These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Old Guard Weighs in on Battleships flaws
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#101 - 2015-07-15 07:38:48 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:

Dual 425s have a lot of uses. Its just people have preconceived notions that they cant hit anything because they are large guns. They already track very well for a BS sized gun that does BS levels of dps. You lower the sig resolution and you can quite easily start popping frigs with no problem if you know what youre doing. Ive killed a couple hecates with them the past couple days.

That being said, im not opposed to the change, as its fairly logical, but can see how it could be abused easily. Hybrid/laser equivalent may not be as dicey as ac's to balance. Thing with acs is they get ammo that increases tracking. Throw in a meta rig or drop booster, and you can get well over medium 220 tracking with dual 425s.


That's why I have always been a fan of the pest. It's a fantastic ship, very adaptable relatively cheap after the up front cost. I always cringe when people demand it should get a tracking bonus.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2015-07-15 09:40:54 UTC
A lot of people need to learn math. In eve , due to how the tracking formula works, it is nothing else but a modifier over the applied DPS that is not linear.

So it does not matter if you have 20% more tracking but 25% less DPS. Tracking capabilities must be MUCH more pronounced to make a serious effect, and that is why ships with tracking bonuses need a 7.5% bonus per level to match a 5% damage bonus, and that only on a amorespecific scenario.

A 7.5% rof bonus is better than an usual tracking bonus on most part of the engagement envelope. And that is not opinion, its math.

People fitting Dual 425 MM THINKING they will be dealing more damage, are just placeboing themselves. THe ammount you lose due to smaller falloff and smaller base dps means more than what you gain on tracking on all engagement envelpe except the very apex of the limit between the radial velocity of the target vs your tracking. And you do nto FIT a ship for extreme scenarios that only happen when you are already losing a fight.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2015-07-15 09:46:19 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Some battleships need to be tuned. They finally did the tempest, one less to go.


On a general note, battleships decay is related to the environment. Back on AoE dooomsday age, battleships were needed a lot, because smaller ships would NOT survive a doomsday. So much that logi cruisers were EXTREMELY rare, since they were fragile to AoE.

Nowadays the ONLY AoE weapon in usage, the bombs, is effectively almost only against battleships. So the scenario is reversed completely.



Changes to the AoE weaponry would be a good way to balance things. Make bombs do less damage but be more efficient against smaller ships, and suddenly you will start to see more battleships. Halve their base damage.... cur their " resolution" (i do not remember if it is listed as explosion radius sorry) to 1/3 of now.

or just give battleships a role bonus... 33% less damage from AoE sources :) that would be awkward but would make it work.

T3 need to have less EHP, or battleships need way more EHP (in fact I think the sane approach would be to reduce a bit t3 and increase a tiny bit battleships so that the feeling of nerf everything does not come up). A t3 cruiser should NEVER exceed the EHP of a buffer tanked abaddon or navy battleships. In fact they probably should not even exceed command ships EHP.


Something I think needs to be done is rebalance the tier 1 2 and 3 of large guns. Large guns do not hit anything unless the target is far or is tackled heavily, therefore there is very very little reason to use the Dua 425mm, Electrons.. etc

I would make those guns more effective against smaller threats ( reduce the sig to 300 from 400 on them), that would already be a good start.


Dual 425s have a lot of uses. Its just people have preconceived notions that they cant hit anything because they are large guns. They already track very well for a BS sized gun that does BS levels of dps. You lower the sig resolution and you can quite easily start popping frigs with no problem if you know what youre doing. Ive killed a couple hecates with them the past couple days.

That being said, im not opposed to the change, as its fairly logical, but can see how it could be abused easily. Hybrid/laser equivalent may not be as dicey as ac's to balance. Thing with acs is they get ammo that increases tracking. Throw in a meta rig or drop booster, and you can get well over medium 220 tracking with dual 425s.


less exageration and extrapolation of feelings and more math, not if you reduce the resolution you cannot track frigates easily. People need to use more MATH. Reducign the resolution by 25% has LESS impact on extreme tracking situations than a single tracking computer on the ship. If battleships coudl track frigates easily just by fitting a track computer, we would not see a single cruiser being used in eve.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#104 - 2015-07-15 10:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Kagura Nikon wrote:
less exageration and extrapolation of feelings and more math, not if you reduce the resolution you cannot track frigates easily. People need to use more MATH. Reducign the resolution by 25% has LESS impact on extreme tracking situations than a single tracking computer on the ship. If battleships coudl track frigates easily just by fitting a track computer, we would not see a single cruiser being used in eve.



Buffing damage application of BS weapons would create massive problems in regards to balancing and would be a nerf to everything smaller than a BS (not just bombers or T3), it would create more problems than it solves. To fix the problem you have to fix the cause, in this case T3 and bombers, your earlier post points at the issues and possible solutions.

Touching resolution is a Pandora's box we should stay away from.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#105 - 2015-07-15 12:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Some battleships need to be tuned. They finally did the tempest, one less to go.


On a general note, battleships decay is related to the environment. Back on AoE dooomsday age, battleships were needed a lot, because smaller ships would NOT survive a doomsday. So much that logi cruisers were EXTREMELY rare, since they were fragile to AoE.

Nowadays the ONLY AoE weapon in usage, the bombs, is effectively almost only against battleships. So the scenario is reversed completely.



Changes to the AoE weaponry would be a good way to balance things. Make bombs do less damage but be more efficient against smaller ships, and suddenly you will start to see more battleships. Halve their base damage.... cur their " resolution" (i do not remember if it is listed as explosion radius sorry) to 1/3 of now.

or just give battleships a role bonus... 33% less damage from AoE sources :) that would be awkward but would make it work.

T3 need to have less EHP, or battleships need way more EHP (in fact I think the sane approach would be to reduce a bit t3 and increase a tiny bit battleships so that the feeling of nerf everything does not come up). A t3 cruiser should NEVER exceed the EHP of a buffer tanked abaddon or navy battleships. In fact they probably should not even exceed command ships EHP.


Something I think needs to be done is rebalance the tier 1 2 and 3 of large guns. Large guns do not hit anything unless the target is far or is tackled heavily, therefore there is very very little reason to use the Dua 425mm, Electrons.. etc

I would make those guns more effective against smaller threats ( reduce the sig to 300 from 400 on them), that would already be a good start.


Dual 425s have a lot of uses. Its just people have preconceived notions that they cant hit anything because they are large guns. They already track very well for a BS sized gun that does BS levels of dps. You lower the sig resolution and you can quite easily start popping frigs with no problem if you know what youre doing. Ive killed a couple hecates with them the past couple days.

That being said, im not opposed to the change, as its fairly logical, but can see how it could be abused easily. Hybrid/laser equivalent may not be as dicey as ac's to balance. Thing with acs is they get ammo that increases tracking. Throw in a meta rig or drop booster, and you can get well over medium 220 tracking with dual 425s.


less exageration and extrapolation of feelings and more math, not if you reduce the resolution you cannot track frigates easily. People need to use more MATH. Reducign the resolution by 25% has LESS impact on extreme tracking situations than a single tracking computer on the ship. If battleships coudl track frigates easily just by fitting a track computer, we would not see a single cruiser being used in eve.

People should actually fly the ships and spend less time mathing it up. As you will find its still quite easy to kill frigs with dual 425s and sabot. Check my KB and you will find plenty of proof of this. Ive been killing frigs with dual 425s since 2013. There is a thing called transversal which can compensate for sig resolution. And once youre in that sweet spot, the extra tracking will keep you on target

Adding a TP to a mwd frigate is normally plenty to get sig big enough for dual 425s to track slicers and other mwd frigs. The exceptions are AF that get sig reduction bonuses, or if theyre linked.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#106 - 2015-07-15 13:18:42 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
A lot of people need to learn math. In eve , due to how the tracking formula works, it is nothing else but a modifier over the applied DPS that is not linear.

So it does not matter if you have 20% more tracking but 25% less DPS. Tracking capabilities must be MUCH more pronounced to make a serious effect, and that is why ships with tracking bonuses need a 7.5% bonus per level to match a 5% damage bonus, and that only on a amorespecific scenario.

A 7.5% rof bonus is better than an usual tracking bonus on most part of the engagement envelope. And that is not opinion, its math.

People fitting Dual 425 MM THINKING they will be dealing more damage, are just placeboing themselves. THe ammount you lose due to smaller falloff and smaller base dps means more than what you gain on tracking on all engagement envelpe except the very apex of the limit between the radial velocity of the target vs your tracking. And you do nto FIT a ship for extreme scenarios that only happen when you are already losing a fight.


I am not THINKING they will track well. I am TELLING you they track well (if you know what you're doing). Yes, sig resolution will make hitting a malediction orbiting 3.5k/s at 20km impossible to hit with dual 425s if youre sitting still. But if you try to slingshot or in the case of the pest, use your neuts, you can gain the needed transversal to hit. Yes there will always be exceptions, but they're not the rule.

Also your comparison about range on 425's is irrelavent when theyre used to brawl with. Good tracking plus decent base range (about the same as a vaga with medium 425's) means they are quite capable at brawling. If put on a tornado, you get a falloff bonus, meaning they track well and have decent range. Still get over 40km range with barrage.

The last point on dual 425s is fitting. They use the least amount of grid for a BS sized turret ( i THINK RHML use less in terms of launchers). This opens up fitting options. I have a 1500dps tank pest FI i use on occasion that works only because of the dual 425s and their low fitting. My tornado also has a fantastic anti-frig fit because the dual 425s give me the fitting i need to make the fit work.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#107 - 2015-07-16 05:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Kagura Nikon wrote:
A lot of people need to learn math. In eve , due to how the tracking formula works, it is nothing else but a modifier over the applied DPS that is not linear.

So it does not matter if you have 20% more tracking but 25% less DPS. Tracking capabilities must be MUCH more pronounced to make a serious effect, and that is why ships with tracking bonuses need a 7.5% bonus per level to match a 5% damage bonus, and that only on a amorespecific scenario.

A 7.5% rof bonus is better than an usual tracking bonus on most part of the engagement envelope. And that is not opinion, its math.

People fitting Dual 425 MM THINKING they will be dealing more damage, are just placeboing themselves. THe ammount you lose due to smaller falloff and smaller base dps means more than what you gain on tracking on all engagement envelpe except the very apex of the limit between the radial velocity of the target vs your tracking. And you do nto FIT a ship for extreme scenarios that only happen when you are already losing a fight.


You need to do less eft maths and more flying in game. If I only looked at the eft maths I would never have tried to use a Megathron in frigate fleets thinking it lacked agility. Turns out not only can it keep up but it can out run them when burning.
Klatus Doshu
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#108 - 2015-07-16 07:18:53 UTC
Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2015-07-16 07:55:41 UTC  |  Edited by: ChromeStriker
Klatus Doshu wrote:
Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea


Reality and common sense have no place in this game! Evil

Because Quantum... or nanites...

No Worries
Valkin Mordirc
#110 - 2015-07-16 08:10:53 UTC
Klatus Doshu wrote:
Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea



That idea has been beaten to death resurrected then beaten to death again. There's a reason battleships don't have 'point defense systems' 
#DeleteTheWeak
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2015-07-16 09:45:27 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Klatus Doshu wrote:
Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea



That idea has been beaten to death resurrected then beaten to death again. There's a reason battleships don't have 'point defense systems'


Think of it this way... titans are upward of 5km long.... That could support a varitable armoury of weapon systems that would equate to a fleet of smaller ships (including BS's)... obviously putting this in game would be rediculious.

This same argument goes for battleships too.

No Worries
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#112 - 2015-07-16 12:09:24 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Klatus Doshu wrote:
Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea


Going down the "modern battleships" route, HMS Dreadnought showed that two swordfish torps would snap it in half.

This is a game and balance comes before realism.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#113 - 2015-07-16 13:47:06 UTC
Im not sure why this point defense idea keeps popping up everywhere. Its hilariously imbalanced if it were ever implemented. Why fly a cruiser or frigate when i can fly my 125k EHP typhoon with RHML and RLML with MJD. Dont forget neuts. So ill have a heavy and light missile spamming brick tanked BS that can escape at will and insta-cap anything smaller than a battlecruiser.

No to point defense. It breaks balance. BS dont need much. They are ineffective because their prey, battlecruisers, are under used. They dont counter cruisers, and cruisers run circles around them. If BCs countered cruisers better, like destroyers counter frigs, then BS would have more uses killing BCs. See my signature (shameless plug)

Yes bombs need rebalanced on the fleet side of things and maybe some targeting speed buffs.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#114 - 2015-07-16 15:34:18 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Klatus Doshu wrote:
Well, what do "modern" naval Battle ships have? They have mixed sized Weapons....so perhaps make it viable to equip medium sized weapons (besides the large ones) to counter smaller targets
E.g. divide the hi slots, give a bonus to the large weapons to compensate the loss and perhaps some application bonus for the smaller weapons.
Just as an idea



That idea has been beaten to death resurrected then beaten to death again. There's a reason battleships don't have 'point defense systems'



You can fit small weapons on battleships.

An application bonus would be very bad. Goons would dupliclone Baltec1 and there would be swams of the new 'megthron frigates' all over new eden. This would not be a good thing.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2015-07-16 17:19:10 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Some battleships need to be tuned. They finally did the tempest, one less to go.


On a general note, battleships decay is related to the environment. Back on AoE dooomsday age, battleships were needed a lot, because smaller ships would NOT survive a doomsday. So much that logi cruisers were EXTREMELY rare, since they were fragile to AoE.

Nowadays the ONLY AoE weapon in usage, the bombs, is effectively almost only against battleships. So the scenario is reversed completely.



Changes to the AoE weaponry would be a good way to balance things. Make bombs do less damage but be more efficient against smaller ships, and suddenly you will start to see more battleships. Halve their base damage.... cur their " resolution" (i do not remember if it is listed as explosion radius sorry) to 1/3 of now.

or just give battleships a role bonus... 33% less damage from AoE sources :) that would be awkward but would make it work.

T3 need to have less EHP, or battleships need way more EHP (in fact I think the sane approach would be to reduce a bit t3 and increase a tiny bit battleships so that the feeling of nerf everything does not come up). A t3 cruiser should NEVER exceed the EHP of a buffer tanked abaddon or navy battleships. In fact they probably should not even exceed command ships EHP.


Something I think needs to be done is rebalance the tier 1 2 and 3 of large guns. Large guns do not hit anything unless the target is far or is tackled heavily, therefore there is very very little reason to use the Dua 425mm, Electrons.. etc

I would make those guns more effective against smaller threats ( reduce the sig to 300 from 400 on them), that would already be a good start.


Dual 425s have a lot of uses. Its just people have preconceived notions that they cant hit anything because they are large guns. They already track very well for a BS sized gun that does BS levels of dps. You lower the sig resolution and you can quite easily start popping frigs with no problem if you know what youre doing. Ive killed a couple hecates with them the past couple days.

That being said, im not opposed to the change, as its fairly logical, but can see how it could be abused easily. Hybrid/laser equivalent may not be as dicey as ac's to balance. Thing with acs is they get ammo that increases tracking. Throw in a meta rig or drop booster, and you can get well over medium 220 tracking with dual 425s.


less exageration and extrapolation of feelings and more math, not if you reduce the resolution you cannot track frigates easily. People need to use more MATH. Reducign the resolution by 25% has LESS impact on extreme tracking situations than a single tracking computer on the ship. If battleships coudl track frigates easily just by fitting a track computer, we would not see a single cruiser being used in eve.

People should actually fly the ships and spend less time mathing it up. As you will find its still quite easy to kill frigs with dual 425s and sabot. Check my KB and you will find plenty of proof of this. Ive been killing frigs with dual 425s since 2013. There is a thing called transversal which can compensate for sig resolution. And once youre in that sweet spot, the extra tracking will keep you on target

Adding a TP to a mwd frigate is normally plenty to get sig big enough for dual 425s to track slicers and other mwd frigs. The exceptions are AF that get sig reduction bonuses, or if theyre linked.


funny... now math is wrong and personal perception is not.. right.


Yes it is easy to kill TACKLED ships, as I stated, and you woudl be able to grasp if you read what I wrote. But frigates that are tackled you can kill with Dual 425mm or 800mm EQUALY. That means that the tracking difference between dual 425 and 800mm is IRRELEVANT and do not give any real OPTIONS. Things you can kill with dual 425 mm you can do exaclty the same with 800mm.

Math is NEVER wrong. You just need to have the brains to use it well and interpret its results.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2015-07-16 17:21:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
baltec1 wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
A lot of people need to learn math. In eve , due to how the tracking formula works, it is nothing else but a modifier over the applied DPS that is not linear.

So it does not matter if you have 20% more tracking but 25% less DPS. Tracking capabilities must be MUCH more pronounced to make a serious effect, and that is why ships with tracking bonuses need a 7.5% bonus per level to match a 5% damage bonus, and that only on a amorespecific scenario.

A 7.5% rof bonus is better than an usual tracking bonus on most part of the engagement envelope. And that is not opinion, its math.

People fitting Dual 425 MM THINKING they will be dealing more damage, are just placeboing themselves. THe ammount you lose due to smaller falloff and smaller base dps means more than what you gain on tracking on all engagement envelpe except the very apex of the limit between the radial velocity of the target vs your tracking. And you do nto FIT a ship for extreme scenarios that only happen when you are already losing a fight.


You need to do less eft maths and more flying in game. If I only looked at the eft maths I would never have tried to use a Megathron in frigate fleets thinking it lacked agility. Turns out not only can it keep up but it can out run them when burning.



oo now a game that is run over processors that implement math can have different results than math? Yeah.. right .

Math is never wrong. If you had the capability to understand it ..

MAth shows that what you can kill with dual 425 MM you can do as well with 800mm. If you cannot achieve what math say it is possible, it is YOUR problem, not maths problem.

But most people problem seems to not be math, but basic communication skills. You assume and base your sentences as if i had said that battleships cannot kill frigates. That just show that you cannot post a response to what others write, because you answer statements that exist only on your imagination.

try to read what people write before spewing ego on your keyboard. The result is much better.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#117 - 2015-07-16 19:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Some battleships need to be tuned. They finally did the tempest, one less to go.


On a general note, battleships decay is related to the environment. Back on AoE dooomsday age, battleships were needed a lot, because smaller ships would NOT survive a doomsday. So much that logi cruisers were EXTREMELY rare, since they were fragile to AoE.

Nowadays the ONLY AoE weapon in usage, the bombs, is effectively almost only against battleships. So the scenario is reversed completely.



Changes to the AoE weaponry would be a good way to balance things. Make bombs do less damage but be more efficient against smaller ships, and suddenly you will start to see more battleships. Halve their base damage.... cur their " resolution" (i do not remember if it is listed as explosion radius sorry) to 1/3 of now.

or just give battleships a role bonus... 33% less damage from AoE sources :) that would be awkward but would make it work.

T3 need to have less EHP, or battleships need way more EHP (in fact I think the sane approach would be to reduce a bit t3 and increase a tiny bit battleships so that the feeling of nerf everything does not come up). A t3 cruiser should NEVER exceed the EHP of a buffer tanked abaddon or navy battleships. In fact they probably should not even exceed command ships EHP.


Something I think needs to be done is rebalance the tier 1 2 and 3 of large guns. Large guns do not hit anything unless the target is far or is tackled heavily, therefore there is very very little reason to use the Dua 425mm, Electrons.. etc

I would make those guns more effective against smaller threats ( reduce the sig to 300 from 400 on them), that would already be a good start.


Dual 425s have a lot of uses. Its just people have preconceived notions that they cant hit anything because they are large guns. They already track very well for a BS sized gun that does BS levels of dps. You lower the sig resolution and you can quite easily start popping frigs with no problem if you know what youre doing. Ive killed a couple hecates with them the past couple days.

That being said, im not opposed to the change, as its fairly logical, but can see how it could be abused easily. Hybrid/laser equivalent may not be as dicey as ac's to balance. Thing with acs is they get ammo that increases tracking. Throw in a meta rig or drop booster, and you can get well over medium 220 tracking with dual 425s.


less exageration and extrapolation of feelings and more math, not if you reduce the resolution you cannot track frigates easily. People need to use more MATH. Reducign the resolution by 25% has LESS impact on extreme tracking situations than a single tracking computer on the ship. If battleships coudl track frigates easily just by fitting a track computer, we would not see a single cruiser being used in eve.

People should actually fly the ships and spend less time mathing it up. As you will find its still quite easy to kill frigs with dual 425s and sabot. Check my KB and you will find plenty of proof of this. Ive been killing frigs with dual 425s since 2013. There is a thing called transversal which can compensate for sig resolution. And once youre in that sweet spot, the extra tracking will keep you on target

Adding a TP to a mwd frigate is normally plenty to get sig big enough for dual 425s to track slicers and other mwd frigs. The exceptions are AF that get sig reduction bonuses, or if theyre linked.


funny... now math is wrong and personal perception is not.. right.


Yes it is easy to kill TACKLED ships, as I stated, and you woudl be able to grasp if you read what I wrote. But frigates that are tackled you can kill with Dual 425mm or 800mm EQUALY. That means that the tracking difference between dual 425 and 800mm is IRRELEVANT and do not give any real OPTIONS. Things you can kill with dual 425 mm you can do exaclty the same with 800mm.

Math is NEVER wrong. You just need to have the brains to use it well and interpret its results.


Except the part where you missed the target painter. Ive killed slicers that had nothing but a TP on them out at 17-25km. It gets even better when its a mwd shield frig with MSE and shield rigs. Ive also 2 shotted MSE frigs with 720s at 15km too with nothing but tp and quake. Granted, lower sig resolution, but tracking is still pretty ****.

Im not saying the math is wrong. But not every fight starts at the disadvantage of the large turret. Where you land on grid, how you fly, how your opponent flies, your fits etc all play a role in how the fight goes. Simply looking at numbers and going "nope" is a pretty ****** way to determine if something works or not.

Now is every scenario going to be advantagous of the dual 425s? Of course not. EVE is balanced around everything having a counter. Im aware im playing with fire and could potentially be killed by a frig. Thats fine. But to say 425s are bad and not compare in a same ship size scenario large vs large, is also short sighted.

Dual 425s would track perfectly fine in BS vs BS or even BS vs BC. Lowering sig resolution so they track smaller ships is not their role, it is a role you and to a lesser extent I am putting on them because BS V BS or BS v BC fights are rare.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2015-07-16 21:02:35 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

I've got it. Let's give battleships a unique cargo hold specifically for cap boosters that can carry more than 20-30 Navy 800s.

More dedicated cargoholds should've been a thing for ages by now.

Give combat ships dedicated holds for their servicing tools. Mining Barges have ore holds. There's ship hangars/maintenance bays. The Indies have dedicated holds as welll oh and look - a cargohold specifically for ammo. Proof of concept right here. Give me a few hundred cubic meters cargohold for those 1400mm shells* or whatnot.




*Have you ever tried to figure out the other two dimensions of a sabbot of .015m³ volume if any of the dimensions is 1400mm?
Syrilian
Doomheim
#119 - 2015-07-16 21:19:02 UTC
Arcos Vandymion wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

I've got it. Let's give battleships a unique cargo hold specifically for cap boosters that can carry more than 20-30 Navy 800s.

More dedicated cargoholds should've been a thing for ages by now.

Give combat ships dedicated holds for their servicing tools. Mining Barges have ore holds. There's ship hangars/maintenance bays. The Indies have dedicated holds as welll oh and look - a cargohold specifically for ammo. Proof of concept right here. Give me a few hundred cubic meters cargohold for those 1400mm shells* or whatnot.




*Have you ever tried to figure out the other two dimensions of a sabbot of .015m³ volume if any of the dimensions is 1400mm?


By that logic, mining barges should be able to fit lots of guns. By definition, combat ships are designed for combat not storage. You can have one or the other, not both.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#120 - 2015-07-16 21:26:18 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:



oo now a game that is run over processors that implement math can have different results than math? Yeah.. right .

Math is never wrong. If you had the capability to understand it ..

MAth shows that what you can kill with dual 425 MM you can do as well with 800mm. If you cannot achieve what math say it is possible, it is YOUR problem, not maths problem.

But most people problem seems to not be math, but basic communication skills. You assume and base your sentences as if i had said that battleships cannot kill frigates. That just show that you cannot post a response to what others write, because you answer statements that exist only on your imagination.

try to read what people write before spewing ego on your keyboard. The result is much better.


How about you read what I wrote?

I said if you look at the maths in EFT you would think it impossible for a megathron to move around as fast as a frigate fleet. In reality I do just that on a regular basis.