open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked DPS graphs: BS vs. BC
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 : last (25)

Author Topic

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.01.01 18:12:00 - [661]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
Edited by: BiggestT on 01/01/2009 17:37:18
Looking at sechauls graphs on page 1 proves what alot of people are thinking.

I mean damn, the Abaddon is the top damage dealer out of ANY bs from 7-45km (<---The MAJORITY of all PVP takes place in this range set).

Combine that with its ability to fit a wicked buffer, large drone bay and free mids for tackle/cap etc...

Seriously, WTF.

Maybe lasors need a cap adjustment or something (take more cap). I ussually dont like nerfs to damage, tracking etc, but cap use could make things a bit more balanced (much more vulnerable to cap warfare, will cap out in large fleets etc).

edit: And I find it a funny coincidence that goumindong (<-spelling? lol) is basically the only one arguing against the data when he is infact, amarr.


oo oo oo wait, wait. THe ammar ships might be the best at current most common status of PVP. But whacking random nerfs won't create balance, will only shift the imbalance. 1 and half year ago 90% of combat happened under 10 km. At that time situation was reversed.

Blaster boats are still superior in some scenarios. We must retrieve them. The same logic is why tempest don't suck. Well it sucks if you make this exact same graphs against ANY battleship. But it excels at killing smaller ships due to extra mid and the almost standard 2 heavy neuts.

Being the best "alpha male" BS is not the single role we can have. The important stuff is make the situations where blaster ships are superior, to be a bit more common. Fighting smaller or faster moving ships at closer range and being able to move trough battlefield with not bad performance are mega advantages (to be brief and simplistic).

Abaddon does not need any change on cap, it already drinks cap like Hommer Simpson eats donnuts. Abaddon is basically the single ship that has issues with cap in game. Put it against a tempest with 2 heavy neuts and you will notice it VERY fast.

Also please remember that abaddon usually shoot at higher resists than megathron. Also remember that The "large drone bay" you talk about onthe abaddon is smaller than in the mega or hyperion.

The compare must be fair and unpassionated. Ammar are surely in an age that gives them some advantage. But its NOT the omfg completely upside down universe some here are pointing. When your abaddon get orbited by an AB vaga (yes these fricking exist by dozens now) you will hate it so much you can't believe it.

Slight adjustments are enough to solve it. And they must be focused on the very things that changed on the past few years. Changing into another direction would just open another can of worms.

The best possible solution would obviously magically bring back the age of solo and very small gang combat. But that is impossible.

Unless CCP brings back the tackling range down to the sub 20 km range, remove long range tacklers like rapiers and arazus, medium range combat will continue to be important. And that is OK! Is ok as long as the window of opportunity for blaster boats take advantage at close range is made big enough.

That is why I support the SLIGHT reduction of tracking on pulse lasers. I say slight,because for ccp an average reduction means something like 75%.. and little boost means 300%.

I didn 't had time to read ALL the posts. But those graphs. Do they take into consideration resists on a common tank layout (2 EANM + DC) ?




Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.01.01 18:26:00 - [662]
 

Originally by: Zamolxiss
@Kagura Nikon

Hey.. firstly, it's a little dissapointing how after making such a nice argumentation, you came to the conclusion that Pulse ships need a tracking nerf..

I fly amarr, i've trained amarr when they sucked hideously, being the underdog was pretty nice cause it guaranteed a fight.. i've been here for a while, went threw the nano bs era, the nosfest era and all the others FOTM's.. the current situation does not compare with none of the previously mentioned.. Amarr is not an I WIN button.

If you've flown amarr Pulse boats before the tracking boost you must know how it is to be unable to hit anything below your ship class within the standard engagemnet range 0-20km..

With the recent web nerf and the fact that no amarr pulse boat has the mids to fit 2 webbs, some of them not even a drone bay, like the zealot.. a tracking nerf will simpy **** all pulse boats, rendering everything below theyr size totaly imune in a 1 vs 1 situation.. imo this is game braking for amarr pilots..

With a little common sense regading balance and a little knowledge about prevoius game mechanics and why changes were made the way they were made.. each individual here shouldn't have problems understanding why Simmilar class turrets sould have Simmilar tracking, not identical, not equal.. the diferences shouldn't be game braking.. like they were before.. we were there once, it's sad that most of the ppl here don't have that experience and generaly talk out of theyr asses..

Anyway, if a nerf to pulse lasers is going to happen, witch i doubt.. tracking should be left alone, i would rather see a range nerf witch will cripple pulse boats too, but not to the extent a tracking neef will..

2 cents


I have flown ammar before. I have in fact ammar BS V and pulse Spec IV . Altough at that time I had not T2 Pulses.

I know how ammar felt back then. But the fact is The range / track is a tradeoff. Its the personality of ammar ships to be focused on middle range with a detriment of close range. Reducing its range would just normalize the turrets into a set of almost equal weapons. No fun on that.

You cannot make everyone happy. In fact each race should be unhappy about 1 characteristic of their weapons! That is how you can achieve balance. Blaster boats get unhappy with range, AC with base damage, Pulse lasers with tracking.

If pulse lasers can track a BC with AB at 5 km then there is no reason even for tracking calculations exist. There woudl be no reason for a megatron to have a tracking bonus. Pulses should NOT track smaller targets at close range. That is their prime drawback.

A slight t racking nerf ( I still propose a 15% nerf, equivalent to removal of 1 tracking enhancer). Will not drasticallyy change anything. Will not make pulse lasers suddenly unable to track anything. Will just widen up a bit that gab in the graphs were blaster ships have a superior condition.

Ammar is not an I Win button. This is just a , little bit childish, rant of blaster pilots that are discharging their fury on ammar ships. When its not that the cause of their downfall just the sympthom (srry don't know the correct spelling of that in english). Even so adjusting pulse lasers to widen a bit the gap where balsters are superior is the easiest,and more reasonable way to make them feel useful again.

That or remove the long range tackling, move all combat to close range again and make even more people unhappy.

I fly mostly ammar when flying battleships, and I would bother a tiny bit with a slight tracking nerf. As an ammar pilot I know my role is to try to fight at medium range. If the enemy get at 2 km I will miss him as much as I already miss today. This reduction will just push that critical close range a bit further, creating space for blaster ships to operate.

But if the nerf was on range, then amarr would loose all its personality and be a simple dumb high cap usage with more HP version of gallente.




Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.01.01 18:32:00 - [663]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Abaddon does not need any change on cap, it already drinks cap like Hommer Simpson eats donnuts. Abaddon is basically the single ship that has issues with cap in game. Put it against a tempest with 2 heavy neuts and you will notice it VERY fast.


Standard station hugging Abaddon (MPL IIs, buffer tank, no MWD, heavy booster with cap 800s) runs out of cap after 4m16s when a Tempest with 2x heavy neut II neuts it. If you have an MWD fitted for fleet work, the Tempest will have caused the cap to die after 3m19s. The Abaddon can kill the Tempest in about 2m.

Quote:
Also please remember that abaddon usually shoot at higher resists than megathron.


Usually, yes. But it's difficult to balance damage output according to that, because you will suddenly have increadibly effective dps against any shield tanker or T2 ships.

Quote:
When your abaddon get orbited by an AB vaga (yes these fricking exist by dozens now) you will hate it so much you can't believe it.


About as much as any BS, really. They all do zero dps. Including blaster boats. At 1km, you need to be faster than 42m/s to reduce MPL II dps, 54m/s for 800mm II and Neutrons, and 71m/s for Neutrons on a Megathron. The Megathron tracks a good deal better, but at that range, the absolute values are so close to each other it really doesn't change much.

Quote:
Slight adjustments are enough to solve it.


And before anyone thinks otherwise: Yes. This.

Quote:
The best possible solution would obviously magically bring back the age of solo and very small gang combat. But that is impossible.


This is not obvious, and I don't think everyone agrees, either. :-)

Quote:
I didn 't had time to read ALL the posts. But those graphs. Do they take into consideration resists on a common tank layout (2 EANM + DC) ?


The better ones do, yes. You can read the resists used in the legends of those graphs.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.01.01 18:49:00 - [664]
 

Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 01/01/2009 18:55:30

Again you cannot take a single situation , the station huging ship and use it to push as main argument. At a station hug battle, sure capo is not an issue. But is that the only type of fight? I don 't even fight on any of such fights because they always ends basically the same, having an abaddon or any Battleship.

That could more easily be solved by changing the agro mechanics. Would be much more appreciated by most pilots. This is an issue, but a completely different issue. On general combat an abaddon is easy pray to neutralizers. I had to stop using one, and change to geddon because of that mostly. On a side note, abaddon won't kill a tempest in 2 minutes. In a 1v1 in fact tempest will win 8 in 10 fights. Long fights but that is how they usually end (specially when the smart tempest pilot uses a track disruptor in his last mid slot).


And on the tracking smaller ship. Not exactly true. As I said. Try get a BC and do it against a megatron or tempest. The mega will track you enough to melt you. And the tempest will move as fast as you and you won't be orbiting him, you will be flying parallel to him and getting hammered by a bigger ship. I tried a lot these tactics with hurricanes and cyclones. Only worked GREAT against ammar ships. Okish against torp ravens. Not good against megatrons and fully disaster against tempest and typhoons :P The fact is when you look at graphs you think 1 km. But in real combat is VERY hard to keep at that range. Any changes of course on the base ship specially durign the turn while behind it easily move distance to like 4 km or more for 15-20 seconds. Each time you circle. Enough to make a BC **** their pants under a megatron. Almost all times I tried it against a mega, I died in one of those cycles. But never died to an abaddon or apoc doing that. But taht could be a bigger advantage? SURE it could and it SHOULD!!

You are right if you say this is a very narrow field to be a serious advantage. So what we need is to widen it a bit.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.01.01 19:20:00 - [665]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Again you cannot take a single situation , the station huging ship and use it to push as main argument.


No. I also gave numbers for the same fit with MWD.

Relevant factors for cap usage on a passive Abaddon are MWD yes/no, and amount of heat sinks. Let's assume a small/medium fleet Abaddon with MWD and MPL IIs. MWD is not active, heavy cap booster with 800s. It is being neuted by a Tempest with 2x neut II.

0 HS - 3m 54s
1 HS - 3m 19s
2 HS - 2m 53s
3 HS - 2m 39s

Yes, the Abaddon has a cap issues, but they always sound so enormous when people describe them. A Megathron won't have this amount of cap issues, but it's difficult to compare because the Megathron has to run the MWD more.

A Hyperion in a similar situation will run out of cap in 1m 44s due to dual LAR II + ion cannons.

Quote:
At a station hug battle, sure capo is not an issue. But is that the only type of fight?


No. It's currently the main guaranteed short-range combat, though (and I hate it). The one where blasters are supposed to "excel."

(And yes, please let's fix the aggro mechanics, and yes, please in a different thread :-))

Quote:
On general combat an abaddon is easy pray to neutralizers. I had to stop using one, and change to geddon because of that mostly.


Interesting - the standard Geddon setup with MWD has to use a medium cap booster to fit MPL IIs, and ends up having slightly more cap issues when neuted than the Abaddon (2m 26s when dual neuted), even though it's a bit better off when not neuted, so can use the MWD more.

Quote:
Try get a BC and do it against a megatron or tempest.


That's what this thread was about originally. As mentioned in my original post, it's pretty balanced there - BCs have more to fear from Megathrons than from pulse boats (as it should be). As soon as you leave web range, the pulse boats take over.

You originally mentioned a Vagabond, btw, not a BC.

Quote:
You are right if you say this is a very narrow field to be a serious advantage. So what we need is to widen it a bit.


As I said, I do agree completely with you. Not quite sure what we are arguing about, really :-)

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.01.01 19:39:00 - [666]
 

won 'tuse quotes because gets too messy. But here goes.

Didn't want to mean your time on cap out was wrong. Just that this time is not irrelevant, unless is station huggin. Most times I start a fight with a bit over 2/3 of cap due to warping etc. As I said, I simply do not fight undock games. And I usually end up very bad on cap very fast.

Hyperions should not use 2 lars, at least on most scenarios. Using 2 lars makes hyperion unfittable. They should use the 1 lar 1 plate tactic, using the HP to increase the time they can use their VERY cap effective LAR (due to repair bonus). Get close range and 1 lar in hyperion is enough to tank an ammar BS. The plate give you time to get there, hopefully. :) If you start fight at 50 km, you should really die, its amarr ground. If you start fight at 8 km, a single LAR hyperion will dominate a pulse ship.


The issue is, where exactly one situation switches to the other? And where woudl be a good place for that line be?




I rarelly use MWD in a PULSE geddon, I use an AB II. Most of time I use it in RR gang, where it excels. And from all my experience in 0.0. The must have MWD is a ton of BS for non snipers. All times I died I would have died with or without MWD (and I think most of them I had MWD). In fact this whole 2008 I had to cross not a SINGLE bubble with a battleship (FC are getting smarter with time), and I passed the whole year in 0.0.

Amarr ships greatest advantage is to not need to move to open fire. So won't sacrifice my fittings because of extra 450ms. Also usually on a RR fleet the first guy to die is a not very bright one that turns his MWD on and goes > 10 km from rest of group :P . RR gangs move slowly and organized way to work. Usually is my feeling that MWD are detrimental to most RR gangs, except the most spartan disciplined ones.

That is why My geddon does not suffer any cap issues. know A lot of people disagree. But I lost only 1 Battleship the whole year, and MWD would not have saved me that time.


I really think I mentioned a hurricane on my first post not a vaga. The vaga was just an exacerbating situation where I hate be piloting an ammar Battleship. A situation a tempest would handle easily, for example.



Arguing is not necessarily 1 against the other. The process of constructive argumentation and refining is the base of technical solution finding. You won 't see very many technical offices of success where the employees always hug each other, but you will also not find a single one where they throw stones at each other and use mouses as nunchakus to kill their job partners.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.01.01 20:03:00 - [667]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 01/01/2009 20:12:37
Originally by: Kagura Nikon

My view is. The very small scale PVP is each day more rare. The intensive gank squads predominate. On this scenario there is no time to move into range before target dies. ON this scenario the medium range engagement is useful while the lack of mobility of amarr ships is not meaningful. Tackling with the firepower ship became less and less needed. More and more this became a role of specialized ships.


At past most opinions on ships were based on solo and very small scale pvp. Situations where blaster ships excel when compared to amarr ships.



Notes: because some things are inaccurate or need clarifying.

1. There is nothing anyone can do at CCP to make people fly in smaller gangs. Its futile. What the blaster buff crew wants to do here is to turn blaster ships into medium gang DPS ships. This has a host of balance problems which have been layed out already, so i won't bore you with them.


Quote:

Secondary causes. The overheat increased the short range . Specially disruptors went from 20 km to 28 km (t2 with overheat) That changes a lot the combat envelope and hurt a bit blaster boats. The hictors point range worsened even more this scenario.


This is certainly not true. Overheat only increases range for a very small period of time. You cannot sustain a fight when overheating. This advantages ships which are attempting to change distances rather than hold them.

Amarr ships are trying to start and hold a distance. They do not have the ability to change distances they are not fast enough. While an increase in the number of rapiers has made a significant change in combat lock down envelope this has nothing to do with overheating.

Overheating actually has a large advantage to blaster and AC ships. It allows them to close distances faster and advantages the ship which takes initiative.

Quote:

The speed nerf contributed a bit further to this scenario. But on my view is not the main reason. The speed difference on battleships just added 3-4 seconds to the approaching up to web range, but reduced about same time after you get into web range (13 km).


Actually, under the current speeds and agility, the speed nerf had a net zero effect on the ability of battleships that were not fitting speed modules to close relatively short distances. If you took a pre-speed nerf hyperion and a post speed nerf hyperion and had a drag race between the two, the post speed nerf hyperion would not start losing until you had traveled around 30km.

Quote:
The web and tracking issues are not that relevant between ships of same class. Mainly because webs only potentialize speed differences between the sides. THey do not give trackign advantage for 1 side.


This is absolutely not true. Tracking works within a range. Above a certain speed both ships miss all the time. Below a certain speed both ships hit all the time. But between those speeds the ship with better tracking will hit better than the ship without.

The web changes moved the situation from "below a certain speed" to "between the two speeds".

If you want to see, take a hyperion or mega and run it up against an Abaddon. Run graphs for max transversal against a each other and then apply a 60% web and a 90% web. You will notice a marked difference in how the graphs play out.

Quote:

I didn 't had time to read ALL the posts. But those graphs. Do they take into consideration resists on a common tank layout (2 EANM + DC) ?



Mine do, as well as explain what ships they're comparing.

IIRC the tank is a single 1600mm rt Myrmidon with no rigs. Speed is set at an un-plated Harbinger w/stationary Battleship and max transversal on the BC. No AB's or MWD's used. Figured it would give a good balance between a heavier BC/BS tank and the faster BC's[Hurricane].

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.01.01 20:06:00 - [668]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 01/01/2009 20:25:25
Originally by: Arkady Sadik

That is, the Megathron will find it very, very difficult to get close to Abaddon or Armageddon effectiveness in a fleet of more than 3 ships. It won't just be "slightly worse", it will be much worse off. Hyperions in fleets of 3 ships or more are basically useless (their repper tank is worse than Mega's plate tank at some 1.4k to 1.6k incoming dps, or, 2-3 BS) - not just "not quite as useful" as an Abaddon, but "much less useful".



A single repair tank is worse than a Megas tank at around 2.3k uniform incoming DPS. A single repair tank is worse than an Abaddons tank around 1.4k uniform incoming DPS.

Those numbers balloon against EM/Thermal and shrink against ex/kinetic. They get much higher when running 2 repair units as well.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

Standard station hugging Abaddon (MPL IIs, buffer tank, no MWD, heavy booster with cap 800s) runs out of cap after 4m16s when a Tempest with 2x heavy neut II neuts it. If you have an MWD fitted for fleet work, the Tempest will have caused the cap to die after 3m19s. The Abaddon can kill the Tempest in about 2m.


The tempest should not die in 2 minutes. Especially if the Abaddon does not want to get off the station, it makes getting close and keeping a high transversal very easy.

If you do not do that, then the problem does not lie in the Abaddon. It lies in the pilot of the other ship who refuses to use the advantages that their ships have.

Quote:

Usually, yes. But it's difficult to balance damage output according to that, because you will suddenly have increadibly effective dps against any shield tanker or T2 ships.


And there are only a few ships that this actually matters against. Drakes, Ravens, Maelstroms, and Deimos. Can you guess why the majority of these are inconsequential to the balance?

Quote:

About as much as any BS, really. They all do zero dps. Including blaster boats. At 1km, you need to be faster than 42m/s to reduce MPL II dps, 54m/s for 800mm II and Neutrons, and 71m/s for Neutrons on a Megathron. The Megathron tracks a good deal better, but at that range, the absolute values are so close to each other it really doesn't change much.


Why are you at 1km? What are your drones doing? Is it bad that a single type of t2 cruiser can kill two different battleships, one of the much easier than the other?[Note, its the amarr one]

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.01.01 21:33:00 - [669]
 

Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 01/01/2009 21:46:41
Originally by: Goumindong
A single repair tank is worse than a Megas tank at around 2.3k uniform incoming DPS. A single repair tank is worse than an Abaddons tank around 1.4k uniform incoming DPS.

Those numbers balloon against EM/Thermal and shrink against ex/kinetic. They get much higher when running 2 repair units as well.


(Edited to add this, sorry, missed it initially)

1x LAR II Hyperion vs. plated Megathron, both with 2x MFS II to get roughly the same dps (Megathron has slightly more) goes in favor of the Megathron 1,290 dps. With overheated reppers. This goes to 1,391 dps against lasers.

For fully tank-fitted Hyperion with dual LAR II, thermal and EM active hardener, this goes to 3,404 dps.

I'll stick with my original statement: Starting with 2-3 BS in the hostile fleet, you do want a passive tank. Preferably with RR.

Originally by: Goumindong
Quote:
Usually, yes. But it's difficult to balance damage output according to that, because you will suddenly have increadibly effective dps against any shield tanker or T2 ships.


And there are only a few ships that this actually matters against. Drakes, Ravens, Maelstroms, and Deimos. Can you guess why the majority of these are inconsequential to the balance?


All T2 ships except for Minmatar ones have EM as their lowest resist when they plug their main resist hole. And no, I can not guess why even the ships you mentioned are "inconsequential" to ship balancing questions.

Quote:
Quote:

About as much as any BS, really. They all do zero dps. Including blaster boats. At 1km, you need to be faster than 42m/s to reduce MPL II dps, 54m/s for 800mm II and Neutrons, and 71m/s for Neutrons on a Megathron. The Megathron tracks a good deal better, but at that range, the absolute values are so close to each other it really doesn't change much.


Why are you at 1km? What are your drones doing? Is it bad that a single type of t2 cruiser can kill two different battleships, one of the much easier than the other?[Note, its the amarr one]


No, it's not bad, and I never claimed it was. I answered to the statement that one will cry with an Abaddon against an AB Vagabond (not my example, either). All I said is that you cry with any BS in that situation. I think you do agree?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.01.01 22:18:00 - [670]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 01/01/2009 23:06:59
Edited by: Goumindong on 01/01/2009 22:29:20
Originally by: Arkady Sadik

1x LAR II Hyperion vs. plated Megathron, both with 2x MFS II to get roughly the same dps (Megathron has slightly more) goes in favor of the Megathron 1,290 dps. With overheated reppers. This goes to 1,391 dps against lasers.


1. Your numbers are wrong, a 2 MFS mega runs 1085 DPS(4 ogres), the Hyperion(2/2/1) runs 1091(you need space for warriors now). Even if you run 5 ogres on the Mega and 4 on the Hyperion your final DPS has the Hyperion doing more DPS overloaded(1278 vs 1273) and only 4 less DPS when not overloading, you seem to be using Void to hit 1287 on the Mega, which puts the equivalent Hyperion at 1293, and the difference when not overloading is a whole 3 DPS. I mention overloaded DPS because that is the only way you're getting 1290 DPS out of a Mega with 2 MFS.

The DPS break point on the tank is 1591 or 1723 DPS against uniform DPS(depending on whether or not you hit the exile armor hit). Its 1873 against an even em/thermal split. Its more against an Abaddon which will have an uneven EM/thermal distribution.

A 1 lar 1 plate 1 MFS, 2 eanm, dc tank produces numbers about 2400 DPS.

Overheating lasts for 3 and a half minutes you should be using it all the damned time if you've only got a single repair unit and nearly all the time if you have two.

Quote:

I'll stick with my original statement: Starting with 2-3 BS in the hostile fleet, you do want a passive tank. Preferably with RR.


You need at least 4 BS before it makes sense to use an RR set. Which you would use a Dominix for anyway(Its the best RR ship in the game, pretty much hands down). RR with 2-3 will leave you high and dry when one of the ships go and they're going to if the enemy is focusing fire.

Quote:

All T2 ships except for Minmatar ones have EM as their lowest resist when they plug their main resist hole. And no, I can not guess why even the ships you mentioned are "inconsequential" to ship balancing questions.



Actually its "all t2 ships except for Amarr and Caldari ones have EX as their lowest resist when they plug their main resist hole". Shields Matter. It even brings the slight EM weakness on armor of the Deimos and Ishtar back into line.

And the answer is that the ships in question would have no counter otherwise. Shield tanking ships do not suffer the tank/gank conundrum that armor tanking ships suffer, they suffer a tank/ewar. In a small gang the question is moot as they cannot easily bring the support needed to be efficient. In a larger, either they with their ease of choosing full tank and full gank AND choosing damage types have a weakness or there is no meta play between them.

Examine for instance:

Raven vs Abaddon. Compare against Raven, Abaddon, Megathron.

Raven vs Abaddon, Raven does EX, Abaddon does EM. Both weak to each others DPS.

Raven vs Raven, Raven does EM, Raven does EM, both weak to each others DPS

Raven vs Mega, Mega does kin/therm, Raven does ex. Mega is weak to Raven, Raven is even.

Abaddon vs Mega, Mega does kin/therm, Abaddon does EM, Mega is strong against EM, Abaddon is even on kin/therm.

If nothing tops the Raven[Maelstrom/Drake] then there is no meta play in the system between in the larger gangs.

Quote:

No, it's not bad, and I never claimed it was. I answered to the statement that one will cry with an Abaddon against an AB Vagabond (not my example, either). All I said is that you cry with any BS in that situation. I think you do agree?


Yes and no. Its not a sure fight in the Gallente ship as it is in the Amarr. Doesn't make it easy though.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.01.01 23:07:00 - [671]
 

Sorry goug but you are certainly wrong on the overheating issues. The increase in tackling from 20 km to 28 km nullified the " LOL why bother to have dps over 20 km" argument. You can keep a point overheated for 6 minutes or MORE, usually way more, before it get close to critical damage on a battleship. Go and test it. So that is enough time to make a hell lot of difference. Before that an armageddon would have to get to 19.5 km to attack a megatron, against 28 (effective overheated range is 28800m). At 19 km an armageddon is dangerously close to be overtaken into blaster range. At 27-28 km. Its piece of cake. If you really think 8 km extra tackling make no difference. You should maybe go pvp a bit more , seriously, no offense intended. But you should also try to explain why everybody used to pay a leg and their mother for a 28 km point before T2 disrupters and overheat.


I am not going to bother to discuss directly with you because its never productive. But if you pay attention how my argumentation was much better received by both sides than yours, you could learn a bit, if not about how this game really works, and how people really fight, then at least abou how to perform a discussion and an argumentation.

Rhadamantine
Game Community
Posted - 2009.01.01 23:13:00 - [672]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Sorry goug but you are certainly wrong on the overheating issues. The increase in tackling from 20 km to 28 km nullified the " LOL why bother to have dps over 20 km" argument. You can keep a point overheated for 6 minutes or MORE, usually way more, before it get close to critical damage on a battleship. Go and test it. So that is enough time to make a hell lot of difference. Before that an armageddon would have to get to 19.5 km to attack a megatron, against 28 (effective overheated range is 28800m). At 19 km an armageddon is dangerously close to be overtaken into blaster range. At 27-28 km. Its piece of cake. If you really think 8 km extra tackling make no difference. You should maybe go pvp a bit more , seriously, no offense intended. But you should also try to explain why everybody used to pay a leg and their mother for a 28 km point before T2 disrupters and overheat.


I am not going to bother to discuss directly with you because its never productive. But if you pay attention how my argumentation was much better received by both sides than yours, you could learn a bit, if not about how this game really works, and how people really fight, then at least abou how to perform a discussion and an argumentation.


This tbh

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.01.01 23:24:00 - [673]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
1x LAR II Hyperion vs. plated Megathron, both with 2x MFS II to get roughly the same dps (Megathron has slightly more) goes in favor of the Megathron 1,290 dps. With overheated reppers. This goes to 1,391 dps against lasers.


1. Your numbers are wrong


Nope, I'm using ions on the Hyperion. Difficult to fit neutrons with reppers, really. Exact DPS is not too relevant for the argument, though, the point was the 2x MFS of the lows (you later use 1x MFS for slightly different numbers, the same point holds).

Quote:
The DPS break point on the tank is 1591 or 1723 DPS against uniform DPS(depending on whether or not you hit the exile armor hit). Its 1873 against an even em/thermal split. Its more against an Abaddon which will have an uneven EM/thermal distribution.


The exact numbers depend on what kind of resist mods you use, how many, what you overload, etc.pp. 1591, 1723, and 1873 are perfectly well in the range of 2-3 battleships that I mentioned. Which point exactly are you disagreeing with?

Quote:
A 1 lar 1 plate 1 MFS, 2 eanm, dc tank produces numbers about 2400 DPS.


552 dps uniform dps tank, 663 dps against lasers. More than 1,628 dps uniform or 1,780 in an 58% EM/42% Th split (MF damage type spread), and you are better off with the buffer tank. Yes, all overheated, no exile boosters.

Quote:
Quote:
I'll stick with my original statement: Starting with 2-3 BS in the hostile fleet, you do want a passive tank. Preferably with RR.


You need at least 4 BS before it makes sense to use an RR set. Which you would use a Dominix for anyway(Its the best RR ship in the game, pretty much hands down). RR with 2-3 will leave you high and dry when one of the ships go and they're going to if the enemy is focusing fire.


The statement "starting with 2-3 BS" includes the 4 BS case (if you have tempests/domis, you can field RR more easily than with Mega/Hyperion, but that's a bit besides the point of this thread). And with the numbers above, I stick with my statement that, starting with 2-3 BS, you want buffer tanks, not active tanks.

Quote:
Quote:
All T2 ships except for Minmatar ones have EM as their lowest resist when they plug their main resist hole. And no, I can not guess why even the ships you mentioned are "inconsequential" to ship balancing questions.



Actually its "all t2 ships except for Amarr and Caldari ones have EX as their lowest resist when they plug their main resist hole"..


And except for the Deimos and Ishtar, as you note.

My original statement was that using the high base resist of armor against EM as the basis for balancing is problematic because there are many ships where EM is such a good damage type for, for example t2 ships. You just told me that's not true because that's only true for half of them. I still claim that that's quite a lot of ships you just ignore when balancing laser dps around armor resists (the EM resist reduction was the right approach: Don't increase laser dps, reduce the resist differences).

No idea why you brought up explosive there at all.

Quote:
If nothing tops the Raven[Maelstrom/Drake] then there is no meta play in the system between in the larger gangs.


I'm all for ways to even out shield tank advantages, but "one race's ships are good against them" is not a good way to do so in my opinion.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.01.02 04:34:00 - [674]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Sorry goug but you are certainly wrong on the overheating issues.


No, I am not. A max skills a warp disruptor II overheats for 2 minutes and 50 seconds. A 100mn MD I overheats for 2 minutes 20 seconds to give you an idea of how fast you're losing your modules.

You do a bit better with named points, but named points won't get you a 28km tackle.

The big advantage in overheating has come in tanks[lar: 3 minutes+] and ships which only need to run the MWD for a small amount of time[MWD: Overheat 2 minutes+]

Overheating a point is quite valuable to get an initial point or keeping someone from running, but it is not valuable to run the entire fight. A good example of this would be seen above. It takes about 2 minutes for a single BS to kill a passively armor tanked BS with uniform DPS. Your point will last only 50 seconds longer than the fight. If for any reason you are not doing max DPS the entire fight or your enemy has a repair unit it will not last the entire fight.

You do have an advantage in that the you can start an engagement sooner, but you can only maintain an overheated point if the fight is very very short.

As well, it did increase the ability of other ships to close those extra 8km. A roughly 43% speed increase from overheating nets roughly 8km of extra closing distance in the same amount of time if the start point went from 20km to 28km.

Quote:

I am not going to bother to discuss directly with you because its never productive. But if you pay attention how my argumentation was much better received by both sides than yours, you could learn a bit, if not about how this game really works, and how people really fight, then at least abou how to perform a discussion and an argumentation.


No, you're not going to discuss with me because you're wrong on those points. You are, however, going to write a paragraph about how much better your incorrect points were taken by the "other side" which had nothing to do with delivery, and everything to do with being conciliatory.

You're not being conciliatory towards issues that you should be either, because the "other side" simple does not want blaster ships to be limited in its maximum efficient scope to small gangs. They want complete dominance under 20km. They want to make Blaster ships efficient gang ships.

Originally by: Arkady Sadik

Nope, I'm using ions on the Hyperion


So am I, your numbers are wrong. Any 2 MFS fit on a Megathron that produces 1290 DPS[1287 w/ Neutrons, Void, Overheating, 5x Ogre II, max skills] will produce 1293 with a Hyp[Ions, 4 x Ogre, rest same as above]

Quote:

552 dps uniform dps tank


663 is the uniform tank of 1 lar, 2 eanm, 1 DC. Using standard exile boosters, there is no reason to not to, they are not cost prohibitive.

Quote:

The statement "starting with 2-3 BS" includes the 4 BS case


No, with 2-3 BS you want active tanks. The buffer tanks will lose to the active tanks even harder unless they're RR. The starting DPS might be slightly higher but the ending DPS will not be, and that makes a lot of difference on how it all plays out.


Quote:

My original statement was that using the high base resist of armor against EM as the basis for balancing is problematic because there are many ships where EM is such a good damage type for, for example t2 ships. You just told me that's not true because that's only true for half of them


No. Read closer into what I said. Its not a problem because the other way is not balance, its just setting the other ships as overpowered.

Quote:

I'm all for ways to even out shield tank advantages, but "one race's ships are good against them" is not a good way to do so in my opinion.


Unless you make all resistances even you cannot fix that "problem". And "one races ships are good against them" is not true. Anything EM/thermal heavy is good against them[and they can actually get efficient tanks where EM is not an efficient damage type]e

SecHaul
Posted - 2009.01.02 06:28:00 - [675]
 

Edited by: SecHaul on 02/01/2009 06:34:39
Originally by: Goumindong

You're not being conciliatory towards issues that you should be either, because the "other side" simple does not want blaster ships to be limited in its maximum efficient scope to small gangs. They want complete dominance under 20km. They want to make Blaster ships efficient gang ships.

Complete trash, once again you are misquoting and twisting others to support your opinions. I have consistently said, and I will continue to say, that pulses operating better than blasters & autocannons from 10km, and less then 10km for non-armor yanked ships, is not balanced in my opinion. I have also consistently said I believe the number should be closer to 15-20km for "armor" based ships, which are meant be a weakness for lasers.

Nowhere have I wanted "complete" dominance of blasters, and I have said multiple times that I am a projectile pilot, let's not even start on autocannons & artillery.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.01.02 08:09:00 - [676]
 

Originally by: SecHaul
Originally by: Goumindong

You're not being conciliatory towards issues that you should be either, because the "other side" simple does not want blaster ships to be limited in its maximum efficient scope to small gangs. They want complete dominance under 20km. They want to make Blaster ships efficient gang ships.

have also consistently said I believe the number should be closer to 15-20km for "armor" based ships, which are meant be a weakness for lasers.



Well then, my work here is done.

SecHaul
Posted - 2009.01.02 09:15:00 - [677]
 

Edited by: SecHaul on 02/01/2009 09:18:27
What an intelligent thing to say.

Goum, your work here has been nothing more than stipulating that lasers are balanced, and fighting tooth and nail for it. We all understand where you stand.

From the beginning of the thread I have continued to say that when pulses outdamage all other weapon systems from 10km, *even when firing upon armour tanked battlecruisers magically orbitting at all times to highlight weaknesses*, I believe there is an imbalance. I believe a huge reason for this imbalance now showing is due to the web reduction. 90% webs covered the issues of tracking.

You seem to be only interested in bad-mouthing & misqouting others to try prove your point, which only makes me ignore your points more & more.
Personally I think the concept of optimal & falloff in EVE is flawed and will make for very difficult balancing situations.

Practically I would like to see the following changes:

* reduction in the tracking of lasers

* TC's and TE's impacting falloff, just as TD's were updated

* revision of large turrets optimal & falloff values

* modifications to Artillery (totally different topic)

I do not know what size each change should be, however I would like to see blasters & ac's have a role in EVE combat as we see today, instead of being only applicable in very small gangs & specialised scenario's. My line of pulses being better weapons, against armor tanked battlecruisers orbitting at all times is 15 - 20 km. Where the ship isn't armor tanked, isn't this magically orbitting battlecruiser, that number would shift all the way back to the current 5 km line.

But, I understand your bias in the game, everyone wants & believes that their race & weapon system should be the best, and you are no different no matter how much you wish me to believe.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.02 12:01:00 - [678]
 



1. Blasters/blaster ships need work, although i am not sure what yet.


2. Lasers (pulse) should receive a tracking reduction so they are less effective at closer ranges than they are as currently as they almost match blasters down to 5km while doing more dmg from around 9km and a crap tonne more past that.

3. Designating non existent roles and ranges to justify a overpowered system is a silly argument.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2009.01.02 12:21:00 - [679]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 02/01/2009 12:20:52
Originally by: SecHaul
I believe a huge reason for this imbalance now showing is due to the web reduction. 90% webs covered the issues of tracking.


Good lord, no it is not. How many times do i have to explain this to you? 90% reduce the effect of tracking which decreases the range at which lasers overpower blasters. This means that the web changes have done exactly the freaking opposite of what you're claiming. It can't have "covered the issues of tracking" that now shows this imbalance because the blaster ships do not have worse tracking than lasers! That is like saying that the EM resistance change really showed everyone how bad lasers are, or that the Myrmidon nerf really showed everyone how overpowered the 75 cube bandwidth Myrmidon is.

Quote:
*even when firing upon armour tanked battlecruisers magically orbitting at all times to highlight weaknesses*


Yes, with no movement on the part of our battleship that may increase or reduce transversal, and no propulsion mods on the battlecruisers that increases transversal, consideration of range as a function of time, or the consideration of the ability of the attacking ship to reduce transversal. We've gone back and forth on this before. Its not changing. Its a pretty decent representation of how well you're going to be hitting compared to a laser ship.

Quote:

You seem to be only interested in bad-mouthing & misqouting others to try prove your point, which only makes me ignore your points more & more.


The only one doing "bad-mouthing" here is you. I don't believe anyone was misquoting. If you have an argument that hasn't been refuted or shown to be specious then show it. If not, quit claiming that i am a mean person as if that matters to truth of the situation.

Quote:

I do not know what size each change should be, however I would like to see blasters & ac's have a role in EVE combat as we see today, instead of being only applicable in very small gangs & specialised scenario's.


They do have a role in Eve combat as we see today, it's just not the role that you want them to have. If you give them the role that you want them to have, then no other ship will have a role until you start sniping. It will be go blasters or go home. That is not an eve i want to play.

If no ships are sub-optimal in gangs and some ships are sub-optimal when alone then the ships which are sub-optimal alone are sub optimal everywhere. You want to remove the disadvantage that blaster ships have in the only area that laser ships have an advantage. That means that there will be no reason to use pulse ships(or anything other than blasters really). Its bad game design.

Currently even you have said that there are reasons and situations to fly blaster ships. You have just rejected those instances.

Quote:

But, I understand your bias in the game, everyone wants & believes that their race & weapon system should be the best, and you are no different no matter how much you wish me to believe.


This is you assigning a motive and agenda to the "other side" in order to make everyone believe that the other person cannot be trusted. You're attacking me and not the argument. When i referred to the 20km comment i was simply referring to something Maralt has been consistently pushing this entire thread(and then you conveniently echoed albeit with a small caveat). Want me to dig up quotes saying that your goals are similar that you want to turn blasters into effective gang DPS platforms? They're in here.

Rhadamantine
Game Community
Posted - 2009.01.02 13:12:00 - [680]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
More twists and turns.....


You've done nothing but play word games through the whole thread.
Someone shows a graph detailing something is white, you then twist words and info to show it's actually black. (But anyone with a brain can still see it's white.)

A typical post from yourself...

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Venkul Mul

Prerequisites don't require 15 minutes.


Yes, they do. Spec 1 in any size requires ~15 minutes. Tops a week if you have to train the whole gamut.


Word play at it's best, but disingenuous all the same. (Whole thread can be found HERE)

I've read many replies from you in many threads, most twist facts and words.
Troll comes to mind, but I'll leave others to decide if the tag fits you.

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.01.02 13:12:00 - [681]
 

Can't belive goum hasn't given up on you people yet.

Rhadamantine
Game Community
Posted - 2009.01.02 13:17:00 - [682]
 

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Can't belive goum hasn't given up on you people yet.


Actually, I was thinking the same thing about the others.
You and Goum are like peas in a pod.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.02 13:25:00 - [683]
 

Edited by: Murina on 02/01/2009 13:26:59
Its quite interesting reading gourm over a amount of time especially when he is (as per usual) defending amarr or looking to sideways buff them by nerfing other systems.

He can in this thread call webs buffed or nerfed depending on the perspective and how it effects amarr..for instance the 5-13+km over heat available web range that gives amarr even more dmg/range overpoweredness he tries to ignore and mumbles about agility and deceleration times.

While also ignoring the same arguments (but in reverse) to try and show that blasters are great and have no problem holding a ship inside perfect blaster range and also tries to convince ppl that the 1-2km of range from 3-5km that blasters are more effective than pulse (as long as the targets transversal is highWink) is some how uber significant.

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.01.02 13:51:00 - [684]
 

Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 02/01/2009 13:26:59
Its quite interesting reading gourm over a amount of time especially when he is (as per usual) defending amarr or looking to sideways buff them by nerfing other systems.

He can in this thread call webs buffed or nerfed depending on the perspective and how it effects amarr..for instance the 5-13+km over heat available web range that gives amarr even more dmg/range overpoweredness he tries to ignore and mumbles about agility and deceleration times.

While also ignoring the same arguments (but in reverse) to try and show that blasters are great and have no problem holding a ship inside perfect blaster range and also tries to convince ppl that the 1-2km of range from 3-5km that blasters are more effective than pulse (as long as the targets transversal is highWink) is some how uber significant.


Too bad your theory is bogus. Goum was one of the few that on sisi consistently pointed out that locus rigs should get nerfed and they did the following patch. He is not biased. Get cracking at a new fail theory mate.

Rhadamantine
Game Community
Posted - 2009.01.02 13:58:00 - [685]
 

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Too bad your theory is bogus. Goum was one of the few that on sisi consistently pointed out that locus rigs should get nerfed and they did the following patch. He is not biased. Get cracking at a new fail theory mate.


So because he knew the stacking was borked on those rigs, we should believe everything he says.
With or without him, they would have been changed.

Peas in a pod. Wink

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.02 14:14:00 - [686]
 

Edited by: Murina on 02/01/2009 14:35:22



Originally by: Lyria Skydancer


Too bad your theory is bogus. Goum was one of the few that on sisi consistently pointed out that locus rigs should get nerfed and they did the following patch. He is not biased. Get cracking at a new fail theory mate.


It is not a theory its a fact, and the apoc can still hit at max easily with only the rokh as competition unless you count the ravens cruise fit. While with max skills the mega/hype can only hit at around 200-220ish now, before the locus nerf they could hit at max range easy.

Amarr getting to keep a max range sniper ship and gallente and mini taking one in the butt is hardly what could be considered a nerf to amarr especially considering its was a obviously broken system that was gonna get fixed anyway.

Just another sideways buff to amarr relative to the other races that gourm supported as per usual.

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.01.02 15:07:00 - [687]
 

Originally by: Rhadamantine
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Too bad your theory is bogus. Goum was one of the few that on sisi consistently pointed out that locus rigs should get nerfed and they did the following patch. He is not biased. Get cracking at a new fail theory mate.


So because he knew the stacking was borked on those rigs, we should believe everything he says.
With or without him, they would have been changed.

Peas in a pod. Wink


No it's not. That bug was of most use for amarr pulses in general. So yes, you got some reading up to do and a new way of attacking his so called biased views.

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.01.02 15:08:00 - [688]
 

Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 02/01/2009 14:35:22



Originally by: Lyria Skydancer


Too bad your theory is bogus. Goum was one of the few that on sisi consistently pointed out that locus rigs should get nerfed and they did the following patch. He is not biased. Get cracking at a new fail theory mate.


It is not a theory its a fact, and the apoc can still hit at max easily with only the rokh as competition unless you count the ravens cruise fit. While with max skills the mega/hype can only hit at around 200-220ish now, before the locus nerf they could hit at max range easy.

Amarr getting to keep a max range sniper ship and gallente and mini taking one in the butt is hardly what could be considered a nerf to amarr especially considering its was a obviously broken system that was gonna get fixed anyway.

Just another sideways buff to amarr relative to the other races that gourm supported as per usual.


Sorry you just suck at eve. There is no nerf/boost that will help you sadly.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.02 15:12:00 - [689]
 

Edited by: Murina on 02/01/2009 15:32:12


Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
My usual ad hominem attack when my weak, biased and unfounded arguments are torn apart


Your the one in every thread looking to keep amarr overpowered and nerf anything that works well and outside the ranges you prefer to engage in pal.....

SecHaul
Posted - 2009.01.02 17:05:00 - [690]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Want me to dig up quotes saying that your goals are similar that you want to turn blasters into effective gang DPS platforms? They're in here.

You finally get it, yes, I want blasters to be effective in gang situations, right now they are only effective in solo or very small gangs. There is no need to find my quotes, this is what I have said all the time.

What I haven't said is I want blasters to *completely dominate* under 20km, that is where your subtle word manipulation and exaggerations start.

All I want is for autocannons and blasters is to have some purpose beyond 10km (worst case) and 5km (best case)

The issue with EVE is that distance is an absolute, if you are at optimal+falloff, you are doing 50%, if you are at optimal+2x falloff (+1 metre), you are doing 0, 100% of the time.

Tracking isn't an absolute, you will not always have transversal, ships will approach, ships will be webbed, ships will be orbitting others, etc.

In other words, in a good case you suffer no penalty, then through a range, until the worst case of our graphs for battlecruisers. You can argue that there is always transversal, but there simply isn't, especially when your tacklers have a scram and web in place.

In the end, we see the same data, and we have different opinions of where we believe each ships should play.

And to confirm your quote again: yes, I want autocannons and blasters to have a role in gangs. I don't want them to completely dominate, I just want them to have a role


Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 : last (25)

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