|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.28 13:37:00 -
[1]
It's particularly interesting to compare Scorch and Aurora. Both are long range T2 crystals. But relative to Aurora, Scorch has:
- +37.5% damage
- +200% tracking
- -16.67% range
Draw your own conclusions?
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 14:05:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 14:07:33 Double-post
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 14:07:00 -
[3]
Originally by: David Clausewitz autocannons and missiles will need a pretty big nerf before you consider nerfing lasers
Quoted for truth. Lasers as a weapon system are pretty "meh." Compared to the other turrets, they have:
- Highest Powergrid Requirements
- (Usually) highest CPU Requirements
- Highest capacitor consumption
- No damage type selection
- Ships with "lol" 10% cap reduction
Being able to swap crystals in 1 second sounds neat, but ultimately it's only mimicking what falloff does naturally. Really, the only redeeming features are Scorch and Tachyons. On the other hand, both of these are sexy as hell.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 16:52:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Cipher Jones angel ships are overpowered compared to single faction base bonus ships. Angel ships have equal bonus to the other pirate ships in class.
You know, if you want to completely ignore the absurdly low mass and inertia multipliers. It's not like those are a factor in PvP or anything, right?
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 16:54:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 16:54:48
Originally by: AstroPhobic Nerf minmatar? Sir, you best appropriate some damage graphs to validate any sort of point you think you have. I don't want to have to learn you how falloff works.
And why don't you look at the DPS graphs of lasers with the various crystals loaded into them. Autocannons get to use their low-range ammunition basically for free, while lasers have to give up half their range to do so.
We suffer range based DPS degradation just the same as you do -- we just have to go through the effort of swapping ammunition.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 17:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Dorian Tormak
Originally by: Cipher Jones My bad. other pirate ships dont have an insane shield bonus in addition to a second bonus either..., oh wait, they do.Compare pirate faction to pirate faction ships or the argument is a waste of our time.
Yeah, I notice people arguing that Gallente suck and they'll say something like, "Oh mah gawd, the Taranis is outperformed by the Dramiel!!"
Except I was comparing faction ships to faction ships. Put the Machariel next to, say, the Vindicator. Both are considered top-tier faction ships, and both command a price of about a billion isk.
Both get approximately a 35% boost to their DPS output from a role bonus (Machariel getting it in RoF, Vindicator in raw damage). Both get a standard damage application bonus (Machariel gets falloff, Vindicator gets tracking). Both get a secondary bonus (more damage vs. web strength).
However, the Machariel gets absurdly low agility and inertia ON TOP of all this. It gives up nothing to gain this advantage, and in fact has a VERY generous fitting allotment on top of it.
Essentially, all of the angel ships have a hidden 4th bonus to their agility, "just because."
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 18:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Aamrr
Originally by: David Clausewitz autocannons and missiles will need a pretty big nerf before you consider nerfing lasers
Quoted for truth. Lasers as a weapon system are pretty "meh." Compared to the other turrets, they have:
- Highest Powergrid Requirements
- (Usually) highest CPU Requirements
- Highest capacitor consumption
- No damage type selection
- Ships with "lol" 10% cap reduction
Being able to swap crystals in 1 second sounds neat, but ultimately it's only mimicking what falloff does naturally. Really, the only redeeming features are Scorch and Tachyons. On the other hand, both of these are sexy as hell.
ur dumb... Amarr ships have jacked up fitting and cap to allow for these so called "disadvantages". Take a look at relative fitting req then get back to the discussion....
You sure about that? Let's compare an Abaddon and a Maelstrom. They have identical powergrid. The Maelstrom has 1/7 more CPU. And the Abaddon has 1.3 GJ/s more capacitor to play with.
With perfect skills, a full rack of Mega Pulses consumes 55.3 GJ/s. I'm not sure what kind of mental disorder it takes to think that 1.3 > 55.3, but apparently you have it.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 19:26:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 19:26:39 Fair point.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 20:08:00 -
[9]
I was attempting to pick two ships with most of their traits in common. Both are Tier-3 battleships with modest drone bays, 8 turrets, one DPS bonus, and one tanking bonus.
Whether the ship in question active tanks or doesn't is really irrelvant. Amarrian ships have more capacitor to play with, but it's something like 1-3 GJ/s depending on the ship. This doesn't come close to compensating for the massive drain their turrets have.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.29 20:33:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 20:35:33
Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Aamrr
Whether the ship in question active tanks or doesn't is really irrelvant. Amarrian ships have more capacitor to play with, but it's something like 1-3 GJ/s depending on the ship. This doesn't come close to compensating for the massive drain their turrets have.
It is very relevant as active tanking obviously puts a huge strain on the capacitor. It just doesnt suit your argument.
Correct. Active tanking EITHER ship will place a huge strain on its capacitor. The Abaddon just has the additional strain of its lasers, too.
Not all Minmatar ships are active-tank bonus'd, you know.
Edit: And you've still done nothing to dispute my factual evidence that Minmatar have more fittings relative to the cost of their turrets. I repeat. Identical powergrid, 14.3% more CPU. Go compare 800mm autocannons and mega pulses. I daresay you'll find a discrepancy.
|
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.30 07:19:00 -
[11]
Honestly, I think nerfing the falloff bonuses would be enough. Tracking enhancers and tracking computers give double the benefit to falloff that they do to optimal, and this has created some serious balance issues.
And quite frankly, tracking enhancers should be less effective than scripted tracking computers. They consume less CPU and don't consume capacitor. I'm envisioning a 10% optimal/falloff bonus to compare to the 15% of the revised tracking computer.
Ambit rigs give the same bonus to falloff as locus coordinators do to optimal. This makes sense. Make the modules do the same.
|
Aamrr
|
Posted - 2011.06.30 09:12:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Mekhana I think Minmatar and Amarr are fine. The only issue is bringing Gallente ships and hybrids up to par.
Well, the whole point of this discussion is that it's all relative.
|
|
|
|