EVE Search - Feedback on Rocket Changes

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Feedback on Rocket Changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Suitonia Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.10.06 18:41:00 - [181] What about building in the cap recharge bonus into the Vengeance, and giving it 5% bonus to EM rocket damage per level? Seems like it would help it quite a bit on the damage front while not completely overshadowing the Hawk in versatility. ---
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.06 19:47:00 - [182] Quote: combat-covops That's a contradiction in terms. Quote: wheras you need to remember that fail Anathemas use rockets :P FYP. _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2010.10.06 21:13:00 - [183] Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Quote: combat-covops That's a contradiction in terms. I meant covops as ship class. And helios is quite capable of killing other frigs. Hell, lately I saw helios kill normal sabre (no, sabre wasnt afk) :)
Proxyyyy Caldari Sicariii	Posted - 2010.10.06 21:50:00 - [184] Not realy suprised by all of this; dont think these changes will effect how i setup and fly these ships, for the most part. The hawk on the other hand, has peaked my intrest(with the preposed changes). i dont have a problem active tanking a hawk (CCP might have just made a better Enyo). -thnks for the ban
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.06 23:44:00 - [185] I stepped away from the Hawk and tested the rocket Kestrel again. After my first attempts at a hull-tanked web-scrambler gank Kessie exploded violently, I tried a webless MSE MWD fit: [Kestrel, MSE MWD] Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Damage Control II Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Medium Shield Extender 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 Bay Loading Accelerator I Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Warhead Flare Catalyst I Standard Crash Booster Which was rather effective. Possibly too effective? Tactics were simple - to get a good MWD speed up, open fire early overloaded from the start, try to tackle at maximum range (ideally skipping out of scrambler range then returning but this was very hard to pull off in practice) then, once I got tackled back, to use inertia to maintain range as long as possible. Once someone had me at optimal I tried to mess up the opponent's tracking, but I don't know who successful that actually was. First to die was a fairly standard dual-prop Taranis. The Taranis did great damage once it got close to optimal, but it had lost too much EHP while getting there, as after getting scrambled my MWD speed had to bleed off. Even without a web my Kessie still did great damage to it. Next was a trimarked 400 mm plated AB-web Rifter. Again, he took too much damage coming in and by the time he was applying his damage, it was too late. Then a 200 mm plated MWD Claw - same story, basically. Then the Taranis and Rifter pilot came back in an MSE AB Rifter with falloff rigs and a TE, for good damage application at range. He named it "**** rockets". It died. As did another pilot in a fairly typical active AB Rifter. Last up was a 400 mm plated blaster-Enyo. I had to reload to EM. I got it to about 1/3 armour before I died. Now I'm no genius frigate pilot - it's over three years since I've spent much time in one. But I can't help thinking that these new rockets might be a bit too good...?
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.07 00:08:00 - [186] Edited by: yani dumyat on 07/10/2010 00:13:24 1st impressions are good but I've not had a chance to test the changes properly as I've been playing RL (graphics are great but the monthly sub's a bit steep). The Ev boost is good and has made non web fits viable again, though the jury's out on the damage increase. The kestrel could be borderline overpowered but it's hard to tell from fighting in FFA's, even 1vs1 there's often a big gap between player skills, SP, implants, boosters etc. Mostly I tested the hawk and while the damage bonus is welcome I'm left scratching my head about the powergrid boost, it's CPU that the ship needs. A 13% CPU increase on top of the 3mw powergrid would allow you to fit the following: [Hawk, sisi 1] F85 Peripheral Damage System I Ballistic Control System II Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 150 Medium 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 I don't think that fit's unreasonable, there's quite a lot of named stuff on there and I can't think of another AF where CPU forces me to fit either a damage control or a damage mod, normally you can fit both. Even a rifter can fit both. Still think the hawk needs either a better slot layout or the boost bonus swapped for a resist bonus, though the utility high is very useful and currently the only thing that makes the hawk worth flying over a vengeance. _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.10.07 04:02:00 - [187] Originally by: yani dumyat Mostly I tested the hawk and while the damage bonus is welcome I'm left scratching my head about the powergrid boost, it's CPU that the ship needs. The grid increase has made a duel-prop setup more viable: [Hawk, Duel Prop] Pseudoelectron Containment Field I Ballistic Control System II Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Coreli C-Type 1MN Afterburner Small Shield Booster II J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Small Diminishing Power System Drain 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 Bay Loading Accelerator I Small Polycarbon Engine Housing I Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.
Pesets The Hunt Club	Posted - 2010.10.07 07:09:00 - [188] Edited by: Pesets on 07/10/2010 07:13:08 Hawk needs a fifth mid, or something like -10% to Shield Booster cap usage per Assault Frigates skill level. Thing is, Small Shield Booster makes a **** small difference unless you have Medium Shield Extender to give it more "distance" to work off of. Medium Shield Booster without a Cap Booster will leave you dry in a second, without cap to even run the tackle (and by the time you need to turn it on, your cap will likely be at 30-40% already). And Gistum C-Type MSB is way too expensive to be practical on a Hawk. Thing is, to fit it with four mids you must sacrifice the point, the web or the burner, and all of those are vital if you want to actually kill something and not just scare it off. Yea, i know, two hawks can divide up the tackle, but then two hawks will still suck against two jaguars or two vengies. Speaking of slots, i believe Breacher is missing one (it has one less slot than a Kestrel or whatever the Amarr missile frig is called, Inquisitor?). Same with Incursus while at it. As for rockets themselves, i'd be inclined to say they're fine after the changes if there was a mod that increased explosion velocity and flight time. Right now the only way to further affect those attributes is through rigs, and that's very limited. Turrets have their Tracking mods (both mid- and low-slot), missiles/rockets have nothing of sorts. Yea, and Vengie seems fine to me tbh.
Sela Bacall	Posted - 2010.10.07 08:35:00 - [189] Considering there's literally no way to mitigate rocket damage once within engagement range, I'd say between what I've seen, and what's been floating around on certain other forums, they're in fact a little too good right now. I don't suppose CCP has internal QA folks dedicated to balancing issues, who could throw in their own findings thus far?
Sela Bacall	Posted - 2010.10.07 08:47:00 - [190] Edited by: Sela Bacall on 07/10/2010 08:48:46 There's probably some rule about doubleposting, but copypasting some of the additional theorycraft from the other side, in case CCP doesn't actually browse there: Quote: Hmmm, really? As I said, I didn't try drams, but my experience is that New Rockets hit unwebbed AB frigates reasonably well, and a single-webbed AB dram is about as fast as a regular unwebbed AB frig.... shrug May test it to destruction proper-like later on; it's not like I ever use my drams on SiSi (or on TQ, for that matter). edit: hey, look at that, some useful person went and saved me the effort: A webbed AB dram can get up to 1.2 km/s after heat without needing snakes or other such silliness, and so will avoid 50-60% of the Hawk's nominal DPS. edit 2: oh god, New Rockets: Dramiel lols, everything else dies. :CCP: Thus far, this has been in line with what I've seen on SiSi.

Pesets The Hunt Club	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:18:00 - [191] Not claiming to have tested this 100% extensively, but from what i've see on sisi, if you have a web, TNP5 and other missile support skills at 4, Rage rockets are about competitive with turrets. Regular rockets don't actually do that much damage in my experience (and Javelins get a silly per-launcher velocity reduction penalty on top of that). Rockets don't automatically pwn all. They do pwn some things they traditionally haven't, but that's to be expected because traditionally they haven't been much good against anything. I also want to point out that one of the issues with sisi testing is finding an opponent of comparable skill level, especially in small hulls pvp. If someone consistently shows good results against turret boats in a missile boat, it doesn't necessarily mean rockets are overpowered, there are a lot more factors involved.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:28:00 - [192] Originally by: Sela Bacall Considering there's literally no way to mitigate rocket damage once within engagement range, I'd say between what I've seen, and what's been floating around on certain other forums, they're in fact a little too good right now. I don't suppose CCP has internal QA folks dedicated to balancing issues, who could throw in their own findings thus far? Even with a web they are still considerably weaker damage wise than pretty much all gun options, the benefit is a pure damage type but then projectiles more or less share that. I am still waiting for updates to the other rocket using hulls before I can reasonably make an assessment, but so far it is a very limited weapon that is only good against smalls and inferior against any bigger ships.
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:35:00 - [193] Originally by: Braitai The grid increase has made a duel-prop setup more viable: Gdd try but I have to ask what the purpose of that dual prop fit is? It lacks the tank to go 1vs1 against another AF and if you're playing the role of heavy tackle then it has no buffer or protection from neuts (nos will not keep a shield booster running). I just don't see a situation where that hawk would be a better choice than a vengeance or jaguar, or indeed how the 3mw increase has helped the hawk much. The hawk is a sick puppy and needs more love than what's on offer, 3mw powergrid does not cut it. If the hawk had 3 low slots there would be an argument for its crippled CPU as there would be room for a DC, BCU and co-processor, there's no meaningful CPU rigs in the game either. By comparison a jaguar can fit two medium shield extenders, gyro and DC. This is mainly because of the vast array of powergrid mods available, CPU on the other hand can only be boosted by a co-processor or implants and in a ship with two lows that means dropping the BCU or DC, those mods are usually the reason why you wanted the CPU increase in the first place. Rigs are another issue, the 0% EM resist can only be boosted by rigs and a damage control as there's no room in the mids for a hardner. This means you've got to either fit EM rigs or avoid fighting amarr, minmatar or missile hulls, that's a very big restriction. A 5th mid would allow for the option of using a magnetic scattering amplifier or invul field. I don't think anyone wants to see the hawk become overpowered but we're still some way from reaching that point, a major boost to CPU certainly won't make the hawk overpowered. Moving a high to a mid might make the hawk overpowered but I don't think so. In this scenario there is an argument for restricting the CPU in order to limit the ship, without testing it will be impossible to say. Swapping the boost bonus to a resist one (and possibly adding an extra low slot) is the other popular suggestion but I think it would end up too similar to the vengeance in this scenario. The 5 mids suggestion has been made time and time again by players and I don't see why we can't test it on sisi, surely the number of players asking for this change is enough to justify a test? Surely this is what sisi is for? _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:38:00 - [194] Edited by: Gypsio III on 07/10/2010 09:39:29 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Even with a web they are still considerably weaker damage wise than pretty much all gun options, the benefit is a pure damage type The real benefit is the ability to start applying damage from the edge of tackle range without worrying about falloff. But Peset's comment about finding a similarly-skilled pilot is good. I'm fairly sure that if I'd just charged straight on in to optimal, instead of manually piloting, I'd have just got blown up. Another thing to remember on the Kestrel vs. Rifter comparison is that, frankly, the Kestrel should have some sort of an advantage inside web range, because the faster, more agile Rifter has the advantage outside tackle range. (There's a tier issue here that I'm ignoring.) It's a similar thing to the Hawk vs Jaguar issue - you should expect a Hawk to have the advantage inside tackle range, because the Jaguar is not only more mobile but also has its lowest resist as kinetic.
Sela Bacall	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:54:00 - [195] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Sela Bacall Considering there's literally no way to mitigate rocket damage once within engagement range, I'd say between what I've seen, and what's been floating around on certain other forums, they're in fact a little too good right now. I don't suppose CCP has internal QA folks dedicated to balancing issues, who could throw in their own findings thus far? Even with a web they are still considerably weaker damage wise than pretty much all gun options, the benefit is a pure damage type but then projectiles more or less share that. I am still waiting for updates to the other rocket using hulls before I can reasonably make an assessment, but so far it is a very limited weapon that is only good against smalls and inferior against any bigger ships. What? The only thing that has a much higher raw DPS is blasters, and even then, all the gunnery systems lose a substantial amount of DPS due to falloff/optimals, something that doesn't effect rockets (though they currently do far too little damage, on SiSi it's looking like they do a bit too much). In fact, rereading your post, are you even familiar with what's on SiSi right now >_< Flames aside, there's a reason I asked about whether CCP's internal balance testers could share/corroborate some findings across various typical scenarios.
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:54:00 - [196] Edited by: 1600 RT on 07/10/2010 09:59:39 Originally by: yani dumyat Edited by: yani dumyat on 07/10/2010 00:13:24 1st impressions are good but I've not had a chance to test the changes properly as I've been playing RL (graphics are great but the monthly sub's a bit steep). The Ev boost is good and has made non web fits viable again, though the jury's out on the damage increase. The kestrel could be borderline overpowered but it's hard to tell from fighting in FFA's, even 1vs1 there's often a big gap between player skills, SP, implants, boosters etc. Mostly I tested the hawk and while the damage bonus is welcome I'm left scratching my head about the powergrid boost, it's CPU that the ship needs. A 13% CPU increase on top of the 3mw powergrid would allow you to fit the following: [Hawk, sisi 1] F85 Peripheral Damage System I Ballistic Control System II Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 150 Medium 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 I don't think that fit's unreasonable, there's quite a lot of named stuff on there and I can't think of another AF where CPU forces me to fit either a damage control or a damage mod, normally you can fit both. Even a rifter can fit both. Still think the hawk needs either a better slot layout or the boost bonus swapped for a resist bonus, though the utility high is very useful and currently the only thing that makes the hawk worth flying over a vengeance. probably because the ship is already good enough that it dont need the BCU to be effective, try to replace that with another thing. ps: all AF are kinda poor on the cpu side so unless there is a boost that affecta all the AFs i dont see why the hawk should get all the love, indeed of most of the other AFs you have to leave the utility high empty to fit damage mods+ dc
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.10.07 09:57:00 - [197] Originally by: Suitonia What about building in the cap recharge bonus into the Vengeance, and giving it 5% bonus to EM rocket damage per level? Seems like it would help it quite a bit on the damage front while not completely overshadowing the Hawk in versatility. no the vengeance with the actual changes is already too good another dps boost would make it over the top (unless it come in place of the resist bonus)
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.10.07 10:02:00 - [198] Originally by: Sela Bacall Considering there's literally no way to mitigate rocket damage once within engagement range Hey let's not exaggerate here. In general, rockets won't do max damage if you have an AB, or the rocket ship doesn't have a web. It's just that the applied damage in those circumstance has substantially increased.
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.10.07 10:06:00 - [199] Originally by: yani dumyat Originally by: Braitai The grid increase has made a duel-prop setup more viable: Gdd try but I have to ask what the purpose of that dual prop fit is? It lacks the tank to go 1vs1 against another AF AF's dedicated to scram range combat will always beat more useful fits. I say more useful because unlike an AF that only has an AB, a duel prop fit will actually be able to get into scram range against larger MWD targets, whereas AB only fits have to start at zero. Despite the fit's lack of raw HP's, it should be able to tank enough even without the SB running, assuming you're using rockets to take out drones. The SB is there for when you're fighting other frigates, and it should be useful against targets that aren't dedicated to scram range combat. The question is whether it has enough speed to get into a tight enough orbit while webbed. While I've never flown a hawk, I have flown a plated duel prop Rifter before. It had less EHP than that fit, and about the same speed, but no nos. It functioned adequately until it ran up against a neuting Cyclone, so I'm taking an educated guess by saying it would work as a scram tackler. I do agree with you about it lacking CPU though, but TBH, I think AF's in general are a bit weak, in the respect that they don't really fulfill much of a role. Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.07 11:24:00 - [200] Originally by: 1600 RT probably because the ship is already good enough that it dont need the BCU to be effective, try to replace that with another thing. ps: all AF are kinda poor on the cpu side so unless there is a boost that affecta all the AFs i dont see why the hawk should get all the love, indeed of most of the other AFs you have to leave the utility high empty to fit damage mods+ dc Not sure about this, had several fights with an ishkur last night where I lost twice and won once. I've got near perfect skills for the hawk and had LG crystal implants in, don't know how skilled my opponent was but the fight I won was when he switched to a rail/mse fit. When the ishkur was blaster/web fit I couldn't keep out of his optimal and it was game over as soon as my cap booster had to reload. This is clearly not fully representative and I need to test a lot more but my first impression is that the hawk is still sub par compared to other AF's. I'm planning to test with a friend who's got similar skills to mine so will get a better view once we've had a chance to play together. As for other AF's lacking the ability to use their utility high I'm not sure I'd agree, sometimes it's the case but not always. The point I was making however is that there's no CPU rigs and without a 3rd low there's nowhere to put a fitting mod without dropping the DC/BCU. Combine that with the 0% EM resist and you can't use rigs to replace the BCU without leaving a massive EM hole. I'm not arguing for the hawk to be boosted to fotm level but as it stands the hawk flies like a downgraded vengeance. The slot layout doesn't match the active bonus or resist profile. I agree with you that it would be nice to hear something from CCP's Q+A folks, until then however the best we can do is test on sisi. If I find the hawk to be pwning all and sundry once I set up fights with equal skilled players then I'll let you know but I can't see that happening. _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.

Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.07 12:05:00 - [201] Originally by: Sela Bacall What? The only thing that has a much higher raw DPS is blasters, and even then, all the gunnery systems lose a substantial amount of DPS due to falloff/optimals... All guns (except maybe for lowest tier ACs) have higher raw damage than rockets, a 5-6% rocket damage increase will not change that fact in any significant way. The boost so far is all about applying what damage they do .. not accounting for ship bonuses. All frigate weapons (minus blasters) have the capability of dealing damage in the same 8km (10km is theoretical once stuff moves) sphere as rockets and once tackle comes into play tracking/transversal issues are minimized. Optimal/falloff is the only real advantage that rockets have but ranges are so short and missile ships comparatively slow so it evens out.
captain curry Minmatar Empyrean Warriors	Posted - 2010.10.07 14:30:00 - [202] http://973-k.eve-tools.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=49581 My suiside kestrel fitting. http://973-k.eve-tools.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=49632 A SSE buffer rigged crow. Needless to say the changes are nice, applying rocket damage to stuff that moves slightly fast is a welcome change. Cant wait to fly my hookbill down to get primaryed in a FFA beacon ;D
Kail Storm Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.07 21:41:00 - [203] They still lose to Pulses and have smaller DMG, Lose to ACS and Blasters DMG wise. Normally its ok for missile ships to have abit lower DPS like Drake because of tank, but Frigs have such small buffer or Active Tank they melt very fast also the slow speed kills Rocket ships. So great we have a ship that can maybe 1v1 other frigs, while that is great on SiSi in real situations on TQ it means nothing, This didnt make the Cald Inty`s fast enough to gank targets before getting caught and dying to a cruiser. It certainly doesnt make the Hawk worth it as a Rifter can put up an even fight with one still, and a Jag will still murder it as it will be doing 70% of its already low DPS. And if you approach a larger ship and they get 1 lucky shot you are severly injured. Rockets need -5% Dmg of blasters IMO make it huge since it still cant apply full dmg to ABing Jag,Wolf,Dram etc which are most commonly used frigs, and Def cant hit Inty`s well, Ranis`s arent going to honor 1v1`s in TQ lol They also wont take long to close the what extra 6km range the Rockets have. Rockets needed 32% increase with 10%- ROF, as even a Web`d AF does more than 200 m/s it will shrug off DMG. Otherwise Hawk and Kessy need there missile bonuses to go for multiple DMG type, this stil didnt fix them, unfortunately just gave some ammo to a few "SiSi" players explaining how there ships are fine. Hell on SiSi active Tanked ships are always the best 1v1 why because they know what environment they are going into so theyPick Maelstrom with Imps and t2 riggs with pills and tank 2k DPS more than anyother BS can dish, same with Rokh and Pally Etc. This just made Hawks and Rockets look good in contained environments but you still have a weapon at the end of the day that is underpowered, 83 DPS on Hawk with 1 BCS before now add 10%=93ish DPS and needs to be within 12km [or even way less when fighting Drams etc] and STILL has tracking issues. So for an extra 5km which is absolutely nothing in the frig speed world and better but still not stellar tracking, 15% less DPS than other AF`s sometimes even lower than other Inty`s we are supposed to be happy? Why not follow Ravens example and make Rockets 2nd Highest DPS? In the Frig world speed is life so most peeps fit them for it, they will alrady negate alot of our DPS so give us alot. Hell the Ranis with Null does 163 DPS@5km and is almost double the speed of the Hawk, the ISkur does 189 with Null and 80 Constant DPS just with Warriors and is as fast as Hawk with just as good and better buffer tank....And we get a 93 DPS slow ass Toad that cant do its full dmg most the time, and this is the fix? -------------------------------------------------- "If Eve Was P*rn, It would be a Snuff film, First you get screwed then you get killed" -Me
Sela Bacall	Posted - 2010.10.07 23:24:00 - [204] Edited by: Sela Bacall on 07/10/2010 23:26:05 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Sela Bacall What? The only thing that has a much higher raw DPS is blasters, and even then, all the gunnery systems lose a substantial amount of DPS due to falloff/optimals... All guns (except maybe for lowest tier ACs) have higher raw damage than rockets, a 5-6% rocket damage increase will not change that fact in any significant way. The boost so far is all about applying what damage they do .. not accounting for ship bonuses. All frigate weapons (minus blasters) have the capability of dealing damage in the same 8km (10km is theoretical once stuff moves) sphere as rockets and once tackle comes into play tracking/transversal issues are minimized. Optimal/falloff is the only real advantage that rockets have but ranges are so short and missile ships comparatively slow so it evens out. Firstly, the limiter on my statement is 'much'. To be fair, it'd be better stated as 'significantly'. Moving along, I strongly suggest you take a look at a standard dps graph for oh...say...a ship using any of those gunnery systems you just described. Using current TQ numbers, my non-pimp rocket hawk overtakes my jag at...~4km (129 DPS). At 8km, Hawk is pushing double DPS (on paper of course). Then you take this into account with the admittedly rough estimates of how much of the theoretical DPS we're getting, and hopefully you can see where the rest of my reasoning flows from (for reference, I do believe it was something like.. ~80% on webbed afterburning frig that isn't named dramiel, though I strongly encourage you to both test and report back with your own, numerical findings). p.s. My spaceships are not lolfit. edit: Rocket optimal is 15.2 max. So I basically truncated it to 10ish km, which is web range anyways. This is the engagement range, to be clear.
Pesets The Hunt Club	Posted - 2010.10.07 23:56:00 - [205] My thoughts after playing with it a bit more: Vengie - replace cap recharge bonus with max cap bonus (will give less peak recharge, make it harder to permatank). Hawk - replace +7.5% shield boost bonus with -12.5% shield boost cap usage bonus, maybe nerf damage bonus a bit (7.5% instead of 10%) Ballistics Control System - give additional 5-10% flight time bonus? Breacher - add a mid Incursus - add a low Rockets themselves seem more or less fine. I definitely don't think they need more damage boost, but i also don't think they need a nerf. Again, i wish i had people to do more conclusive testing with. In my testing, i was usually left in low structure at the end of the fight; and yes, i was the one using rockets. But, i was the one using rockets because i have them trained up (Rocket Specialization IV, Warhead Upgrades IV, Rapid Launch IV, TNPV, etc.), my opponents did not. When we tried to reverse, they didn't really do the kind of damage to me that i was doing to them. Also, most of them didn't have Hull Upgrades V, Shield Management V, Shield Compensation V, Thermodynamics V, Frigates V, Advanced Weapons Upgrades V and other fun stuff like that. This character is skilled pretty much exclusively for small hulls (some cruiser and bc skills, no bs skills whatsoever). Most people aren't. I'm pretty sure that extra hull i had left wasn't just due to rockets being overpowered. Also, again, this is singularity. On tq, people fight differently, pay more attention to the fight, don't (usually) fit the expensive bull** and use pills nearly as much (not for frig fights anyway). Also, again, that MSE Hawk everyone is talking about - it won't actually kill the Jag, because the Jag can run away (and take his sweet time at that). It won't actually kill anything else either, for much the same reason. Vengie (with cap skills) can tackle and permatank it, and slowly eat it alive. Ishkur will ** it a new one. Retri will too (if Hawk doesn't run away of course). Harpy and Enyo probably not so much, but that's because hybrids don't work that well vs Caldari T2 resists. Don't get me wrong, i sure as hell don't want rockets to become fotm, it will get boring fast. I'd be happy to test against someone with comparable skills (and patience - people tend to get bored of actual systematic testing). If rockets really are overpowered they should be nerfed. But to me it seems CCP just about hit the spot on this, and i'd hate see rockets nerfed back into uselessness by speculation and spreadsheet theorycrafting.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2010.10.07 23:59:00 - [206] Originally by: Sela Bacall edit: Rocket optimal is 15.2 max. So I basically truncated it to 10ish km, which is web range anyways. This is the engagement range, to be clear. Unless something changed on sisi rocket range is 10,1km THEORETICAL. That comes down to around 8km (15-20% loss of range) due to missile-speed-up thingy. Add ship movement and launch vector issue (dunno if it was fixed, can someone check on vengeance if missiles start flying to target or are launched forward?) and it can drop to around 7km easily. With hawk you will get 15,2 theoretical and around 13km effective vs stationary. As for web range - for all purposes id advise to count it as 13km unless you mean 15 minute long engagements. Every noob in EVE should be able to overload mods from start. Same for scramblers - they get to around 11km iirc. Just clarifying some details.
yani dumyat Minmatar Black Storm Cartel The Orca Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.08 01:19:00 - [207] Edited by: yani dumyat on 08/10/2010 01:24:14 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Add ship movement and launch vector issue (dunno if it was fixed, can someone check on vengeance if missiles start flying to target or are launched forward?) Wasn't paying a lot of attention but from what I saw the vector is the same as TQ, ie they don't launch forwards but go directly towards the target at the point of firing, it is the movement of the target that creates the loss of range due to firing vector. I believe there's an issue with game components that refresh more than once per second, it's a part of the physics engine so as long as rockets remain a tangible object they will only be able to change direction once per second at most. IIRC in previous discussions about this it was decided that the sloution would be to remove missiles as a graphical asset, not 100% sure on all this so would appreciate a C/D. Originally by: Sela Bacall DPS Graphs Question, are you working from a purely mathematical view or testing on sisi? That's not a troll, I'm appreciative of a dissenting voice in the thread and your posts have made me think quite hard about the possibility of making the hawk OP if some suggestions in this thread were implemented. Edit - as the mods seem to be a bit slow could you please change that graph to a link, it's breaking the forums and making them damn hard to read on my laptop. Chribba storage and packing can help. My testing so far has been a long way from conclusive but after a few more fights I can't help feeling that the hawk is still a bit meh. It doesn't need much of a boost but does need the slots, bonuses, resist profile and available modules to work together. In some ways it's quite a challenge to work out how this should be done, I'm pretty sure 5 mids are needed but there's got to be a down side too. Loss of the utility high is a possible hard blow to the hawk's current abilities, that neut wins me more fights than any other attribute on the ship so swapping a high to a mid might make sense. There's a small essay forming in my mind on this subject but I'm not yet sure how to create synergy without making the hawk OP, in a brief test where we simulated the 5th mid by dropping the propulsion mod and adding an invul the tank became almost unbreakable but this was with max skills, implants and pills. This is yet another issue - all may be fine with T2 fit but with faction booster etc will it just get silly? Another possibility is moving a low to a mid, this would give a very unique ship with just one low slot but 5 mids and a utility high. Not an ideal setup but might just work? Currently the hawk suffers from the vengeance and harpy being better for most TQ circumstances, I'd like to see it get something unique, 5 mids would provide the synergy between the resist profile and active tank bonus but there needs to be some form of drawback to being the only AF with that many mids. Not sure, I'm rambling now but do have a question for Chronotis: Is there a chance of testing a 5 mid hawk on sisi? I'm aware that there may be restrictions placed on what you can do but seriously this ship needs some love _______ Trolls and Tribulations A story of eve, trolls, world domination and dogfighting against starlings in a tiny dramiel.
Deva Blackfire Viziam	Posted - 2010.10.08 01:43:00 - [208] Originally by: yani dumyat Edited by: yani dumyat on 08/10/2010 01:24:14 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Add ship movement and launch vector issue (dunno if it was fixed, can someone check on vengeance if missiles start flying to target or are launched forward?) Wasn't paying a lot of attention but from what I saw the vector is the same as TQ, ie they don't launch forwards but go directly towards the target at the point of firing, it is the movement of the target that creates the loss of range due to firing vector. I believe there's an issue with game components that refresh more than once per second, it's a part of the physics engine so as long as rockets remain a tangible object they will only be able to change direction once per second at most. IIRC in previous discussions about this it was decided that the sloution would be to remove missiles as a graphical asset, not 100% sure on all this so would appreciate a C/D. Last time i used vengeance (and mind you that was around 1 year ago) when i fired rocket it went in front of my ship and then (after flying some distance) it turned back to attack NPCs behind me which drastically cut my range. I saw the same issue on Heretic (i think it was heretic, but 100% sure it happened with vengeance). Thats why im curious if it got fixed.
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.10.08 07:39:00 - [209] Edited by: 1600 RT on 08/10/2010 07:42:30 Originally by: Kail Storm So great we have a ship that can maybe 1v1 other frigs, while that is great on SiSi in real situations on TQ it means nothing, This didnt make the Cald Inty`s fast enough to gank targets before getting caught and dying to a cruiser. It certainly doesnt make the Hawk worth it as a Rifter can put up an even fight with one still, and a Jag will still murder it as it will be doing 70% of its already low DPS. even on TQ the frigate world its all about 1v1 and low numbers fight. with equal skills the hawk is very competitive with other AFs, if you are bad at piloting and use your shipt strenghts its not a ship problem Originally by: Kail Storm And if you approach a larger ship and they get 1 lucky shot you are severly injured. thing that apply to most of the frigs Originally by: Kail Storm Rockets need -5% Dmg of blasters IMO make it huge since it still cant apply full dmg to ABing Jag,Wolf,Dram etc which are most commonly used frigs, and Def cant hit Inty`s well, Ranis`s arent going to honor 1v1`s in TQ lol They also wont take long to close the what extra 6km range the Rockets have. Rockets needed 32% increase with 10%- ROF, as even a Web`d AF does more than 200 m/s it will shrug off DMG. if rocket range get decreased to 1km like blaster range is i might be agree on that also lol at honor 1v1 Originally by: Kail Storm This just made Hawks and Rockets look good in contained environments but you still have a weapon at the end of the day that is underpowered, 83 DPS on Hawk with 1 BCS before now add 10%=93ish DPS and needs to be within 12km [or even way less when fighting Drams etc] and STILL has tracking issues. So for an extra 5km which is absolutely nothing in the frig speed world and better but still not stellar tracking, 15% less DPS than other AF`s sometimes even lower than other Inty`s we are supposed to be happy? a hawk on sisi with 1 BCU on sis do 140dps with faction ammo (no rage) and 7km unbonused range is alot for a frigate weapon, you might say that other turrets can use T2 long range ammo or have bonus to extend their range but this also apply to missiles Originally by: Kail Storm Why not follow Ravens example and make Rockets 2nd Highest DPS? In the Frig world speed is life so most peeps fit them for it, they will alrady negate alot of our DPS so give us alot. Hell the Ranis with Null does 163 DPS@5km and is almost double the speed of the Hawk, the ISkur does 189 with Null and 80 Constant DPS just with Warriors and is as fast as Hawk with just as good and better buffer tank....And we get a 93 DPS slow ass Toad that cant do its full dmg most the time, and this is the fix? lol this is the most terrible idea if rockets would follow torps way you must use scram web and tp only to come close to do the damage they already do on sisi to small target. not to forget that torps power come with a cost they use a ****load of PG (more than cruise wich are comparable to standard missile) while rockets are very cheap on the fitting
Pesets The Hunt Club	Posted - 2010.10.08 08:03:00 - [210] Originally by: 1600 RT a hawk on sisi with 1 BCU on sis do 140dps with faction ammo (no rage) and 7km unbonused range is alot for a frigate weapon, you might say that other turrets can use T2 long range ammo or have bonus to extend their range but this also apply to missiles Well, to be fair, the turret long-range ammo doesn't give you a per-turret velocity penalty (effectively comparable with webbing yourself). The only turret ammo with a velocity penalty is rail Javelins (and they are pretty much loluseless even compared to standard antimatter). But that's more of an overall problem with T2 ranged "unguided missiles" ammo. Well, since we're talking about it anyways, I'd say it would make more sense to drop the velocity penalty and instead increase explosion radius on Javelins rockets. But I have no idea how much sense that approach would make on Javelin HAMs and torps.



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.