These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Damage Control Tiericide

First post First post First post
Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1021 - 2016-03-14 08:37:52 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Lucas Kell wrote:
And yet gankers are still ganking miners, so you're confirmed to be crying over nothing.


Pirates don't gank them anymore, code are not pirates.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Except you're not pointing out anything, you're making up obviously false claims because you're salty as **** that they made a change you don't like.


Every ship I have looked at that you have flown will be at a large disadvantage to a similar ship that fits a DCU. So far you have provided zero examples of ships that used to fit a DCU that will be better off not fitting a DCU now.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Now you're whining on about old changes too. Why are you even playing this game? Sounds like you hate it.


YOU are the one who brought that up.

Lucas Kell wrote:

Except there is. Look at the numbers. Claiming there isn't is obviously false.


Now quote everything I said and stop trying to argue with a point I never made. Its the same end result.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1022 - 2016-03-14 08:53:38 UTC
Jaantrag wrote:
this topic getting silly lol .. as stated before THERE is a Difrence in the module .. just cause the end result useing the module is the same dosent mean nohting changed ..

u guys do know not everyone go for the Tank fits with DCU-s .. extra resists without one gives a better then nohting buffer in there .. and might give an extra slot for damage mod or so to actualy make it so u might not even need the hull buffer .. get your head out of the tiny box u live in ...


We went over the maths many pages ago. Replacing a DCU with a damage mod gives you a much smaller boost in damage than the DCU gives in defense. Same goes for any other mod you care to fit.

Taking as an example lucas's favourate ship the taranis, as he fits it he will lose 1/3 of his EHP. That's a significant chunk of his tank gone both in terms of EHP and his effective repping power. Any taranis fitted in the same way but keeping the DCU will overpower him and any ship he tries to tackle will have an easier time killing him simple due to the fact he has to enter web/scram range.

Going to the other end of the scale a titan also now has access to a much more powerful DCU than ever before and the same thing goes to a lesser extent for the faction DCU which will be a must have mod on a lot of ships too. Nothing has changed in the DCU being a must have mod and in far too many cases, its an even more needed mod than before. So in the end, ganking has taken a significant whack with the nerf stick while the main target of the change has has no change.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1023 - 2016-03-14 10:03:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pirates don't gank them anymore, code are not pirates.
And the only people ganking miners are code? I think not baby puppy.

baltec1 wrote:
Every ship I have looked at that you have flown will be at a large disadvantage to a similar ship that fits a DCU. So far you have provided zero examples of ships that used to fit a DCU that will be better off not fitting a DCU now.
Of course, because you've looked at doctrine ships and you've decide their primary statistic is defense.

baltec1 wrote:
Now quote everything I said and stop trying to argue with a point I never made. Its the same end result.
It's not though. You are claiming there is no difference, but there is, and that difference gives people more opportunity to make different choices, and different choices have been made.

baltec1 wrote:
We went over the maths many pages ago. Replacing a DCU with a damage mod gives you a much smaller boost in damage than the DCU gives in defense. Same goes for any other mod you care to fit.
Which only matters if you consider defense and damage at a 1:1 ratio of importance to each other.

baltec1 wrote:
Taking as an example lucas's favourate ship the taranis, as he fits it he will lose 1/3 of his EHP. That's a significant chunk of his tank gone both in terms of EHP and his effective repping power. Any taranis fitted in the same way but keeping the DCU will overpower him and any ship he tries to tackle will have an easier time killing him simple due to the fact he has to enter web/scram range.
It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1024 - 2016-03-14 12:38:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.



When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.

Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1025 - 2016-03-14 13:22:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.



When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.

Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade.


While not a loss of firepower, there are alternatives that are viable.

Ive been tinkering with dropping the DCU on certain ships in place of a RAH. DCU/RAH both stack against each other. RAH gives the same 15% bonus to armor as a DCU does. However, It has the obvious benefit of shifting resists where its needed. It also uses slightly less CPU than a T2 DCU (about 6 CPU less).

The CPU difference is fairly handy for CPU intensive fits. Take for example a torpedo typhoon.

Setting the RAH resist shift to cover your biggest holes (30% split) and EHP numbers are very similar to that of a DCU fit. The difference in total EHP is minimal, DCU ahead by 1-2k EHP IIRC. However looking at a fight against a laser ship (as an example), the RAH will create a much stronger armor tank than what a DCU could acheive. It also allows the explosive hole to be filled after dual EANM+DCU standard. Same principle applies to other damage locked ships (hybrids, kinetic lock missiles etc).

On most armor buffer fits, by the time your armor tank is gone, there is a good chance youre dead anyway, so id rather maximize armor resist/tank than hull. This is especially true of kite fits that use nanos. Since on things like BS and BC, a nano is a significant chunk of hull. So instead of DCU+EANM+LAAR fit, it might be slightly better to go RAH+EANM+LAAR.

In terms of cap use, on a BS especially, its a non issue. Cap boosted kiting BCs and some cruisers would also be a non-issue. So yea, replacing a DCU with a RAH on a confessor probably isnt the best idea, but there is some merit to using a RAH over a DCU on larger more stable ships.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1026 - 2016-03-14 13:36:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.

Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade.
Again, that depends on how much you value each stat and what minimum limits you have on each.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1027 - 2016-03-14 13:56:20 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


While not a loss of firepower, there are alternatives that are viable.

Ive been tinkering with dropping the DCU on certain ships in place of a RAH. DCU/RAH both stack against each other. RAH gives the same 15% bonus to armor as a DCU does. However, It has the obvious benefit of shifting resists where its needed. It also uses slightly less CPU than a T2 DCU (about 6 CPU less).

The CPU difference is fairly handy for CPU intensive fits. Take for example a torpedo typhoon.

Setting the RAH resist shift to cover your biggest holes (30% split) and EHP numbers are very similar to that of a DCU fit. The difference in total EHP is minimal, DCU ahead by 1-2k EHP IIRC. However looking at a fight against a laser ship (as an example), the RAH will create a much stronger armor tank than what a DCU could acheive. It also allows the explosive hole to be filled after dual EANM+DCU standard. Same principle applies to other damage locked ships (hybrids, kinetic lock missiles etc).

On most armor buffer fits, by the time your armor tank is gone, there is a good chance youre dead anyway, so id rather maximize armor resist/tank than hull. This is especially true of kite fits that use nanos. Since on things like BS and BC, a nano is a significant chunk of hull. So instead of DCU+EANM+LAAR fit, it might be slightly better to go RAH+EANM+LAAR.

In terms of cap use, on a BS especially, its a non issue. Cap boosted kiting BCs and some cruisers would also be a non-issue. So yea, replacing a DCU with a RAH on a confessor probably isnt the best idea, but there is some merit to using a RAH over a DCU on larger more stable ships.


The question with this is why did nobody do this before? This is the riddle nobody in favour of this change an answer. Fitting a DCU yields the exact same end results as before, if we didn't fit the RAH before then why would we now?
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#1028 - 2016-03-14 14:11:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


While not a loss of firepower, there are alternatives that are viable.

Ive been tinkering with dropping the DCU on certain ships in place of a RAH. DCU/RAH both stack against each other. RAH gives the same 15% bonus to armor as a DCU does. However, It has the obvious benefit of shifting resists where its needed. It also uses slightly less CPU than a T2 DCU (about 6 CPU less).

The CPU difference is fairly handy for CPU intensive fits. Take for example a torpedo typhoon.

Setting the RAH resist shift to cover your biggest holes (30% split) and EHP numbers are very similar to that of a DCU fit. The difference in total EHP is minimal, DCU ahead by 1-2k EHP IIRC. However looking at a fight against a laser ship (as an example), the RAH will create a much stronger armor tank than what a DCU could acheive. It also allows the explosive hole to be filled after dual EANM+DCU standard. Same principle applies to other damage locked ships (hybrids, kinetic lock missiles etc).

On most armor buffer fits, by the time your armor tank is gone, there is a good chance youre dead anyway, so id rather maximize armor resist/tank than hull. This is especially true of kite fits that use nanos. Since on things like BS and BC, a nano is a significant chunk of hull. So instead of DCU+EANM+LAAR fit, it might be slightly better to go RAH+EANM+LAAR.

In terms of cap use, on a BS especially, its a non issue. Cap boosted kiting BCs and some cruisers would also be a non-issue. So yea, replacing a DCU with a RAH on a confessor probably isnt the best idea, but there is some merit to using a RAH over a DCU on larger more stable ships.


The question with this is why did nobody do this before? This is the riddle nobody in favour of this change an answer. Fitting a DCU yields the exact same end results as before, if we didn't fit the RAH before then why would we now?


Because before hull resists didnt have a base 33% resistance. Now the EHP difference between a DCU fit and RAH fit is not as drastic since that 33% resist helps fill the divide. From what i was looking at in EFT last night, we are talking about 1-2k EHP difference between a DCU fit and an RAH fit (with resistances shifted to kinetic/explosive). That EHP will go up though if they shoot EM/Thermal, which will surpass what a DCU could do.

Yes you will lose EHP in hull, but you will have a stronger armor tank in exchange. Which depending on the scenario, could prove to be much stronger than just a DCU. This is especially true in small gang where you might have logi.
FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1029 - 2016-03-14 16:23:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.



When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.

Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade.


For ships that fit a DC and one damage mod, dropping the DC in favor of another damage mod is closer to a 20% increase in DPS. For buffer ships VS AAR ships, its often worth it to drop the DC for another damage mod, as it's not about surviving longer, but beating the AAR or MASB faster to win the fight.

It's interesting that you pick the taranis, because one of the best taranis fits right now is dual prop, which doesn't usually fit a magstab at all, using void and with two hobgobs and decent skills, you can expect to see slightly more than an 18% increase by replacing the DC with a magstab on the the dual prop fit. Usually, it only fits a dps rig, and thus gains very close to the maximum benefit of fitting a damage mod. It's tank doesn't rely on either it's DC or it's AAR; it's a sig tanked ship and it relies on target selection to avoid other frigates with a tracking bonus. The only thing it needs to do is get under it's opponents guns with it's afterburner fast enough to avoid damage and kill its opponent before help arrives.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1030 - 2016-03-14 16:33:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:


While not a loss of firepower, there are alternatives that are viable.

Ive been tinkering with dropping the DCU on certain ships in place of a RAH. DCU/RAH both stack against each other. RAH gives the same 15% bonus to armor as a DCU does. However, It has the obvious benefit of shifting resists where its needed. It also uses slightly less CPU than a T2 DCU (about 6 CPU less).

The CPU difference is fairly handy for CPU intensive fits. Take for example a torpedo typhoon.

Setting the RAH resist shift to cover your biggest holes (30% split) and EHP numbers are very similar to that of a DCU fit. The difference in total EHP is minimal, DCU ahead by 1-2k EHP IIRC. However looking at a fight against a laser ship (as an example), the RAH will create a much stronger armor tank than what a DCU could acheive. It also allows the explosive hole to be filled after dual EANM+DCU standard. Same principle applies to other damage locked ships (hybrids, kinetic lock missiles etc).

On most armor buffer fits, by the time your armor tank is gone, there is a good chance youre dead anyway, so id rather maximize armor resist/tank than hull. This is especially true of kite fits that use nanos. Since on things like BS and BC, a nano is a significant chunk of hull. So instead of DCU+EANM+LAAR fit, it might be slightly better to go RAH+EANM+LAAR.

In terms of cap use, on a BS especially, its a non issue. Cap boosted kiting BCs and some cruisers would also be a non-issue. So yea, replacing a DCU with a RAH on a confessor probably isnt the best idea, but there is some merit to using a RAH over a DCU on larger more stable ships.


The question with this is why did nobody do this before? This is the riddle nobody in favour of this change an answer. Fitting a DCU yields the exact same end results as before, if we didn't fit the RAH before then why would we now?


Cycle time and cap consumption maybe? Faster cycles are easier to shut down via neuts since they have more chance of getting a re-cycle when your cap is dry.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#1031 - 2016-03-14 16:52:45 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.



When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.

Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade.


For ships that fit a DC and one damage mod, dropping the DC in favor of another damage mod is closer to a 20% increase in DPS. For buffer ships VS AAR ships, its often worth it to drop the DC for another damage mod, as it's not about surviving longer, but beating the AAR or MASB faster to win the fight.

It's interesting that you pick the taranis, because one of the best taranis fits right now is dual prop, which doesn't usually fit a magstab at all, using void and with two hobgobs and decent skills, you can expect to see slightly more than an 18% increase by replacing the DC with a magstab on the the dual prop fit. Usually, it only fits a dps rig, and thus gains very close to the maximum benefit of fitting a damage mod. It's tank doesn't rely on either it's DC or it's AAR; it's a sig tanked ship and it relies on target selection to avoid other frigates with a tracking bonus. The only thing it needs to do is get under it's opponents guns with it's afterburner fast enough to avoid damage and kill its opponent before help arrives.


If it is speed and signature tanking, why would it fit a DCU at all? Surely you would fit modules that made your signature and speed tank more effective? Which is Baltec's point...

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1032 - 2016-03-14 17:14:37 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
FT Cold wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's funny you pick out the taranis, since those were fit together from scraps I happened to have laying around the staging system, which happened to include damage controls because they were used on our drakes too. I barely even looked at what I was fitting because the main objective of those ships was to keep a bunch of guys busy (in our little fleet of 3) while our primary fleet was hitting another system, so as long as we had an entosis link nothing else really mattered. And sure, a taranis with a DCU fighting a taranis without might be a win, but when you fit your ships do you only consider how they would fare against another ship of the same type? I tend to consider how they'd do against my likely targets.



When I fit a ship I consider whats best for the ship.

Losing 1/3 of your tank to gain 10% more firepower is not a smart trade.


For ships that fit a DC and one damage mod, dropping the DC in favor of another damage mod is closer to a 20% increase in DPS. For buffer ships VS AAR ships, its often worth it to drop the DC for another damage mod, as it's not about surviving longer, but beating the AAR or MASB faster to win the fight.

It's interesting that you pick the taranis, because one of the best taranis fits right now is dual prop, which doesn't usually fit a magstab at all, using void and with two hobgobs and decent skills, you can expect to see slightly more than an 18% increase by replacing the DC with a magstab on the the dual prop fit. Usually, it only fits a dps rig, and thus gains very close to the maximum benefit of fitting a damage mod. It's tank doesn't rely on either it's DC or it's AAR; it's a sig tanked ship and it relies on target selection to avoid other frigates with a tracking bonus. The only thing it needs to do is get under it's opponents guns with it's afterburner fast enough to avoid damage and kill its opponent before help arrives.


If it is speed and signature tanking, why would it fit a DCU at all? Surely you would fit modules that made your signature and speed tank more effective? Which is Baltec's point...


For two reasons, the first being that you need enough buffer to make it under their guns, which, in the case of taranis, you have a lot more of now thanks to the structure buff changes. The second is that you need to kill them fast. You'll still take some damage from other frigates, even if they don't have a tracking bonus, so you need to to beat their DPS and possible help as quickly as you can. You could fit speed mods, but in most scenarios where you'd want to actually fight someone, you're better off with the DPS.
Jayden Thomas
The Filth Columnists
United Federation of Conifers
#1033 - 2016-03-14 20:16:26 UTC
2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules

Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units..
Seth Kanan
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
#1034 - 2016-03-16 10:48:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Seth Kanan
I am surprised to hear weird stories about there is no ganking anymore. The opposite is true. Ganking is easy as ever. It takes almost nothing plus zero risk to kill some freighters and miners in highsec. Ganking is safe and one can make billions easily. Thats very bad gameplay. Truckers and miners are loosing billions and cant do anything against that because there is no counter-play. People should have at least some fun and freedom in highsec. I can only imagine how many beginners stopped playing because of ganking. The recent changes helped a little but there is still a long road to make the hauling business even remotely an option.
Fiddly Pop
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#1035 - 2016-03-16 15:50:34 UTC
Seth Kanan wrote:
I am surprised to hear weird stories about there is no ganking anymore. The opposite is true. Ganking is easy as ever. It takes almost nothing plus zero risk to kill some freighters and miners in highsec. Ganking is safe and one can make billions easily. Thats very bad gameplay. Truckers and miners are loosing billions and cant do anything against that because there is no counter-play. People should have at least some fun and freedom in highsec. I can only imagine how many beginners stopped playing because of ganking. The recent changes helped a little but there is still a long road to make the hauling business even remotely an option.



Ganking is not that easy, we had to recruit a lot of Agents for the New Order of Highsec. It takes many people to coordinate together. There is a lot of timing involved between the many different roles.

also ganking is easy to stop, stay at the keyboard and buy a permit. Permits are cheep

alternatively you can find a group of friends to fly with that have pvp skills and are not afraid to get their hands dirty.
you can hire AntiGanking fleets.

as far as new players leaving because of ganking, here is what CCP Rise said:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5504176#post5504221

Have a great day! Big smile



Darth Terona
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#1036 - 2016-03-17 02:40:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Terona
First let me say that I'm a big fan of code and what they do

Content creation at its finest

But I also have to say that a feedback thread is not the place for your redderict.

Please find some class
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1037 - 2016-03-20 19:12:48 UTC
Jayden Thomas wrote:
2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules

Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units..


Good news! The module formerly known as Drone Control Units (being renamed to Fighter Support Units) is becoming passive in the Citadel expansion next month.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

HeXxploiT
Doomheim
#1038 - 2016-03-21 17:27:07 UTC
I really hope you guys have accounted for the popularity of damage controls in the drop rates. If these officer modules drop at the same rate of other officer items We will never see them on market. The drop rate for officer damage controls should be triple that of other officer items MINIMUM.

Jayden Thomas
The Filth Columnists
United Federation of Conifers
#1039 - 2016-03-24 01:07:56 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Jayden Thomas wrote:
2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules

Now lets talk about those Drone Control Units..


Good news! The module formerly known as Drone Control Units (being renamed to Fighter Support Units) is becoming passive in the Citadel expansion next month.


Thatta kid
Bianca Niam
Doomheim
#1040 - 2016-04-04 19:00:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Bianca Niam
Hate it. I lost over 11k tank in one day. If I want it back, I need to spend 8 billion. And then it's not even 60%.
Stop caring for ******* gankers already, jesus christ.