Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Alexis Nightwish
144
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 03:52:01 -
[241] - Quote
There's a lot of hate towards oversized ABs on these ships. Have people not noticed that by spending 25pg on them you're limiting the other aspects like damage, tank, etc.? Also, even in propulsion mode they take ages to get up to speed and still handle like hippos. My point is that these ships are the first outside of niche fits like 100MN Stabber FIs to be able to fit oversized prop mods and still be effective. Removing that pushes us away from fit heterogenization, and that IMO, is a bad thing.
Rather than removing fitting options I'd rather see stats such as HP, speed, agility, sensor strength, etc. shifted to the stances and the cooldown on switching stances increased to 20 seconds to further amplify the importance of wise tactical choices in combat. This would reduce the 'too good at everything all the time' issue that plagues T3D balance. It would also align with Fozzie's ststed goal of "power and excitement to mainly come from the new mode switching mechanic, and less from the base stats of the ship outclassing its competition."
I think the proposed changes, particularly the cap and PG nerfs, are terrible, especially for the Confessor which relies heavily on them, regardless of prop mod. The only change I like is the build cost. Ships of this power should be no less than 60m.
Lastly, I find it very sad that Ishtars/VNIs have been broken for over a year and have barely received a slap on the wrist, but the T3Ds have been out for a few months and are getting neutered hard. "Limited in scope"? Hardly.
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 05:05:16 -
[242] - Quote
As someone who has been putting oversized ABs on my ships since Apocrypha, I feel like I should come in and at least defend the psychology of the choice.
Starting out as a young Minmatar pilot, you always hear "Minmatar ships are fast." This is true, until someone gets webs on you or shuts your MWD off with a scram or if you are fitted with a regular sized afterburner versus a MWDing opponent. At that point, the whole balance of your fitting is usually entirely negated. You can't track. You can't run. You either have a gimped capacitor from fitting a MWD or you are using capacitor to run an afterburner that does essentially nothing for you. You might as well not even have fit a propulsion module, but you can't go back to the fitting window and fix it, now. You're just . . . dead in the water. (Pun intended.)
What do you do? How do you ensure that your opponent doesn't just point->click-> and shut off your ability to maneuver effectively?
A warp disruptor is already telling my ship what to do: Do not warp out! A warp scrambler 1-ups that: Do not warp out and shut down your MWD! A webifier: Fly (much) slower!
As a young destroyer pilot (Thrasher and Catalyst, mostly), all I really wanted, and still want even now, is a module that answers a warp disruptor and/or a warp scrambler and/or a stasis webifier and/or a warp disruptor bubble or scripted warp disruption field generator, simply: No!
Is the problem that I'm moving too fast and you can't stop me or is the problem that you expect to dictate how I fly MY SPACESHIP by clicking just one or two buttons? |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 05:44:45 -
[243] - Quote
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:As someone who has been putting oversized ABs on my ships since Apocrypha, I feel like I should come in and at least defend the psychology of the choice.
Starting out as a young Minmatar pilot, you always hear "Minmatar ships are fast." This is true, until someone gets webs on you or shuts your MWD off with a scram or if you are fitted with a regular sized afterburner versus a MWDing opponent. At that point, the whole balance of your fitting is usually entirely negated. You can't track. You can't run. You either have a gimped capacitor from fitting a MWD or you are using capacitor to run an afterburner that does essentially nothing for you. You might as well not even have fit a propulsion module, but you can't go back to the fitting window and fix it, now. You're just . . . dead in the water. (Pun intended.)
What do you do? How do you ensure that your opponent doesn't just point->click-> and shut off your ability to maneuver effectively?
A warp disruptor is already telling my ship what to do: Do not warp out! A warp scrambler 1-ups that: Do not warp out and shut down your MWD! A webifier: Fly (much) slower!
As a young destroyer pilot (Thrasher and Catalyst, mostly), all I really wanted, and still want even now, is a module that answers a warp disruptor and/or a warp scrambler and/or a stasis webifier and/or a warp disruptor bubble or scripted warp disruption field generator, simply: No!
Is the problem that I'm moving too fast and you can't stop me or is the problem that you expect to dictate how I fly MY SPACESHIP by clicking just one or two buttons?
The thing I like about what you have written is that it confirms the fact that PVP in Eve is a complex scenario, atleast when you are up against people who know their stuff. Back in the day when vagabonds were really hard to catch, you had to put your mind to it and come up with ways to catch them along with some blind luck not to mention the nanophoons . I know that I setup various traps that included drag bubbles, rapiers for webifying an so on and it was such a joy when one actually nailed one of those fast muppets :)
I think one of the few or many problems that comes along with this is the mental state of convinience/laziness and less skills or knowledge of how to act around various scenarios. No offence to anyone but if you take Rooks and Kings and compare them to a big blobfest alliance (any alliance) I'm sure you will be able to make a distinction between the two.
I also agree that the fitting concept should not be to tightly controlled, but I just find it wrong to nerf a ship/ships when the obvious problem is that a module which people think is wrong to fit to a specific sized ship is actually able to be fitted to it. So question is what's it gonna be, the ongoing tradition of nerfing ships when they in themselves are not the primary issue, or address the real issue behind it (in this case propulsion module size vs ship size).
I am split between both scenarious, but if it was up to me i would prefer to latter. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
248
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 06:58:02 -
[244] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous.
They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 07:11:28 -
[245] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous. They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes.
The generous PG is not the main issue in my opinion |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
356
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 07:25:00 -
[246] - Quote
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:As a young destroyer pilot (Thrasher and Catalyst, mostly), all I really wanted, and still want even now, is a module that answers a warp disruptor and/or a warp scrambler and/or a stasis webifier and/or a warp disruptor bubble or scripted warp disruption field generator, simply: No!
Is the problem that I'm moving too fast and you can't stop me or is the problem that you expect to dictate how I fly MY SPACESHIP by clicking just one or two buttons?
What you're looking for mate is ECM. Also, in some ways, what the Scram/Web are doing is answering your prop mod and speed. A ship with an AB who is webbed is still moving significantly faster than a ship with no AB who is webbed.
The point though is to avoid getting locked down in the first place unless that's something you have the tools to deal with, whether that's tank, DPS, ECM, or something else entirely.
BTW let me tell you there is nothing in the world more annoying than being tackled by a Griffin with ECM running.
Murkelost wrote:I also agree that the fitting concept should not be to tightly controlled, but I just find it wrong to nerf a ship/ships when the obvious problem is that a module which people think is wrong to fit to a specific sized ship is actually able to be fitted to it. So question is what's it gonna be, the ongoing tradition of nerfing ships when they in themselves are not the primary issue, or address the real issue behind it (in this case propulsion module size vs ship size).
I am split between both scenarious, but if it was up to me i would prefer to latter.
I don't really feel like the 10MN fits are the problem, but more a symptom of it. When a 10MN fit doesn't have to make significant trade-offs to work then it's likely other things aren't having to make trade-offs either, which is what we're seeing with the 2x MASB fits and other stuff.
These changes aren't nerfing these fits off the map but I don't think that's desirable either. They incur significant trade-offs which, on paper, should be enough to balance the fits out. If that's not the case I'd prefer a look at the MWD's balance and place in the game over something that makes these fits flat out non-viable, since on paper a MWD fit should have significant benefits in terms of fitting and maneuverability over a 10MN fit. It's also a module that hasn't been touched, as far as I'm aware, since the original Nano-nerf some ~8 years ago.
With all the changes the game has undergone since then maybe a look at propulsion modules and their counters is in order? I mean, the meta has been progressively shifting toward small and maneuverable over the last 8 years. First it was AHAC gangs, then it was T3 fleets, then the warp-speed changes, then finally T3 Destroyers, and now everything from Null-fleets to small gangs is drifting quickly toward Cruisers and smaller when it's not Battleships supported by Capitals and the larger ships are feeling increasingly out in the cold from the look of things in the community. Oh, and the Vindi is one of the most popular Battleships, which is also telling.
No particular point to that little ramble, just some general thoughts. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 08:23:23 -
[247] - Quote
Murkelost wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous. They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes. The generous PG is not the main issue in my opinion
Yes, it is a cumulative issue of the Prop mode bonuses and high base speeds, with Svipul having too much PG left over in AC setup even with the nerf.
Confessor with a 10MN in Defense mode excels at brawling cruisers due to the triple whammy of insanely low sig radius, high resists and disengagement option in practically all situations.
I've been double webbed, neuted and shot at with anything from 180mm ACs to Heavy Electron blasters by boats that have application bonuses such as tracking, yet the it was mathematically impossible to either 1) hit me; 2) properly tackle; 3) shut down the dual SARs - hallo 400 cap boosters, or 4) land an alpha that would go past 60% armour point.
Mathematically unpossible. PG nurf makes one sacrifice both DPS and a tiny bit of tank for 10MN goodness.
Good ship. I liek. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦)
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
628
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 08:27:38 -
[248] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:..This game has history with oversized, extreme, often broken setups that work super good if only for a time, as the practice in question gets nerfbatted. I don't recall a change that put artificial restrictions just because of 1-2 boats.]
Falcon - ecm nerf
Drake, tengu - heavy missile nerf, Drake overnerf
Caracal, Cerberus - assault missile launchers become rapid launchers
all subcaptial ships - useless nos, neut all zee things..
logistics - all ships resistance bonusses
signature
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
249
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 09:09:24 -
[249] - Quote
No, those are all attribute adjustments.
I see no artificial restrictions being placed in any of those cases.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
250
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 09:40:23 -
[250] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:BTW let me tell you there is nothing in the world more annoying than being tackled by a Griffin with ECM running.
During the first weeks of release, I almost got rekt by a Tristan and a Griffin - didn't realise Sharpshooter gave a 100% bonus to sensor strength.
Moonwalked out of it with 10AB lulululululululul. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ-û #)a+ç
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12588
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:32:42 -
[251] - Quote
Hey everyone! Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary.
So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships.
These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one.
Confessor:
- New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
- Highslots: 6 (-1)
- Turrets: 4 (-2)
- Powergrid: 62 (-18)
- CPU: 180 (-10)
- Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
- Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
- Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
- Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
- Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)
Svipul:
- New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
- Highslots: 6 (-1)
- Turrets: 4 (-2)
- Powergrid: 59 (-19)
- CPU: 205 (-10)
- Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
- Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
- Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
- Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
- Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)
Material Requirements: +1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core
Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
260
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:37:04 -
[252] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone! To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same.
BRB to read the specifics, I first hafta, in a very expedite and prompt manner, set my training to Minmatar Tactical Destroyer V.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Alexis Nightwish
147
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:47:27 -
[253] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone! Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary. So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships. These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one. Confessor:
- New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
- Highslots: 6 (-1)
- Turrets: 4 (-2)
- Powergrid: 62 (-18)
- CPU: 180 (-10)
- Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
- Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
- Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
- Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
- Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)
Svipul:
- New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
- Highslots: 6 (-1)
- Turrets: 4 (-2)
- Powergrid: 59 (-19)
- CPU: 205 (-10)
- Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
- Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
- Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
- Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
- Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)
Material Requirements (unchanged): +1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.
Improvement!
The pg and cap nerf isn't so devastating to the Confessor now since it's firing 4 turrets instead of 6 so that's good. Also with only needing to fit 4 turrets, arty Svips will probably still be viable. I'd have to run the numbers to see for sure but I think 10MN ABs are still viable, but no longer super strong with these changes. I hope I'm right on that as I like oversized props being an option on the T3Ds. Hopefully it will be one of many viable fitting choices for these ships.
Oh and they gain a utility high! Entosis link anyone? Double NOS brawling Confessors? Such choices. Much option. Wow!
Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12592
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:50:22 -
[254] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote: Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?
There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Mizhir
Matari Exodus
74236
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:54:55 -
[255] - Quote
Looks like some cool changes. As someone who loves RR gangs it is nice to see them having 2 utility highs.
And it is a great way to target the annoying 10mn brawl setups rather than nano setups. But why is the cap recharge time higher for the confessor than the svipul?
One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!
|
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
282
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 21:55:34 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote: Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?
There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.
But faster than a Minmitar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12592
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:01:53 -
[257] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote: Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?
There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently. But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.
It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case).
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
260
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:13:16 -
[258] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote: Svipul:
Max Velocity: 230 (-60) Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
Without taking mass changes into account, the new 1MWD speeds are 1,450/2,000 m/s and 2,400/3350 m/s in Prop mode.
Don't know how to calculate mass-thrust relationship.
These levels seem a lot more reasonable, than previously.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Sparky Dave3
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:16:09 -
[259] - Quote
Seems like some really great changes, bit worried about the Confessor having worse recharge than the Svipul though considering it has capless guns! It already struggled somewhat with cap :(
The 4 gun setup has some interesting implications for overheating though, it should be nice! |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
282
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:16:17 -
[260] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Bagehi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote: Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?
There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently. But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships. It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case). At the end of the day we're more focused on getting an interesting variety of ships than in following any specific patterns rigidly.
Svipul still ends up being the more agile, higher dps, faster, more tanked ship of the two. Confessor was already a tight fit, the fitting changes seem to hurt the Confessor more than the Svipul, even though the Svipul seems the more dominant ship to begin with. Maybe I'm missing an in-game use where the Confessor deserved to be punished more than the Svipul? |
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
884
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:17:08 -
[261] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case). At the end of the day we're more focused on getting an interesting variety of ships than in following any specific patterns rigidly.
I love that your not thinking with blinkers on but im worried with all the recent balance changes we are losing the racial uniqueness of the ships.... Theres so little gap between some ships you could mistake one for the other..... (other than *minmatar use projectiles* etc)
No Worries
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
359
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:22:38 -
[262] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:But why is the cap recharge time higher for the confessor than the svipul?
The Confessor has much higher base cap amount than the Svipul, 1000 vs 750 with maxed skills. The peak cap recharge for both ships is the same on TQ currently, and I believe Fozzies current changes either keep it the same or slightly favor the Confessor.
Bagehi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote: Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?
There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently. But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.
This is correct, and I have a spreadsheet to prove it. but Fozzie is also correct that the Svipul performs better with a prop mod due to the lower base mass.
However, it now performs far worse with an over-sized prop-mod because of the massive inertia increase. This is because a 10MN AB's mass increase is huge compared to the base mass of the ship. So, doing some back of the napkin estimation the new Svipul with a 10MN AB and Propulsion Mode active should take around 16-17 seconds to align, up from 9.6 seconds currently. For those of you who care that's slower than a Megathron running a Microwarpdrive. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:25:08 -
[263] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Svipul:
Max Velocity: 230 (-60) Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000) Without taking mass changes into account, the new 1MWD speeds are 1,450/2,000 m/s and 2,400/3350 m/s in Prop mode. Don't know how to calculate mass-thrust relationship. These levels seem a lot more reasonable, than previously.
With new mass taken into consideration:
293 m/s base speed * (1+(6.25 MWD boost * (1,500,000 thrust / (1,500,00 shipmass + 500,000 MWD mass))) = 1,666 / 2499 OH m/s with 1MN MWD.
In Propulsion mode: 2766 / 4149 OH m/s.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1095
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:26:35 -
[264] - Quote
props fozzlord this is pretty much exactly the balance pass i think these two ships needed
now about the ishtar.........................................
just kidding but heavy missiles need a bit of love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
359
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:26:39 -
[265] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Svipul still ends up being the more agile, higher dps, faster, more tanked ship of the two. Confessor was already a tight fit, the fitting changes seem to hurt the Confessor more than the Svipul, even though the Svipul seems the more dominant ship to begin with. Maybe I'm missing an in-game use where the Confessor deserved to be punished more than the Svipul?
The Confessor doesn't have to try and fit 280mm Arty on three less base PG. Overall the Confessor is losing less in absolute terms than the Svipul is. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
359
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:29:02 -
[266] - Quote
Definitely liking the new changes, and effectively gaining a High Slot opens up some interesting fitting options for both PvP and PvE. I wouldn't be surprised to see these ships show up even more in Exploration now and a Svipul with dual small NOS or Neut might be interesting as well.
Much more give and take with these changes. Love it. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1095
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:29:39 -
[267] - Quote
honestly i personally think the confessor is stronger than the svipul but requires a lot more skill to use
the svipuls true terror is the fact that anyone can hit approach and turn on their mwd and have a very good chance of winning against anything that isnt a svipul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:31:39 -
[268] - Quote
Yolo,
Quote:Svipul, Yolo] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script 'Orion' Tracking CPU I, Optimal Range Script Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script
280mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot S 280mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot S 280mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot S 280mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Titanium Sabot S [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Small Projectile Collision Accelerator II Small Projectile Locus Coordinator I [empty rig slot]
31+27km, 265 DPS, 1.5k Alpha, 4.1km/s OH in Prop.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Ned Thomas
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
1567
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:37:38 -
[269] - Quote
Ok, could someone be kind enough to tell me how the damage role bonus and the damage bonus from the tactical destroy level stack up?
Don't get lost alone - Join Signal Cartel, New Eden's premier haven for explorers!
Onward to Thera with Eve Scout
|
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1096
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 22:39:52 -
[270] - Quote
Ned Thomas wrote:Ok, could someone be kind enough to tell me how the damage role bonus and the damage bonus from the tactical destroy level stack up?
multiplicative
pretend the ship has 6 guns worth of damage and go from there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |