These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The end of Hybrid buff
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#501 - 2012-02-02 10:20:15 UTC
Dabid Slave wrote:
Garr Earthbender wrote:
I've seen a lot more Gallente ships flying about, that's for sure. Especially after this last buff. I think we're at the tail end of the 'Winmatar' era.


Hurricane is still the most common ship I run across whenever I get outside my wormhole, but I suspect that will give way to a lot more talos in the coming days. Should be interesting to see where caldari and amarr end up with gallente making some headway and the drake about to undergo a role-switch to a more offensive platform.

Also, min/gal recons with t2 skirmish links are definitely the most absurd thing in the game atm.


Also, it's not new Lachesis and Arazus can disrupt at max 100km and it comes certainly not from this last buff. Why do you think thse were the only galletne ships fc's wanted in their fleets, because of their monstruous powerfull Ewar abilities?

And no they're not absurd, those are reccons and gallente reccons are the theoretical second weakest ones you can find around after the caladari ones, the difference is that caldari ones will make you just never be able to target whatever, gallente ones just rush them and hammer them from the top of their head.

If you get caught by rapiers/pulgrim and get killed because you couldn't do anything then you're doing it wrong, just think about havinf 5 ecm uber drones and those are not a problem any longuer, if you do it well those will just be KM's on your KB

Lol
Kn1v3s 999
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#502 - 2012-02-02 16:40:44 UTC
In solo/small gang Gallente were always, even before, p much viable.
Light blaster were good even before Cruciable.

BUT

they still lack a ship (sub-cap) for big fleets and blob warfare

Caldari have Drake/Tengu
Minnie have Hurricane/Tempest/Maelstorm
Amarr have Zealot/Abbadon/Apoc

Gallente lack a HAC, BC, BS that can do this kind of work
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#503 - 2012-02-02 17:56:05 UTC
diemos makes a mean ahac now and not a bad lrhs hac...

as for bc... yeah you are correct but the tier I bc buff should fix this...

and for bs's well lets hope for a hyperion buff to fix this ass well... (pun intended)

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Her Innocence Lost
Doomheim
#504 - 2012-02-02 18:23:15 UTC
Kn1v3s 999 wrote:
In solo/small gang Gallente were always, even before, p much viable.
Light blaster were good even before Cruciable.

BUT

they still lack a ship (sub-cap) for big fleets and blob warfare

Caldari have Drake/Tengu
Minnie have Hurricane/Tempest/Maelstorm
Amarr have Zealot/Abbadon/Apoc

Gallente lack a HAC, BC, BS that can do this kind of work


You didn't list a caldari hac or bs there either, fyi.
Kn1v3s 999
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#505 - 2012-02-02 19:51:55 UTC
Her Innocence Lost wrote:
Kn1v3s 999 wrote:
In solo/small gang Gallente were always, even before, p much viable.
Light blaster were good even before Cruciable.

BUT

they still lack a ship (sub-cap) for big fleets and blob warfare

Caldari have Drake/Tengu
Minnie have Hurricane/Tempest/Maelstorm
Amarr have Zealot/Abbadon/Apoc

Gallente lack a HAC, BC, BS that can do this kind of work


You didn't list a caldari hac or bs there either, fyi.



i have just listed the fotm ships for fleet warfare.

I have not said that every race have one for each class, but that every race at least have one of that options (more like 2+) and the only race that don t have one is Gallente, and that s one reason you will not see gallente ships in any list of "most used ships"
Her Innocence Lost
Doomheim
#506 - 2012-02-02 20:12:47 UTC
Kn1v3s 999 wrote:
Her Innocence Lost wrote:
Kn1v3s 999 wrote:
In solo/small gang Gallente were always, even before, p much viable.
Light blaster were good even before Cruciable.

BUT

they still lack a ship (sub-cap) for big fleets and blob warfare

Caldari have Drake/Tengu
Minnie have Hurricane/Tempest/Maelstorm
Amarr have Zealot/Abbadon/Apoc

Gallente lack a HAC, BC, BS that can do this kind of work


You didn't list a caldari hac or bs there either, fyi.



i have just listed the fotm ships for fleet warfare.

I have not said that every race have one for each class, but that every race at least have one of that options (more like 2+) and the only race that don t have one is Gallente, and that s one reason you will not see gallente ships in any list of "most used ships"


Just pointing out that you listed them for minmatar and amarr, not for caldari, and follow by saying gallente lack them.

Caldari lack in the same places, they just have two giant bandaids. Two fotm ships do not a balance race make.
Kn1v3s 999
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2012-02-02 22:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Kn1v3s 999
And Drake and Tengu are not Caldari anymore? not much but still they have something. I don't call it balance, i call it fact, as it' s a fact that Gallente have none.
Umega
Solis Mensa
#508 - 2012-02-02 23:23:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Umega
Hrett wrote:
Sadly, they dont work well in orbit against even larger ships. Last week I was orbiting a BC in my Thorax and using void and electrons. 90+% of my hits were "light." I know void has an effect, and I didnt have a web, but electrons should have balanced that out...

Blasters are designed to be used in close range and in orbit. If they cant hit properly in orbit against a bigger ship, something is wrong. Again - I need to do some more complete testing with some corpmates, but something appears wonky.


Quote:
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)

Note: max(a,b) is a function that returns the greater of two values.

Note that ChanceToHit is a number between 0 and 1, and is primarly determined by Transversal Speed and Range To Target.

EVE tests ChanceToHit for each individual shot made by a gun turret against X, where X is a random number also between 0 and 1, e.g. 0.765321, generated by the EVE server for each shot.

If X < ChanceToHit, the shot is a hit. If X > ChanceToHit, the shot is a miss or zero damage is applied.

X also determines the quality of a hit. If X < 0.01, then the Quality Of Hit multiplier = 3. (i.e. a 'Wrecking' shot) If X > 0.01 the Quality Of Hit multiplier = X + 0.5

ChanceToHit, essentially, specifies an interval in which values of X can fall that qualify or disqualify a hit. The larger this interval, the larger the values X can take, and hence the larger the hit multiplier (i.e. X + 0.5) can be.

For example: A shot with ChanceToHit = 0.97 X = 0.980, the shot misses. X = 0.541, the shot hits, with a damage multiplier= 1.041. X = 0.001, the shot hits, 'wrecking' with damage multiplier = 3.



There is such a thing as orbitting too close. Even on a larger target, it is going to end up messing with your total dmg output numbers. Even at say a speed of roughly 225 m/s.. really close transversal gets fierce. If I remember your story right from another thread.. it was against a Naga and makes sense to be tight so don't get smacked.. (altho not sure why the Naga pilot didn't move himself around manually to counter your set orbit to cut down on the transversal himself so he could whack you with a couple of volleys since you had no web), but anyway..

Without really knowing how he and you were both flying.. I'm guessing you set orbit to 500 maybe 1k and left it at that. Shoulda aim'd for an orbit set of 1700-2000 so your actually orbit would have been around 2500-3k (depending on your target's flight patterns of course) and your dmg output woulda gone up by quite a signficant percentage.

There is also luck involved.. and the dice could have been poor to you for the fight ontop of a too tight orbit.

 Ume-Pro Studios
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2012-02-03 00:40:17 UTC
Umega wrote:
Hrett wrote:
Sadly, they dont work well in orbit against even larger ships. Last week I was orbiting a BC in my Thorax and using void and electrons. 90+% of my hits were "light." I know void has an effect, and I didnt have a web, but electrons should have balanced that out...

Blasters are designed to be used in close range and in orbit. If they cant hit properly in orbit against a bigger ship, something is wrong. Again - I need to do some more complete testing with some corpmates, but something appears wonky.


Quote:
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)

Note: max(a,b) is a function that returns the greater of two values.

Note that ChanceToHit is a number between 0 and 1, and is primarly determined by Transversal Speed and Range To Target.

EVE tests ChanceToHit for each individual shot made by a gun turret against X, where X is a random number also between 0 and 1, e.g. 0.765321, generated by the EVE server for each shot.

If X < ChanceToHit, the shot is a hit. If X > ChanceToHit, the shot is a miss or zero damage is applied.

X also determines the quality of a hit. If X < 0.01, then the Quality Of Hit multiplier = 3. (i.e. a 'Wrecking' shot) If X > 0.01 the Quality Of Hit multiplier = X + 0.5

ChanceToHit, essentially, specifies an interval in which values of X can fall that qualify or disqualify a hit. The larger this interval, the larger the values X can take, and hence the larger the hit multiplier (i.e. X + 0.5) can be.

For example: A shot with ChanceToHit = 0.97 X = 0.980, the shot misses. X = 0.541, the shot hits, with a damage multiplier= 1.041. X = 0.001, the shot hits, 'wrecking' with damage multiplier = 3.



There is such a thing as orbitting too close. Even on a larger target, it is going to end up messing with your total dmg output numbers. Even at say a speed of roughly 225 m/s.. really close transversal gets fierce. If I remember your story right from another thread.. it was against a Naga and makes sense to be tight so don't get smacked.. (altho not sure why the Naga pilot didn't move himself around manually to counter your set orbit to cut down on the transversal himself so he could whack you with a couple of volleys since you had no web), but anyway..

Without really knowing how he and you were both flying.. I'm guessing you set orbit to 500 maybe 1k and left it at that. Shoulda aim'd for an orbit set of 1700-2000 so your actually orbit would have been around 2500-3k (depending on your target's flight patterns of course) and your dmg output woulda gone up by quite a signficant percentage.

There is also luck involved.. and the dice could have been poor to you for the fight ontop of a too tight orbit.


Im not at home right now, so I cant post the data, but this is what I learned from looking at logs and doing EVEHQ damage analysis yesterday. I used my ship and his ship (taken from one of his naga lossmail) in the utility.

Im on an iPad, and typing is a pain, but long story short:

Logs showed I had orbit set at 2000, but i approached first (we were in a belt at 0) and was closer for a good part of fight. For my damage analysis, Naga pilot had all 5s and was going ~240ish (which is what eft said his speed was).

Basically, with no web, orbiting at ~150 speed at ~1900ish distance, the damage analysis with void loaded said I had like a 53% chance to hit. Antimatter, orbiting around ~1300ish distance (because of the shorter optimal), was only slightly better - like 58%. However, the net effect of the void damage bonus and optimal bonus actually put the 'effective dps' slighty higher with void - even without a web.

I did a second run with a web at the same distances (Naga now moving ~97 speed), and the hit % chances went up into the 70% range for both - but void still had the better dps despite the poorer tracking.

Bottom line, if the utility is right, ELECTRONS with a WEB and orbiting at reduced speed SLIGHTLY inside optimal gives you about a 70% chance to hit. Maybe its just me, but that seems low. Without a web, you are getting a good bit less than 50% of your paper DPS INSIDE OPTIMAL. Again - that seems really low to me.

Im not jumping to any conclusions yet - I want to do it in - game, but those numbers still strike me as low. I wonder how neutrons would do in same analysis? I would guess that blasters still need a tracking buff.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Hydroponos
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#510 - 2012-02-26 19:45:24 UTC
Zyress wrote:
I was fitting a Falcon the other night and I still get a better fit and more dps/alpha from Arties without any buffs than I get form Rails with a Buff. So no, when a ship with Hybrid buffs is better with projectiles then Hybrids aren't fixed.

Exactly, same goes for the Ferox.
Josef Djugashvilis
#511 - 2012-02-26 23:06:13 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Rails now has +10% of very little dps, +5% of very little tracking. Blasters now has +0% of very little range. Gallante slowboats has +5% of very slow speed.

Did it occur to CCP that adding very little percentage of very little is still very little?Lol

If you're going to give +5% of something, make it 5% of AC range/dps, etc.



Talking sense, and I only fly Gallente, more fool me.

This is not a signature.
ElCholo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#512 - 2012-02-28 04:27:14 UTC
Are you fools still going at it in here? I thought this ended a couple months ago...