These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Overheating tackle: A disparity in base values, bonuses and combat effectiveness.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#141 - 2013-01-16 06:24:56 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
There is a major problem when the game when the shortest range short range weapons outrange T2 point range.

-Liang


Only if you are talking about BS sized weapons?

I can't get out to T2 point range and do decent damage with medium sized weapons.
Maybe skills or my fit is lacking but if I want to hit out to T2 point range with Heavy Neutron blasters then I pretty much gimp any damage or tank (armour) to do so.

I can't see any reason to increase point range becasue BS sized short weapons can reach out to point range, thats what tacklers are for.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#142 - 2013-01-16 06:26:40 UTC
Massive brain fart that I just had (and will probably hate after I think about it some...)

What about having different sized points?

Frigate Point: 10km range
Frigate Scram: 5km range

Cruiser Point: 20km range
Cruiser Scram: 10km range

Battleship Point: 40km range
Battleship Scram: 20km range
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#143 - 2013-01-16 06:30:19 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
There is a major problem when the game when the shortest range short range weapons outrange T2 point range.

-Liang


Only if you are talking about BS sized weapons?

I can't get out to T2 point range and do decent damage with medium sized weapons.
Maybe skills or my fit is lacking but if I want to hit out to T2 point range with Heavy Neutron blasters then I pretty much gimp any damage or tank (armour) to do so.

I can't see any reason to increase point range becasue BS sized short weapons can reach out to point range, thats what tacklers are for.


You're obviously not trying at all if you can't break good damage with medium blasters at 24km.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#144 - 2013-01-16 06:32:04 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
There is a major problem when the game when the shortest range short range weapons outrange T2 point range.

-Liang


Only if you are talking about BS sized weapons?

I can't get out to T2 point range and do decent damage with medium sized weapons.
Maybe skills or my fit is lacking but if I want to hit out to T2 point range with Heavy Neutron blasters then I pretty much gimp any damage or tank (armour) to do so.

I can't see any reason to increase point range becasue BS sized short weapons can reach out to point range, thats what tacklers are for.


You're obviously not trying at all if you can't break good damage with medium blasters at 24km.

-Liang


Please enlighten me. I can get decent damage against frigs at that range with say a moa or thorax but not enough against crusiers.

Always willing to learn new fitting ideas that I haven't thought of.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#145 - 2013-01-16 06:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Null with a pair of TEs will easily put you out there.

-Liang

Ed: I was looking at an Eagle, but a Deimos should easily work as well. Looks like ~350 DPS out of a Thorax at 24km as well.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#146 - 2013-01-16 06:45:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Taoist Dragon
Liang Nuren wrote:
Null with a pair of TEs will easily put you out there.

-Liang

Ed: I was looking at an Eagle, but a Deimos should easily work as well. Looks like ~350 DPS out of a Thorax at 24km as well.



Hmm I swapped a couple of MFS II for TE II and used Null in my shield brawling thorax and it comes up with a paper dps figure of 350. Then I checked the damage charts and at 24km range with no speed issues against my standard stabber fit it does approx 50dps.

Even with all lvl 5 skills the dps only increase marginally. Most certainly not enough to make a kiter be too scared of it though.


Edit: and with this even a single unbonussed TD will completely negate any damage at 24km. I still don't see the reasoning that point range needs to be extended. vOv

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#147 - 2013-01-16 06:46:12 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Templar Dane wrote:

The quick and dirty......

Liang, you are not and have not and will not be the only person with links. I have the same link capabilities as you.

We're in the tracking enhancer shield tank age. You know armor is hurting right now, and getting worse by the minute. Extending point range WITH the proliferation of links would make the situation worse. Boost tech 2 warp disruptor to 40km and nerf the link to 20% and you still have tech 2 warp distruptors with republic fleet linked range. I do not fancy the idea of being kited at 50km by anything and everything. If you're gonna point me at that range you'd best have potential shiny loot.

Oh but armor will get a buff eventually! Oh right sure, I've heard that one before. Look at me and my 1200m/s cruiser! I sure do hope I can cover the XX,XXXm distance between the end of his warp disruptor and the optimal of my scram!

That's hard enough sometimes at a difference of 13,200.


Why are you deliberately misunderstanding my posts? My desire is to shift certain bonuses away from links and towards the base items. This means that all the SP I've dumped into Leadership and all the ISK I've dumped into link ships and a POS is rendered much less powerful. This is in no way to my benefit.

-Liang


And why are you ignoring the meat of my post and nitpicking again? Did I not ask you to stop doing that?

LINKS ARE BAD, WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT.

But, you want to give the complete and total advantage to the kiting ships. Why the hell ever fly anything else?

Boohoo blasters hurt and I'm too lazy to fit a tracking disruptor and/or get someone else to tackle for me.

Overload and slingshot? Good luck doing that when you have to cover 30km to land a scram.

And here I am repeating myself yet again.

Please answer the following question...

Wouldn't a buff to warp disruptor range be a nerf to armor tanking?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#148 - 2013-01-16 06:47:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Templar Dane wrote:

Wouldn't a buff to warp disruptor range be a nerf to armor tanking?


No.

-Liang

Ed:

Templar Date wrote:
But, you want to give the complete and total advantage to the kiting ships. Why the hell ever fly anything else?


Because you don't feel like it that day? Because the play style doesn't appeal to you?

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#149 - 2013-01-16 07:03:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Templar Dane
Liang Nuren wrote:

No.



Then let me rephrase that.

Wouldn't increasing the gap between long points and scrams be a nerf to brawlers?




Liang Nuren wrote:

Because you don't feel like it that day? Because the play style doesn't appeal to you?



That supposed to mean.........

Liang Nuren wrote:

I'm a kiter and brawlers should be easy prey.


?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#150 - 2013-01-16 07:05:13 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:

Then let me rephrase that.

Wouldn't increasing the gap between long points and scrams be a nerf to brawlers?


Not really.

Quote:

That supposed to mean.........

Liang Nuren wrote:

I'm a kiter and brawlers should be easy prey.


?


My most commonly used weapon is the small neutron blaster II.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#151 - 2013-01-16 07:12:20 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

Not really.



So increasing the gap between long points and scrams wouldn't make it harder for the brawlers to catch? With links scrams are 16km overloaded and disruptors are 43.

If they were that range by default, you don't think it would make it harder for 1200m/s ships with scrams to catch 2200m/s ships?

Because everyone uses links all the time already, right?


Liang Nuren wrote:

My most commonly used weapon is the small neutron blaster II.


And mine is probably the Rocket Launcher II, but that's only on this character and we've already agreed that we both have other accounts and other characters that we use pretty often......
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#152 - 2013-01-16 07:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Templar Dane wrote:

So increasing the gap between long points and scrams wouldn't make it harder for the brawlers to catch? With links scrams are 16km overloaded and disruptors are 43.

If they were that range by default, you don't think it would make it harder for 1200m/s ships with scrams to catch 2200m/s ships?

Because everyone uses links all the time already, right?


Comments:
- A lot of people use links all the time, right? :)
- A 16km scram is pretty powerful considering its perma-CC nature.
- You keep saying that kiters should get a tackler - but somehow the brawler shouldn't?

Quote:

Liang Nuren wrote:

My most commonly used weapon is the small neutron blaster II.


And mine is probably the Rocket Launcher II, but that's only on this character and we've already agreed that we both have other accounts and other characters that we use pretty often......


I've been very open for well over a year that my favorite ships are the Blaster Harpy and Blaster Talos.

-Liang

Ed: I love how you keep QQing about how links are overpowered but we can't fix the situation because it would nerf your play style. On the other hand, I am directly asking CCP to nerf 4 of my characters.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Robert Lefcourt
BigPoppaMonkeys
E.B.O.L.A.
#153 - 2013-01-16 07:28:08 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:

The new ranges i think would make more sense would be:
T1 - 25km
T2 - 30KM
Fac - Up to 33KM
Scram/web - unchanged.


Absolutely no. That would kill blasterships.


regards,

rob
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#154 - 2013-01-16 07:30:12 UTC
Robert Lefcourt wrote:
Maeltstome wrote:

The new ranges i think would make more sense would be:
T1 - 25km
T2 - 30KM
Fac - Up to 33KM
Scram/web - unchanged.


Absolutely no. That would kill blasterships.
regards,

rob


Aye, I'd say that all tackle ranges should be adjusted instead of just disruptor range.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#155 - 2013-01-16 07:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Templar Dane
Liang Nuren wrote:


Comments:
- A lot of people use links all the time, right? :)
- A 16km scram is pretty powerful considering its perma-CC nature.
- You keep saying that kiters should get a tackler - but somehow the brawler shouldn't?



And if both sides lose their tacklers, who is the most disadvantaged?


Liang Nuren wrote:



I've been very open for well over a year that my favorite ships are the Blaster Harpy and Blaster Talos.

-Liang

Ed: I love how you keep QQing about how links are overpowered but we can't fix the situation because it would nerf your play style. On the other hand, I am directly asking CCP to nerf 4 of my characters.


Won't matter too much if you're blapping frigates out of the sky from 40km away anyway. And you're the one qqing about how you need to be further away from the scawy scwams.
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#156 - 2013-01-16 07:33:01 UTC
I hate you new forums.
Robert Lefcourt
BigPoppaMonkeys
E.B.O.L.A.
#157 - 2013-01-16 07:42:04 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
There is a major problem when the game when the shortest range short range weapons outrange T2 point range.

-Liang


Only if you are talking about BS sized weapons?

I can't get out to T2 point range and do decent damage with medium sized weapons.
Maybe skills or my fit is lacking but if I want to hit out to T2 point range with Heavy Neutron blasters then I pretty much gimp any damage or tank (armour) to do so.

I can't see any reason to increase point range becasue BS sized short weapons can reach out to point range, thats what tacklers are for.


You're obviously not trying at all if you can't break good damage with medium blasters at 24km.

-Liang


Heavy Neutron blaster II + Null + one TE gives you 7,2+11,4 km. Hence only half damage at 18,5 km, this leaves you with about 15% of your initial damage at 24km. That's not what i call "good damage".


regards,

rob
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#158 - 2013-01-16 07:42:15 UTC
Templar Dane wrote:

And if both sides lose their tacklers, who is the most disadvantaged?


Depends on the situation - a fact I would hope you would realize.

Quote:

Won't matter too much if you're blapping frigates out of the sky from 40km away anyway. And you're the one qqing about how you need to be further away from the scawy scwams.


No, I'm not. Your reading comprehension has literally gone to ****.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#159 - 2013-01-16 07:44:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Robert Lefcourt wrote:

Heavy Neutron blaster II + Null + one TE gives you 7,2+11,4 km. Hence only half damage at 18,5 km, this leaves you with about 15% of your initial damage at 24km. That's not what i call "good damage".


regards,

rob


I'm looking at a Thorax with 9+16 with my skills and no implants.

regards,

-Liang

Ed: The point stands: weapon ranges are high enough that even the closest range of the close range weapons are budging up against and exceeding (unlinked) tackle range. My proposal is to shift the benefit from the links to the base module - nothing more.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2013-01-16 11:02:14 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Robert Lefcourt wrote:

Heavy Neutron blaster II + Null + one TE gives you 7,2+11,4 km. Hence only half damage at 18,5 km, this leaves you with about 15% of your initial damage at 24km. That's not what i call "good damage".


regards,

rob


I'm looking at a Thorax with 9+16 with my skills and no implants.

regards,

-Liang

Ed: The point stands: weapon ranges are high enough that even the closest range of the close range weapons are budging up against and exceeding (unlinked) tackle range. My proposal is to shift the benefit from the links to the base module - nothing more.


Liang are you trolling?

Shield Kiting Thorax with Neutrons, dual magstabs and dual TE does 350dps at 20km, this of course includes the damage from 5 hammerhead II’s. Null range with 2 TE is 8.2+14km.

Again I can certainly I understand a slight change in Tech 1 point range and boost in the overheating effects duration of long points but allowing ships to hold point at long ranges indefinitely is a nerf to armour brawlers who do not get that range, speed and dps projection and would have other consequences at the frigate level (where I would argue it is well balanced) and battleship level where small ships could kite indefinitely outside heavy neut range and still immune to BS weapons, would require adjustment of all point range bonused ships. I just do not see the benefit in giving every one link level points.

This thread is allegedly about dps projection of Kiters but it seems directly aimed at the Null changes that brought close range weapons systems such as Autocannons and Blasters closer together.

Thorax can do 457dps at 24km but that is with 200m rails and drones, that and the shield blaster thorax are kiting setups not brawlers and will lose in a brawl to proper brawlers. I have seen very few mentions of long range weapon systems and the effects point changes might have.