| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Chronotis
    |
Posted - 2010.09.28 13:35:00 -
[1]
Sisi will soon be updated later today or tomorrow with our first phase rocket changes for feedback. The changes focus on increasing the ability for rockets to hit faster moving targets for greater damage whilst also gaining a little more alpha as we have made the rate of fire slower whilst increasing the rocket damage in order to ease the server performance hit currently incurred through missile usage and increasing the capacity of the rocket launchers so each magazine holds more now increasing the time between reloads.
Rocket Changes
- Rocket Damage has been increased by ~32%
- Rocket Launcher Rate of Fire has been decreased (slower) by 25%
- Rocket Launcher capacity has been increased by ~25%
- Rocket Explosion velocity has been increased from 85m/s to 150m/s
Ship Changes
We are going to experiment with some ship changes related to this and put some trial changes on the test server for a few weeks. This change focuses on the hawk for now seen as the one needing more teeth in its role where it is much less able to keep ships within range and not maneuverable like the other frigate hulls. There could be a few more changes in the future, there are a few more ships which could get further changes to them but the idea for now is let this sit on sisi a few weeks for feedback.
Hawk Changes
- +5% kinetic missile bonus changed to +10%
- +3mw powergrid
Please leave constructive feedback regarding these changes here and we will check back often. We will add any new changes in green if they occur over the weeks ahead.
|
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 14:05:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 28/09/2010 14:14:02
Afraid it's a bit too much of a boost. (Actually not. Still 6.6% reload effect and net DPS increase from explosion radius mainly. RAW DPS is increased very marginally) But, we'll see. Can't wait for it!
--
Thanks CCP for cu |
Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 15:12:00 -
[3]
I have no idea what fit you had in mind that would require more PG on the Hawk, added CPU on the other hand would be really useful.
|
Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 15:30:00 -
[4]
That explosive velocity is still laughably low for a frigate weapon, firing that against an ABing ship doing around a kilometer a second will still be terrible.
 |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 15:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Helicity Boson
That explosive velocity is still laughably low for a frigate weapon, firing that against an ABing ship doing around a kilometer a second will still be terrible.
Explosion velocity is not directly translated to target velocity for damage scaling. A 1-1 ratio is not required for effect and since missiles always hit versus turret tracking which can miss, having a constant 70+ DPS beating down on a ship is a big no. We won't be returning to the days or rocket crows > rest. It is better if you jump onto sisi and try it out rather than doing paper exercises with too many false assumptions.
|
|
Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 15:49:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Zach Donnell on 28/09/2010 15:51:22
For those looking for some raw numbers, I dug up this spreadsheet that was done just after the missile dmg formula change in quantum rise
Credit for the Spreadsheet goes to Stafen
Link here: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0810/Missile_Damage.zip
You can enter the updated values to get an idea what you are looking at in terms of applied dps.
EDIT: CCP Chronotis, I eagerly await to test the changes, but I do have to ask. Was changing the hawks bonus to a shield resist bonus instead a boost bonus (as per all other caldari tank bonus ships) ever considered?
-------------------------------------------------
"Bustin' makes me feel good!" |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:00:00 -
[7]
Thanks for at least heading in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough.
Light missiles have 4x the range and a subject to a minuscule 14% damage reduction compared to your new rockets (same damage as now, RoF and Dmg changes even out).. and they still have better explosion velocity.
There will still be no reason to use rockets if you have the CPU .. <10km is the single most deadly engagement range in all of eve, if I am to use a weapon that ONLY works in there it had better damn well be worth it or I'll stay at disruptor range and do roughly the same damage.
|
Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Thanks for at least heading in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough.
Light missiles have 4x the range and a subject to a minuscule 14% damage reduction compared to your new rockets (same damage as now, RoF and Dmg changes even out).. and they still have better explosion velocity.
There will still be no reason to use rockets if you have the CPU .. <10km is the single most deadly engagement range in all of eve, if I am to use a weapon that ONLY works in there it had better damn well be worth it or I'll stay at disruptor range and do roughly the same damage.
I think you should do a bit more research, before making such clearly uninformed posts. You will do far more than 14% more damage with one web and rockets then no web and standard launchers.
-------------------------------------------------
"Bustin' makes me feel good!" |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:25:00 -
[9]
Increasing the explosion velocity to 150 m/s gives 225 m/s after TNP V. The explosion radius of 20 m means that a 40-m-sig frigate such as a Jaguar would have to travel at 450 m/s to receive damage mitigation. In comparison, a Jag with an overheated AB and an ODI II can do ~600 m/s webbed, receiving ~85% damage (without the web, ~46%). In comparison, with the current TQ rockets, these numbers are 58% and 32% (lol).
Raw damage has only increased by ~5.6%, but it's MUCH easier to apply it to an ABing target - which is where the main problem was. I am, however, kinda disappointed that the DRF has not been changed. As seen with the percentages of damage mitigation above, a web is absolutely essential on a rocket ship, both for keeping your target out of its turret optimal and for actually applying your damage. This not only leads to predictable fits and tactics, but excludes two-medslot frigates such as the Inquisitor and Condor from being usable rocket platforms.
|
pmchem
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:28:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Zach Donnell
I think you should do a bit more research, before making such clearly uninformed posts. You will do far more than 14% more damage with one web and rockets then no web and standard launchers.
Relying on a web is an iffy proposition. The frigates you want to kill the most are interceptors or pirate frigates (dramiels), and they can usually just burn out of web range pretty easily. Unless you want to start talking about how you need a scram and double web, and THEN rockets are pretty good! Well, the weapon system you're using matters a lot less when someone is scrammed and double webbed.
Rockets should stand on their own merits, not "well, if target X has effects Y and Z on him..." sort of scenarios.
|
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:37:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 28/09/2010 16:41:16
Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 28/09/2010 16:39:51
Rockets in general:
Not enough of a change. Increasing dps to frigates (through explosion velocity/radius/drf) is needed, but raw dps is also needed so that they can do non-comedy dps to larger targets. The increase in the Hawk's damage bonus is a nice start, but that still leaves the Vengeance/Heretic/Crow/Flycatcher severely lacking in dps.
Also, the fundamental flaw of range is still there. Not only are rockets too limited in their theoretical range, they never actually get it. Missiles launch straight forward, and don't turn to track the target right away. For most missiles this is not a problem, but the short flight time of rockets means that you're spending a high percentage of your total range in the wrong direction, and then even more of your range correcting that mistake.
The Hawk:
Dps is nice, but this isn't even close to enough to fix the Hawk. Currently it needs the following things:
1) MUCH more fitting room. It doesn't have enough grid for a medium extender tank, it doesn't have enough CPU to fit damage mods, and it can't fit light missiles at all without crippling everything else. Much of the reason why the Hawk's dps output is so pathetic is because you don't have enough CPU to fit any damage mods to increase it.
2) The shield boost bonus changed to a resist bonus. Besides the carebear-focused Golem, the Hawk is the only Caldari ship that has a Minmatar boost bonus instead of the Caldari resist bonus. Even if you personally don't follow the general trend of buffer tanks over active tanks, the Hawk should have the ability to do both.
3) The missing fourth AF bonus, preferably in the form of missile velocity/precision so that the Hawk can effectively engage from outside web range. Talking about dps against webbed targets is nice, but it isn't an option for the Hawk. Remember, this is a four-mid shield tanker, if you're fitting webs and scrams then you aren't going to have the tank to survive at close range.
4) Light missiles fixed as well. It's important for frigates in general, but especially for Caldari frigates since they're supposed to focus on fighting at range. TBH the Hawk's worth depends FAR more on light missiles being fixed than rockets being fixed (which is more of a gift to the Vengeance).
For a guide to the required fitting, this setup would be appropriate (and if you move the useless high slot to a LOW (yes, low) slot and add enough CPU for a damage control, I will love you forever):
[Hawk, I WISH]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 200
Medium Shield Extender II
Warp Disruptor II
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
[empty high slot]
[empty rig slot]
[empty rig slot]
Note that a railgun Harpy can use the exact same fit in the mid/low slots, so it isn't an unreasonable request.
-----------
 |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:42:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Zach Donnell
I think you should do a bit more research, before making such clearly uninformed posts. You will do far more than 14% more damage with one web and rockets then no web and standard launchers.
Will be entirely dependent on how big of a boost they give the rock ships themselves, actually better to have most of the bonus on ships to avoid the 20km rigged rocket Crow or giving ships like Rifters an extraordinary damage boost.
My Slicers currently do 140@20km and 175@7km. Even with a web a Vengeance will not even get close to breaking me before its in hull and pops.
Exactly the same goes for all other gunboats on the frig scale, rocket damage it quite simply far too low for them to be competitive with guns regardless of how many webs you use.
Changing exp.vel. will not change that in any significant way except when it comes to gang fights where webs can be deployed by anyone.
|
Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 16:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: pmchem
Originally by: Zach Donnell
I think you should do a bit more research, before making such clearly uninformed posts. You will do far more than 14% more damage with one web and rockets then no web and standard launchers.
Relying on a web is an iffy proposition. The frigates you want to kill the most are interceptors or pirate frigates (dramiels), and they can usually just burn out of web range pretty easily. Unless you want to start talking about how you need a scram and double web, and THEN rockets are pretty good! Well, the weapon system you're using matters a lot less when someone is scrammed and double webbed.
Rockets should stand on their own merits, not "well, if target X has effects Y and Z on him..." sort of scenarios.
I agree with some points, but still disagree to a good extent. There is plenty more to kill than what you suggested, I don't live in null. And I never suggested double webs, that is clearly a problem currently. No one is denying that. But rockets are meant to be used in scram and web range, I can't see how your argument is even valid tbh. They don't have the range to extend much further 13km. (And shouldn't ffs, they already extend far beyond any other close range weapon system)
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 28/09/2010 16:50:19
Originally by: Zach Donnell
I think you should do a bit more research, before making such clearly uninformed posts. You will do far more than 14% more damage with one web and rockets then no web and standard launchers.
Will be entirely dependent on how big of a boost they give the rock ships themselves, actually better to have most of the bonus on ships to avoid the 20km rigged rocket Crow or giving ships like Rifters an extraordinary damage boost.
My Slicers currently do 140@20km and 175@7km. Even with a web a Vengeance will not even get close to breaking me before its in hull and pops.
Exactly the same goes for all other gunboats on the frig scale, rocket damage it quite simply far too low for them to be competitive with guns regardless of how many webs you use.
Changing exp.vel. will not change that in any significant way except when it comes to gang fights where webs can be deployed by anyone.
I would much rather have rocks be frigate torpedoes with high base damage and poor velocities. Reward the ship that takes to fight into certain-death range.
Would also solve what Merin mentions with rockets being pitiful against anything bigger than a frigate.
But without more planned ship changes further theorizing is pointless so, meh.
Changing explosion velocity will help greatly, (but so would changing the DRF ccp  ). I think mini torps would be an interesting concept, but these changes will go a long way to making them an effective weapon system.
-------------------------------------------------
"Bustin' makes me feel good!" |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 17:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Zach Donnell
They don't have the range to extend much further 13km. (And shouldn't ffs, they already extend far beyond any other close range weapon system)
Actually they can. A range rigged Hawk/Crow/Heretic can, at least in theory, hit almost 20km with rockets. The only problem is that the broken flight time of rockets I mentioned above, you might in theory have 20km range, but in reality you'll be lucky to hit 10km.
Quote:
I think mini torps would be an interesting concept, but these changes will go a long way to making them an effective weapon system.
IMO, mini torps aren't the way to go. I'd like to see some improved damage against larger targets as well as against frigates, but stealth bombers already fill the "mini torp" role well enough to make that kind of rocket boost redundant.
-----------
|
Zach Donnell
Ghost-Busters
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 17:20:00 -
[15]
Yes, I realize rigging it can give you some decent in EFT but for various reasons, one of which you mention, it is rarely that far in reality. Plus this is the role of standard launchers.
And as far as the mini torps, I thought it was interesting, not that I really want to see it :)
I would like to spend some time to learn the formula in depth and tweak the numbers, Ideally imo they should be able to apply some decent dps to larger ships. I think a more significant DPS boost, a bit less explosion velocity than proposed but a decrease in the Damage Reduction Factor (DRF) could create for some interesting options.
Either way it's all pretty meaningless until we actually get to play with them on SiSi.
-------------------------------------------------
"Bustin' makes me feel good!" |
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Black Storm Cartel
The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 17:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hawk Changes
- +5% kinetic missile bonus changed to +10%
- +3mw powergrid
Many thanks for taking a look at the hawk   
Could you please tell us what role you intend the hawk to fill, this will be very useful to know if we are to give feedback from sisi. I assume it's meant to fill one of the roles you outlined in the rocket thread?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
One approach we have explored a little is splitting the varieties more to give a more distinct difference in role so one may be remain the armoured gank 'mini-hac' whilst the other might fulfill a heavy tackler role perhaps as one idea to cover the two main scenarios and potential roles.
One of the hawk's main problems has always been that it lacks the damage to be a mini-hac and lacks the mid/low slots to be a heavy tackler. The damage boost you're suggesting would imply that it's meant to be a mini-hac?
If this is the case then I assume you're intending for the tank bonus and rocket Ev increase to make up for the disparity in DPS between the improved hawk and the likes of the wolf or ishkur? (about 100dps difference according to my rough calculations).
Sorry for all the questions, I'm quite excited about seeing the hawk get some love so will be happy to test it, however a little guidance from you about its intended role would be appreciated. 
_______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 17:52:00 -
[17]
The 10% kinetic bonus for the Hawk is very welcome indeed.
But the extra PG is slightly baffling. The rocket Hawk doesn't really have a problem with PG - you can fit a SSB, MWD, rockets and a Nos. Only when you try to fit an MSE instead do you hit PG problems, but not only is this not surprising, but it's also not difficult to fix with a MAPC. I don't think the SML fit has fundamental PG problems either - yeah, fitting a cap booster is tricky, but again a small ACR rig or MAPC solves that, unless you want a MSE on, in which case the proposed PG boost doesn't really help anyway.
I've always considered the Hawk to have greater trouble with CPU. For example, this rocket fit is 13 CPU short, despite using expensive low-CPU tackle:
[Hawk, New Setup 1]
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
Small Shield Booster II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
[empty rig slot]
[empty rig slot]
and this SML fit is 10 CPU short:
[Hawk, SML]
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Ballistic Control System II
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
Small Shield Booster II
Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 100
Warp Disruptor II
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
[empty high slot]
Small Ancillary Current Router I
[empty rig slot]
I'd much rather have 15-20 CPU more, instead of the PG.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:03:00 -
[18]
keep in mind that rocket have low fitting requirements.
you cant pretend they will be comparable to torps or HAMs unless you change the fitting requirements.
rockets on sisi are ok they hit their intended targets well enough.
|
Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:16:00 -
[19]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Helicity Boson
That explosive velocity is still laughably low for a frigate weapon, firing that against an ABing ship doing around a kilometer a second will still be terrible.
Explosion velocity is not directly translated to target velocity for damage scaling. A 1-1 ratio is not required for effect and since missiles always hit versus turret tracking which can miss, having a constant 70+ DPS beating down on a ship is a big no. We won't be returning to the days or rocket crows > rest. It is better if you jump onto sisi and try it out rather than doing paper exercises with too many false assumptions.
I'm not entirely moronic you know. I'm just stating that even with the proposed changes (which I think are a very good start) you are still doing abysmal damage to targets travelling at 1km+
According to the formulae known to us, you're still looking at doing about 33% of full damage to targets at this speed, and frankly that is very low.
They do good against mid speed range (67%+) but not amazing.
You only begin to approach full damage at speeds so low they make cruisers cry. So yeah, big improvement, but I'm not yet convinced we're quite there.
Also, no need to get so defensive buddy, guilty conscience?
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:25:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Helicity Boson
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Helicity Boson
That explosive velocity is still laughably low for a frigate weapon, firing that against an ABing ship doing around a kilometer a second will still be terrible.
Explosion velocity is not directly translated to target velocity for damage scaling. A 1-1 ratio is not required for effect and since missiles always hit versus turret tracking which can miss, having a constant 70+ DPS beating down on a ship is a big no. We won't be returning to the days or rocket crows > rest. It is better if you jump onto sisi and try it out rather than doing paper exercises with too many false assumptions.
I'm not entirely moronic you know. I'm just stating that even with the proposed changes (which I think are a very good start) you are still doing abysmal damage to targets travelling at 1km+
According to the formulae known to us, you're still looking at doing about 33% of full damage to targets at this speed, and frankly that is very low.
They do good against mid speed range (67%+) but not amazing.
You only begin to approach full damage at speeds so low they make cruisers cry. So yeah, big improvement, but I'm not yet convinced we're quite there.
Also, no need to get so defensive buddy, guilty conscience?
this apply to turrets as well if a ship orbit you at 1000 ms you will hardly hit it.
|
|
Vrabac
Zawa's Fan Club
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:26:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Helicity Boson
I'm not entirely moronic you know.
You are, however.
|
Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:27:00 -
[22]
Originally by: 1600 RT
this apply to turrets as well if a ship orbit you at 1000 ms you will hardly hit it.
aaaah but you can enhance that! some ships have bonuses (i.e. thrasher), you have tracking enhancers, tracking links, higher tracking ammo and so forth.
orbit my slicer at 1km/s...see if i hit you. the answer is _yes_
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Black Storm Cartel
The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:30:00 -
[23]
I'm trying to understand the logic behind the proposed changes to the hawk but not having much success. Correct me if I'm wrong but I see these as the parameters for a rocket hawk:
Mid Slots
- web required to do damage
- active tank required to use bonus
- speed mod to get in range
- scram to hold them in place
This would end up looking something like:
[Hawk, web active]
Ballistic Control System II
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Stasis Webifier II
Small Shield Booster II
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Note that with the current TQ hawk this build wouldn't work because it doesn't have enough CPU, there's actually 7.1 PG left - i.e. if you follow the parameters laid out by CCP then it requires a CPU boost not a PG one.
A PG boost would make sense if we were meant to buffer tank the hawk but then why does it have an active bonus? I don't understand what CCP are trying to achieve here.
The only sense I can make of it is for a light missile fit:
[Hawk, bright lights]
Ballistic Control System II
[empty low slot]
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
Warp Disruptor II
Micro Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 200
Small Shield Booster II
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
[empty high slot]
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
This fit is not remotely possible just now because even with two unused slots it's over on both CPU and PG. A 3MW increase to PG would allow you to use the above fit if you put a co-processor in the empty low, perhaps this is what CCP intends?
Still makes no sense to me.
_______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:33:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Helicity Boson
Originally by: 1600 RT
this apply to turrets as well if a ship orbit you at 1000 ms you will hardly hit it.
aaaah but you can enhance that! some ships have bonuses (i.e. thrasher), you have tracking enhancers, tracking links, higher tracking ammo and so forth.
orbit my slicer at 1km/s...see if i hit you. the answer is _yes_
thats the difference between missile and guns 
and dont forget the ships with tracking bonus give up 1 precious bonus, you want all the things in the weapons so you can actually have more bonus than the other ship?
im up for it but remove 1 bonus from ships that use missiles
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:38:00 -
[25]
Originally by: yani dumyat
I'm trying to understand the logic behind the proposed changes to the hawk but not having much success. Correct me if I'm wrong but I see these as the parameters for a rocket hawk:
Mid Slots
- web required to do damage
- active tank required to use bonus
- speed mod to get in range
- scram to hold them in place
This would end up looking something like:
[Hawk, web active]
Ballistic Control System II
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Stasis Webifier II
Small Shield Booster II
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Note that with the current TQ hawk this build wouldn't work because it doesn't have enough CPU, there's actually 7.1 PG left - i.e. if you follow the parameters laid out by CCP then it requires a CPU boost not a PG one.
A PG boost would make sense if we were meant to buffer tank the hawk but then why does it have an active bonus? I don't understand what CCP are trying to achieve here.
The only sense I can make of it is for a light missile fit:
[Hawk, bright lights]
Ballistic Control System II
[empty low slot]
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
Warp Disruptor II
Micro Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 200
Small Shield Booster II
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Bloodclaw Light Missile
[empty high slot]
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
This fit is not remotely possible just now because even with two unused slots it's over on both CPU and PG. A 3MW increase to PG would allow you to use the above fit if you put a co-processor in the empty low, perhaps this is what CCP intends?
Still makes no sense to me.
the 3 extra PG allow you to fit a medium shield booster tank w/o fitting mods
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Black Storm Cartel
The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 18:59:00 -
[26]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 28/09/2010 19:04:47
Originally by: 1600 RT
the 3 extra PG llow you to fit a medium shield booster tank w/o fitting mods
Going from my normal MSE fit which I find to be a hopeless dogfighter but passable as heavy tackle:
[Hawk, MS boost]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Medium Shield Booster II
Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 150
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Diminishing Power System Drain I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
A 3mw PG increase will allow me to change from a micro aux to a power diagnostics unit. Whoopty do. If I take off the nos then it will already fit without the need for a PG boost.
The biggest problem with the medium booster hawk is the vengeance:
[Vengeance, heavy tackle]
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
1MN MicroWarpdrive I
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 150
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Small Targeting System Subcontroller I
Small Targeting System Subcontroller I
Those two fits are very similar in terms of utility but the veng is faster, has better targeting, a better active tank and more EHP. It's just better. Theoretically the damage boost should give the hawk some sort of edge but there's so much spare fitting on the veng that adding damage rigs would be very easy.
First we need CCP Chronotis to tell us if the hawk's meant to be heavy tackle or a mini-hac, the damage boost hints towards mini-hac. To my mind the hawk screams out to be heavy tackle, especially as the harpy already fills the mini-hac role. The problem is that with a 5/4/2 slot layout it's never going to be any good as heavy tackle, especially when the veng can do anything the hawk can do but better.
_______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 19:00:00 -
[27]
Originally by: 1600 RT
thats the difference between missile and guns
Between frigate missiles and guns. This "tracking" problem does not exist for other missiles.
Quote:
the 3 extra PG allow you to fit a medium shield booster tank w/o fitting mods
Awesome, I can fit a useless active tank that I don't have enough cap to run. Oh wait, I can't, because I need to fit a scram and two webs to do effective damage, so I have no mid slots left for a booster.
-----------
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 19:05:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: 1600 RT
thats the difference between missile and guns
Between frigate missiles and guns. This "tracking" problem does not exist for other missiles.
Quote:
the 3 extra PG allow you to fit a medium shield booster tank w/o fitting mods
Awesome, I can fit a useless active tank that I don't have enough cap to run. Oh wait, I can't, because I need to fit a scram and two webs to do effective damage, so I have no mid slots left for a booster.
you are hopeless
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Black Storm Cartel
The Orca Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 19:20:00 -
[29]
Adding this suggestion for hawk changes:
Move utility high to a mid.
10% damage bonus.
+10TF to the CPU
This would allow you to fill CCP's requirements in terms of what you must fit to a hawk but would still require compromise if you wanted to use an oversize booster/extender or light missiles.
If it doesn't get a 5th mid then the active bonus must be changed for a resist bonus. If we don't get either an extra mid for active tanking or the resist bonus required for buffer tanking then a golden opportunity to fix this ship will slip through our fingers.
_______
Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.09.28 20:13:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
The Hawk:
2) The shield boost bonus changed to a resist bonus. Besides the carebear-focused Golem, the Hawk is the only Caldari ship that has a Minmatar boost bonus instead of the Caldari resist bonus. Even if you personally don't follow the general trend of buffer tanks over active tanks, the Hawk should have the ability to do both.
The problem there is that the Worm already has a shield resist and missile velocity bonus, so if the Hawk has both of those too we just end up with two shiptypes with converging bonuses tripping over each other (they even share a model!). You're right that the boost bonus should go in favour of something more useful, but honestly, rather than tweaking the Hawk now it might be better CCP leaving it alone for now and coming back to it as part of a comprehensive Assault Frigate review once they've figured out what exactly they want the shipclass to be.
Switching from a 5-4-2 to a 4-5-2 slot layout would be awesome though.
-----------------
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |