|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 21:55:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 28/09/2009 21:57:21
Please explain how these changes affect the missile capabilities of all missile-using ships and general game balance. Use specific examples for every missile-using ship and its classmates.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 08:39:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin Unless there's been another update since 9/18?
More forum whoring, Merin!
Originally by: CCP Ytterbium, 25/09 Further changes.
Typhoon:
ò Slot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/7)
Tempest:
ò Hitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 6954 armor and 6211 shields)
Typhoon Fleet Issue:
ò Slot layout: received an additional launcher slot and turret slot (for a total of 5/5 turrets/launchers, 8/4/8)
Tempest Fleet Issue:
ò Slot layout: 7th turret slot removed for a 7th low-slot (for a total of 6/4 turrets/launchers, 8/5/7) ò Hitpoints: armor and shield values swapped (now has 10431 armor and 9316 shields)
Allen, I don't understand your confusion. It's obvious that the effects of any changes on game balance (and if a change doesn't affect game balance then it's a pointless change) need to be understood. To do this, we need before-and-after comparisons on every ship that the changes affect.
This needs to be in your OP - you should have done this before posting anything. IN fact, you've approached this completely backwards - the correct methodology for proposing changes is:
1. Identify problem. 2. Prove problem. 3. Propose solution. 4. Justify solution.
All you've done is "propose solution". You haven't done any of the other steps. So get on with it.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 08:51:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 29/09/2009 08:55:34
Some do, some don't. BS with sigs big enough are: Scorpion, Raven, Rokh, Hyperion, Maelstrom, Abaddon.
With typical fits, all of these will take full damage from torps at base speed, without webbing, except the Hyperion (95% damage) and the Hyperion will in almost any actually fight because if won't be able to hold top speed as it manoeuvres.
This excludes Crash, which basically removes the need for a painter on a Raven or Typhoon.
Merin, Apoc sig is 400 m. It can't take full damage. But with a base speed of 104 m/s, it doesn't need webbing. Crash means it'll take full damage.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 12:57:00 -
[4]
Unfitted Apoc base speed without skills: 94 m/s. Unfitted Apoc speed with Nav V: 118 m/s. Apoc speed with three armour rigs and Armour Rigging V (lol): 104 m/s.
Torp explosion velocity: 106.5 m/s.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 22:46:00 -
[5]
Quote: 1. Identify problem. 2. Prove problem. 3. Propose solution. 4. Justify solution.
All you've done is "propose solution". You haven't done any of the other steps. So get on with it.
Stop blathering and get on with it.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 08:51:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Allen Ramses I'm trying to address the fact that missiles have NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER!
WHY DO THEY NEED ONE?
Two threads and six pages of blather and you still haven't demonstrated the need for any of your brainfart.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 17:12:00 -
[7]
Yeah, HMs are vastly superior in terms of damage applied in the anti-support role. Their only problem is range - but that problem doesn't exist when you use a Cerberus. I can't really see myself ever training Cruise Missiles V.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 17:33:00 -
[8]
Liang - how useful did you find the antisupport Cruise Raven under the old missile damage formula? Whenever I used a Cerb in that role then, I just found that the HACs/recons that I needed to shoot at were nanoed, immune to missile fire and would MWD over and be on top of me in seconds...
Well, I don't remember any nanoFalcons, but that was about it.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 08:56:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Quote: And again: what problem are you trying to solve?
One that you and many others still apparently can't see .
And yet you still won't tell us. Note: to make the numbers into a pretty pattern is not the answer.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 15:30:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Allen Ramses Using torps as the base for short range would yield a 50% increase in DPS for HAMs and a whopping 126% increase in DPS for rockets. That's 14 DPS per rocket launcher, unskilled. Using heavies for the base for long range really isn't that far off from my original proposal.
1000 DPS, 100k EHP Drake. :facepalm:
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 15:38:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 02/10/2009 15:43:30
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Gypsio III 1000 DPS, 100k EHP Drake. :facepalm:
Now you just gotta put 2 painters on it to damage cruisers. ;-)
-Liang
I haven't really been following Allen's nonsense, but reading his OP would suggest that it would be much easier to apply HAM DPS than is currently the case (and tbh it's easy to do full damage with HAMs even now). In any case, if I was flying a 1000 DPS Drake I wouldn't be worried about cruisers at all... or much at all, apart from all the other 1000 DPS Drakes.
Edit - oh, I see your comment about scaling the explosion vel/rad issues from torps. Well, given that HAMs are "cruiser" sized, that kind of OC scaling would still give fll damage against other BCs.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 13:37:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Allen I'd REALLY hate to say this, but CCP introducing AMLs was a big mistake when it comes to maintaining balance.
Wrong as usual, and this is what happens when you try to balance "weapon systems", as you insist on trying to do, instead of "ships". Superficially, AMLs may seem overpowered, but the main AML platform, the Caracal, is well balanced - it lacks the PG or CPU to be fit for HMs or HAMs in a close-range, solo role, so it is restricted to fitting AMLs in that role. This makes it very effective against frigates - albeit at the cost of tank or fit the necessary tackle - and hence very vulnerable to, well, anything that isn't a frigate.
That's a balanced ship, with a well-defined role, and shows that looking at weapon systems in isolation is foolish.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 07:31:00 -
[13]
Again, Allen, you are comparing "weapon systems", not "ships".
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:50:00 -
[14]
The funny thing is that before QR, but after the torp boost, there were people saying here that torps were overpowered, because they did more DPS than blasters to a much greater range. But now no-one is saying that torps are overpowered (the QR missile changes didn't really change the ease of application of torp damage on anything cruiser-sized or greater).
The people who were saying that torps were overpowered were wrong then, for the same reason that Allen is wrong now. You don't compare weapon systems because you don't fly weapon systems, you fly ships. And there's much more to ship balance than the weapon system. This is why Allen's attempt to "balance" "missiles" instead of "missile ships" is doomed to failure, because it ignores a vast swathe of in-game realities.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 20:35:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Allen Ramses And as of right now, the only reason why the Raven, the strongest torpedo boat, isn't dominating the field is because of two reasons, both of which are mentioned in the OP.
1) It doesn't have 7 launcher bays like it should. 2) Low explosion velocities make it a PITA to do appropriate DPS.
No. You're not making any sense at all. You were just arguing that the Raven did too much DPS, weren't you? Even if you weren't, your facts are flat wrong.
Raven's base DPS is fine. 948 missile DPS to 30 km is fine. There is no problem with explosion velocity on torps - few BS exceed the 107 m/s explosion velocity when fit, and those that do are easily dealt with by a web. Webbed ships of cruiser size or greater receive no damage mitigation from speed. There is no problem here.
The problem is entirely the CPU requirements of shield transporters.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 22:15:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Allen Ramses stuff
You're a blithering imbecile. Get a clue, kid, before you post such rubbish. It causes me physical pain to have to correct your inane nonsense.
1. Saying that "torpedos do too much DPS" is meaningless. Torpedos do no DPS; ships do DPS. You cannot balance weapon systems, you must balance ships. Your failure to grasp this is the root cause of this thread's failure, the nonsense changes that you propose and your inability to justify them.
2. Explosion velocity. You're very confused here, although it's ironic that you're accusing me of not understanding the missile damage formula. Check your facts, you'll find that, as usual, you're wrong. I really shouldn't be having to explain this to you, and I'm astonished that I'm having to do so. How can you expect to rebalance missiles when you lack a basic understanding of them?
Torp explosion velocity: 106.5 m/s. Don't ignore skills, that's stupid. Balance is determined based on max skills. Don't ignore fits, either, unless you're in the habit of PVPing in unfit ships.
Trimarked Abaddon - speed 98 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed, trimarked Tempest - speed 53 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed nano-Tempest - speed 71 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed.
Webbed nano-Hurricane - speed 98 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed Rupture - speed 96 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed Arbitrator - speed 80 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed Caracal - speed 89 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed Thorax - speed 85 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed. Webbed Vexor - speed 80 m/s. No damage mitigation from speed.
Got it?
3. Shield transporters. Oh, man. If you don't understand this problem, then you're not qualified to comment on anything to do with missile boats. I won't explain this for you, trying learning something yourself. Hint - ask your mates to fit a LST on their Geddons and Megas, instead of a LRAR. They'll laugh at you.
Get a grip, kid.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:01:00 -
[17]
I've just been looking up some of Allen's ship fits on Battleclinic. Heh. I think I now understand why he thinks there's a problem with missiles.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 07:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Davinel Lulinvega Edited by: Davinel Lulinvega on 06/10/2009 03:16:45
Originally by: Allen Ramses However, what Gypso (and everyone else as well) seems to refuse to acknowledge is that missiles stand alone as modules... just like turrets, armor plates, shield boosters, MWDs, Neuts, smartbombs, drones, RR, etc.
This is why you're wrong. They don't.
This is the root cause of this horrible, hilarious, wonderful thread.
Re "Almost all ships of cruiser size or greater receive no damage mitigation from speed from torps when webbed".
Allen, plug in some webbed cruisers speeds and sigs into the missile damage formula and see what % damage results you get out. For all T1 cruisers except the Stabber you'll find that the damage % received is equal to the target sig radius divided by torp explosion radius. Hence, there is no damage mitigation from speed, only from signature radius. QED.
Sigh.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 15:29:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 08/10/2009 15:31:27
Originally by: Tagami Wasp Let's look at Rupture with AC's vs Caracal with HAMs. Both fit for solo/ small gang work deep within enemy territory. The way Dominion promises us the gameplay will be.
Rupie does 100 more dps, fly 400m/s faster (w/ MWD) and has 5K more EHP (400mm plate). Both fitted with cloaks, the Rupie with Improved easily, the Cara barely fits a Prototype. Furthermore, Rupie is more agile and has a scan res 100mm higher than the equivalent Caracal.
If a frig comes up to the Rupie, it will get shred within seconds. Seen it live, our Rupie pilot killed an enemy ceptor without blinking, in a dogfight off gate. I don't even think about engaging one in the Caracal.
HAM Caracal? Lolz. Any comparison involving a HAM Caracal is pretty worthless. BTW, before fitting, the Caracal is a lot more agile than the Rupture, and the comparison of DPS numbers is also worthless, as it ignores optimal ranges.
The interceptor comment is hilarious. Try attacking a properly-fit Caracal in a frigate, rather than HAM lolfits.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 22:58:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 08/10/2009 22:59:23
Quote: Why is the AML Caracal the only feasible fit for solo PvP in a Caracal? What happens if I want to attack, say a Hulk? Stereotyping missile ships to the gimped fits we are forced to accept does not make them good enough.
Because the Caracal doesn't have the PG or CPU for HAMs, and there's no shortage of frigate targets that the AML Caracal is perfectly suited to engage. Personally, I don't see that as too much of a problem. The HML Caracal (although this too has fitting problems) is excellent in gang as well, far superior in gang to the generic, one-dimensional, short-range-crippled cruisers such as the Thorax or Rupture.
As for the Hulk, just kill it with AMLs. Note that the Caracal is an top-class cruiser despite the fitting problems, and that if there is a problem, it's Caracal fittings, not missiles.
And Tagami, re-read Allen's HAMacal post. Try to ignore the giant swooshing sound above you, and understand why he posted that fit.
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 19:12:00 -
[21]
The same place that you sign up for a 3 km optimal on HAMs.
Yeah, the Caracal could do with a bit more CPU. But that comparison of DPS numbers was EFT bull****.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 13:18:00 -
[22]
I preferred it when I thought Tagami was trolling Allen, rather than just being an idiot.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 07:58:00 -
[23]
OH GOD NO MAKE IT STOP
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:31:00 -
[24]
Shut up, Allen.
|
|
|
|