These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Proteus. Drone subsystem upgrade. And advanced drone commands. (all ships with drone spaces)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zicon Shak'ra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-08-16 19:01:53 UTC
Any Proteus that is not fitted for epic blaster DPS is a bad Proteus.

Wormholes are cool, m'kay?
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#22 - 2012-08-17 13:13:17 UTC
Nicaragua wrote:
Proteus should not be able to field 5 heavy drones, thats the ishtars territory and no T3 should be able to do what a HAC does.

I know that this is not the current state of play but devs have already said that HAC's are the specialist ships and should therefore be the best at what they do. T3's are verstaile jack of all trades.


loki is better than the vagabond in all area's except speed. It's just plain better than a muninn.

tengu is better than the cerberus full stop. I haven't checked, but the eagle is so terrible that it probably is better than that too.

Legion is better than the Zealot in every way. I haven't flown it with HAM config to compare to the sacrilidge... but i'd wager is as good as it if not better.

Proteus is better than the deimos in every way. It's so far behind the ishtar in terms of drones though uts not funny.

So either you nerf every other T3, Buff the proteus drone setup or buff other HAC's

Im for the buff other HAC's... since the ishtar is the shining example of a ship you'd want to fly over a T3... the other HAC's are just a poor-mans T3.
Roderick Grey
Koenigsbergers
#23 - 2012-08-17 14:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Roderick Grey
Zicon Shak'ra wrote:
Any Proteus that is not fitted for epic blaster DPS is a bad Proteus.


Except fleet Proteuses, y'know, the ones everyone use?

“We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.” - Special needs division of Fcon.
Nicaragua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-08-17 15:20:55 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
So either you nerf every other T3, Buff the proteus drone setup or buff other HAC's


I'd be happy with every other T3 being nerfed. A jack of all trades should not outperform a specialist ship.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#25 - 2012-08-17 16:53:46 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Nicaragua wrote:
Proteus should not be able to field 5 heavy drones, thats the ishtars territory and no T3 should be able to do what a HAC does.


Agree on the Drone stuff but thing is that if my Deimos could ever be close to how good my Proteus is at dealing dmg and tanking stuff...

Quote:
I know that this is not the current state of play but devs have already said that HAC's are the specialist ships and should therefore be the best at what they do. T3's are verstaile jack of all trades.


So, a ship requiring as much lvl5 skills as Strategic Cruisers should just be subpar of every T2 hull in whatever field ?
Your reasoning is wrong, it's plain wrong probably because of myths created by silly people not being able to make a difference in between a T2 fitted T3 and a 3+ BILLIONS T3 fit.
The biggest problem of T3's after 2 of them with better command subs than command ships is how much silly people can be, and Eve players excel in this matter.




Basically you're saying, that a Tech 2 Fitted Strategic Cruiser is balanced and doesn't overshine a Tech 2 Fitted HAC. You are also stating that dishing a few billion of ISK into a shiphull makes the ship good and has nothing to do with balancing. Is that correct?

If you answered this with YES, then please put 2-3 billion ISK into a HAC of your choice and tell me how it is on par with a Strategic Cruiser of your choice, equally pimpfitted.

Also, please note that HACs have very similar skill requirements to Strategic Cruisers. Please also note, that skilling all 5 Subsystem skills to 5 takes LESS time than skilling HAC from 1 to 5. Furthermore note, that a HAC can only exceed in one or maybe two different areas, whereas a Strategic Cruiser will be able to perform several Tasks once fully skilled (Of COURSE you will have to skill such things as Leadership or Astrometics, but you will NOT have to learn other tech 2 skills to perform these professions at top level!) .

What if you take away some of a T3's strenghts and make a Tech 2 perform better at this tasks? Will it make a T3 obsolete? No. You have one hull, easily adaptable to almost every situation. Dock up, change fit, undock.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2012-08-17 22:00:53 UTC
To the OP. I used to feel the same but the drone damage mods make the Drone Proteus much more viable.

If anything the Ishtar, Proteus comparison is exactly how these ships should be balanced with the Ishtar more pure drone boat with higher drone dps without the flexibility and other benefits the Proteus is capable off.

Honestly there are so many polarised views on this balancing issue I fear EVE civil war when CCP gets round to this, fortunately CCP seem to have put the nerf bat away and tiericide seems to mean buffs all round.

Ultimately it comes down to how widely you perceive a ships role.

The Proteus is a better combat ship than the Deimos, but what role does the Deimos have? Fast Crusier Sized DPS platform? its role is not to tank; it is faster, has a higher Hybrid weapon damage multiplier, a smaller sig, a utility high (yes the Proteus can have six turrets but there is more to combat than EFT DPS) and ultimately despite many people’s beliefs that it should not affect balancing it is a lot cheaper and more expendable. Now I do think HAC’s in general need something extra but this is mainly due to Battlecruiser strengths rather than T3 and there are some particularly bad HACS such as the Eagle.
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-08-17 22:28:54 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
a utility high (yes the Proteus can have six turrets but there is more to combat than EFT DPS)


Ok, just a nitpick, because I never understand this reasoning.

Yes the Deimos has 6 highs, 5 turret.
The proteus can have 6 turret slots.

But the last time I checked I can still fit a utility mode (such as a Neut) in a turret slot. So I don't understand how that is a negative for the Proteus. I can choose to put a turret or a utility mod there, whereas a Deimos I can ONLY put a utility mod there.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-08-17 23:27:39 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Alticus C Bear wrote:
a utility high (yes the Proteus can have six turrets but there is more to combat than EFT DPS)
Ok, just a nitpick, because I never understand this reasoning. Yes the Deimos has 6 highs, 5 turret. The proteus can have 6 turret slots. But the last time I checked I can still fit a utility mode (such as a Neut) in a turret slot. So I don't understand how that is a negative for the Proteus. I can choose to put a turret or a utility mod there, whereas a Deimos I can ONLY put a utility mod there.


You can yes but then you will need 1 extra mag stab over the number the Deimos fits to get equal or greater DPS (the stacking of two 5% bonus is just slightly higher than one 10%). Proteus is clearly a beast of a DPS/EHP combo ship, my point is that roles could be quite narrow in definition and that the Deimos does not need to compete on all the levels the Proteus does to be seen as effective in it's role. HACS do need a little something extra, I still feel that is a battlecruiser issue rather than a one due to T3's.

Look at the astarte it is possibly an even higher DPS platform pretty much as tanky (active wise especially if they change all the rep bonuses to 10%), but it is slower than the Proteus, how much of a factor is the speed in defiining it's role and it being classed as worse than the Proteus.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#29 - 2012-08-18 03:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: TomyLobo
Wait, T3s ACTUALLY need to be re-balanced with T2 counterparts? Shocked
Meh, I still can't phantom the fact that people that play this game believe the whole T3 thing will work as jack of all trades given the higher costs to produce the hull alone compared to T2 counterparts. Nobody is going to train for T3s, if all they have going for them is versatility. There's simply no point! If I could undock and retain all the characteristics of each and every sub, all at once, THEN and only THEN is it sensible and justifiable to be mediocre compared to specialized T2 counterparts.
The current state of things is nearly perfect but I must admit that some ships need tweaking to bring them in line with the rest of the pack.
Nicaragua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-08-18 10:14:35 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:
Wait, T3s ACTUALLY need to be re-balanced with T2 counterparts? Shocked


Yes thats exactly right.

Every ship needs to have a role in the game otherwise there is no point in using them and everyone would just fly the same thing .

Cost in no way should impact whether or not something is better or than another ship. A battleship is not better than a frigate simply on the virtue that it costs more, in fact it isn't better at all - just different, this is what balance is.

T3's are currently better in pretty much any way than any other cruiser or (in some cases) battlecruiser and this is bullshit.
Songbird
#31 - 2012-08-18 15:12:12 UTC
"Cost in no way should impact whether or not something is better or than another ship. A battleship is not better than a frigate simply on the virtue that it costs more, in fact it isn't better at all - just different, this is what balance is."

Are you kidding me ? Price is the one thing that should determine if it's better or not. If price didn't matter nobody will use regular ships, they'll just use the navy version.

Price is determined by what are people willing to pay for your product , if the product is not better why would somebody pay 4-500 mil when they can have a hac for 200 .

Come on Nicaragua.
Nicaragua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-08-18 16:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicaragua
Songbird wrote:
"Cost in no way should impact whether or not something is better or than another ship. A battleship is not better than a frigate simply on the virtue that it costs more, in fact it isn't better at all - just different, this is what balance is."

Are you kidding me ? Price is the one thing that should determine if it's better or not. If price didn't matter nobody will use regular ships, they'll just use the navy version.

Price is determined by what are people willing to pay for your product , if the product is not better why would somebody pay 4-500 mil when they can have a hac for 200 .

Come on Nicaragua.


This argument is completely dumb since the price of a product is completely controlled by the playerbase and constantly fluctuates. By this logic a navy Megathron used to be better than a Vigilant but now its not because the NM's price has plummeted due to faction warfare and so now a pirate cruiser costs more than it - utter nonsense.

Nonetheless i will entertain your question. The kind of people who would pay X amount of money for a jack of all trades ship are the kind of people who want a jack of all trades kind of ship - duh. People in wormholes, exploration etc which if i remember correctly was the original vision behind T3's in the first place.

People would pay because they want a ship that can perform many roles.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#33 - 2012-08-19 05:03:15 UTC
Nicaragua wrote:
TomyLobo wrote:
Wait, T3s ACTUALLY need to be re-balanced with T2 counterparts? Shocked


Yes thats exactly right.

Every ship needs to have a role in the game otherwise there is no point in using them and everyone would just fly the same thing .

Cost in no way should impact whether or not something is better or than another ship. A battleship is not better than a frigate simply on the virtue that it costs more, in fact it isn't better at all - just different, this is what balance is.

T3's are currently better in pretty much any way than any other cruiser or (in some cases) battlecruiser and this is bullshit.

It's not bullshit. They are called T3s for a reason and last I checked T2 > T1 in every way possible apart from the -1 rig all round nerf. There's no sense in making T3 useless because of T2 specialization. CCP is indirectly adding another whole set of subs to the barely used subs list and that's no good for the game in anyway. On the other hand, commandships ARE still being flown a lot especially the damnation, sleipnir and vulture. Everyone still flys HACs apart from specific ones with generic problems.
The T2 ships that need to be better than T3 counterparts for obvious reasons have been that way for day one, so cut out this role BS.
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2012-08-19 08:37:35 UTC
Just did some comparisons in EFT using "identical" fits on both:

Proteus
Lows:
Corelum A-Type Medium Armor Repairer
Corpum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpus A-Type Explosive Hardener
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Garde II x4

Ishtar
Lows:
Corelum A-Type Medium Armor Repairer
Corpum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpus A-Type Explosive Hardener
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Garde II x5

Both ships can fit 2x Tracking Links in mids + AB and rest of fit differs but doesn't affect damage.

Ishtar got 145 sig radius, 536 M/S, 349 DPS Omnitank, 16,9k EHP and 536 DPS like this. Proteus got 160 sig radius, 536 M/S, 528 DPS Omnitank (and it can get waaay higher if you wanted to), 33,4k EHP and 499 DPS.

And yes, that's with the lows + Garde II's ONLY. I gotta say, DPS is already very well balanced, everything else already strongly falls in favor of the Proteus, which can even slip a 100mn AB on there just based on it's spare powergrid. And with small or medium drones proteus is significantly better.

So really, what's the whines about? Quirky drone setups? Really?
Nicaragua
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-08-19 09:20:40 UTC
TomyLobo wrote:
The T2 ships that need to be better than T3 counterparts for obvious reasons have been that way for day one, so cut out this role BS.


The bad news for you though is that this isnt my "role BS", its CCP's.

to quote CCP Ytterbium from back in May

"balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest. The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind."

So you better get your head around this "role BS" because that's how the game is intended to be - balanced ships with different roles.
TomyLobo
U2EZ
#36 - 2012-08-19 19:55:58 UTC
Nicaragua wrote:
TomyLobo wrote:
The T2 ships that need to be better than T3 counterparts for obvious reasons have been that way for day one, so cut out this role BS.


The bad news for you though is that this isnt my "role BS", its CCP's.

to quote CCP Ytterbium from back in May

"balance versus tech 3 and 2 is out of whack at the moment, and that problem was explained in the presentation we gave during Fanfest. The core of the problem lies into making them less specialized than tech 2, but still viable as a ship class while keeping their modular purpose in mind."

So you better get your head around this "role BS" because that's how the game is intended to be - balanced ships with different roles.


CCP Ytterbium is awesome but keep in mind that this isn't the first time CCP has changed something that most of the player base find perfectly fine.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#37 - 2012-08-20 08:41:57 UTC
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:

So really, what's the whines about? Quirky drone setups? Really?


What the Proteus lacks is drone bay, and the fifth mid slot, which can be used to increase applied damage, improved cap life or to fit a profession module. What Proteus gets is bonused scanning, easier fitting and much better (omni)tank, the Ishtar is really at home only in Serp/Guristas space. Here's what I came up with when trying to emulate my Ishtar fit:

[Proteus, Proshtar]

Corpum B-Type Medium Armor Repairer
Federation Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Corpus B-Type Armor Kinetic Hardener
Damage Control II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

10MN Afterburner II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
Omnidirectional Tracking Link II
Omnidirectional Tracking Link II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
Improved Cloaking Device II
Drone Link Augmentor I

Medium Sentry Damage Augmentor I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I

Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector
Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Proteus Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Proteus Offensive - Drone Synthesis Projector
Proteus Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor


Hobgoblin II x5
Garde II x4
Curator II x4

528 Garde dps (737 total), 702 hp/s tank

[Ishtar, The ****** has Neutrons Inferno]

Centum C-Type Medium Armor Repairer
Dark Blood Armor Kinetic Hardener
Dark Blood Armor Thermic Hardener
Internal Force Field Array I
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link
Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link
Imperial Navy Cap Recharger
10MN Afterburner II
Medium 'Gattotte' Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400

Core Probe Launcher I /OFFLINE
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Prototype Cloaking Device I

Medium Sentry Damage Augmentor II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I


Garde II x1
Hobgoblin II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5
Warden II x5
Garde II x5

605 Garde dps, (815 total) 562 hp/s tank


What I don't like about the Proteus is the drone bay. If you want two sets of sentries (or a set of heavies to be used when traveling from gate to gate) to cover the required ranges, you can't have ECMs, which I would gladly have when exploring under exposure to pvp. I don't find medium drones terribly useful in PVE, but it might be better to settle with Gardes, Hammers, Hobs and faggotdrones.

Still it certainly looks viable, and would be a good choice for someone without a scout alt. If you have one, maybe Dissolution Sequencer would be useful in Guristas space.

Drone Damage Amps certainly were an interesting addition. I initially didn't think much of them, being a lowslot module, but they turned out to be a well balanced addition.


.
Previous page12