPG's I have played in there was always a gap between the power gamers the newbies and the causal gamers. They all seeme to be able to get along with out to many difficulties. In truth I think it is easier for those just joining the game to get going then it was for us when the game first launch. An example would be the cost of a Merlin. Purchasing one from the NPC was over 500k ISK, now they can easily and cheaply be purchased from 200k to 300k ISK. This goes for most of the ships. Also the mineral prices for atles the lower 3 minerals in a lot of places is above NPC prices. The only change that has any effect on the player population has been the changing of the amount and placement of Arkanor and Bistot.

MoonDragn
Caldari
J0urneys End
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:04:00 - [8]
 

They did say the big guns were slow didn't they? These are huge guns that don't track very well as they should be. If you want to hit anything going faster you're gonna have to use a different gun. I see nothing wrong with having trouble hitting a fast moving object with the biggest artillery weapon on a cruiser.

Edited by: MoonDragn on 03/07/2003 17:04:45

Rixeh
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:13:00 - [9]
 

Nah Gauss is right. Eve was a pvp game, now it's a damn mining simulator. Carebears are winning, woohoo. I cant wait for sentry guns in roid fields next patch.

Sanru
Caldari
The Merch
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:21:00 - [10]
 

While I don't question your math or analysis, I do think your perhaps being premature.

Give this a day or two of playing and tinkering with, then come and complain. As you should know by now, what looks good on paper does not always play well in-game.

I notice you leave out stuff you could use like tracking computers, damage add modules, tracking links (I'll grant you though that these require someone else using them on you, but artillary support should be able to use these on one another for mutual benefit). Perhaps even some stuff I left off.

Anyways, give it a few days, it's probably not as bad as you think.

Xane
Minmatar
Republic Security Services
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:21:00 - [11]
 

The tracking speed is being made to look too much like a radical nerf (pun intended).

If my multi-burner super-overdrived frigate appears 20km in front of you big-ass gun cruiser, I'll immediately turn 90 degrees to you and take advantage of my speed.

However, if you target me and select "approach" then your cruise will start to turn and face me as I move accross the sky, the tracking speed is reduced significantly, especially at long range.

I know 45 m/s sounds like a stupidly "low" value but its unlikely to reach that anyway when you take agility into account, unless you want to zip off in the opposite direction to me.

Skills and modules that improve agility will have a combined effect on tracking speed, so they start meaning something now. Close in combat is where tracking speed will hurt, regardless of agility.

Battleships don't shoot down planes with their main guns, they have 20mm AA fitted, unless you're playing Battlefield 1942 then you can get quite a number of main gun aircraft kills :)

Bad Harlequin
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:24:00 - [12]
 

Gauss, what does your math show for those weapons at pre-patch stats?

Also, if 42 m/s is the limit, how has anyone since patch logged on and hit anything at all with artillery? We must be in the Matrix.

Lastly, i certainly hope you didn't expect to use artillery on n00bfrigates all your life. Go find an overladen cruiser or battleship to whack.

I note that you claim you can't hit anything by the numbers. You did this by picking up the word "radians" and assuming this was real-world radians, as opposed to a poorly-named made up Game Thing.

Next I suppose you will apply volume calculations to prove that only 3 battleships can dock in a station at a time? =8)

I can see why you'd be paranoid about arty nerfs since you use them but, uh, well, don't worry. You just aren't that important.

And at any time while feverishly hunched over your calculator, did the phrase "field test" enter your mind...?

Damn ivory-tower pirate scientists.

Edited by: Bad Harlequin on 03/07/2003 17:25:25

Setec
Caldari
The Graduates
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:24:00 - [13]
 

I basically agree with the nature and the magnitude of the nerfs, though projectile tracking speeds do need a small boost to make the optimal range the actual optimal range.

Gauss's calculations left one important factor out, however: the angle they target is moving at. Their radial velocity is their actual velocity times the sine of the angle between their direction of motion and your line of sight to them. If you assume that you encounter motion at all angles equally over a long period of time, the average value of that angle will be 45 degrees. Sine of 45 degrees is 0.707.

So with EMP M you can perfectly track, on average, a target going 30/0.707 = 42 m/s, and without a range penalty you can track a target going 60/0.707 = 84 m/s. People normally move faster than this, but IF you're carefully maneuvering your ship to minimize their transverse velocity you can get it to that value fairly easily against ships with reasonabily similar speeds.

So basically, in order for the "optimal range" listed to also be within the optimal tracking range, projectile users have to maneuver tactically instead of just orbiting or keeping at a certain range. And they'll still be at a disadvantage against far faster ships. I haven't checked to see if this is the case for the other weapon types now or not.

I'm not sure if that amount of maneuvering to track well within the optimal range is intended or not. If intended, it's fine. If not, then the tracking speeds should be roughly doubled in order for people to perfectly track similar-speed ships at their weapon's optimal range.

Gauss
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:41:00 - [14]
 

Yeah. If your ship is turning also, then the speed that you're turning plus the turning speed of the turret is the effective tracking speed. But what do you want to bet that this isn't taken into account to do the calculations?

Also, ships turn much more quickly than their turrets. So if it were realistic, your ship would turn but your gun would be unable to compensate by turning in the opposite direction to keep pointed at a stationary target.

If you look at a ship, the guns have a definite position, but they can fire in any direction, even if this would require them to be firing 'through' the ship given its orientation. And obviously you can target someone on one side of you, fire, and then not have to wait 10 minutes to shoot at someone on the other side, even though this is what it would take to turn a 650 scout 180 degrees.

To accurately model this, your guns would have a definite position/orientation and they'd only have at best a hemisphere of area they could shoot. So combat would be about orienting your ship to bring as many guns to bear on your target as possible. But the interface is simplified to be easy to use. I can't imagine an interface for realistic 3d naval warfare not being incredibly complicated.

They couldn't possibly take the movements of the firing ship into account, except possibly to calculate a relative velocity. If they did, all guns would be able to have a wonderful tracking speed and the interface would need to be much more complicated.

basically, if it were completely realistic a pilot would be using turning his ship to do most of the gun aiming, and using the turning of the turret to make only fine adjustments.

Sanru
Caldari
The Merch
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:41:00 - [15]
 

Quote:
Nah Gauss is right. Eve was a pvp game, now it's a damn mining simulator. Carebears are winning, woohoo. I cant wait for sentry guns in roid fields next patch.


Not that I am shy to enter PvP, I feel compelled to point out your wrong on all your points.

Eve wasn't supposed to be a game entirely devoted to PvP. This is why there are skill choices one can make that have little if anything to do with combat. Granted, they need work, but the foundation is there. One can mine for minerals, take said minerals and sell them or produce them into something which is worth more than the minerals used (in theory).

Eve was designed to be a living, breathing universe we all live in with unlimited possibilities. PvP is there for realism and to add more gameplay, I do not see anywhere it was said it was all the game was about. Perhaps it's all you want it to be about, but that does not make it so.

Probably the biggest problem was they started off making the game too combat oriented. Much of the best stuff available is obtained killing NPC pirates rather than being researched and built by players (as it should be). About the only things players depend on each other for is minerals, ships and ammunition.

Sure, PvP can be fun, but that isn't all this game was designed around. If it were, we'd all start with the same options in ships and loadouts. As a good PvP game keeps everyone on a level playing field where skill is the deciding factor. This is why shooters work so well, everyone can get the same weapons and power ups, it just comes down to knowing how to use them and knowing the maps well. Eve on the other hand requires a rather large investment in time to gain money and skills to be competitive and latecomers will forever play catchup. That is not good for a pure PvP enviorment.

Anyways, PvP is in this game because it makes sense. They want a fairly believable world (keyword: believable, not realistic). It is hard to believe in some mysterious force that won't allow you to attack some ships (players) yet attack other ships (npc's).


Gauss
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:52:00 - [16]
 

Again, setec, I said 'transverse velocity' (err.. 'moving transversely' I think in my original post) which is a relative velocity. That is, this is the component of the velocity that is perpindicular to the line connecting the target and the shooter. The sine of the angle times the magnitude of the velocity. Yes.

So yeah, you can hit things moving at 300 m/s, if they're moving pretty close to straight towards you or away from you. My point was that while everything was nerfed, artillery was super-nerfed.

And yes guy-whose-name-I-cant-remember-but-is-sarcastic-and-who-I-will-now-call-doofus, it was field testing that inspired me to check these numbers. I was on the test server last night unable to shoot anything. And I seriously doubt they'd use a term as technical as 'radians' if it didn't actually mean radians. If they were just using it as some relative fudge factor then they'd probably let tracking range on a scale from 'ultra ****ty' to 'super-duper ultra nifty'.

And I think we'd know where artillery would fall.

MindBender
Lyonesse.
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:55:00 - [17]
 

You however forget that the projectiles use NO cap. So while you are doint that .3 dmg per second less damage you can be running shield hardeners and boosters that laser and Hybrid users can not run. Not to mention that in actual use projectiles hit more often outside of their optimal range than either of the other class weapons.

Khaed Duhn
Minmatar
The Kairos Syndicate
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:56:00 - [18]
 


Has nobody heard that you can prove anything with statistics ? But hey if you want another slightly more objective view on the new weapon stats and how they work check out Hippeys post

Gauss
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 17:58:00 - [19]
 

What is more objective than numbers? Nothing.

Except when you don't understand them.

Sanru
Caldari
The Merch
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:00:00 - [20]
 

Haven't fought players with artillary yet, so would be difficult to report on that with much accuracy.

Against NPC's I was doing ok with artillary. I miss more, but I do get hits. This was using 650mm artillary (the regular sort) against frigate pirates. I found it a bit annoying, but I can cope.

Glad to see hybrids apparently doing better. Before the patch it was almost silly to use them. They suffered the worst parts of projectile and energy turrets but weren't really better in terms of range or damage.

I'd still like to see performance using tracking computers and tracking links. While they might boost lasers and hybrids more, they're high enough they might not notice the effect much. But with projectiles starting off low, boosting it a good amount should show good improvement.

Rhonstet
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:05:00 - [21]
 

"...So basically, in order for the "optimal range" listed to also be within the optimal tracking range, projectile users have to maneuver tactically instead of just orbiting or keeping at a certain range..."

And this is exactly the way it should be.

For what I've seen (granted, it isn't much), most people have been approaching combat by either running straight at the enemy to close to a better range, or running straight away from an enemy if they believe they have the range advantage. Lock on, and begin firing. Reload when ammo runs low. If things go bad, run and hope you live long enough to get to warp.

Battles need to focus more on positioning and a basic understanding of vectors, not just a battle of who came in ready to do the most damage the fastest. Limited traversal speeds of large weapons is a good way to do this. It favors both the more skilled and practiced player, as players with more experience will have both better skills and more practice at being able to capitalize on other's weaknesses.

What I can't figure out is why people are complaining about this aspect (except perhaps those with cheap video cards which can't render the perspectives properly). I think the limited traversal speeds are going to heavily favor the pvp enthusiasts, particularly pirates. They are the ones who are going to get the most practice and the best grasp on how to maneuver their ships to take advantage of the game. The ones who fight on a less regular basis are going to miss more and will take a longer time to learn this aspect of combat.

Demangel
Gallente
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:07:00 - [22]
 

Your making one big mistake here:

your assuming EVE actually uses those kinds of formulas for anything.

you know what those numbers mean in terms of the game engine?

they translate into modifiers... Not into the kind of math your using.

I can prove it in one example:

go target a ship.. any ship... Any range... move into position so that ship is facing inthe oposite direction of one of your turrets.

Hit fire. How long does it take for your 18 minute turret to swing into place and start shooting? about 1.5 seconds tops right?

So get off your soap box... EVE doesn't use that kind of math to determine tracking speeds effects. It only tries to simulate the effects of a slow moving turret against a fast moving ship.

there is a BIIIIIIGGGGG difference.

your making the mistake of thinking EVE is a combat sim where realistic effects are around every nook and cranny... it's NOT, it's a sapce MMORPG/sim.

All this kind of game needs are simplistic representations of those realistic effects, and it doesnt even have to be exact in the slightest to fool you and me.

Next on my agenda of rebuttles is a simple question:

Did you in FACT log on to EVE target somehting at 10KM away and miss it with every single shot?

If you missed it with every single shot then your right something is broken...

If you instead hit it about as often as I hit it with my rail then guess what? your not broken.

Yes I hit every shot, but only 2/3 of those hits are for real damage.

Today my first too shots at 10KM with my 250MM hybrid did 10 HP amnd .8 damage, my next did 80 HP...

My friend with his 650MM arty at 10KM from the target, hit for 75 for his first shot, 30 for his second and 40 for his third... Now let me ask you... Whats the problem here? he's hitting just as often as I am isn't it?

So really? what has you upset? If you go try it you might not notice... Or maybe your just upset the guns are more baalnced now and you need to actually think a little, or play a bit better, or have a better character?


No offense, but until you show me statisical proof of how EVE screwed you and your missing every shot, I don't care to hear it, not even with the best math lesson in the world.

Remember according to YOUR math you should hit one out of 10 shots... I KNOW you won't hit that rarely... If you did it woulda been caught already on Chaos by all the Projectile fans...

Khaed Duhn
Minmatar
The Kairos Syndicate
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:15:00 - [23]
 


I thought I covered that nicley with the comment on statistics being easy to bend to your favour.
But Gauss before I carry on lots of dedication there with the work but 2 things, first this is a game and all the normal rules of physics have as much to with this game as I have with the Popes nappy (notice sound in space etc).
Secondly I've known guys like you for years who plays games and love to latch on to one tiny detail, realise that it can easily be mistaken to mean several things then spend the next five years leaping around telling people how clever they are.
Now please do not take this as a bad thing at all, I personally am only in this game for a laugh. But one of the few other groups in history who have this problem are the Catholics and Protestants, one group says they are drinking Christs blood the other say they "think" they're drinking christs blood (go figure).
But all because some fella translating a book years ago went "here guys this word means two things..wow" and we all know where them guys are now.

Endureth
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:28:00 - [24]
 

Wow Gauss, I can't say I feel for ya. My weapons still work fine, better than before.

-E

Gauss
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:40:00 - [25]
 

demangel, I addressed every one of your points in follow up posts. I don't think you read the whole thread.

I did play on the test server last night. I could only hit very slowly moving things that were very very close to my optimal range.

The calculations don't really do much to illustrate how effective artillery will be, but rather how effective it will be relative to hybrids and lasers. According to the numbers they give, it's much much less effective. And it seemed that way when I played on test last night.

I don't know how you construed from my post that artillery will hit 1 time in 10.

Im guessing that all they do is calculate a targets relative transverse velocity and then compare that to the tracking speed of the turret (as well as factoring in skills and whatnot) to see if there's a hit. If tracking speed is used at all in calculations, and if you have to be near optimal range to do maximum damage, artillery is much much less effective.

I don't know how that point eluded you.

and khaed: yeah. How could I have construed the statistic in 'my favor'? What was wrong with my calculations? Why would they say radians/sec when they don't mean to compare this to some other quantity that has units of radians/sec to determine whether something hits? A few off the cuff calculations show that, quite simply, artillery got hit hardest. Harder than, I think, it should have been even given that it doesn't use cap to fire.

Of course ccp could publish the formulae they use to calculate this stuff so that the statistics have some meaning. Im just going by what numbers like these mean in real life.

Lallante
Reikoku
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:49:00 - [26]
 

"My friend with his 650MM arty at 10KM from the target, hit for 75 for his first shot, 30 for his second and 40 for his third... Now let me ask you... Whats the problem here? he's hitting just as often as I am isn't it?"


You are lying, or shooting at a stationary battleship with l33t combat skills and 6 dmg mods.

Serge
Amarr
Seraphin Technologies
KrautbreaK
Posted - 2003.07.03 18:57:00 - [27]
 

tracking speed: I assume they simply put in a ZERO too much ;)
only know from 620 ari .. TS was 0.03 ... assuming the better "sout" version got modified to a TS = 0.0525 and not 0.00525

Very likely this was only a mistake and not intended

Khaed Duhn
Minmatar
The Kairos Syndicate
Posted - 2003.07.03 19:01:00 - [28]
 


Thats cool Gauss I'll back away from my statistics point (gotta flee from work in a mo), but my main point simply is that really CCP can just make up whatever new scientific laws they fancy (maybe pie could be a proper number in their world) it's their game.
What interests me more is the kinda 'spirit' that a weapon is built for ie short range blasters, long range snipers I really couldn't give a rats nadgers about the raw statistics of weapons.
By the way I am aware that we in the gaming community do need to check stats to a certain level, to make sure the company are delivering as they promised, and hey if you wanna be that man all power to you.
Gotta say love a good debate, helps me get through my working day :)

Haggis MacSkewer
Posted - 2003.07.03 19:14:00 - [29]
 

This is not just affecting PC pirates, it affects anyone who earns their living in Eve via combat. Not only have they seriously nerfed all projectiles, but they have removed the single best small projectile weapon from the game entirely. The Dual 150mm light scout arty has been changed to a 250 light scout arty, which has roughly half the damage and rate of fire. These guns were a fairly rare drop that sold extremely well - there are gonna be a ton of ****ed off people who spent 100k isk or more for these guns only to find out that they are now garbage.

I hunt NPC pirates for a living so I decided to take my Stabber (min cruiser) out for a test run with the same loadout of modules that I have been using for at least a week. I was previously able to down the typical spawn of one cruiser and up to four frigates while, at the worst, coming out of it with 50% armor and a bit of structure damage. The spawns with fewer or less powerful frigates I could come out of unscathed.

So I warped into a belt with one Depredator (cruiser) and four Impalers (heavy frigates), which would have previously meant the worst case scenario I outlined above. I attempted to use the tried and true formula of knocking out the heavist ship first, but I couldnt even drop the Depredator's shields before they had mine down and were pounding on my armor. needless to say I bugged out without even splashing one NPC pirate.

I noticed that during the battle my nerfed artillery was not the only contributing factor. I mount two Medium Nuetron Saturation Shield Boosters on my cruiser, and in this battle they sucked my cap down in about half the time it used to take.

I nearly flunked physics, so I am not going to try to wow anyone with advanced calculations, but I can offer one mathematical formula that represents my experience:

1/2 damage output from weapons + 2x cap usage from boosters = 1 dead Haggis

Any questions?

Soul Reaver
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2003.07.03 19:22:00 - [30]
 

Gauss

I love your math but this is reality :)

I have just finished a loadout weapons tour with some Acribers and terrorists This is what happned

1. CLosed with ascriber and opened up with my new 650mm scout1 two of them. I opened up at 40km and was missing constantly
2. CLosing now to 35 km and start to do avergae to light damage of 10 to 40
3. Closing to 30km damage in the region of 40 to 60 now
4. Reload guns
5. 25km open up with my twin gauss hit a wrecking shot with my 650 for 223 at 25 k nice
6. close to 20 k damage from all guns 50 to 90 with occasional over 100
7. reload guns
8. Ascriber down 5 terrorists to go cap down but recharging due to skils and modules.

Time to ascriber down from engagement was 8 mins just over :) and I have high skills and a MOA with a very expensive loadout and good modules etc. I then took out the terrorists although now you have to watch everything including reloads and cap. Much more fun if you ask me :) battle will now involve teamwork (we have it) and tactics (we have them to) So it will be hard for players who do not have tactics and teamwork to PvP effectivly which in my mind which is great.





Pages: [1] 2

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