| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
    |
Posted - 2010.04.22 20:36:00 -
[91]
Also, the whole notion that price is not a balancing factor is a bit silly.
Once we insist that it is not, then all T1 frigates are automagically obsolete (because of Dramiel), all Stabber hulls, both T1 and T2 are obsolete (because of Cynabal), Thorax and Diemost as well are obsoleted by the Vigilant, battlecruisers are obsolete (because of Sleipnir and because of T3), and so on and so forth. Either it is fine that X obsoletes Y if X is more expensive (because of it being higher meta level) or it is not.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 21:26:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Also, the whole notion that price is not a balancing factor is a bit silly.
Once we insist that it is not, then all T1 frigates are automagically obsolete (because of Dramiel), all Stabber hulls, both T1 and T2 are obsolete (because of Cynabal), Thorax and Diemost as well are obsoleted by the Vigilant, battlecruisers are obsolete (because of Sleipnir and because of T3), and so on and so forth. Either it is fine that X obsoletes Y if X is more expensive (because of it being higher meta level) or it is not.
Or instead of thinking in black and white, one can accept that the question of whether price justifies a given performance gap depends on the specific situation, and a whole ton of factors relevant to that situation (including specific data on quantitative and qualitative ship difference and possibly cost/supply/demand issues).
Of course, the subtext of any does-isk-cost-justify-non-isk-obsolescence arguments right now are angel ships, but, there are several other threads on that at the moment  .
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 21:45:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/04/2010 21:47:37
Originally by: Goumindong
Its fine that there are edge cases where one AF isn't terrible, the question is not just that, the question is also what role do they play and how does that role affect everything else.
People are way too focused on nomenclature, the AF itself does not need any role apart from being a beefed up combat frigate, and they do that reasonably well apart from some exceptions.
The question is does their performance justify the pricetag, or rather are you willing to pay the price. If you dont then fly a regular combat frigate, if you dont like a beefed up combat frigate pick some other specialized frigate.
Just coming up with a new role that is not needed or useful wont fix anything, it will just screw over the ships even more.
Wait for t3 frigates to hit TQ with ridiculous things like 400 dps cloaky warping bubble proof 40km web/scram 20k EHP stats of doom, and lets see where the rest of the frigs fit in.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:00:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/04/2010 22:01:28
Originally by: Mahke
Or instead of thinking in black and white, one can accept that the question of whether price justifies a given performance gap depends on the specific situation, and a whole ton of factors relevant to that situation (including specific data on quantitative and qualitative ship difference and possibly cost/supply/demand issues).
Of course, the subtext of any does-isk-cost-justify-non-isk-obsolescence arguments right now are angel ships, but, there are several other threads on that at the moment .
It's also relevant to the AF discussion (in fact, its relevant in a lot of places), for instance let's look at this very thread:
(a) AFs being supercharged T1 frigates is not fine because it deprives T1 frigates of a role besides simply being cheaper. (Guom)
(b) Other ships being supercharged T1 frigates as they do now is not a problem. (Guom and others)
Which obviously cannot be reconciled. We're going to have MORE issues when they do T3 frigates since as things are now.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:18:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Now, if you will insist that not all AFs are Minmatar, you also need to grasp that not all cruisers are the Stabber.
Only if there does not exist role dominance does this matter. If role dominance does exist then it does matter. After all, if you wanted to maximize speed/agility to the point of AFs you would fly cruisers instead and get better advantages in everything else. Quote:
The whole deal with AFs is that a good number of the ships in the class are worthless compared to their counterparts within the class
And largely worthless outside of the class as well. How do we make the ships worthwhile within the class without making other classes obsolete? Quote:
The concern about T1 frigates becoming obsolete is silly; T1 frigates are technically speaking obsolete EXCEPT in the role of "disposabld" ships, much in the same way HACs obsolete T1 cruisers.
The concern about obsoleting t1 ships has more to do with the roles of other ships. If there were a "cruiser killer" but that ship did not have the oomph to kill HACs it would matter if tech 1 cruisers were not flown. Quote:
If we insist price does not matter, anyway.
Scarcity matters. Originally by: Cpt Branko
Have you missed anything about the part where combat interceptors have a sig penalty reduction?
Which is handy in avoiding damage on the initial close, but after that you want to turn the MWD off because you can't hit anything in a close orbit with it on. Then again, even it this bonus did not exist the question would still have to be raised if this is some necessary component of their role? Frankly i doubt it. If their role is not to tackle and kill frigates but rather to do something else, why are the combat inties designed as they are?
And, if their role isn't that and then they have none, what role do you give them to keep them from obsolescence? Originally by: Omara Otawan
People are way too focused on nomenclature, the AF itself does not need any role apart from being a beefed up combat frigate, and they do that reasonably well apart from some exceptions.
You keep saying this, but you've no argument as to why its true or why the argument against it is false. This is why I keep hounding you two on these points. What about it makes it OK if we're taking roles away from other ships? There isn't an easy answer to this. At some level, some ships are going to end up "losing" their current role and being given other ones if there is any reason to buff AF's at all.
The argument to buffing AF's hinges on the idea that all ships should be useful. If not then there is no reason to buff AFs as interceptors already exist, the role would then be filled and it would be OK that the ships are bad. But you say that its not OK that the ships are bad, they need "something". OK, now do that without taking anything away from other ships. This is impossible given that these ships are in competition and there is no clear unfilled role some ships have to lose their role in order for AFs to be given it without new roles for AFs.
Such either AFs get new roles, or other ships get new roles.
Originally by: Branko
The only problem non-worthless AFs (primarily Jaguar) have is price.
This is a personal valuation and not an objective one. Price is always a personal valuation and decreases in price can pretty much always justify the personal decision to use a product. Basic law of demand stuff here. Its better to ask whether or not the ship has a place within the game than ask whether or not you think its good to use at its current marginal costs. Giving the ship a place within the game will always induce some number of people to legitimately purchase the ship at its marginal cost. Modifying the cost will not(if the ship is dominated in effect such that no rational person chooses it)
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:26:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Mahke
Of course, the subtext of any does-isk-cost-justify-non-isk-obsolescence arguments right now are angel ships, but, there are several other threads on that at the moment .
And the answers that are delivered are uniform over the ages. They were uniform when the rage was WCS fit vagas. They were uniform when they moved to nano-Domi's/Phoons. They were uniform when it went back to nano-hacs. They were uniform when it was titans. And they're uniform today when its Angel faction ships.
Scarcity has justified strength, but never such strict dominance. with few exceptions.
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:35:00 -
[97]
I would like a boost to active tanking myself, and I think it could be done without being too game breaking. Increase - by a large margin - the amount of damage repaired while being overloaded, and decrease the amount of heat produced a little.
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:36:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Which obviously cannot be reconciled. We're going to have MORE issues when they do T3 frigates since as things are now.
Since when are Tech 3 Frigates even on the drawing board? They aren't in the next expansion... and are a terrible idea.
Tech 3 cruisers are in a pretty bad state at the moment too.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:43:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Goumindong
And, if their role isn't that and then they have none, what role do you give them to keep them from obsolescence?
Oh FFS, why is this so hard for you to understand?
If you want to maximize pure speed and tackling ability, you fly an Ares.
If you want improved speed and tackling ability while keeping some ability to kill other frigates, you fly a Taranis.
If you want improved dps and tank to maximize frigate-killing ability but don't need speed and tackling ability beyond the basic frigate level, you fly an Ishkur or Enyo.
All four ships have a role, even if you're too stupid to understand it.
-----------
 |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 22:45:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Branko
The only problem non-worthless AFs (primarily Jaguar) have is price.
This is a personal valuation and not an objective one. Price is always a personal valuation and decreases in price can pretty much always justify the personal decision to use a product. Basic law of demand stuff here. Its better to ask whether or not the ship has a place within the game than ask whether or not you think its good to use at its current marginal costs. Giving the ship a place within the game will always induce some number of people to legitimately purchase the ship at its marginal cost. Modifying the cost will not(if the ship is dominated in effect such that no rational person chooses it)
Well, it is a personal valuation.
However I actually get my ISK killing stuff, so loss cost vs projected loot value from the average target you can predictably kill is a important factor there, and the things a AF can predictably kill are basically speaking other frigates/AFs.
The ship is not dominated completely by anything else (the Stabber is a failboat, seriously, the Thrasher actually covers the frigate killing part reasonably well but has a different set of advantages/disadvantages compared to it and ergo does not dominate it fully), it is just unreasonably priced for what is essentially just a combat frigate aimed at largely fighting other combat frigates.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.04.22 23:44:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/04/2010 23:45:52
Originally by: Goumindong
Such either AFs get new roles, or other ships get new roles.
You need to let go of this fixation on roles for ship classes, or rather look at it from a better angle.
There is no role per se for the interceptor class, or the AF class, or the t1 frigates, but rather a host of roles they are able to fill.
Some do that in a more specialized manner, i.e. tackle interceptors, some do this in a more generalized manner like AFs and combat interceptors (think 400mm buffer claw vs speedy gank claw).
For example, the taranis does not really have any significant advantage over a jaguar or a navy slicer as a frigate killer, but rather a slightly different approach (or focus) in filling the same niche, which one of the three is the best in a given scenario is situational.
Generally speaking, having a defined "role" is bad for a ship, having the ability to fill different niches is good for a ship.
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 02:34:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
All four ships have a role, even if you're too stupid to understand it.
You are not describing a role. You are describing an attribute. Attributes can lead to roles(or rather to achieving them), but do not necessitate it. You have to be able to understand this difference before you can look at the system as a whole.
To give an example with a physical object. I have a headset, its plastic, outputs between 10 and 20 db from my computer, has a microphone which records audio. These are attributes of the headset. The role of the headset is to let me communicate with others. The attributes of the headset do not matter except as they allow the headset to fulfill its role or restrict it from filling its role.
To give an example for a ship. The Moa does 400 dps and has 32,000 EHP! Look at these numbers compared to the 500 dps and 20k EHP of the Rupture, they're amazing!!! Except we have to ask how well these numbers allow each ship to perform their role and when we do that we find the Rupture much better since it performs a role better than the Moa.
You are describing the attributes of the ships without understanding of what those ships are used for, or how those uses interact.
Originally by: Cpt Branko
However I actually get my ISK killing stuff, so loss cost vs projected loot value from the average target you can predictably kill is a important factor there, and the things a AF can predictably kill are basically speaking other frigates/AFs.
But not necessarily everyone. People who do not PvP for profit, or see profits in other ways than personal may have a different valuation. Your comment about it "being a frigate that primarily kills other combat frigates" is important however, because those combat frigates, being faster and much more agile, should never reasonably be in situations where they can be killed by AFs. If AFs are boosted to the point where they represent a regular all purpose frigate then those combat frigates, being designed to kill other frigates will have role issues. If AFs are not boosted to that point then they suffer role issues in that they're unable to prosecute PvP upon anyone that is not playing poorly.
Its very similar to the short range cruiser vs BC issue. The only advantage that short range cruisers have compared to BCs is that they're worse than BCs(as of current). The only advantage that AFs would then have is that stupid people engage them. Which is frankly a terrible role to have. Originally by: Omara Otawan
You need to let go of this fixation on roles for ship classes, or rather look at it from a better angle.
No. Roles and filling roles is important. Without ships designed to fill roles you will fall into situations where ships dominate others. At that might you may as well delete the poor ships from the game
Quote:
Generally speaking, having a defined "role" is bad for a ship, having the ability to fill different niches is good for a ship.
Not in the least, the best ships have clearly defined rules and are able to fulfill those roles better than any others.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 03:09:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Goumindong
You are describing the attributes of the ships without understanding of what those ships are used for, or how those uses interact.
Ah, classic Goumindong trolling. Good to know some things in life never change...
Since you seem to be incapable of understanding that I DID describe the roles (or too much of a nitpicking troll to offer an honest counter-argument) unless I add a giant flashing THIS IS THE ROLE OF THE SHIP sign next to everything, I'll make this very simple:
Combat (IOW, not ewar/covops) frigates have two (yes, two, believe it or not some ships have multiple roles) roles:
1) Tackle the target ship before it can escape.
2) Kill hostile frigates that are attempting to do the same to your side.
Tackle inties are almost entirely focused on the first role.
AFs are focused on the second role.
Combat inties are a balance between the two roles.
All three ship classes have a purpose. The only problem with the frigate classes is that the execution of these roles needs work (ex: the one-mid Retribution). The solution is to fix the problem ships to fill their appropriate roles better, not to scrap them entirely and replace them with smartbombs.
Now you have no excuse to continue hiding behind bull**** about "attributes".
-----------
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 03:10:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 23/04/2010 03:14:23
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Omara Otawan
You need to let go of this fixation on roles for ship classes, or rather look at it from a better angle.
No. Roles and filling roles is important.
That is not what I said, I'm saying your concept of what a "role" is and how ships fill them is faulty.
Define a role as something a ship can be equipped to fullfil but isnt forced to do, it works better that way.
(Edit: the poster above me explains it quite well with the frigate example, although in a simplified manner since the overlap is significant for certain ships, i.e. Claw vs Taranis vs Jaguar vs Ishkur for example.)
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote:
Generally speaking, having a defined "role" is bad for a ship, having the ability to fill different niches is good for a ship.
Not in the least, the best ships have clearly defined rules and are able to fulfill those roles better than any others.
That isnt true, in fact the "best" ships (if there even is something like that) are able to fill a variety of roles depending on their fitting.
Look at the Hurricane for example, not exactly the best at any given role, but its versatility to fill many makes it a great ship.
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 09:08:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Since you seem to be incapable of understanding that I DID describe the roles
Merin. I am not a mind reader. When you say "this ship is fast, see it has a role" typically what people see is "this ship is fast, see it has a role". Just like when you claimed "i never said to boost rockets and light missiles 50-100% (I only said to boost rockets 50-100% [maybe depending on the bonus of a single ship])" was some defense against people thinking you wanted to boost rocket and light missile damage by 50-100% and were shocked because of how ridiculous that proposition is.
Anyway, lets get on to the meat of it and for ease of discussion lets you your framework. There are roughly two roles for frigates. One of those roles involves getting an initial point on a target, and the other role involves killing another frigate attempting to get an initial point on a target. Frigates move between achieving these two roles in varying capacity with players choosing whichever combination of the roles they need to achieve.
When attempting to do anything that is adversarial, the ability of the ship to do that depends both on the qualities of that ship and the qualities of the ships they're attempting to act upon. Within the above framework, the ability to get a tackle depends on the speed of the target, the size of the target and the ability of the target to destroy frigates(since we're talking about ships that frigates tackle). The ability to kill a frigate depends on the speed of frigates, the tank of frigates, and the dps of frigates, as well as the qualities of the ship in question.
This means that, within the framework, if we hold one thing the same(the strength of combat interceptors) and modify other things (say the speed, dps, and tank, of AFs) positively, then the ability of the interceptors to achieve the role of "killing other frigates" will necessarily go down. Such, even if we accept that combat interceptor do not have a singular role, we must accept that boosting AFs will weaken them in one of them.
With that being said, I don't think that these roles accurately describe combat within EVE for frigates. Really there are three roles. To get initial tackle, to kill other frigates, and to stop frigates from tackling.
The discrepancy comes in that AFs roughly do the third role (rather than hunting frigates down, they let frigates come to them and then kill them) and combat inties do the second. You are ignoring that the second role is just as well achieved by destroyers and dictors(and some cruisers) and less so by ships that achieve role 2(and this is what makes AFs bad*). You are wanting to boost AFs into the role of hunting rather than the role of defending. When doing that you're necessarily taking away the role from combat inties.
So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what framework you're using, whether its tri-role or dual role, if you're boosting AFs in that role then you're taking it away from combat interceptors.
*Bad does not mean that they cannot be used, there are often people who do not understand the framework in question. In poker, you would call these people "easy money". In EVE they're people who fly into AFs rather than run away when they know they can't beat the raw tank/gank. Or people who fly AFs instead of cruisers or dictors or combat inties when they want to keep fast ships from getting initial tackles when in gangs. Originally by: Omara Otawan
That isnt true, in fact the "best" ships (if there even is something like that) are able to fill a variety of roles depending on their fitting.
Look at the Hurricane for example, not exactly the best at any given role, but its versatility to fill many makes it a great ship.
Actually the Hurricane is best at a lot of roles(not all of them). And that is what makes it a great ship.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 10:27:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 23/04/2010 10:37:04
Originally by: Goumindong
Your comment about it "being a frigate that primarily kills other combat frigates" is important however, because those combat frigates, being faster and much more agile, should never reasonably be in situations where they can be killed by AFs. If AFs are boosted to the point where they represent a regular all purpose frigate then those combat frigates, being designed to kill other frigates will have role issues. If AFs are not boosted to that point then they suffer role issues in that they're unable to prosecute PvP upon anyone that is not playing poorly.
Actually, frigates largely cannot catch other frigates if they do not choose to fight but rather want to escape immediately, except in specific situations (where AF will do just fine) such as landing on plex gates or other celestials in tackle range.
If you wish to avoid combat, you will simply warp away when seeing a tackler on directional scanner, with frigate warp times being <3s it is virtually impossible to get caught unless sleeping at the wheel (and in fact, if you watch d-scan even if you're tackling another ship you have ample time to burn away and gtfo). A lot of the frigate combat is consensual to a large degree in the sense that both parties want a fight for one reason or another.
Once combat is initiated, any short range frigate has to fight in full tackle range or it's not doing anything, and any long range frigate you need to fully tackle to kill, but ships like the. eg. Jaguar have a fair chance at this. Much like speedy HACs don't get to disengage from BCs all the time despite being faster and more agile in EFT, faster frigates don't get to disengage from the AF every time once combat started.
The comparison between short range cruiser vs BC when we discuss other combat frigate vs AF does not hold water, since the BC is superior in virtually all scenarios and the other combat frigate is not (it is very dead if a AF gets full tackle).
The good AFs are solid frigate killers, but not instant win. The bad AFs are worthless and need to get boosted to the level of good AFs. Once you do that, the only real valid complaint is price (which IS a valid complaint anyway; given they have large role/skills/etc overlap with combat ceptors they should logically cost equally as combat ceptors do).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 10:55:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Actually, frigates largely cannot catch other frigates if they do not choose to fight but rather want to escape immediately, except in specific situations (where AF will do just fine) such as landing on plex gates or other celestials in tackle range.
You're ignoring a lot of important situations that occur during combat(such as catching orbiting long tacklers) Quote:
Once combat is initiated, any short range frigate has to fight in full tackle range or it's not doing anything
And any short range frigate that is faster than you should not engage knowing it can't win per the above. This situation only happens if the other pilot doesn't know the rules of the game Quote:
and any long range frigate you need to fully tackle to kill, but ships like the. eg. Jaguar have a fair chance at this.
Not really, no. @ 3300m/s you're barely as fast as a long frig that isn't overloading when the jaguar is and you're not nearly as agile(5.8 sec align in that fit compared to 4.5 for a crow). You should not ever get close enough to tackle them unless they don't understand the rules of the game.
People not knowing the rules of the game is not a reason to have ships with attributes that can win in those situations(if there are other ships that can also win in those situations) Quote:
The comparison between short range cruiser vs BC when we discuss other combat frigate vs AF does not hold water, since the BC is superior in virtually all scenarios and the other combat frigate is not (it is very dead if a AF gets full tackle).
Not sure what you're saying here. It seems like you're switching which ship is which when you should not be or not when you ought.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 11:09:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Goumindong
Not really, no. @ 3300m/s you're barely as fast as a long frig that isn't overloading when the jaguar is and you're not nearly as agile(5.8 sec align in that fit compared to 4.5 for a crow). You should not ever get close enough to tackle them unless they don't understand the rules of the game.
In theory Vagabonds never get tackled by BCs either.
Originally by: Goumindong
Not sure what you're saying here. It seems like you're switching which ship is which when you should not be or not when you ought.
I'm saying that the comparison between AFs and other combat frigates is not analogous to the comparison between short range cruisers and BCs (which do practically everything better). Which you said somewhere above.
A short range cruiser is only better then a BC for the express purpose of coaxing a fight. It has such a minor advantage when it comes to lockspeed that it doesn't really enable you to tackle more ship classes reliably. Whatever the cruiser does, its only hope of surviving the encounter lies in disengaging.
A, eg. Jaguar is better then other combat frigates for shortrange combat and situations where it will reliably win vs one exist.
Therefore the analogy does not hold water.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.23 12:33:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
In theory Vagabonds never get tackled by BCs either.
Nor do failfits exist. Neither means that we should balance based on people fitting them.
Quote:
A, eg. Jaguar is better then other combat frigates for shortrange combat and situations where it will reliably win vs one exist.
Therefore the analogy does not hold water.
I see the miscommunication here. I believe i was trying to say that if you boost AFs to be valuable they will be roughly in that area.
That being said, those situations you discuss should not be happening, and when that is true the example works both ways.
But I understand the complaint with the analogy and its problematic enough that I wont use it again(barring a bad memory)
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 20:06:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Faffywaffy
The font - it burns my eyes.
When it comes to PVP, Faffy's words are golden.
Also, I'm baffled by Goum's professed love of local tanked, high EHP ship fits when he fits them like this.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 20:23:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Bagehi
When it comes to PVP, Faffy's words are golden.
Certain kinds of PVP, yes absolutely - I've defended his frigate prowess many times. But I don't know that I'd say he's that much of an expert at fitting cruisers and battlecruisers....
Cynabal with warp scrambler
Dual tanked nano cane... with scrambler
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 20:31:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Goumindong on 26/04/2010 20:32:51
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Faffywaffy
The font - it burns my eyes.
When it comes to PVP, Faffy's words are golden.
Also, I'm baffled by Goum's professed love of local tanked, high EHP ship fits when he fits them like this.
I don't get it. The age when rigs were expensive i flew a ship unlikely to be targeted first that still had plenty of EHP(its actually fleet efficient for someone without t2 RCUs and without rigs). If you add tri-marks to that its 362 DPS, 94k EHP(which was very good for our stated engagement range). If instead you sacrifice the heat sink you do not gain as much EHP as DPS that you lose(dps drops to 302). Now if you have RCU IIs you can up that to tachyons, but I didn't at the time.
RR was offline. It was a sniping engagement(actually multiple engagements). Ship loss was pilot error (had drifted too far outside shields and did not realize it in time to warp out)
Edit: Oh, and I've never said that RR wasn't good. I've said that local reps are underutilized. So is RR in fact.
--
Did you get that thing i sent you? |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 20:49:00 -
[113]
Edited by: Bagehi on 26/04/2010 20:56:00
Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 26/04/2010 20:37:29
Originally by: Bagehi
Originally by: Faffywaffy
The font - it burns my eyes.
When it comes to PVP, Faffy's words are golden.
Also, I'm baffled by Goum's professed love of local tanked, high EHP ship fits when he fits them like this.
I don't get it. The age when rigs were expensive i flew a ship unlikely to be targeted first that still had plenty of EHP(its actually fleet efficient for someone without t2 RCUs and without rigs). If you add tri-marks to that its 362 DPS, 94k EHP(which was very good for our stated engagement range). If instead you sacrifice the heat sink you do not gain as much EHP as DPS that you lose(dps drops to 302). Now if you have RCU IIs you can up that to tachyons, but I didn't at the time.
RR was offline. It was a sniping engagement(actually multiple engagements). Ship loss was pilot error (had drifted too far outside shields and did not realize it in time to warp out)
Edit: Oh, and I've never said that RR wasn't good. I've said that local reps are underutilized. So is RR in fact.
Edit 2: Wow, That Hurricane is really bad.
The under-utilization of local and remote reps occurs right around the time enemy fleet numbers break about 50. It goes back to that "EHP past a certain point is inefficient" - ships die before their fleet mates can lock them to rep them and local reps simply cannot do anything against focused fire, warping out is the only way to survive.
Your fits (from what I see) show you understand this, contrary to what you say on the forums. Fleet sniper tanks beyond a certain point are a waste of modules. That fit was during a time when everything had to be DD tanked, and that fit is just barely that.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Faffywaffy
The font - it burns my eyes.
Originally by: Bagehi
When it comes to PVP, Faffy's words are golden.
Certain kinds of PVP, yes absolutely - I've defended his frigate prowess many times.
It was actually meant as a joke, as his words of wisdom on this discussion about PVP were about the font.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 21:01:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Bagehi
When it comes to PVP, Faffy's words are golden.
Certain kinds of PVP, yes absolutely - I've defended his frigate prowess many times. But I don't know that I'd say he's that much of an expert at fitting cruisers and battlecruisers....
Cynabal with warp scrambler
Dual tanked nano cane... with scrambler
-Liang
Good grief Liang. That was pretty harsh. At least wait until Faffy says something before droping a nuke.... 
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 21:13:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Bagehi
The under-utilization of local and remote reps occurs right around the time enemy fleet numbers break about 50. It goes back to that "EHP past a certain point is inefficient" - ships die before their fleet mates can lock them to rep them and local reps simply cannot do anything against focused fire, warping out is the only way to survive.
Actually it should have nothing to do with enemy fleet numbers but your own numbers. Local reps and Remote Reps are underutilized in most combats regardless. (Yes, if your fleet is large you should not be using either)
Since you're going to attempt to disengage against an overwhelming force anyway, all that matters against them is tank to the point where you can leave. For the most part, you're either screwed or that happens within about 30 seconds to 1 minute. Within that timeframe, the difference between tanks on ships is pretty much nill. If you're caught you're mostly all dead. If not then either tank doesn't save you.
On the other side if enemy numbers are low, again your tank doesn't much matter. After all, you're not likely to be shot. Such fitting considerations only make much of a difference in roughly equal fights(unless they increase the ability to create an unequal fight). And in those cases you expect enemies to have roughly equal strength compared to your own. Such, you fit based on your gang size and not a theoretical other gang size in order to maximize effectiveness.
There can be exceptions to this, but they're few and far between, since we can reasonably make the assumption that a gang able to beat a much larger one will also beat one of the same size
Quote:
Your fits (from what I see) show you understand this, contrary to what you say on the forums. Fleet sniper tanks beyond a certain point are a waste of modules. That fit was during a time when everything had to be DD tanked, and that fit is just barely that.
And still maximizing effectiveness. Low EHP is OK if its compensated for by higher DPS. Unless you are talking about the "lol locus" rigged ships. But that was another issue all together.
If i were to fly that Abaddon today it would be 391 DPS w/ Tachyons, and 94k EHP @ 150km (or 320 @ 165, but in that case I would go with the Apoc due to engagement range advantages). That is 2 or 1 heat sink, not 3.
--
Did you get that thing i sent you? |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 21:42:00 -
[116]
While I do appreciate the effort put into this, and some of the ideas are really well thought through.
I fear that the smart bomb AF's will not be used except for popping eggs, something not generally useful. I would be a bit sore about losing the jag in such a way.
I think that problems with local tank should not be fixed by removing it altogether, though I like your views on fitting requirements.
I think that taking the speed elements away from the cyna and vaga is a Bad Thing, while the cyna might need an adjustment, better change a bit of slot and grid. I do not think the vaga needs an adjustment. The dram is slowed down too much as well.
The removal of tiers is something sorely needed, I support that fully.
Boosting t1 logistics is a very good plan, though ECCM would be logically used not by Amarr, but Gallente, and in lesser amount, Minmatar ships (they fight Caldari, and thus eccm)
I do not think T2's should have the skill reqs migitated, it takes a while, but meta 4 can do the same in many cases.
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 21:48:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Goumindong on 26/04/2010 21:52:18
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I think that problems with local tank should not be fixed by removing it altogether
Not sure where I suggested this. Quote:
I think that taking the speed elements away from the cyna and vaga is a Bad Thing, while the cyna might need an adjustment, better change a bit of slot and grid. I do not think the vaga needs an adjustment. The dram is slowed down too much as well.
Its a slight tweak that I don't think will have much consequences. They're still going to be much faster than anything else, but removes a touch of their ability to overlap with frigates. The dram indeed needs to be brought down in speed hard. Its current stats are utterly ridiculous, there is a reason that everyone flies it. Quote:
Boosting t1 logistics is a very good plan, though ECCM would be logically used not by Amarr, but Gallente, and in lesser amount, Minmatar ships (they fight Caldari, and thus eccm)
ECCM was given to the Maller because they've got nothing else to really go there that wouldn't be absolutely terrible though I do see the point. Quote:
I do not think T2's should have the skill reqs migitated, it takes a while, but meta 4 can do the same in many cases.
What do you mean "do the same in many cases"?
--
Did you get that thing i sent you? |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 22:05:00 -
[118]
I am sorry, partly I was looking at the align/speed combo as that is a crux in this thread The align now is less with mwd than yours without. (all 5, 10Mn FN MWD)
I did not recall seeing any bonii on active tanking, thought they were all replaced by resist bonii. (looking again I still found one, but most are replaced). On the Mael I like the shieldboost bonus, it is a boon to missioners, but also to those in small fleets or near gate guns.
The meta 4 guns and launchers have the same specs save for fitting t2 ammo, the meta 4 plates are better then t2, save for resists, meta 4 is an expensive way (though sub faction expensive) to maximise your output when you do not have t2 skill.
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:45:00 -
[119]
Sorry for taking so long.
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I am sorry, partly I was looking at the align/speed combo as that is a crux in this thread The align now is less with mwd than yours without. (all 5, 10Mn FN MWD)
Yes. That was intended. Currently the ship aligns faster than many frigates. Quote:
I did not recall seeing any bonii on active tanking, thought they were all replaced by resist bonii. (looking again I still found one, but most are replaced). On the Mael I like the shieldboost bonus, it is a boon to missioners, but also to those in small fleets or near gate guns.
Resistance bonuses increase both active tanking and passive tanking. The change in bonus type solidifies the tanking paradigms. These were not changed at the large ship levels due to problems that it can cause (frankly no one really wants to see a 10% HP/level Rokh or Abaddon) and since increasing hit points is less important the larger your ship gets(still important, but less so) due to relative DPS levels Quote:
The meta 4 guns and launchers have the same specs save for fitting t2 ammo, the meta 4 plates are better then t2, save for resists, meta 4 is an expensive way (though sub faction expensive) to maximise your output when you do not have t2 skill.
Yes, and the advantages that you get from going to T2 still break the diminishing returns base assumption of the game.
--
Did you get that thing i sent you? |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.04.29 06:39:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Goumindong
Sorry for taking so long.
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I am sorry, partly I was looking at the align/speed combo as that is a crux in this thread The align now is less with mwd than yours without. (all 5, 10Mn FN MWD)
Yes. That was intended. Currently the ship aligns faster than many frigates.
Well, it does turn a bit faster then mining frigs, but this is a bit much, as it stands there are two options over frig level for those who wish their spaceships to move faster than a school bus, the cynabal and the vagabond, completely killing one of those would make me sad.
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zilberfrid
I did not recall seeing any bonii on active tanking, thought they were all replaced by resist bonii. (looking again I still found one, but most are replaced). On the Mael I like the shieldboost bonus, it is a boon to missioners, but also to those in small fleets or near gate guns.
Resistance bonuses increase both active tanking and passive tanking. The change in bonus type solidifies the tanking paradigms. These were not changed at the large ship levels due to problems that it can cause (frankly no one really wants to see a 10% HP/level Rokh or Abaddon) and since increasing hit points is less important the larger your ship gets(still important, but less so) due to relative DPS levels
The change in mechanics does make minnie and gallente better, but it also breaks their racial distinction, improving the active tanks would be better (maybe improving it to 10%, but the lower fitting costs are an excellent idea as well, maybe alongside)
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Zilberfrid
The meta 4 guns and launchers have the same specs save for fitting t2 ammo, the meta 4 plates are better then t2, save for resists, meta 4 is an expensive way (though sub faction expensive) to maximise your output when you do not have t2 skill.
Yes, and the advantages that you get from going to T2 still break the diminishing returns base assumption of the game.
T2 requires a heavier skill investment, the fact that skill can compensate isk is something I like.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |