open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Where are the damage rigs?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

M'ktakh
Posted - 2011.01.29 22:56:00 - [1]
 

I have noticed a trend here in S&M (:whiplash sound:) that favours putting tanking rigs (CDFE, Trimarks) before putting damage rigs (either damage application or raw damage ones) on a ship.

Is this because buffer tanking is preferred, and thus a gain in DPS survived (well, "tanked") counter-, and outweights the loss in DSP not gained, or because most fits are too tight for DPS rigs?

And in any case, should DMG rigs be rebalanced, or are they fine as they are?

Johan Sabbat
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.01.29 23:06:00 - [2]
 

I think this is because damage modules and rigs hit stacking penalties sooner than tanking mods.

Take this HAM drake
7x HAM
1x MWD
1x LSE
2x Invun
1x Point
1x Web
3x BCU
1x DC

3x CCDFE

There are 7 tanking modules with only 1 of those suffering stacking penalties; where as there are 3 damamage modes with 2 of those suffering stacking penalties.


Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2011.01.29 23:43:00 - [3]
 

There is no stacking penalty on Trimarks so three of them = 45% more armor for the T1 variant.

Also, armor plates take up PG, which is often in short supply - especially on Gallente ships. In comparison, damage mods take up CPU, which is more readily available. Turret rigs tend to increase PG usage of weapons too, which compounds the issue.

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.01.30 01:37:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Wacktopia
There is no stacking penalty on Trimarks so three of them = 45% more armor for the T1 variant.



Actually, it's better than that. Trimarks stack multiplicatively. 1.15^3 = +52.1%

Flex Nebura
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.30 01:48:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Wacktopia
There is no stacking penalty on Trimarks so three of them = 45% more armor for the T1 variant.

Also, armor plates take up PG, which is often in short supply - especially on Gallente ships. In comparison, damage mods take up CPU, which is more readily available. Turret rigs tend to increase PG usage of weapons too, which compounds the issue.


The same is true for missile rigs and CPU and caldari ships

Target Painter
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.01.30 02:56:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Target Painter on 30/01/2011 03:02:42
Originally by: M'ktakh
I have noticed a trend here in S&M (:whiplash sound:) that favours putting tanking rigs (CDFE, Trimarks) before putting damage rigs (either damage application or raw damage ones) on a ship.


The buffer rigs give a fairly massive boost to HP. After a standard 2 or 3 damage mod setup, the benefits of damage rigs are rather tame. Additionally, they eat up a considerable amount of calibration, enough you can't fill out your rig slots with them, unlike buffer rigs, which can always fit triple T2 rigs.

Quote:
And in any case, should DMG rigs be rebalanced, or are they fine as they are?


Considering how much benefit you get from buffer rigs compared to damage rigs, you'd be crazy to consider it balanced. Make them non-stacking penalized so there is an actual decision to be made between tank or gank, rather than the situation now. As it stands, you throw on a damage and RoF rig, you generally need additional PG to fit a full rack of turrets, so you sacrifice already gimped tank to add a fitting module. The other solutions? Downgrading turrets undoes the advantage of adding the DPS rigs in the first place as does dropping a damage mod.

On a standard shield gank Cane, I can have 40 additional DPS or close to 10K more EHP in my shields. Not a hard choice to make.

Target Painter
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.01.30 03:08:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Target Painter on 30/01/2011 03:09:38
And yes, there are plenty of exceptions to what I said when you're looking at PvE ships and frigates. My post only really referred to PvP setups above frigate level. When you are talking AFs, frigs, destroyers, etc. damage rigs are fairly well balanced against buffer rigs. Damage rigs work better when you don't have the lows for damage mods and the drawbacks of buffer rigs hurt small ships much more than larger ones.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.01.30 06:44:00 - [8]
 

CCP have damage-phobia - unreasonable fear of anything related to offense and damage

The damage rigs are best example of that mental disorder. Only a sick mind would give 10% damage rigs 200 calibration points as requirements, when all other "strong" rigs are 100, weak ones at 50

It's also why there are problems with blasters - devs can't see it due to damage phobia.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.01.30 07:27:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
CCP have damage-phobia - unreasonable fear of anything related to offense and damage



Given they recently blessed us with 10k+ dps supercarriers, a 450 dps pirate frigate with stock t2 fittings, I'm not so sure about this whole damage-phobia concept.

Juliette DuBois
Posted - 2011.01.30 07:36:00 - [10]
 

I think it started when they decided that all ships HP needed to be buffed (don`t remember the arguments from that time). In any case, it hasn`t helped the game at all.

Now supercarriers seemed weird since those things got everything good and nothing bad. No wonder everyone and their dog is trying to get one now.

Target Painter
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.01.30 08:01:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Juliette DuBois
I think it started when they decided that all ships HP needed to be buffed (don`t remember the arguments from that time).


Spending an hour setting up a fight and dying in some absurdly short time was not fun.

Quote:
In any case, it hasn`t helped the game at all.


Well, they did it because people complained that fights were over too fast and they died too quick, so OP SUCCESS for CCP.

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2011.01.30 12:34:00 - [12]
 

I don't see how a higher overall damage would help blasters. You take too much damage before getting into range as it is, you'll only get destroyed even more if overall damage would be higher.

M'ktakh
Posted - 2011.01.30 13:14:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: M''ktakh on 30/01/2011 13:15:29
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I don't see how a higher overall damage would help blasters. You take too much damage before getting into range as it is, you'll only get destroyed even more if overall damage would be higher.


Its not about blasters, but ships and weapons in general.

Currently, we have a distinct lack in the "glass cannon" fitting type (fit, not ship, I'm well aware of SB's). But if dmg rigs would be rebalanced, we could see an increasing number of ships flown not to be bricks or tiny (nano), but to unleash a lot of dmg, while tanking little.

Variety is nice. But maybe this needs to be looked at from furhter away, and maybe the uselessness of dmg rigs is simply a symptom of tank before gank.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.30 14:59:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: M'ktakh
Currently, we have a distinct lack in the "glass cannon" fitting type (fit, not ship, I'm well aware of SB's). But if dmg rigs would be rebalanced, we could see an increasing number of ships flown not to be bricks or tiny (nano), but to unleash a lot of dmg, while tanking little.
No we wouldn't because they'd die instantly and never be used.

There is a reason you don't see may Diemosts around (and a reason they're called diemosts): it's because the only way to make them remotely useful is to give them a glass cannon fit. This gives them a crapton of damage. It also gives them a lifespan of roughly two seconds. This means that in the field, they actually do zero damage.

The reason you see SBs is because they can gtfo (in multiple ways at that) and still do damage, so that two-second lifespan comes into play less often.

M'ktakh
Posted - 2011.01.30 16:39:00 - [15]
 

How would you (and would you at all) adress this issue?

Would having both fits viable, aka having the DPS/EHP gain balanced out, be a good solution?

If the ship you are facing (and flying) could be a brick or a glass cannon with the same ods, there would be (I hope), more variety.

(Or we would end up with one setup being 1% more effective, and thus becoming the cookie-cutter. Man, balancing things is hard)

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2011.01.30 17:33:00 - [16]
 

a combination of the above points, however I will say that t2 damage rigs can be nice, and are reasonably cheap, although the 300 calibration takes away from the attractiveness, especially when fitting faction ships.

plus damage rigs only give a bonus to damage or rof, where damage mods give bonuses to both, and can usually fit 2 or 3 damage mods comfortably.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.01.30 17:54:00 - [17]
 

Rigs should be treated as base stats as far as stacking penalties are concerned. As in the stacking penalties don't start till you get to actual modules.

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2011.01.30 17:57:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Wacktopia on 30/01/2011 17:58:23
Originally by: Aamrr
Originally by: Wacktopia
There is no stacking penalty on Trimarks so three of them = 45% more armor for the T1 variant.



Actually, it's better than that. Trimarks stack multiplicatively. 1.15^3 = +52.1%


Note to self: Check math before posting. Lol I always do s**t like this.

Originally by: Flex Nebura
Originally by: Wacktopia
There is no stacking penalty on Trimarks so three of them = 45% more armor for the T1 variant.

Also, armor plates take up PG, which is often in short supply - especially on Gallente ships. In comparison, damage mods take up CPU, which is more readily available. Turret rigs tend to increase PG usage of weapons too, which compounds the issue.


The same is true for missile rigs and CPU and caldari ships


Yeah this too. But it's the same general rule: Tanking rigs are a better choice in general.

The exception probably comes when you are speed tanking, where you might fit tracking or falloff rigs. Or perhaps damage or torp-range mods on a SB.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.01.30 20:25:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 30/01/2011 21:35:25
Well one of the big downside is that they are 10/15% instead the 15/20% that tanking rigs and many other offer, this a lot more annoying here since it makes anything not T2 basically useless on dps fits that already role with 3 damagemods because of the way stacking works(the extra 5% actually doubles her effect).

Also the calibration is way out of the window, making the T2 ones not useful for faction hulls and restrict even T1 hulls to the cheapest option left calibration wise(trimarks/cdfe/resist rigs).

The only bright side is that the T2 versions are fallen in price this much that you can use them on most T1 hulls for only a few ISK more than trimarks/CDFE(if you think the extra gank is more useful than another 4-6k EHP or you are simple a raging blastervent that suffers a constant lack of DPS syndrome).

In general I would like a boost from 10/15 to full 15/20 standards and a reduction of the T1 to 150 and the T2 to 200 calibration(that finally allows to fit them on active tanked hulls or faction ships reasonable well).

Edit: Might be fine if they would not stack with damagemods, still it is bad that active tanks are screwed here.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.01.30 20:25:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Val'Dore
Rigs should be treated as base stats as far as stacking penalties are concerned. As in the stacking penalties don't start till you get to actual modules.


I'd be happy with them if they'd nerf the **** out that enormous calibration cost they have.

Johan Sabbat
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.01.30 21:26:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Val'Dore
Rigs should be treated as base stats as far as stacking penalties are concerned. As in the stacking penalties don't start till you get to actual modules.


I think this is a damn fine idea, and use the calibration points to balance this (if possible)

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.30 22:09:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Max Hardcase on 30/01/2011 22:15:06
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Val'Dore
Rigs should be treated as base stats as far as stacking penalties are concerned. As in the stacking penalties don't start till you get to actual modules.


I think this is a damn fine idea, and use the calibration points to balance this (if possible)

Oh its possible, PG drawback is serious enough as it is. As it stands now its only usefull to mount weapon dmg rigs if you are mounting the heaviest guns already.


 

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