These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lili Lu
#5661 - 2012-10-31 01:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
I'm Down wrote:
My god, you're a broken record....
One man's broken record is another's welcome loop on the best part of the song I guess. Anyway, to call someone a broken record for having an opposing viewpoint that you yourself throw the same argument against makes you a broken record as well. Roll

I'm Down wrote:
not everything is about the homoginized DPS at range. There are many other factors that go into missiles while bringing them comparably closer to those others by making the change to range. Stop ignoring the other factors with missiles that make them suck next to turrets.
What? Both weapon systems have disadvantages. And so do drones. What would you have all the missile disadvantages removed but the other system disadvantages stay? Disadvantages are there to make players figure out how to overcome them or compensate for them, or accept them and manuever for engagement where those disadvantages matter less or not at all.

I'm Down wrote:
You also say more range for fury.... what about massive ncrease in tracking for all LR turret CR ammo.
Long range turret tech II ammo has (and only a relatively recent development) only a 25% better tracking. Long range turrets have bad tracking, at range it doesn't matter much. At 10km or less for medium long range guns with tech II high damage ammo they still track anything orbiting very poorly even if 25% better than base ammo. That is why people talk about getting under the guns. How can you not know this? But it is one of those situations where if you want that higher damage to apply you are looking at a larger ship that is probably webbed as well. This ammo is not meant to hit small ships in close for that higher damage (unlike precision). Come to think of it, were I to be on your level I would be calling for elimination of precision I guess, just as on the other side people even more extreme than you (yeah they exist What?) are asking for no range limitation on precisions.Lol

I'm Down wrote:
this is why you do balance is small doses with a plan for further change if need that can be implemented quickly... rather than huge swaths that force you to figure out how you broke something by going way too far in the other direction. It's common sense implementation to go in small doses knowing what the next step can be with coding already written if needed rather than huge changes.

You seem to be skipping over the fact that I'm not saying ignore all the proposed changes, but rather do them in waves to see if they are all truly needed. Stop being such a political animal with your posting and actually represent what's being said rather than brown nosing the devs.

The player base keeps screaming for a "plan" from CCP rather than irrational changes with no logical next steps...

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.

I don't perceive the player base as screaming for anything. And if collectively it has been asking for anything it was for precisely what is happening, tiericide, the making of formerly unused ships desireable and overused ships less so so that there are not obvious and prevalent winner and loser ships.

Just because they are not doing it in the same steps as you might does not make it any less valid. I'm glad they are doing this HML rebalance. It is functioning as an interim Drake nerf. I was complaining before this thread they absolutley had to do something to end the Drakes and Tengus Online pattern that had taken hold for years. I was hardly brown-nosing any of them when I was doing that complaining for an interim nerf on Drakes. That it came about this way is somewhat of a surprise. And they did it not for any complaining on my or other's part but because the weapon imbalance was getting in the way of the hull rebalancing.
Joe Kizonya
The Night Crew
#5662 - 2012-10-31 02:16:17 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:


Now, I made some calculation for FURY HML :




While yes your calculations are rather extensive, and the numbers tell one story, when use of the HML is applied in the actual game under current game mechanics (missiles having a smaller explosion radius) I can't think of a single caldari pilot that would say that on a cruiser with 0 velocity, their DPS doesn't increase with the addition of a target painter. And that brings me back to my point. Currently HML's have no chance of doing full damage against a cruiser (even one fitted with LSE) unless there is additional e-war (practically impossible to fit on a small shield fleet of around 5 people, while still keeping, tank, point, prop, with a possible cap booster). So decreasing the over all damage out put (again something I agree with) AND increasing the explosion radius, reduces the effectiveness of these modules twice for small gang shield tanked missile users.

As for my earlier proposition of a 50% penalty to the fury's, I only stated that because the T2 turret penalty is only 25% to tracking speed. 72% seemed like a little bit high in comparison to the 25% to turrets, but perhaps that is an actual balanced number chosen by CCP.





CCP Fozzie wrote:


Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles?
This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.





Again though, under the proposed changes, the missiles would be dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the long range turrets, but compared to the long ranged turrets with close range ammo loaded. That means you are giving missiles a distinct advantage in damage out put over turrets in this class. So why would it be worth it to use the long range T2 turret ammo, when you can get a decent bonus to damage using missiles.

This result can be confirmed with the current 1400 howitzer, and the cruise missile launchers.
And before you all start going on about how cruise missiles suck in comparison for sniping, I know they aren't currently used. But the reason for that is not because of the module, it is because the platform (the raven) doesn't have the same bonuses to the damage as the sniping turret ships do. There for the end result is less DPS out of the ship. This issues has already been addressed as needing to be fixed so we can put that aside and just compare the weapons.

With all skills set to 5
With no bonuses from a ship or implants, a single1400 with Quake deals 38 DPS, and with Tremor deals 22 DPS

With no bonuses from ship or implants, a single cruise launcher loaded with faction missiles (not even t2) deals that same 38 DPS


There for, if the explosion radius of all missiles are fixed to make them able to apply a similar to amount of damage on a regular sized ship for their size (medium=cruiser/BC, small=frig/destroyer, large=BS) as a turret can, changing the ammo type would finish balancing missiles to be more on par with current turret sniping stats.

In addition doing something like I suggested earlier, with turning the t1 version of the long range class HM into a lower damage, smaller explosion radius missile for anti-tackle, and adding a t2 long range ammo for sniping. Along with keeping a semi-sorter ranged t1 version (much like the range of the fury) with a regular damage out put, and keeping the short range T2 (the fury) with a penalty to explosion radius and bonus to damage, further diversifies the types of ammo one would need for different roles/situations like has been stated as to being wanted before.

Making these changes would fix the HML from being competing with the large class of guns, back down to the medium class of gun, as well as make all the other missiles more useful for different rolls.


CCP Fozzie, if there is a reason as to why this may not work, other than we don't want to nurff the HML completely down to the same usefulness of the other medium long range weapon platforms, I would really like to know what that reason may be.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#5663 - 2012-10-31 03:43:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I missed you old friend. <3


Fozzie, I'd waste time throwing numbers and reason at you devs like I did in years past if you'd waste time doing your job properly. We'll see who caves first.
Lili Lu
#5664 - 2012-10-31 04:33:27 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I missed you old friend. <3


Fozzie, I'd waste time throwing numbers and reason at you devs like I did in years past if you'd waste time doing your job properly. We'll see who caves first.


Lol, wtf?

Anyway, you need not bother. You think no numbers and even a little reason were thrown about in this almost 300 page thread already? Get working on your threat to induce the cave I guess.Ugh
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#5665 - 2012-10-31 04:58:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck?
Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.


Not exactly.

Minmatar BS pilots are getting love. Until Caldari pilots have a missile BS worth flying, fixing torps does nothing for them.

I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#5666 - 2012-10-31 05:07:37 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I missed you old friend. <3


Fozzie, I'd waste time throwing numbers and reason at you devs like I did in years past if you'd waste time doing your job properly. We'll see who caves first.


Lol, wtf?

Anyway, you need not bother. You think no numbers and even a little reason were thrown about in this almost 300 page thread already? Get working on your threat to induce the cave I guess.Ugh


you do realize a boxing match has 2 participants right?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5667 - 2012-10-31 05:29:35 UTC
Cazador 64 wrote:
Hrmm Oh you mean the drone boat.
The statement was made they are adding new ships,
I simply gave an idea that a Caldari Cruise Missile BS pirate faction to compete with the NM and Mach.
I know what the Rattler is and it is a different type of ship then the Mach or NM.


So you want to fly BSs without good drone skills and kill everything with missiles?

Cazador 64 wrote:
Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots.


Sorry, got EHP a bit wrong. 93,7k EHP so still a lot more than armor Harbinger. Oh and EHP in EVE is "worst case". EHP in fitting tools is closer to real EHP.

[Drake, Draek]

Internal Force Field Array I
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
[Empty High slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hobgoblin II x5


Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603


serras bang wrote:
now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.


Let's help you out too... 75,8k EHP. Still more than armor Harbinger.

[Drake, Draek]

Internal Force Field Array I
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
[Empty High slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hobgoblin II x5


Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5668 - 2012-10-31 05:59:25 UTC
serras bang wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.

That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari.


Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods
Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit...

If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive.

I can get Prophecy to 97,6k EHP but it's not what you'd call a cheap fit.


now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.



No they are not. And at that it is not an easy thing to get cap stable.
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5669 - 2012-10-31 06:09:53 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck?
Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.


Not exactly.

Minmatar BS pilots are getting love. Until Caldari pilots have a missile BS worth flying, fixing torps does nothing for them.



Yeah this is true while changes are going to happen to the BS sometime down the line.
any buffs to cruise I will take but it won't make then viable in most situations.
Also T3 BC for missiles I think it needed as well.

Going onto test I like the DMG on the T2 cruise I just think until they are ready to fix the Hulls they need to not be nerfing the range on them so hardcore. Buffing the dmg and leaving the range or at least a range that can be used to snipe incursions 170km+ they are currently over 200KM at this current moment you might see some people attempt to use them but they will not be a viable option for pvp. They might see some more incursion love and that wouldn't be terrible.
If and when the BS fixes come around retake a look if its needed.

But from the sounds of it they are going to relook at some of the winter changes. From this point on I would suggest ignoring certain people and just worry about what the DEV has to say.
Its getting to the point that these people are not even making an argument any more they are just making personal attacks on the Caldari Missile users and are no longer feeding useful information about the patch.

I think CCP needs to intervene at this point in the thread to make an attempt to keep the thread clear from the brute force personal attacks we have received from a handful of players.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5670 - 2012-10-31 07:00:07 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I missed you old friend. <3



Forget this thread, let's talk ECM nerf.


dt's on missles nough said
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5671 - 2012-10-31 07:04:19 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Cazador 64 wrote:
Hrmm Oh you mean the drone boat.
The statement was made they are adding new ships,
I simply gave an idea that a Caldari Cruise Missile BS pirate faction to compete with the NM and Mach.
I know what the Rattler is and it is a different type of ship then the Mach or NM.


So you want to fly BSs without good drone skills and kill everything with missiles?

Cazador 64 wrote:
Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots.


Sorry, got EHP a bit wrong. 93,7k EHP so still a lot more than armor Harbinger. Oh and EHP in EVE is "worst case". EHP in fitting tools is closer to real EHP.

[Drake, Draek]

Internal Force Field Array I
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
[Empty High slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hobgoblin II x5


Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603


serras bang wrote:
now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.


Let's help you out too... 75,8k EHP. Still more than armor Harbinger.

[Drake, Draek]

Internal Force Field Array I
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
[Empty High slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hobgoblin II x5


Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603


this second one i would bet isnt cap stable although not heavily important in pvp but is in pve you all still seem to miss that point of ships still have to be fiesable for pve also so please stop basing everything on pvp first and fore most.


as for fozzie and not having a go but i feel one of the reasons for takeing the t2 furry nerf down to 25 - 35% range loss over t1 is simple caldari have the slowest and heaviest of all the ships we need some of the extra range we are loseing on missles to help compensate for this as it means we cannot kite as effectively.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5672 - 2012-10-31 07:24:29 UTC
serras bang wrote:
this second one i would bet isnt cap stable although not heavily important in pvp but is in pve you all still seem to miss that point of ships still have to be fiesable for pve also so please stop basing everything on pvp first and fore most.


Cap stable (ugh) PvE Drake for you:

[Drake, Draek]

Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

10MN Afterburner II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
[Empty High slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I


Hobgoblin II x5

serras bang wrote:
as for fozzie and not having a go but i feel one of the reasons for takeing the t2 furry nerf down to 25 - 35% range loss over t1 is simple caldari have the slowest and heaviest of all the ships we need some of the extra range we are loseing on missles to help compensate for this as it means we cannot kite as effectively.


I don't know about furry missiles, but Furies will be still longer range than T2 short range ammo for long range turrets.

7,5 km optimal for HBL+Gleam M. Talking about some long ranges...
For comparison HPL+Conflag M (high damage, worst tracking, short range crystal for pulse lasers) has exactly the same optimal: 7,5 km.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5673 - 2012-10-31 08:15:27 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range. Even with Javelin you're doing only 368 dps at 13 km.


Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake Smile
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5674 - 2012-10-31 08:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake Smile


Nobody will ever fly quad TC Ferox.

Especially when MWD Drake is ten times faster and in range of faction missiles in no time.
And that 176 dps at 143 km sounds really good when Drake does 400+ dps at same range.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5675 - 2012-10-31 08:36:57 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake Smile


Nobody will ever fly quad TC Ferox.

Especially when MWD Drake is ten times faster and in range of faction missiles in no time.
And that 176 dps at 143 km sounds really good when Drake does 400+ dps at same range.


You don't need 4, 2 and a rig will see you out to 143+25 at over 200 dps.

And the drake isn't going to be doing that in a months time either so it's an entirely moot point Smile
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5676 - 2012-10-31 08:46:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake Smile


Nobody will ever fly quad TC Ferox.

Especially when MWD Drake is ten times faster and in range of faction missiles in no time.
And that 176 dps at 143 km sounds really good when Drake does 400+ dps at same range.


You don't need 4, 2 and a rig will see you out to 143+25 at over 200 dps.

And the drake isn't going to be doing that in a months time either so it's an entirely moot point Smile


That Drake is still ten times faster, has 3 times the tank. 200 dps isn't going to help.
And of course the fact that you can't hit a Claw orbiting you at 10km with those 250s.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5677 - 2012-10-31 08:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
It doesnt need to be faster, one can easily sort out the ferox to happily kite it all day.

51k ehp, over 1km/s...out ranges it by a huge amout in the expansion. So long as neither party flees (a standing assumption in all solo long range engagements), the drake dies, every single day. Because it can't get to it to apply its damage. It could offer 100000000000 dps, doesnt matter because it's out of range.

Oh noes, not an interceptor, it'll be terrified, terrified of the new battlecrusier sized blast of HML Lol


Edit: And if you're throwing random factors in, lets say the ferox has a defender rack P

The point remains, come December a ferox will outrage a drake by multiple KMs, unless the drake specifically rigs for it (and a ferox can just do that too), in which case it's not going to hit anything smaller than a BC for much to worry about.


Edit 2: You do realise all your current points about the drake are highlighting issues with the hull and not the weapon system it sports, right?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5678 - 2012-10-31 09:04:16 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
51k ehp, over 1km/s...


Sniper fit Ferox with MWD doesn't have mid slots for tank...

[Ferox, bad sniper fit]

Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script

250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
[Empty High slot]

Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II
Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#5679 - 2012-10-31 09:20:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
You're doing it wrong. It doesnt need to be so silly.

[Ferox, die drake die]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II

Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
10MN Digital Booster Rockets
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
250mm Railgun II, Spike M
[empty high slot]

Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II



That has TWICE the range of an expansion HML drake, unless the drake rigs for it and EVEN then, there are options to tweak above and a drake rigged for pure range does shocking damage to anything smaller than a BC thanks to sig changes.


So to address my original point, a drake WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT 'outdamage a ferox at all ranges' after the exansion.

So stop saying it will Smile
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#5680 - 2012-10-31 09:44:58 UTC
^ Can we have fits without T2 rigs?

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne